User talk:Vintagekits

• Rest In Peace a chara - sorely missed - not to be forgotten.

Talkpage

Wheres ma talk page?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone?--Vintagekits (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Now that I am back in the game can someone restore the histories to my user page, talk page and archieves.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page history has been restored. Your user page (and it's history) was moved to User:Vintagekits/projects. Would you like me to move it back? Rockpocket 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes please.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done. Whats the deal with your archives then? Are they missing too? Rockpocket 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney

One Night In Hackney, theres One Night In Hackney, One Night In Haaaaaaaaackney.

theres One Night In Hackney.

--Vintagekits (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Kittybrewsters accusations of sockpupperty

Shouldnt someone be given Kittybrewster a warning about going around putting sockpuppet tags on long established editors pages without having a shread of evidence. Who the hell does he think he is?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits, Vintagekits

Vintagekits, Vintagekits, there's no on like our Vintagekits,

He's broken every human law, he breaks the laws on wiki-blitz.

His powers of levitation would make a fakir stare,

And when you reach the scene of crime--Vintagekits not there!

You may seek him in the basement, you may look up in the air--

But I tell you once and once again, Vintagekits not there!

Yes, he is barred [1], but the above was posted by an "anon" today on ANI [2] - it is very funny, let it stay for a few hours - we need some laughs here recently. Giano (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides (you of all people should know, Giano!) being blocked doesn't ban you from editing your talkpage... — iridescent 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gold Heart - Alison ^❤ 08:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned or indefinitely blocked

1. I am not banned I am indefinately blocked - theres a difference.

2. Please be so kind as to not visit my user and talk pages.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are mistaken. Per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive16#Community ban, you are indeed banned. You are correct that there is a difference—any or all of the WP:BAN#Evasion and enforcement methods may be applied. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually kid, you are wrong I am not community banned and nothing in the link you provided says that I am. I am indefinately blocked not banned or communiy banned. And you have been destroying good articles and edits on the basis that I am banned - which I am not!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Andrwsc, could you please show me the exact words that say Vk is banned? Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow the link in my previous message. Under the "Community ban" subheading, Vintagekits is one of two users listed. How else should that be interpreted? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All I can see is "Community ban" under which is *User:Vintagekits (previously on probation by ArbCom ruling). I guess your interpretation has some validity in the purely technical "what it says on the tin" sense:)Sarah777 (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Stay off this page Max, next time you come here or to any of my pages then I will report you for provoking me. Andrew, just because someone put my name on that link doesnt justify me being banned. If I put your name there does that mean you are banned? Where is the official decision to say that I am banned because I have never been informed of this - all I have ever been told is that I am indefinately blocked. Which means your witch hunt to oversight edits is against wiki rules and also means that I can apply to come back at any time.--Vintagekits (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

VK isn't banned. If he were? He couldn't be posting here (his personal page). GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, this is illogical. Blocking is a MediaWiki software mechanism to prevent users from editing anything other than their own user page. Banning is a social construct that the community imposes on unwelcome editors. Obviously, it makes enforcement of a ban easier if you indefinitely block the user, but the software still allows editing of the user page (if it is not protected). Since blocks and bans are distinctly different, I don't understand how you draw your conclusion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not holding any candle here one way or the other, but there is a difference between banned and indefinitely blocked. Banned means gone, never to return, while indefinitely blocked means gone with no end date. However, at some later stage an end date could be decided by someone, by which date the indef block would be removed and the user could then edit again. At least, that's how I understand it. --The.Q^(t)(c) 13:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a message at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Clarification of User:Vintagekits status to seek clarification of your status, Vintagekits. The summary on the WP:AE archive page seemed crystal clear to me, but I can also see how there is some confusion here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Andrwsc, I was mistaken. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry about GoodDay - you were right - the link that is provided says that I am indefinately blocked and not banned - not one bit of it say banned. Anyway I should be allowed come back as long as I am not editing Irish political articles which is the only sphere in which I run into trouble. Andrewsc has deleted loads of very good boxing articles and how is that helping wiki?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple of quotes from the discussion about my block -

• "User:Vintagekits was blocked indefinitely by myself last year in a turn of events that ultimately led to the Troubles ArbCom case, in which Vintagekits was unblocked and put on probation.

Placing this here for community input as this is bound to be controversial - Alison"

• "All the accounts are indef blocked. Vk has the same recourse to appeal as any other blocked editor, should he choose to do so. If he continues to use socks to avoid the block then those will be blocked too. We move on. Rockpocket"

• "The reason they should both be blocked indefinitely is that they have both socked abusively. They probably thought they were faced with no other option. Kittybrewster"

• Good work Alison. Endorse indef block. --John"

• I suggest a pragmatic solution. We insist on a stipulated user name, in these cases User:David Lauder and User:Vintagekits. The users are not allowed any socks, even normally legitimate ones. They also forfeit the normal precautions of checkuser, and may be checkusered at any time. In fact they should expect this to occur randomly and without their knowledge. They accept this as a condition of continued editing. They are placed on a list for this purpose. They may apply to be removed from the list after two years of good conduct, including 3RR, civility etc. They are blocked for one month in the first instance to give everyone else a rest. This period of time also means checkuser will be able to be used in the meantime: too long a block will lose the data. Tyrenius"

• "At least wikipedia is being fair and unbiased, ie not taking sides, by indef blocking both. Personally I think this should be at arbcom enforcement with say a 3 month ban on each of them with the date reset for sock evasions, isnt that more how arbcom works and both carrot and stick. Thanks, SqueakBox"

• Keep them indef blocked, at least for about 3 months, then ask them to email asking for unblock, along with promises to behave, after that. Socks are fine for everyone to have for unrelated pages if we want, but they shouldn't really be used to back each other up/edit the same pages- used abusively. Vote stacking on Giano's ArbCom vote, even, took place on both sides. For now at least, these are excellent blocks all round. Oh and... it won't be that hard to enforce as they'll be quite easy to spot if they edit the same pages in the same way. If such people turn up, checkuser at the first sign of disruptive editing etc. Special Random"

It was pretty much unanimous that there should be an indefinate block 'not a banned and many editors voiced there opinion that I should be allowed to return after some time. If anyone cared to look at my edit history at the time I my block I had ditched those to socks and had decided to "go straight" and also I had pretty much stopped editing Irish political articles. I dont see the point in this block as long as I am not editing in a distruptive manner.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I originally started the ANI thread, let me just state for the record that I originally started it to request clarification of Vintagekits' indefinite block as it was bound to be controversial. It was not a community request for a ban - Alison ^❤ 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits, please read the link to the WP:AE page I provided above. An "uninvolved" admin has confirmed that you are indeed banned. Also, another admin had independently added you to the WP:List of banned users a few weeks ago. If you are waiting for an admin to provide "official" notice to you, consider this message to be that notice. You are banned. All the remedies in WP:Banning policy are applicable, which means that you are not welcome to edit any page, including this talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well its quite simple that the guy is wrong - people on that discussion expressly said it wasnt a ban and that it was an indefinate block! If I was able to I would take issue with him are direct him here but I cant. Maybe someone would.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Vintagekits solicited me to also post here, I shall reiterate my comments from WP:AE. As far as I can see, the discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#User:Vintagekits led to a community consensus for an indefinite block with no clear path to resuming editing and no end date in sight. That is as far as I am concerned community ban, and will remain one until such time as an administrator decides that Vintagekits should be unblocked. At which point it will no longer be a community ban, and the administrator may or may not also actually unblock Vintagekits immediately, depending on their judgment, policy at the time, and how firmly they feel. GRBerry 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But GRBerry, that was not the concensus during the discussion and your assumption doesnt really make sense. The people on the discussion about the block specifically said that they didnt want a ban and endorsed an indefinate block. Even the admin that started that discussion stated that it wasnt for a ban and was for a block - I feel you have just been railroad into a position by Andrew and now that you have made the decision wont change it - your position seems illogical to me because no one has ever mentioned a ban.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gold Heart Question

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could someone please tell me whether Vk is, in fact, just another of GH's numerous manifestations? (Also GH, as it appears you are not a nice person I hope it ain't true). Sarah777 (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Vintagekits is not Gold Heart. Totally not. He's just a fan - Alison ❤ 08:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC) If that is meant to mean what I think it is meant to mean then that is not eniterly fair. I made an open statement that however was harassing you off wiki was out of order and should stop. I have no evidence that it was GH but I made the statement on a thread that was used by GH and I stand by that statement still.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Good - because it was a dark shadow of suspicion at the back of my mind for yonks. I like Vk - but I also once liked GH I seem to recall till his stalking and manipulation etc came to light. Sarah777 (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC) OK, if you want to put it back, I can live with that. -- Sarah, even when I thought on many occasion you were wrong, and uncivil too, I still stood four square behind you. It seemed important at the time that we Irish should maybe stick together a bit better, and that is the very same reason why I supported Vintagekits, albeit then, and more so now, Irish Wikipedia is pretty much a lame duck in the bigger picture. As a consequence, it looks like Irish Wikipedia will not have an admin for years to come, and Scotland for instance has about forty admins. A truly sad state of affairs may I add. Also, I was not a stalker, period. Calling someone "stalker" seems to be the new way of saying FOAD. It's not a very nice name to be called, especially under certain circumstances. On the other hand I carry no ill feelings, but Wikipedia should not be used to make personal attacks against anyone, and I do mean anyone. I was a good editor, and am very proud of my edits, and my created articles. There have been lies told about me on Wikipedia, and elsewhere, and for the people who told them, it's on their conscience, if they have any. I never told lies on Wikipedia, and that makes me feel OK about everything. And if people must turn themselves into liars in order to triumph, wouldn't that be a very "Pyrrhic victory"? Like I said I have no evidence that you were harassing Alison off wiki - all I know is that Ally said she was being harassed. If I did find out that it was you I would be disgusted - no man should treat a woman in that manner and how should I put it "I would be seriously unimpressed"--Vintagekits (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I'd agree 100% with Vk on this; what Alison was subjected to is totally outside the pale - no excuses. Vk - I'm glad Ali confirms you aren't anyone's puppet! Should have guessed. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC) "... but Wikipedia should not be used to make personal attacks against anyone, and I do mean anyone." Lawl! Try taking your own advice then - Alison ❤ 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Boo!

