User talk:Vintagekits

THREE DAYS UNTIL I BRING THE PAIN BACK TO WIKIPEDIA!

Oh man!!! :-O - Alison ^❤ 09:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

TWO DAYS UNTIL I BRING THE PAIN BACK TO WIKIPEDIA!

Watcha mean? ...pain to Wikipedia...?. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

His probation is due to end, so it's full steam ahead on Troubles-related articles .. I'm guessing - Alison ^❤ 22:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah!. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope he reads this thread in its entirety, but especially the "Remedies" section, before he jumps in with both feet. On the other hand, he could be referring to some boxer's nickname, just to tease everyone. ;-) Risker (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

His probation terms clearly state After three months (from 3 October 2008) he is allowed to edit fully and normally, with the exception of a project wide topic ban on The Troubles, which will remain in place for one year. There can be no "full steam ahead" on those articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.65.41.18 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he can express his views on article improvement on the Talkpages. They are much the poorer for his absence I think you'll agree? Sarah777 (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

ONE DAY UNTIL I BRING THE PAIN BACK TO WIKIPEDIA!

I think you're actually enjoying this!! :-) - Alison ^❤ 08:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Alison, we should warn him that he doesn't actually have to break a single rule in fact or in spirit to get blocked again by a random Admin. Isn't that right? Safest bet is not to edit at all Vk - they might not notice you then. Sarah777 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sure Vk is just joking, this might be a good juncture to make sure that Vk and the community are on the same page with regards what he can and can't do for the next year.

The agreement is that he is allowed to edit fully and normally, with the exception of a project wide topic ban on The Troubles, which will remain in place for one year.

This means Vk is is expected to remain absent from discussion anywhere (be it on articles, article talk, user talk, project space, images, wikiprojects, deletion discussions or anything else I've missed) related to The Troubles. Absolutely everything else is his oyster. This period of the probation has, in my opinion, even greater scope for a slip on your part, Vk. So be careful and think twice. And welcome back. Rockpocket 02:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats not my understanding of it. My understand is that I can discuss it but not edit articles relating to it.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"After three months (from 3 October 2008) he is allowed to edit fully and normally, with the exception of a project wide topic ban on The Troubles, which will remain in place for one year." It's pretty clear. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Project wide" is the cogent term. If it was just a restriction on editing articles, it wouldn't be project wide. Rockpocket 23:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Vk, why go back around articles, where ya had problems before? Can ya go back? What's up? GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Terms

I have updated the terms page to include only those that currently apply and added it back, per the agreement that it be publicly displayed. Rockpocket 19:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing to a further year under probation. --Vintagekits (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't have a choice, I'm afraid. I'd refer you to point 7 of your probation : "There will be no right of appeal or alteration of these rules at any time after commencement.". The terms you agreed to were explicit that that probation had two phases, a strict 3 month boxing only phase followed by a further year of project wide Troubles restriction. I'm going to replace the terms on your user page, per your agreement. Note that if you break the terms of your agreement you are liable for a indefinite ban without appeal. I suggest you leave them there and avoid Troubles related articles/discussions until this time next year or else a ANI report will be filed. You have already been warned, below. But let me be clear per your agreement: as an uninvolved editor in good standing, I'm informing your that Irish Civil War is notably connected to [our definition of] the Troubles. Therefore you will withdraw completely from that page.

Now is not the time to flex your muscles, Vk, as tolerance for Troubles related problems is not particularly high. Carry on in this vein and it will end in tears. Rockpocket 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Flexing muscle"? Please explain how the fuck the Irish Civil War can be classifield as being part of the Troubles or a Irish/British geo political dispute. --Vintagekits (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Irish Civil War pitted supporters of the Anglo-Irish Treaty against theirselves. The treaty established the Irish Free State under British dominion and without the six counties." It was a dispute (war) involving Irish/British geo politics (Anglo-Irish Treaty). That is "how the fuck" it is restricted to you. Rockpocket 17:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It was an internal dispute and therefore not a British/Irish dispute therefore outside the remit of the topic ban.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have raised the extension of your probation here [1]. I think, as always, Rockpocket should take a step back tand let an uninvolved admin consider this. You probabtion certainly cannot be extended just on Rockpocket's say-so. Giano (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Things are unraveling here. What's VK's status? GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing unravelling at all mate. Rockpocket just trying to stir up "troubles" where theyre arnt any - no shock tbh!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Vintagekits. Rockpocket 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your topic ban

Be careful. This edit might be considered by some as an edit to an article related to any Irish/British geo-political dispute, and therefore, in violation of the terms of your topic ban (which you have removed from your user page). You are perilously close to being permanently banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.65.41.18 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If I had known VK, that you were gonna go around the Irish Civil War article (or any British, or Irish article)? I would've advised you, against it. It would've been safer to seek opinons first. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would you want me to not edit any article if I am not being disruptive? very strange attitude!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would've advised against going to British & Irish articles, for you own sake. One doesn't always know for sure, which articles fall under Troubles & which don't. It's tricky. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been through probation without a hitch if you can see that you are just aiding Rockpocket, John and the likes to hound me off wikipedia then carry on. My topic ban does not say anything about not editing "British & Irish articles" it articles about the Troubles, British/Irish geo political disputes and Baronets - the Irish Civil War does not come under any of these - its purely Rockpocket stirring up trouble for a bit of drama - and then aided by his buddies! its boring tbh!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to let you all figure this out yourselves. Good luck, VK. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Before you go - do you think that the Irish Civil War is a Baronet or a British v Irish conflict or an event in the Troubles?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it was fought between Irish seperatists & the British government (according to the article itself), then IMHO -yes- it falls under Troubles. But again, that's just my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Irish Civil War is not in Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland so like it or not VK has to be given the benefit of the doubt. Giano (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that VK; I read the article-in-question incorrectly. No, the article does not fall under Troubles (IMHO). Also, Giano's got an excellant point. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor in good standing, I am informing you that "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to ... Irish nationalism, ... and British nationalism in relation to Ireland" is "notably connected to the Troubles". In order to comply with your topic ban do not edit such articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not agreeing to that - that is complete bullshit - this was never part of the agreement when I signed up to this and you cant add this onto the agreement AFTER the probation is over - you are pretty much just a sockpuppet for Rockpocket! --Vintagekits (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)