Topic ban solution

What topic ban similar to what is proposed here.

I should be allowed edit other articles where I cause no disruption and add to wikipedia.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In light of this, it is a reasonable suggestion.--Domer48 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion certainly not an unreasonable proposal. Just look at contributions made to boxing articles, a case of cutting of your nose to spite your face by not allowing this. BigDunc (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would support VK being fully allowed back, if he proved himself first. That is three months trial, editing nothing but his boxing pages. He would not be permitted to create any new pages or edit any pages other than those boxing pages he has edited previously, or those which have no connection withthe Irish Troubles. He would be allowed to comment only on Wikipedia and policy pages that have no concern with the politics of any nation. For those three months probation he would be forbidden any contact with the Kittybrewster crowd, even by email, if they torment him, that may be a problem [3] - then an independent Admin (User: Lar springs to mind) could be appointed to address the situation. If VK uses anywhere on the site any obscene or seriously offensive language (in any language or spelling thereof) then he should be banned permanently (a list of such words could even be drawn up in advance). There should be no right of appeal or alteration of these rules half way through. After three months he is allowed to edit full and normally, although a topic ban on Irish political pages could still prevail. This is a very Draconian and severe solution, but people say he has been given chances before - he has never before been this severely curtailed before. He might even feel he would not rather not edit than be so curtailed, but if he is so keen to edit and wants a truly final chance he will accept. If he doesn't accept then leave him banned, he'll get no further sympathy from me. Whatever the outcome the problem is finally and irrevocably solved. Giano (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Would that be a final, final chance? This has been decided and we are allowing VK to manipulate this dispute to re-open a closed debate. --MJB (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he is not manipulating or negotiating anything, he does not have that right. He either takes this solution or leaves it. (The only minor modification I would accept to the above, would be he could create new pages, if the subject matter were full and publicly vetted, for conditions of the parole, before he created the page) He has been given second chances before, but never under such strict conditions, and they are strict. I don't think any editor has ever before been given such a harsh parole, but he has brought this on himself. I'm not sure he would be able to keep to it, so it's his chance to prove himself serious and us wrong, when he is good, he is very good....This parole makes sure he stay's good, and any trouble and he is out for good. I will write up the terms of the parole myself in unambiguous legal language if necessary, they can be posted at the top of his page and he can live with them or go! Giano (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been given final, final chances how many times before? He has been blocked over 20 times in the past, been caught recruiting meatpuppets, using socks abusively (including Giano's own Arbcom election vote), threatened editors, published someone's home address (twice!) and tried to pass it off as a joke; when indef blocked he has operated multiple sock accounts; and only the other day on this page was telling editors to "fuck off"... (anyone looking for that will find it was redacted by Giano). Rhetorical questions - would "chunt" be on this putative list of banned words? What other mispelt expletives? My opinion is no, he should not be allowed back - he's had many second chances and threw them back in the WP community's faces. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am under no illusions about him (I mention the spelling in the proposal above) this is a tying him up completely proposal, no ifs, no buts, so way outs. He either edits in a productive fashion of he goes. All the other chanvces he has previously had have given him too much leeway - this gives him none at all. He will find it very very hard, we should add sockpuppets to the conditions, one account only. I don't care how painful and restricting he finds it, as I have said, he either takes it or leaves it. Giano (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said if you look at my edit history at the time I got blocked I had given up editing articles on Irish republicanism and "The Troubles" because it was giving me a headache and I was almost solely focusing on boxing articles. As the Olympics are coming round the corner there is going to be a lot of boxing stuff that needs doing so I would like to be able to do that.

I don't have a problem with a restrictive topic ban at all but I would like it to be an exclusive one rather than an inclusive one. e.g. I would still like to be able to edit football articles or articles about music or railway stations or geography or places of interest so long as it didn't stay into the sphere of Irish republicanism or politics.

I think that most people will agree that prior to me being blocked I wasn't causing any disruption and that the only issue I had in the months before my block was the spat with Rockpocket - who since then has said that he (incorrectly) thought I was harassing his family and that is probably the reason he was gunning for me at that time. I would just like to go back to the way I was editing in the weeks prior to my block. Like I say - just check the edit history.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was asked by Giano to comment. I haven't mulled this over in great depth but, while acknowledging that there is a widely held perception that VK has been given "final chances" before, and at least some perception that VK has "exhausted the communities patience", the plan that Giano has laid out seems quite tightly bound and intolerant of even minor missteps, so is likely to be monitorable and enforceable. VK's boxing contributions are good, and if he can be confined to them (or at least confined far away from anything to do with politics in any shape or form) with fairly little effort, that seems a net win on balance, so I'd tend to support giving this a try. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Giano's idea of 'restricting' Vk to boxing articles & having him give up his sock-puppets, are reasonable constraints. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was kinda wondering when VK was going to make a break for freedom! :) All that kerfuffle about the userpage, the socking, the boxing stuff - yeah. Anyways - I'm certainly not averse to some sort of parole system being put in place yet again but it would need to be seriously curtailing this time as VK has a habit of pushing the boat out once he gets leverage. But yeah, 24 blocks and kinda sorta standing :) I'd like to see quite a bit more community input before anything happens, though, maybe even through some of the folks on WP:IWNB - Alison ^❤ 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish to support Vk's bid for freedom. I think with the Olympics coming up we need the boxers updated; people will be looking it up as soon as the contests start. Sarah777 (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not. He is an unpleasant editor who has been given and squandered many chances.--MJB (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC) PS Can "friends" cease protecting VK? If he makes a threat to me (or others) do not remove it.

You mean being as unpleasant as this?. Or maybe like this where I requested that you stopped canvassing at this AfD! People in glasshouses shouldnt go throwing stones.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I blanked a comment and took advice, hardly "nasty". The second example is, if anything, evidence of your overbearing sarcasm. Try harder. No doubt, you will be able to list all my suspensions, threats and use of foul language. Keep smiling --MJB (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxburgoyne, he is certainly nowhere near as unpleasant as you seem to be. Your userpage sneering at the vast bulk of Wiki editors tells me all I need to know about you. Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My only comment

Vk. Thanks for your email. I have been traveling and without internet access for almost a month, hence the lack of a reply.

I think its best that I completely forgo offering my thoughts on this "bid for freedom". My opinion matters no more than anyone else's; suffice to say I would not protest a change in your current status if there was significant support for it. Things have finally settled down for me now, and I would rather keep it that way by not drawing another target on my chest.

If the community decides to welcome you back under Giano's conditions, then good luck to you. I hope if, in the unlikely event we cross paths, we can do so in a civil manner. If not, then I guess we'll continue to see you around in various guises anyway. Rockpocket 07:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Current IBO Middleweight Champion

Hello VK. Have you any idea as to who's the current title holder? Is it Raymond Joval or Daniel Geale. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Geale is - Joval was forced to vacate/stripped because he failed to defend.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Vk. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem - all in a days work. Hopefully you will support my propose that I can come back editing so long as I stay away from editing Irish political articles - that way I can sort out those boxing articles that are in a mess.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'll stay away from the Irish political articles & cease creating/using sock-puppets? You'll have my support. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite that simple, he has to be firmly regulated, if he is to edit again. Giano (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Firmly regulated? Whatcha mean? GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

see above! Giano (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

'Scuse my pugilistic cluelessness - but what does "pound for pound" mean? I know boxers are dived into weight classes but I don't see what it means re the table below...(Checked the link - not much help there!)Sarah777 (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish Boxing Pound for Pound List

Rank	Fighter	Record	Weight class	Titles held at present
1	John Duddy	24-0 (17 KO)	Middleweight	IBA middleweight champion
2	Andy Lee	15-1 (12 KO)	Super Middleweight	Irish Super middleweight champion
3	Paul McCloskey	16-0 (7 KO)	Light Welterweight	IBF International light welterweight champion
4	Bernard Dunne	25-1 (14 KO)	Super Bantamweight
5	Matthew Macklin	21-2 (16 KO)	Middleweight
6	James Moore	15-0 (10 KO)	Light Middleweight
7	Neil Sinclair	31-6 (24 KO)	Light Middleweight
8	Brian Magee	30-3-1 (19 KO)	Super middleweight
9	Oisin Fagan	21-5 (13 KO)	Light Welterweight
10	Andrew Murray	11-0 (5 KO)	Light Welterweight	Irish Light Welterweight champion
11	Stephen Haughian	13-1 (5 KO)	Welterweight
12	Michael Gomez	35-8 (24 KO)	Super featherweight
13	Martin Lindsay	11-0 (4 KO)	Featherweight
14	Jason McKay	19-2 (5 KO)	Super middleweight
15	Henry Coyle	6-1 (6 KO)	Light Middleweight
16	Kevin McBride	34-6-1 (29 KO)	Heavyweight
17	Jim Rock	29-4 (9 KO)	Middleweight	Irish middleweight champion
18	Martin Rogan	10-0 (5 KO)	Heavyweight

Surviving Page being protected

Congratulations Vk. A request for your page to be protected, was rejected. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sligo Benbulben 2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Vintagekits!
We thank you for uploading Image:Sligo Benbulben 2.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As I am blocked I cant do notin about sortin dis out. Can someone please sort it. ta.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As it's your own pic, what license do you want to release it under? GFDL okay? - Alison ^❤ 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm dont know the differences between the different licences. Put whatever on it please.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going for GFDL, so. It's the most 'free', IMO - Alison ^❤ 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

' sorted' ;) - it's actually now on Commons, so any editor (hint, hint) can use it on other projects such as putting it on ga:Contae Shligigh - Alison ^❤ 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

Hi, an account with your name was created on Simple English Wikipedia earlier. Was it you? If it wasn't, you may like to usurp it to prevent further imposters. Cheers, Majorly (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure its me mate - got a link and I will check it out.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

VK - I got it all sorted out with the 'crat over there & the vandal accounts are now renamed. Just sign in and grab your own account and you'll be fine - Alison ^❤ 15:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Tuffins article

Maxburgoyne hasnt really been my buddy since I had an article about his local shop deleted this AfD.

During that that AfD he canvassed a number of editors and one of them that !voted on the AfD recreated the article here. Which I understand is not allowed. --Vintagekits (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not "nasty" and do not bear grudges but I do have little time for bullies. There is nothing snide about my user page and i sad it was interpreted that way. I concede that I am intrigued by the pooterish self-obsession of some editors. Finally, thank you for the information on the revival of Harry Tuffins - I had no idea! Such is my influence that, unlike some, I hve no need of sock-puppets and threats. --MJB (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Max, I think your interest in Vk is seen as vindictive since he had your shop deleted; as I pointed out your user-page is an attack on a vast bulk of Wiki-editors. I suggest you remove your comments there and recuse yourself from attacking an editor with whom you are in dispute. Sarah777 (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not my shop! An attack on "the vast bulk of wiki-editors"? Just the Pooters --MJB (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Pooters are used for catching small insects, arachnids, crustaceans, and any unidentified wriggly things, collectively known in the scientific community as 'bugs'. By definition, these bugs are very small, and in addition to that many of them sting, bite or ooze at you when feeling threatened. In short, they can be difficult to catch, which is bad news for scientists and children (who frequently like to catch bugs, either to examine, or eat). I cannot imagine, Max, why you think the bulk of Wiki-editors are Pooters. Sarah777 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, she's right! :) - Alison ^❤ 22:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting pooter that guy has, what? (excuse the juvenile mind but it's what keeps one young:) Sarah777 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Max the Younger

You may wish to read, The Diary of a Nobody by George and Weedon Grossmith. Charles Pooter wrote a diary of his mundane life self-centeredly assuming that his views would be of interest to others. Wiktionary has a page [4]. I do not think the bulk of editors are equally Pooterish, just those who share their interests. Frankly, I find bloggers equally odd. It is not a judgment; rather it is bemusement. Finally, why are you so defensive? If you are - and I suspect you are - a balanced person with a rich life, why do you care so much? --MJB (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

G'lord Max! Are we not all pooters of the latter kind? To some degree? It being impossible to refute a charge of defensiveness without seeming defensive I can have no adequate response to the charge. A close acquaintance has a wee dog named Max - small world, eh? He's a Prince Edward or somesuch - though he was born and bred in County Laois. Sarah777 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact I just know Vk would want me to leave a photo of your namesake on this page. This is the young Max when last he visited my verdant field back in '03. Note the slightly blank look in his eyes. Probably due to his British ancestry. Sarah777 (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck S777. I promise to leave VK's page alone unless, of course, I am dragged back by a personal comment. Woof, woof! --MJB (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish I was as cute! I note your comment about his blank look. No doubt you have an instintive affection for terrierists. Sorry!--MJB (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Going back to VK's original comment, I was under the impression that a user's own page was their own for preliminary projects etc, maybe this is all Harry Tuffins is to me?? Also, will you accept that I wanted to comment on the AfD as I explained at the time. (By the way, I still believe it deserves to have its own article). --Fuelboy (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Oisin_Fagan_Irish_Title.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Oisin_Fagan_Irish_Title.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

--MJB (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is VK to return?

There seems to be a grudging and weary consensus (above) on this page that Vintagekits should be allowed to edit once again, while severely restricted. Is there an admin prepared to put some cogs into motion on this subject - so the community can debate the precise restrictions to be imposed on his editing - should he return, and then lift the block/ban? Giano (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a proper appeals procedure. By all means he should submit an appeal but a few voices here hardly represents a mighty groundswell. --MJB (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose his return. Wikipedia is a community of volunteers, and the sheer size of this community necessitates that its participants follow a set of rules of behaviour. Vintagekits has shown nothing but contempt for these rules.

When his sockpuppets were discovered 2½ months ago, he admitted to using them but offered no apology. Bang to rights, they are me and I am not going to deny them. Strangely, he was praised for this!

• If only others had your dignity
• At least you leave with a bit of class, and good grace
• It's refreshing, to see an editor being honest about his/her dishonesty

However, despite this "show of class", only two days later he created another sockpuppet – Stick Negative (talk · contribs) – and started editing again. His list of socks (confirmed by Alison) is now at 14.

If he had left Wikipedia alone for a few months and come back with a request for a fresh start, I'm sure that some admins might consider it. But his actions since February 19 speak volumes to me about his lack of contrition and unwillingness to abide by community standards, so I am one admin who will not unblock him for any reason. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Give up the sock puppets Vk & take a few months off. It's likely your only way to return from 'exile'. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got no active socks. I havent edited article that wasnt involving boxing since I got the indefinate block so what Andrwsc says should be put in that context. I dont see why I should be limited from editing sporting articles when I have no history of conflict on those articles. --Vintagekits (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Agree totally. There appears to be an unpleasant tone of vindictiveness amongst those getting het-up about using socks to edit boxing articles. Sarah777 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone is on an indefinite block, then they know they're not supposed to be editing, period. Using socks to evade the block does indeed show contempt for the community. Even now its "I don't see why I should be limited...", not "Yeah, sorry, I shouldn't have done that." Oppose an unblock. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Support.I think it is only fair and humane, to let VK edit subject to the clear conditions above. Forbidding access to edit his boxing pages is just vindictive, and serves nobody well, including the encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. He doesn't have it in him to limit himself to boxing. For example his recent unnecssary comment above saying MaxBurgoyne is unpleasant. This from banned editor. He is just too much trouble. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you are old but if you can read Max said I was unpleasant not the other way around. --Vintagekits (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thought you would have still been in bed following the celebrations Kitty? Giano (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Credit where it is due. Vintagekits is not a diva. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Very true Kitty, glad you are coming around to my view that VK has many good points. One small thing though, VK isn't banned, or can point to a discussion with consensus for a ban? Any admin can unblock at any time. Giano (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Misassumptions galore. I never said he has many good points. The community has determined he is too much trouble. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Are you saying those who control sockpuppets should be banned? Do you have a link to the ban discussion? Giano (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not for me to determine. Numerous incidents culminated in his name being put on the list of banned users. He can always appeal. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Kitty could you provide a link to a discussion which resulted in a consensus for VK to be banned? I cant seem to find one. BigDunc (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find Dunc that Kitty harassed several admins to add VK to the list of banned users, even though he wasn't even banned to begin with, there was no discussion, which is why VK can now be unblocked. Giano (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

<---(unindent) Given the recent discussion at WP:ANI about User:Jack Merridew, also a known sockpuppeteer who produced some good content, and his recent unblock, it seems that consistency would indicate that VK should be unblocked as well. I am one of the people approached to put VK on the list of banned users, which I refused to do because there was not a community ban discussion anywhere; it wasn't just admins who were approached, and I know at least two other people refused to add him to the list. The proposed restrictions seem reasonable to me, should VK agree. Risker (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the matter here so that others may comment. --John (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving such an unbiased comment to direct people to this discussion.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Both he and David Lauder should be allowed back under severe restrictions. it would be wrong to unblock Vintage and not Lauder. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

David Lauder is community banned, Vintagekits is not. The two are nothing to do with each other, David Lauder can appeal to ArbCom to be unbanned, Vintagekits can be unblocked by any administrator. BigDunc (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock, but under editing restrictions. I don't think he should be under restrictions forever, but only for a short period of time. Maybe he could have a mentor also? D.M.N. (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He already had a mentor - it didn't work. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Who was the mentor? Risker (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I was given User:SirFozzie as a mentor - but nothing really came of it in terms of formal mentorship because he got sick and wasnt around much and also because he was in the US and me in Europe so we were never around at the same time.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I think restrictions should include a 10 year ban on voting at arbcom or similar elections. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • 10 years I think is a little too much. 2/3 years maybe at the most? D.M.N. (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. We as the community are too lenient on users such as him. Plus I don't trust that he would be able to follow them. User:Andrwsc says it pretty well. Wizardman 17:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment, well to be fair logic doesnt really bare that comment out. 1. when I was indefinately blocked I hadnt been editing in areas of conflict. Check my edit history if you dont believe me? 2. the block was for a history breach of rules, not for what I was doing at the time. 3. the socks I have used since the indefinate block havent caused any disruption and have only edited sporting article which is an area that I have never had any trouble.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Keeping him blocked now is punitive not preventative, and therefore a breach of the blocking policy. He's agreed to only edit sporting articles and not cause disruption, and nobody could say any of his socks since his indef block were disruptive only constructive. Most of the people are attempting to punish him for past crimes, so it's a punitive block. BigDunc (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Every time you use a sock to get around a block, you're essentially saying 'Fuck you and your rules'. So far your 'Fuck you and your rules' count is at almost 20. HalfShadow (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support but only for sport and other innocuous ie non-political articles, and is restricted to 1 revert per week (non vandalism). He should also be banned from voting or standing in arbcom elections for 5 years. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment, I would have no problem with restrictions like that tbh.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, Like I said above if you look at my edit history at the time I got blocked I had given up editing articles on Irish republicanism and "The Troubles" because it was giving me a headache and I was almost solely focusing on boxing articles. As the Olympics are coming round the corner there is going to be a lot of boxing stuff that needs doing so I would like to be able to do that.

I don't have a problem with a restrictive topic ban at all but I would like it to be an exclusive one rather than an inclusive one. e.g. I would still like to be able to edit football articles or articles about music or railway stations or geography or places of interest so long as it didn't stay into the sphere of Irish republicanism or politics.

I think that most people will agree that prior to me being blocked I wasn't causing any disruption and that the only issue I had in the months before my block was the spat with Rockpocket - who since then has said that he (incorrectly) thought I was harassing his family and that is probably the reason he was gunning for me at that time. I would just like to go back to the way I was editing in the weeks prior to my block. Like I say - just check the edit history.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarification. I did indeed say it was most likely that Vk was likely involved with the ongoing campaign to harass me on and off wiki, given the evidence. I did so, mainly out of frustration, in response to the praise of Vk after his blocking. It struck me as particularly hurtful that this campaign was going on unbeknown to many other good editors offering the praise. I retrospect it was incorrect of me to bring that up publicly without definitive proof and I later apologized for doing so and removed them. The identity of those involved in the harassment have never been resolved, and is unlikely to be now. Vk continues to deny involvement, as does everyone else.

I did not, however, say that I was "gunning" for Vk at the time. Quite the opposite - I didn't even mention the harassment until after Vk was indef blocked (by someone else, for something else). If Vk is to be unblocked from his indef for sockpuppetry, so be it. I remain neutral on that. But I wish to clarify that his current situation was not resultant of me "gunning" for him, as implied above. I had zero involvement in his indef block (indeed, if you look at the contributions, you will see I was absent from editing Wikipedia during the incident) and his prior block was for personal attacks. I'm sure the blocking admins will confirm that. Rockpocket 21:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I raised your name was that after the Troubles Arbcom there was a noticable change in my editing. I think everyone would agree with that - the only issue I had since the Arbcom was that spat with you. I thought you were stalking me and I believe and still do that you were targetting me because you were being harassed off wiki. It was not until you came out and said that you thought it was me that was harassing you that I realised that my suspicions were true.

For the record - once again - it was not me that was harassing Rocket, nor did I know it was happening, nor do I know who it is/was. I do not know how I can prove it was not me except to say it was not me - its not my style and I dont think anyone agreed with you that it was or would be me.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true that I refused to stop editing Troubles related articles as a way of avoiding conflict, because doing so meant I was changing my editing, when it was your inability to edit the same articles as me that was the problem. It is also true that the campaign against me likely influenced that decision: I was not willing to let harassers get what they wanted (which was me to leave The Troubles sphere, or perhaps Wikipedia completely). Therefore what you see as "targeting" you was simply a subsequence of our overlapping watch lists. However, that is rather inconsequential now as I don't think I have any boxers on my watch list. Therefore, should you be permitted back under those restrictions, it should be clear that I am not "targeting" you and, if that is the only thing that would precipitate incivil or aggressive behaviour, then you should have no problems.

Regarding the harassment, I doubt you could prove you were not involved, just as I cannot prove you were. The point is someone in an around the Troubles sphere was doing it (I have provided the on-wiki evidence to other admins to delete and/or oversight). Unsurprisingly, no-one has come forward to own up to it. Since you are the only person in that sphere that has harassed me on and off-wiki in the past (under you own name, admittedly) and since you are the only person who has publicly admitted an ongoing issue with me, is it really a surprise that I drew that conclusion? I think anyone would do the same. It remains entirely possible you are not involved whatsoever, and if that is the case then we are both victims because you have clearly been set up by someone. In that case I of course apologise. But WP:AGF gets very difficult now, Vk, because you have to admit you have been less than honest in the past (for example, you have stated numerous times that you have not used sockpuppets and then we later found out that you were indeed using sockpuppets at that time). So, the question is, when you have clearly lied in the past to enable you to paint the best picture of your editing, could you not also be lying now? Can you at least see why people are skeptical of trusting you on this occasion?

Nevertheless, whether your should be unblocked or not on this occasion should not be influenced by this situation. It had nothing to do with the block under discussion and your block history is extensive enough for past record to be taken into account without having to consider things you may or may not be involved in. Rockpocket 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Some advice here! Vk, it is clear that Rock had grounds for suspicion just as it is understandable that you, being innocent, would react as you did. It seems to me Rock has agreed not to block your return to (strictly) boxing articles. So just draw a line under the past misunderstandings rather than tease them out with the risk that involves of further misunderstanding. Say "Thanks Rock" - and move on :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Until the unfounded accusation is officially withdrawn then there wont be a "Thanks Rock" but I am happy to draw a line under it and move on.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Sarah. I would rather a line be drawn under this and Vk's fate be decided by the community based on that facts that are known, not those that are not. I just wanted to state my side of the story for the record after Vk has stated his. As I said above. Good luck to you, Vk. I bid you no ill will whatever the decision is. Rockpocket 05:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm puzzled at the perception that Vintagekits' boxing-related edits are incident-free. For example, his block of 4 November followed a chain of events that started with an editing dispute over the flag icon next to Belfast on the World Amateur Boxing Championships article. Also, as the User:Gueracuco sockpuppet, he left this charming bit of incivility on User talk:Ajl772 only a few weeks ago, following some improper cut-and-paste page moves on the National Amateur Super Heavyweight Champions article. Why should anybody think that he is capable of editing without disruption on any article topic? The current indefinite block must be upheld, not as a punitive measure, but as a preventative measure against any further disruption. Vintagekits has clearly failed to demonstrate that he has learned anything about how to function within this cooperative project after any of his myriad of prior blocks. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Vintagekits has agreed that if allowed to return to abide by the stringeant condtions outlined here [5]. Two senior Admins, Lar and Alison, have both indicated support for this plan. VK truly wants to edit and prove himself responsible, to deny him oppportunity is to the detriment of the project. If he should fail to keep to those coonditions then the machinery is easily applied for a permanent ban. Giano (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Giano - where exactly has Vk agreed that if allowed to return it would be under those conditions? All I can see is him saying he wants to be allowed to edit on more than just boxing articles. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry too, I thought there was a diff somewhere, but I can't find it either - perhaps it was in an email. Whatever, he is not getting out of jail without agreeing very publicly to those terms - while I might agree to one or two very minor changes to those rules I have outlined above - they would have to be minor for me to continue supporting his editing. He has had previous chances, this final chance has to be under very strict conditions and he has to keep to then, no ifs and no buts and no changing half way through. I am not being soft on Vk, perhaps with those conditions I am being tougher than those who want him banned. I just want to see him given a final chance to prove he means what he says - he can take it or he can leave it, but he can't say that he was not given the opportunity to edit, whe he edits best. Giano (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the proposed restrictions; would Vk be allowed around an article like Barry McGuigan (an Irish boxer)? GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been cast in stone. The conditions I have proposed are open to debate and flexible, if some people don't want VK to edit Barry McGuigan - then he does not get to edit it. I don't think though he should be banned from any boxer, whose page he has started of been the principle editor of. However, at the end of the day if VK returns, he has to understand he is here under sufference, he does not get to call the shots. This is a very tea-total and dry Last Chance Saloon. Giano (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Support: You only have to look at the work Vin has done on the boxing. --Domer48 (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support with the understanding that Vk, will be restricted to the Boxing articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - as checkuser involved in his latest indef block. It's hard to know, really. He's done some excellent work on boxing articles and indeed, on Irish articles as well as "Troubles" ones. However he's incredibly argumentative, has little regard for the rules, has been socking away happily for ages and has burned through the goodwill of countless admins. If he's to be unblocked, it needs to be cast-iron with some sort of policing mechanism that's absolute in its interpretation as well as not being resource-intensive for the hapless admin that gets to manage it. He's a good guy overall, he's got a temper and quite a POV but his sporting article work has been superb. Yet another-other-other eency-weency final-this-time chance? I don't see why not. However - he needs to keep well out of the way of Kittybrewster and, indeed, vice-versa - Alison ^❤ 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional support as long as there is a checkuser constantly monitoring him. If this isn't possible, then no. He's a puppeteer and I don't see why countless other users have to become paranoid just for the editing of a few boxing articles. Puppeteering is his big crime as far as I'm concerned. I don't really support restricting his editing by topic with a collection of restrictions cobbled together by the random group of editors gathered by hatred and sympathy. He has his own POV, and in that is like scores of other users who aren't as careless at violating civility rules. If he returns to his old incivility he'll get reblocked soon enough without having to draw upon on any complicated legalistic text. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Or final warnings and other sanctions are meaningless.

Discussing terms for a return

As there seems to be a concensus to find a solution to this problem that permits VK to edit in a restricted and limited fashion - Terms for a possible return are being discussed here User:Giano/Terms for VK's return, all are welcome to debate this on the talk page. If VK wishes to comment himself, his comments can be transposed there. Giano (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people seem to think you are not interested in trying to sort out terms for a return to editing [6]. Could you please clearly indicate if this is the case. I think it very unlikely that you are going to be allowed to edit all pages, other than "Troubles pages" but there are already proposals that you be allowed a wider scope than initially proposed by me. Giano (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

JUst to clarify, I am interested in coming back. ALso I dont see what benefit there is to stopping me from editing "non Troubles" articles when the problem I have had on wiki are main pertaining to Troubles articles. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Right I will post that over - are you interested in editing under restricted rules - if your peers feel you do need restricting to certain pages? At the moment you are allowed to edit none, the proposal is you can edit a few of you favourites and certain non-political pages to be determined. Basically, anything will be an improvement for you, than the present situation. Prove yourself responsible for three months, and you will be able to edit normally, with a just a topic ban on the Troubles etc. Giano (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, yes I would go along with that and also go along with Guy and Riskers suggest that it is limited to sporting articles.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Right I will paste this thread over. I'm glad you think it is cool because I really think it is the best you can hope for. Giano (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that. Giano, I am sorry about all this hassle and I appriciate the effort you and others have put in to trying to get me unblocked especially in the face of some editors who wish to the block remain. I know I shouldnt have used those socks and I assure you I wont be creating anymore. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing only boxing pages, concerned with boxers who have no connection to the Irish Troubles whatsoever.

What boxers have been directly involved in "the Troubles"??

None that I know of.

I should be allowed edit all articles that arnt relating to "the Troubles".--Vintagekits (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks your comment has been pasted to the discussion page [7]. Giano (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you count Danny Flynn? — iridescent 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol!!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The only boxers that had any even indirect connection with the Troubles were Eamonn Magee who had the shizzle kicked out of him for crossing the wrong man - not Troubles related per se but the attackers were involved in the Troubles and Barry McGuigan who although not involved in the Troubles himself he was used as a figurehead for peace in the north because he was a catholic and his wife a protestant, which gave rise to the slogan - "leave the fighting to McGuigan".--Vintagekits (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• VK, have you read Giano's proposed restrictions and are you prepared to abide by them? I think we should move to closure here. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes I have, and yes I am. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked you. There are too many supporting your unblock (opposing the continuation of your block) for continuation of the ban to be acceptable as community consensus . Be aware that many of admins know you agreed to the terms in Giano's userspace, so you'll be well-advised to stick to them. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And Vk; while I know you feel hard done by - please, please, please, please bite that sharp tongue and stay cool for 3 months. If I can stick to a stoopid clubbish "civility code" you can stop biting folk! Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The return of VK, has come to pass; he has the means, to make it last. But should he get into Trouble and disobey? It's likely he will be blocked away. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare is only trottin' after you G'Day. Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Caution

Vk, you may want to hold off from editing, for the momment. Administrator Deacon's unblocking of you, is being disputed by the other Administrators. Suggest you wait until their dispute is resolved. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits, I too urge you to hold off until there is a much clearer consensus for your unblock, and until everyone on all sides is comfortable with the conditions and restrictions. I suspect it will only take another day or two, but holding off in editing will demonstrate your respect for the communal desire to get this one right, for everyone, you included. Best, Risker (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Having just climbed out of bed, I'm not too sure what is going on here. Are we still trying to provide you with suitable places to edit under some firm guidelines - or not? I am concerned that without them you are just as likely to be sinned against as sin yourself. If you have been given a "get out of jail free" card, and it looks to me like you have, then for God's sake tread carefully and bear in mind what those of us trying to help you had to say. Stay away from the Troubles and those you know are not your friends and their pages. If they suddenly appear in your life, then post it on ANI, do not try and deal with it yourself. Giano (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, waking up, I see you were unblocked subject to the tems discussed [8]. It is a pity they were not completely finalised. However, there you are. I will post them on your page as suggested by Flo Night, and then link to them after that. Good luck. Giano (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinion seems to be that it would be better if you were re-blocked, or at least did not edit, until things are clearer, finalised and sorted. I agree with that opinion. Giano (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• As a courtesy and sign of my willingness to play by the rules I agree not to edit mainspace while the unblocking terms are finalised and will only edit here and on the ANI discussion about this and Gianos framework page.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good man, VK. I know it's (somewhat) opt-in but it's the right thing to do for the moment - Alison ^❤ 08:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to not edit. I think it is best if right now you stick to help iron out the details of the editing guideline. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Block reinstated for now

Vk, the discussion at WP:ANI shows a clear consensus that your unblocking by Deacon of P was wrong, so I have reinstated the indefinite block for now.

As noted as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block_reinstated_to_restore_the_status_quo_ante, all options remains on the table:

1. Keep the block (whether indefinitely for a stated period)
2. Lift the block subject to a set of conditions yet to be agreed
3. Lift the block unconditionally

The block has been reimposed purely to restore the status quo ante while the community makes a decision on whether you should be unblocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl , please undo this block, quickly. You are absolutely the wrong person to block this user. And Vk had agreed not to edit, for now. There was no reason to re-block. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To say I am annoyed at your wheel warring would be an understatement - there is a clear consensus above to unblock and there was an issue over is the exact terms of my return.

Maybe we should have a !vote eveyday - one day I am blocked the next I am not.

Would your efforts not be better served in agreeing the terms of my return instead of wheel warring?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Vk, there is an ongoing discussion at ANI on whether terms can be agreed which would form an acceptable basis for your unblocking. That discussion had not reached a conclusion and should continue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to raise to your bait - needless to say that there is a concensus to unblock - 12:5 - ignore that if you wish but its there. I'm going to leave it at that.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Vk, the ANI discussion didn't show a consensus for an unblock until conditions had been agreed. That's all; it's not bait. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The ANI discussion was started to draw people attention to the !vote here - the !vote here shows a clear consensus to unblock. If you were interested building a consensus you would have informed all the !voters here that you considered their opinion invalid and that you were only considering the opinion of those at the ANI - interesting! You cant just keep having !votes to see if there is a consensus and then stop once you've found one that suits you - one day I'm the next I am out - how long you going to keep that up for.

Anyway - peace out! --Vintagekits (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A question for Vintagekits

Vintagekits, I have just been reviewing the deleted history of your talkpage, from the point in February at which you were blocked. The initial comment to the thread, and your reply, are at this link which can only be reviewed by admins, so I have reproduced in the box below:

VK, I expected more of you. Apparently when I thought you had reformed, you had just decided that the rules didn't apply to you and you went on your merry way with other accounts. Per this report on ANI: [9], I am indefinitely blocking this account. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bang to rights, they are me and I am not going to deny them. I am not going to whinge and complain about the checkusers validity either. All I will say is that I had put them to bed a couple of months ago and hadn't really used them in an abusive nature either, possibly with the exception of the vote for Giano - which I was kinda goaded into by the pile of socks that voted against Giano after I voted for him. I have to say at the time they were created I was a bit obsessed/addicted to editing wiki and frustrated during sitting our the Arbcom and just wanted to edit something.

I'm happy to have a sock puppet amnesty and get them all out in the open if anyone is still interested. --Vintagekits (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since then, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The_Troubles#Sock-puppetry shows the following further incidents of sockpuppetry. In each case, sockpuppets of yours which were confirmed by checkuser were blocked:

• 3 socks on 27 February
• 1 sock on 6 March
• 2 socks on 9 March
• 2 socks on 10 March
• 4 socks on 18 March
• 2 socks on 23 March
• 1 sock on 8 April
• 2 socks on 21 April

I make that a total of 16 confirmed sockpuppets in a period of two months; that's about two per week.

You were blocked because you were, as you say caught "bang to rights", and several further contributors to the thread praised you for honesty (rightly, IMO). Yet despite being caught "bang to rights", you proceeded to create more socks to evade the block, at the rate of two per week, apparently until after this discussion where it was noted that several editors had begun reverting all the edits by your sockpuppets.

So here's my question. You say you were caught "bang to rights" for sockpuppetry, yet after being blocked you created more sockpuppets, apparently until that option was rendered futile ... so why should anyone now believe any assurance by you about your future conduct?

I'm genuinely open to whatever your answer may be, and of course you absolutely don't have to answer if you don't want to. However it seems to me to be this is a key question when your unblock is being considered. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not on trial here VK. Answer if you want to, don't if don't. Many editors are keen to help you, and understand the suituation that you find yourself in, while some of it is entirely your own fault, another part is because others regard you as fair game. You are in a situation now, where I doubt you can help yourself, which is why others are trying to create an environment whre you can edit peacefully and quietly. Most of us are keen to help you not trap you. Giano (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BHG, Vk has already answered questions such as yours in other places. I would not have agreed to a structured trial editing period unless Vk showed that he understood that his past actions were wrong. His ongoing contributions will show his commitment more than his words now.

Giving Vk space to edit without conflict is key to his successful editing. I hope that you will assist in making that space for him by not setting up conflict driven discussions that rehash the past. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Flo, it's a question which has been raised several times in the current ANI discussion. If it has been answered before, maybe you or Vk or someone else could help by posting links to the answers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

When I was blocked was I editing in a distruptive manner? When I was blocked were the socks active? When I was blocked I had put that carry on behind me and wasnt even editing "Troubles" articles. Why did I use the sock to !vote on Gianos page? It was stupid retaliation for Kitty, Lauder and his socks piling in and !voting against him. Should i have done it? No! Will I do it again? No!

"why should anyone now believe any assurance by you about your future conduct?" - the simple and only answer I can give is - "because I say I wont" I'm not sure what else I can say. The terms under whih my return would be are tight and in any event I have no appitiette to go causing trouble or starting confrontations with "the right wingers". I just want ot get on with constructive editing in a civilised manner. If I screw this chance up then I am gone for good.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I usually agree with BHG on, well, everything I'm inclined to go with VK here. This isn't your typical abusive account - VK is one of our best writers on boxing, an important subject that has too many overenthusiastic amateurs that need to be cleaned up, and not enough people who genuinely know their stuff; if he's unblocked, there will be so many people watching his every move that he'd be blocked if he put one foot wrong. I also support unblocking Taxwoman on the same conditions for exactly the same reason. — iridescent 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Vk has stated something similar several times now. See below:

"Thank you for posting that. Giano, I am sorry about all this hassle and I appriciate the effort you and others have put in to trying to get me unblocked especially in the face of some editors who wish to the block remain. I know I shouldnt have used those socks and I assure you I wont be creating anymore. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)"

Giving him another chance mean that we are taking him at his word that he is going to edit within the agreed restrictions and try his best to stay out of trouble. Since we know that he can make good contributions, then it is worth giving him a final chance, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Irridiscent was premature in assuming that we would disagree here :) I had asked a question, and I didn't intend it as a trap, but rather as the most important issue in deciding whether a return was appropriate, and one where Vk's answer was cruicial. The answer isn't wholly satisfactory, because it doesn't acknowledge that one of the sock accounts did engage in a series of personal attacks on another editor ... but there is one clincher for me: Vk's direct assurance that he understands that "If I screw this chance up then I am gone for good". It was a difficult question to answer, but I think that Vk has answered it in a way which would make it perverse to oppose his return. So I'm glad I asked the question, and even more pleased that Vk has not just answered it, but answered so persuasively. Thanks!

I had been leaning towards opposing any return for Vk, but that answer persuades me that a return on appropriate conditions (such as those being drafted) is worth trying ... and as Irridiscent points out, Vk does great work on boxing articles.

However, I'm not sure whether I will support an immediate return. The sockpuppetry continued until very recently, and I want to hear further arguments (from whatever quarter) on whether or not is appropriate to unblock Vk so soon after the sockpuppetry was curtailed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a block for a further month on the basis that any sock use during that month would result in the unblock promise being revoked. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you few of the main reasons why I dont want to have to sit out another month. 1. Jesus, its frustrating (just luck at some of the edits that Andrewsc has oversighted and articles he has deleted because they were made by socks of mine - some great stuff has been deleted over the past few months and Andrewsc should genuinely hang his head in shame over that tbh) 2. Michael Gomez has just signed the biggest fight of his life against Amir Khan and there is a lot of traffic going through that article - its seriously outdated at the moment and needs a lot of work and I want it to get to FA status before the fight happens. Just look at this article and this in the Telegraph to see that these journos have just lifted the details directly out of my article for their news pieces.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the case for or against delaying an unblock should not be based either way on Vk's frustration. However, this latest answer makes me favour a delay, because it is complaining about the removal of edits by sockpuppets, which suggests that Vk still doesn't understand why sockpuppetry is banned. The suggestion that an admin "should genuinely hang his head in shame" for reverting sockpuppet edits is pretty rich coming from a prolific sockpuppeteer :(
A further month or so blocked would be Vk's chance to demonstrate that he genuinely accepts that block does indeed mean blocked from editing, and that it's not a time to just go and create sockpuppets to continue as before. A month or so without sockpuppetry would demonstrate that Vk's willingness to accept a ban, and it would also allay concerns that the an unblock now would come too soon after the latest sockpuppetry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wrong on that score and I will tell you why. I never said I was right for having the socks - I wasnt, however, we are building an encyclopidia and Andrwsc took great glee in destorying perfectly good contributions. If he had reverted the edits then fair enough but he didnt he oversighted them so that no other editor could see the merit of the edits and restore.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no "glee" on my part. You should take some responsibility for your own actions instead of trying to shift the blame to me, especially when I was enforcing Wikipedia policy. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I take full responsibility where have I shirked it - I said I shouldnt have had those socks and I now wish I never created them, however, you did take great delight in oversighting the edits and you have been pretty vindictive towards me over the past few weeks aswell. For someone who is heavily involved in Olympics articles like you are I found your actions very strange. Anyway - I bare you no malice no and in my book its water under the bridge. Luckily I saved many of your deletions to words documents so hopefully one days they will again see the light of day.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand me. I took no "great delight" in my actions, and I'm not "vindictive" either. The right way to characterize me is that I am not lenient towards egregious violations of Wikipedia policy such as your blatant sockpuppetry and your many instances of incivility. I'm also not very tolerant of situations where I see wikilawyering or gaming the system, and at the current moment, I fear you may be a pawn of some of that behaviour (by other editors), which is why I continue to stay involved in the issue of your potential un-banning.
But seriously man, I would love to be able to have another solid contributor on articles I care about (such as the Olympics ones). However, that doesn't mean I can brush aside bad behaviour. I'm really bothered by your incivil comments toward User:Ajl772‎ when you edited as the User:Gueracuco‎ sockpuppet. I don't know if you actually realize, in retrospect, what really happened. You (correctly) saw a problem with imprecise article titles like National Amateur Super Heavyweight Champions, but you incorrectly tried to fix the problem with a cut-and-paste move. Ajl772‎ probably used the wrong words when he/she put revert redirect vandalism in the edit summary, but you escalated the conflict with your revert edit by an idiot! and undo edit by someone who hasnt got a brain edit summaries, on top of your talk page attacks of repeatedly calling that user a "moron". You simply cannot continue to work on this cooperative project if you treat other editors this way, even if they mistakenly call your editing errors "vandalism".
Please understand, I'm not trying to remove you from Wikipedia, I'm trying to remove your behaviour. I will object to any unblocking conditions that do not address your demonstrable understanding of our core behavioural principles, and your willingness to adhere to them in the future, should you be unbanned. I certainly bear no malice towards you personally either, as I hope you can see. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dont worry your stance with respect to myself is duely noted.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And do you have any response to the specific (and valid) point Andrewsc raises about your civility, or lack of it? If you were unblocked, would you continue to behave like this? --John (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew is right I shouldnt have called him a moron just because he didnt know what he was talking about. However, like I said all thats behind me and I am looking to avoid conflict instead of engage in it. I havent the time or energy for battles these days - I'll leave that to others from now on.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that an uninvolved administrator already unblocked him, thinking that he should return now, I see strong feelings that this should move forward now. I honestly see no benefit to waiting, really. He knows that many people would be looking for socks, so I doubt that he would do it now. The planets seem aligned for a return now. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be better to let the community decide. Deacon's premature unblock was not exactly uncontroversial. Let the process finish properly; I'd rather see a consensus emerge to unblock than another premature unblock. Progress has been made but it it is not yet time to unblock. --John (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. We need to have more discussion. But I'm saying that we do not need to wait another month for his return, that's all. I was merely pointing out that some folks feel that his return is past due. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I am happy to keep sitting out until the "Giano terms" are ironed out and acceptable to a "consensus majority" - however, I just hope that people will engage over there rather than here of on the ANI off-shout which seems to have sprialled a bit.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should try to reach a decision asap. I guess the Giano sub-page would be the page to do that. Good luck, VK. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

A few people have indicated that they wish me to try and bring this to some conclusion, which I am going to try to do in the next few days. The thought of me playing master of ceremonies may fill you with horror, but I assure you I will try and present everything as fairly as possible. For those unfamiliar with me (who may be wondering why the hell I get to set the agenda), I guess it is because I'm extremely familiar with the history, am clearly not overly sympathetic to Vk, yet have no real preference for any of the options. But if anyone would rather someone else supervise this, then just say the word.

Here is where we stand:

• I have re-written Giano's conditions based on my understanding of the consensus on the talk page. I'm going to leave them open for another 8 hours or so to permit further refinement if need be. You should read and understand them and, if you are willing to adhere to them, indicate that.
• I have asked, on my talk-page, that those that prefer waiting before unblocking (out of concern of the socking issue) provide some ideas of how long they would like to wait, and then what conditions (if any) they would like. If they would like a different set of conditions, we may have to hold off a while while they are discussed.
• I then intend to present to the community both options with a brief reasoning behind them, along with the status quo option (that you remain blocked)
• I'm not exactly sure where that should happen (I'm open to suggestions), but I don't think your talk-page is the appropriate venue.
• I will try and limit the meta discussion and keep comments directed as supporting a preferred option, with a brief reasoning.
• Depending on how divided the community is, either it will be rather obvious what they think, or else I will seek advice of a panel of completely uninterested and experienced editors on how to commence (again, I'm open to suggestions of a better way to resolve a split decision).

The goal here is to reach some closure on this, for everyone, with the minimum of bad feeling and the maximum of community input. I would suggest you take this opportunity to reveal any outstanding and undiscovered sock puppet accounts (per the conditions), and also to answer any questions people have of you. I really don't see how this can do anything but help you now, and if your are unblocked and they are revealed later, if could result in a ban. Any questions, post here or drop me an email. Rockpocket 09:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Where was the rewrite (first point)... on Giano's subpage (which is what your contribs suggest) or somewhere else? Thx. ++Lar: t/c 12:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I rewrote them here, over Giano's original guidelines. Rockpocket 21:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no undiscovered/undisclosed socks. Ali found a number of my socks without them ever even editing a single page - she just does a sweep of my IP range and knows them all - to be fair I didnt really try and hide them from her - Warrior at Welterweight, Sligo Bhoy's P4P, Slapbangwhallop, It's Paulie Malignaggi, Hispanic Causing Panic, An Ugly Thief etc.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's good work, but I think it would be best for Alison to confirm that she is satisfied she has got them all. I think that it would also be helpful at this point to clarify the status of the 7 accounts in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vintagekits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Giano/Terms for VK's return

I am happy with all of the 11 or so conditions laid down and happy to abid by them. My only comment would be that in section 1 & 2 and word "boxing" is substituted for "sporting".--Vintagekits (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note I have moved the ANI thread to here as it was heavily clogging up the ANI board and the thread was heading towards 100k. D.M.N. (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DMN - you are right the discussion was getting pretty out of control.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh, that's OK. D.M.N. (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we get the focus back on this

With respect to the limits on editong sporting article I will agree not to get embroiled in "the flag issue" - if an issue arises then I will step back, inform an admin and let them sort it out.

As for not editing the Old Firm articles I wouldnt agree to that. Here are two Celtic F.C. articles that I have created - Lennoxtown training ground and Cillian Sheridan - in what way shape or form does that have any connection with "the Troubles".--Vintagekits (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should be let back on Wikipedia as long as you don't head back in the Troubles direction. I would have absolute no problem with a editor returning and editing articles for the better, if it turns into edit-warring again, though, a block indef would be back in order. D.M.N. (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well what we need to do is get an agreement from all sides on the terms set out at User:Giano/Terms for VK's return - once that is thrashed out then we can make progress - these terms seem to have been forgetten in the "shit storm" that BHG has cause with the block and reblock. I wish people would forget about that and focus on the issue at hand - unless the causing of a "shit storm" was a deliberate tactic do derail the process - I dont know. Many editors, Like John, Bastun, Kitty etc, will never be convinced that i should be allowed return but I am not trying to convince them its the rest of the editors that I am interested in.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As it was I that suggested the Old Firm restriction, perhaps I'll reply here if you don't mind. I think you'll recall there was some issue with sock and meat puppetry on Celtic articles in the past, regarding discussion of the club in relation to Britain and a AfD. That was, however, a long time ago. You are probably aware that there are editors who regularly edit those articles who you have clashed with in the past and there could be similar situations again in the future. As long as you are aware of that, and appreciate that if you get involved in those then it could be your downfall, then I'll happily withdraw my suggestion of excluding the Old Firm. There is plenty of non-controversial editing to be done on those articles that you can contribute to, just avoid the occasional flashpoint, ok? Rockpocket 17:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Like i have said above - I know I am in last chance saloon - permaban awaits if I screw it up and not just an indef block. I know what is expect of me and I dont intend on letting down those who have thus far supported my block.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. I'll propose we leave it at "sports", with an understanding you'll avoid the flag issue. Rockpocket 17:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Vk, I've already indicated my willingness to have you unblocked and back editing under Giano's conditions. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for approval

• 1. Everything redlinked at the top of this page - User:Vintagekits/projects.
• 2. Everything redlinked at European Amateur Boxing Championships and European Union Amateur Boxing Championships.
• 3. Everything redlinked at Boxing at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Qualification

I think its safe to assume that everything there is fine. If something specific pops up later someone will let you know. Rockpocket 08:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• 4. Charles Howe. [10]
• 5. Alphabet belts/Alphabet titles. [11]
• 6. [12] Keith Cresham
• 7. Ian Tims [13]
• 8. Gary O'Sullivan [14]
• 9. Patrick Hyland/Eddie Hyland/Paul Hyland
• 10. Jorge Luis Teron [15]
• 11. Template to navigate world boxing titles incorporating Alphabet titles.
• 12. Simanga Shiba and Rolande Moses - the AIBA nominated wildcard slots for the Olympics.

Image copyright problem with Image:Cranmore streets.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Cranmore streets.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the exceptional circumstances here, I've refused the deletion request. The image data shows that it's been taken from a camera and not from a website, and VK is currently not in a position to clarify exactly where he got it. (Although as soon as you are unblocked, please pop over there and say where it came from!) — iridescent 20:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent, I took that photo myself.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it - I can see from the image data that it was taken two weeks before you uploaded it - but you need to fill in the form (just go to Image:Cranmore streets.jpg, click "edit" at the top, and fill in the blanks; you don't have to give your real name as author if you don't want people knowing it). Otherwise the bots automatically think you've nicked it from someone's website and try to get it deleted (as has happened here).

If the photo was taken in GB or NI, cut-and-paste "Photograph taken in a public location in the UK of a work on permanent public display, and thus exempt from copyright under Section 62 of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 ("it is not an infringement of copyright to film, photograph, broadcast or make a graphic image of a building, sculpture, models for buildings or work of artistic craftsmanship if that work is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public")" onto it, which generally shuts the self-proclaimed Copyright Police up. (Don't know what the equivalent Irish law is, but I'm sure there is one - BHG would probably know.) — iridescent 15:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It was taken in Ireland (state).--Vintagekits (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Permitted under §93 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000" in that case. If anyone tries to argue, point them towards COM:FOP#Ireland. You do still need to fill in the form on the photo page as to where and when it was taken, to show you've not copied it from a book etc. — iridescent 15:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

Hello. I have made the proposal for the community to discuss at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vintagekits proposed unblocking

Anyone with an opinion on Vk's proposed unblocking should make it there. Good luck, Vk. Rockpocket 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - very well put together.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Results of ANI Discussion

Anyone know how long the discussion is going to continue? Its been going going for in 36 hours now and I make it -

• Option 1 - 25 !votes

• Option 1.5 - 3 !votes

• Option 2 - 3 !votes

• Option 3 - 1 !votes

Seems like a bit of a landslide (get in!!), is there much point in keeping it open any longer?--Vintagekits (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is discussion on the matter here [16]. Giano (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, people will be happier if we give it appropriate time, sorry you have to wait. Just so we can make this really clear, I assume your commentary here means you're agreeing to the restrictions set forth? Can you make that explicit? - Taxman ^Talk 16:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs, I'll just chillax. Yes, for the record I accept the conditions. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. Over the first few weeks/months you'll probably have a handful of editors watching over your contributions. D.M.N. (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ya reckon!! ;) lol!!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And some of that handful will, in turn, need watching. Sarah777 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah! Who watches the watchers. May we have the Star Trek: TNG theme, please? GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're all set per the terms you all set up, now lets all get back to our regularly scheduled programming of helping to improve Wikipedia's articles! - Taxman ^Talk 12:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Looks like you're unblocked.[17] Welcome back, sir! - Alison ^❤ 12:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not ever get yourself in a mess like that again! Giano (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is a big believer in giving useful contributors a chance to contribute, erm, usefully, welcome back. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Vk! I hope that this works out for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Behold, the return of VK, as a born-again Wikipedian. Congradulation, you've been reborn. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, Vk. I hope this works out. I don't expect we'll be crossing swords in article space, but if there is an administrative matter or you run into some problems, I'd be happy to help. Rockpocket 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And if you don't want to be bothering Rocky, you can always bother me, a'right? - Alison ^❤ 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to have you back, VK. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks guys!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Azamat Balakov

If you get the chance, can you have a look at Azamat Balakov. This has been incorrectly tagged for speedy-deletion four times so far, and until someone cleans it up it'll presumably keep on being tagged. (He doesn't necessarily warrant an article - as far as I can tell he's never actually won anything - but at least needs a discussion.) — iridescent 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't normally get involved with Boxers but when I saw this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azamat Balakov I thought of you. perhaps you can shed some light. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already asked VK to assist; however he's staying off WP until Padraig's funeral — iridescent 15:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for that. Actually the funeral has already occurred I see but I guess we won't be seeing VK till at least tomorrow, and the afd is likely to run 5 days. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was a hoax - says he beat Matt Skelton - yet Matt has only ever lost to Ruslan Chagaev and Danny Williams.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I also asked Mikkalai who is an expert on Russia and that part of the world and he sorted it out. Always good to get other opinions about issues one knows little about, methinks. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cranmore Street 2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Cranmore Street 2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:UDR political poster.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:UDR political poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC) --Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits, your editing this would probably violate the agreement that has been made. I will look at this and the image located below as well later today and may confer with you or other interested editors to determine whether or not a fair use claim can be made for either image; a quick glance indicates it would be difficult, but I won't say no entirely at this point. If any other interested editor has a comment, it would be appreciated if you contact me on my own talk page. Thanks. Risker (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have amended this to be a fair use image. As a derivative work, it is not eligible for the original copyright tag you placed. I don't blame you for not knowing this; the rules are complex and have changed over the years. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bresli an phob.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bresli an phob.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Vk, I know your terms of probation won't allow you to touch this, so I sorted it for you. Hope that's okay - Alison ^❤ 18:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Countess sculp.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Countess sculp.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

VK as per above your probation won't let you touch a SF related picture so I'm fixing this one, too — iridescent 15:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ta. --Vintagekits (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not currently used in any articles, the bots will keep on tagging it; if/when you add it to an article, add a link to the article to the photo's description to keep the bots happy (or move it to Commons, which doesn't have these problems) — iridescent 15:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(I've moved this conversation from my talk page so others will see the reply)

The problem isn't that it would be a copyright infringement to take a photo of the statute. The problem is what license is this photograph of the statute? Is it public domain (meaning someone could make a derivative work that is copyrighted? Is it GFDL? Does it require attribution? Can it be used for commercial uses? These questions can only be answered by the uploader, unfortunately. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've no particular reason to doubt it's self created, since the metadata shows it was taken two weeks before VK uploaded it - the trouble is, because VK's not allowed to edit this picture, he can't put a licence on it... VK, if you could reply here to Ricky, myself/Alison/Fozzie or whoever will update it for you. If you're willing to release it, it might be better to transfer it to Commons, as that way Irish language Wikipedia etc will also be able to use it. — iridescent 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's actually quite a good idea, as the image currently used in the article on the Countess is also by Vintagekits. This is a superior photo, however; transferring both to Commons once this is sorted would be a good idea. Happy to assist in any way. Risker (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Trainer

Basically as an amatuer, I fight at my school. The K.O. King (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No. The K.O. King (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

REALLY!!! That would be great!!! I have never fought in the golden gloves but want to either this year or next year. The K.O. King (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not registered with a gym I work at my homemade gym. The K.O. King (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I havn't talked to you in a while but I was wondering what you mean by join a club. The K.O. King (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Gomez

To stand a cat in hell's chance of FA by the 21st June forget GA and go straight for FA, and be prepared to make changes per suggestions there. It is practically there - anyway. I assume all the images are legit? The prose needs some tightening - ask someone like Risker (you have stared at it for too long) it needs fresh eyes just to just to tighten it up and shorten some minor overlong phrasing. Most importantly, it needs a proper conclusion a sort of summary of the whole, how he is perceived today - where he is going etc. The lead could do with padding out a little more, otherwise a great page VK. Giano (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I'm doing a little ref cleanup of the article. Refs #2 and #5 appears to be dead. D.M.N. (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what I can do about #2, although it appears to just be a supporting references and the info can sourced elsewhere, however, the interview in #5 was quite extensive. The old version of http://www.irish-boxing.com/ shut down at Christmas and was relaunched a couple of months ago - I think all the archieves have been lost which must include that interview. I know the guy that runs the new version. Is there anything that can be done or does it have to all come out?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Same with #14. You'll have to take it out, or see if someone archived it at Archive.org. Good work with the article though, have this: (barnstar removed by VK)

Thanks for that mate but as a policy I never accept barnstars - but thanks.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Luckily this guy copied the wiki article nearly world for word so I can reference the info in reverse from that!.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, Vk :-) I've copyedited some. The section on the Bognar fights is a little unclear in parts? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha! No wonder my ears were burning. VK, if you can take care of the references in the next day or two I'd be happy to give this a thorough copy edit; I'm doing several this weekend. Raul is away for a week or so and won't be selecting main page articles until his return, and there are no other articles nominated for main page exposure on June 21 yet, so if this can be readied in the next few days and put on FAC you stand a reasonable chance of getting your wish. Ping me when you've got the references cleaned up; I should be available most of the weekend. Risker (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not overly good at these things. But, I feel the article is ready for nomination. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a hack too. I edit-conflicted with you and you may wish to reinstate your changes. Sorry about that. --John (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi VK - had another look at the article, and the lead needs to be expanded to include a key statement from each section. Give it a hack, I've got to go offline for a bit (families! gotta love 'em) and will work on the copy edit in a couple of hours. Risker (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside

Image:Allan Stevenson - Gomez.jpg is a great photo, Vk. Do you happen to have a higher res version of it? If so, it could be a decent featured image candidate itself. Rockpocket 19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll email ya what I got. Would it be the featured image on the day of the fight?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it works, but it would be impressive if it was allowed. I think the picture would meet Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria if we replaced it with a high res version. I'll look into it. Rockpocket 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Vk. Apparently pictures of the day get featured in order they are promoted. Its unlikely, therefore, it would be on the day of the fight. However, as the lead picture, a small version would illustrate the article on the page anyway. However, I still think it would be great to promote it and feature it as POTD. If you have a version that is at least 1000 pixels in width, then it would be great if you could upload it yourself. I can then delete the smaller version and nominate that one for featured status. Rockpocket 18:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, you lost me at apparently. How many pixels is the current version? --Vintagekits (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The current one is 640 x 480 (it tells you just underneath the image), so one twice this resolution would be perfect. Rockpocket 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What aboutthe ones I emailed ya?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No good, I'm afraid. We would need the black and white one about twice that size. No worries of you don't have it though, it was just a thought. Rockpocket 05:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting notes

VK, per my usual practice, I will be leaving questions and comments on the talk page of the article as I go along. If you have a chance to respond to them as I am going along, I will incorporate your responses into the article as I continue to copy edit, but it's also fine to wait until I'm done. One heads up, though...I will be working to streamline the references as I go along; large runs of references don't seem to go over very well at WP:FAC, even if they are good references. Risker (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, back...had to go offline while we went through a series of thunderstorms; my internet connection gets wonky and I *hate* to lose a complex edit that way. Risker (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Email en route to you. Risker (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't get it done tonight; there is something about spending several hours in the casualty department that just puts one off reading about boxing matches ;-). A bit more is cleaned up, should be done by Thursday latest. Will try to keep my family better behaved. :-) Risker (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Hope everyones OK!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for asking. Everyone's fine, end result was just bumps and bruises, but one never knows with kids. I remember walking around on a broken ankle for a couple of days once. Risker (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback option

Hey VK. It's been quite a few weeks since you were unblocked now and things have been great! Needless to say, I've been watching from the sidelines :) Anyways, I've added the rollback feature to your account, as you may find it useful in reverting vandalism and I know you will not use it for anything else. So .. enjoy the new button :) - Alison ^❤ 17:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:South Benbulben.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:South Benbulben.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference sources for Michael Gomez

Hi VK - Ealdgyth was able to run an advance check on the reference sources for this article (see here), and I have done the legwork to demonstrate reliability of the first three reference sources, because they were widely used in the article. That will help a lot as the copy editing goes forward. There remain some holes, however; some of the sources used mainly for later sections need to be similarly verified or replaced with more "mainstream" ones. In particular, can you find the name of the owner and the policy for correcting inaccuracies (at minimum - a reference to the site from a mainstream news source would be really good) for the following sites:

• http://www.Doghouseboxing.com/ (used in the sections about the Arthur rematch and Peter McGonagh controversy, currently refs 43,44 and 47)
• http://www.eastsideboxing.com/ (used in the sections about the Arthur rematch and "Nowhere to run" vs Daniel Thorpe, currently refs 42, 45, 58 and 59)

If the same or similar information can be obtained from one of the "reliable" sites or a mainstream news source, it may be better simply to replace the reference, but some of them are direct quotes so that may be difficult.

• Tomas Rohan. "Gomez - I'm happy with my decision". irish-boxing.com. Retrieved on 13 July 2007. (ref 51) is now a dead link. Since it's being used to reference a direct quote, this is a problem. Can you find any alternative references that support the same basic text?

• See if you can get any further information on the article from Boxing Monthly (ref 29) which is a print magazine as well as a website. Publisher is required; author and page number of the article would be useful. I think we can probably go with what is there now once we have the publisher's name, but if the other information can be found then it should be included.

I think we can probably live without the other references that Ealdgyth had questions about, because they all appear to be duplicating information from other sources.

Tomorrow evening, I'll be going full tilt to get the copy editing and elimination of duplicate references done, so these ref numbers may change. If you can get the info in the interim, put it on the talk page of the article and we can go from there. Risker (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Violation?

See my question here: Talk:Wayne_McCullough#Nationality — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

replied to.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See updates there. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Doireann Ni Bhriain

Hi! I'm dropping a note to all the fairly recent editors of the Irish Wikipedians' Noticeboard.

I have just started writing an article on the journalist Doireann Ni Bhriain and I am calling for interested editors who would like to dig for some more sources on her career, her birthdate, and perhaps to find a usable picture for WP. As of yet, there is no section on her lengthy career with RTE, and that's something I would like to rectify soon. However, what I can find seems to be just a vague overview. I'm American so perhaps I don't know where to look for the best sources on this...this is where you come in! Please contact me if you'd like to help. Mike H. Fierce! 07:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gomez good to go

Finished up the copy editing, apologies for the length of time involved. There was quite a bit of reference verification and work that had to be done, but I think it is all in order. I've sent you an email with a few further details. Good luck at FAC! Risker (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Juanma was always special, the best of his "Olympic crop" as some newspapers label it, the most interesting thing is that other guys like McWilliams Arroyo are already looking better than him or Miguel Cotto when they were amateurs. I am going out for dinner shortly, but I will post a complete review at the FAC nomination in a few hours, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have been working on a revision, based on the FAC feedback, in my userspace here; it's about halfway through. It's easier to do there when I know I won't be able to do it all in one go, especially when paragraphs are being rearranged and "parked" in other sections. It's done to just before the Arthur fight, and I hope to get the rest done after a few hours' sleep; if you have any comments or suggestions, let me know. Risker (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gomez again

Vk, i took the liberty of suggesting some changes and copy edits at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vintagekits/Michael_Gomez. Main reasons that it looked odd referring to the young Michael as Gomez. I also incorporated the text on the trouble outside the ring into the early professional career section. Finally moved ring persona to the end. If you think its an improvement you can copy it across to the main article; if not an admin can delete the page for you. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The not just northern Ireland conflict

Thanks for speaking up, VK. If this continues, I may be forbidden from writing even about the exploits of Brian Boru in Ulster!

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Probation violation

Vintagekits, can you explain how this is not a violation of item 8 of your probation? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What he actually said is factually correct from a historical perspective and in the utmost, ultimate, bending-the-rules way, given that The Troubles extends from the 1960s until 1988, is not technically a violation. But it definitely goes against the spirit of things. To VK, please be careful and steer away from all that stuff - Alison ^❤ 00:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Since he's probably asleep (it's 2am in Ireland), I'll say that I don't think it technically violates his probation. He's talking about an event that took place 40 years before the Troubles started, and item 8 of his probation specifically refers to his being banned from Troubles related articles, not Irish history in general. I agree it would be best if he (and the other parties) steered clear of Irish Civil War articles, as it'll just stir up the same flamewar, but any kind of block for it would be very harsh. – iridescent 00:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Item 8 says he will not make any reference or comment anywhere on Wikipedia (in article, talk, image or project space, edit summaries or via links off-site) concerning The Troubles. Technically speaking, he did make a comment concerning the Troubles. It wasn't really that comment that bothered me though, it was the following one in reference to the O6 (a term that serves to make a political point and the sort of thing that inflames such discussions needlessly).

However, I warned Vk to back off, and he did per his conditions (Should he find a page he is editing is notably connected to the Troubles, or be informed as such by an uninvolved editor in good standing, he will withdraw completely from that page.), so personally, I didn't think it worth pursuing. Rockpocket 00:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is going too far, and goes beyond the bounds of even the most liberal interpretation of the ban. VK is commenting on a block of another editor for making a contentious edit on a non-Troubles article. Item 8 doesn't apply.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Given this new input, I have to agree this is not a violation, but I also agree it's wise for Vink to steer clear of Irish history articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, it is disturbing that this action isn't looked at more severely. The words 'slippery slope' come to mind. 88.107.94.48 (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, I don't think we give two hoots what a sockpuppeteer who's been banned and blocked a hundred times (such as yourself) has to say about someone else bending the rules. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you have the wrong person. I have never received a single block in my life. 213.131.125.34 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Major revision of Michael Gomez

Hi Vintagekits, I have carried out a major revision of the article in keeping with the comments at the FAC. I trust it will meet with your approval. If so, it would probably be a good idea to make a note on the FAC page stating that you are satisfied with it. I anticipate that an additional paragraph will be needed come Sunday or Monday to accommodate the results of the fight, with some minor tweaks in the last section to reflect past tense. Risker (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Email sent tonight...well, I guess it is "this morning" for you! There are only a few more comments to address on the FAC. Risker (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)