Jump to content

User talk:Gob Lofa/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Billy Wright (loyalist)
added a link pointing to Anti-Terrorist Squad
Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (1970–79)
added a link pointing to Falls Road
Denis Halliday
added a link pointing to TD
Glorious Revolution
added a link pointing to William III
Irish Brazilian
added a link pointing to Brazilian
Krashovani
added a link pointing to South Slavic
UDA South Belfast Brigade
added a link pointing to Henry McDonald
Ulster Unionist Party
added a link pointing to James Craig

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Copy-editing

As a past member of the Guild of Copy Editors I feel I have to point that most of the edits you carry out which have the edit summary of "copy-editing" do not actually contain any instances of copy-editing. If you wish to become a copy-editor, the following link will help: Wikipedia:Basic copyediting. If not then please use a more accurate edit summary if you wish to use an edit summary. Mabuska (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You're an education sometimes, ta. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't hurt doing a bit of self-teaching. Mabuska (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't hold back. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It was meant in regards to you. Mabuska (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Caution

Please stop changing sourced statements such as at UDA South East Antrim Brigade and changing or altering sentences that at best do their best to input a slight of bias into articles. There is a stark difference between a unionist area and somewhere that you'd call a loyalist area, and the source stated loyalist. Also as we are currently discussing republicanism and nationalism is not the same and nationalist cannot be used as a catch-all for the two. The same with your changing of loyalist to unionist. They may be related but your edits come across as trying to paint a whole community (unionists) as loyalists, which trying to make it look like they only targeted nationalists, when republicans where the target many of the times.

Add in your highly dubious removal of the map in the Protestants of Ulster article citing that it had no relevance to the article. It does. It shows the change in percentage of Protestants throughout Ulster and the rest of Ireland within the given time frame. It could be easily argued you want to hide the stark decrease of Protestants in the south after partition.

Your fondness of original research, synthesis and disrespecting sources also doesn't give a favourable impression. Add in various other little bits and pieces here and there and you have an answer to your question above on where these accusations of bias and POV are coming from.

I've just done a short gander at your recent edit history, however expect a more indepth look. Mabuska (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Depth away, mate. I just got reverted for describing East Belfast as loyalist, so now I'm really confused. You're wrong about the term 'nationalist' too; I told you before, they're not just related, one is a subset of the other. That map only became relevant to the article after I added content to make it relevant. You can argue I'd like to hide that if you like, but I don't reckon you'll look very clever doing it; I'd be happy to contribute to an article all about that migration. Your baseless accusation about my fondness isn't backed up by any examples, for some reason. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Information icon Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at McGurk's Bar bombing. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. The essence of WP:BRD which you know of is that if your edit is reverted then take it to talk to see if you can get it added to the article. Your edit has been opposed and you did not take it to talk. Your reasoning's for your selective wording is also flawed considering it only applies to one part of the statement. What is there is fine and doesn't need a weasel twist put on it to serve your pov. If it's not fine then why fear raising it at the talk page to get a consensus. Mabuska (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Mabuska (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I've no problem discussing edits on talk pages, but if you continue reverting within hours of others making edits people may come to the conclusion that you think you own the article. It applies to both parts of the statement; British soldiers had been dishing it out to Catholic civilians long before the IRA retaliated. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

John Castor

I have reverted the edit you deleted. The edit was reliably sourced, the numbers cited are directly from the source, as is the history stated. There is no libel, nonsense, hoaxes, or vandalism present as my edit is factual and sourced. I am informing you here as a courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotladd (talk • contribs) 03:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Balderdash. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Continuing editing problems, and block

I have seen recent messages expressing concern over your editing, so I have checked your recent editing history. Mostly, your editing is fine, but there still are concerns, and what is more worrying is that some of them are the same concerns that have been expressed over a long period, some of them even being involved in connection with blocks, and yet you continue to make the same mistakes. There is a reference above to "instances of removing sourced information and convoluting other content, mostly under dubious and at times quite misleading edit summaries". I have not spent the time searching that would be required to establish how much of a problem that is, but I have certainly seen examples of edit summaries which don't do a good job of summarising what you are doing. There is also some truth in the suggestion above that you tend to exhibit an "ownership" attitude to articles. However, the single fact which strikes me most forcefully is that you are still receiving notifications of links to disambiguation pages, and doing nothing to avoid making that mistake. You have been receiving messages about that problem since December 2011. It was given as one of the reasons for a block in March 2014. The understanding that you would not continue to do it was mentioned in the message telling you that you were unblocked in April 2014. I posted what was meant to be a friendly reminder to stop linking to disambig pages in May 2015. Despite all that, you still continue to do it. It really really is easy to avoid the mistake: you just click on "Show preview" before saving your edit, then check the links that you are adding to the article: if any of them turn out to link to disambiguation pages, then you correct them before clicking "Save page". That is all there is to it. I am not sure whether there is any way of getting you to take notice, since neither messages nor blocks have dissuaded you in the past. (Counting only messages which have the wording "Disambiguation link" in their section headings, you have recieved 114 messages about it, both from a bot and from human editors.) Since nothing else works, I am trying once again blocking you for two weeks, mainly in the hope that doing so may just possibly get you to finally take notice of the disambiguation link problem, but I hope you will also consider other concerns which have been expressed. Please take note. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I must add in Gob Lofa's lack of willingness to provide anything other than bare URL citations which really mess up the reference sections of articles. Two recent examples over the past few days being: [1] and [2]. Then again this article created by Gob Lofa in 2013 was full of bare URL citations that he had added for a good year until he eventually filled them in [3], however in most instances elsewhere he has not. Like after all this time on Wikipedia I can only call it pure laziness not to provide some form of proper formatting for webpage citations, however minor the formatting is, especially considering they are able to do very good book citations (for example [4]). That article also contains a pretty good example of ownership of an article by the amount of reverts (on two users) Gob Lofa did over a category removal in the space of a week or so ([5], [6], [7], and [8]). User:Snappy even raised the issue of ownership of that article.
There are other issues that Gob Lofa also needs to address, however maybe this two week block will encourage them to start tackling their issues even if one or two at a time. Mabuska (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Mabuska makes the point that you, Gob Lofa, do not bother to do citation formatting, which by now you certainly would be able to do if you chose to: exactly the same applies to the issue of disambiguation links. Probably well over 90% of bot-posted disambiguation link notifications go to new editors who simply don't know any better, with the other few going to experienced editors who do know better, but occasionally make a slip. There is really no reason for an experienced editor such as you to keep getting dozens of them, except that you just don't bother to do things which you know full well how to do if you choose. The example which Mabuska refers to, namely formatting of citations, does actually take quite a bit more time and trouble than just posting bare URLs, but, as I have pointed out above, the extra effort involved in checking links to see that they don't point to disambiguation pages is really trivial. I am not sure whether Mabuska is right to describe it as "pure laziness", but it is really difficult to think of any other explanation. In any case, as I have tried to explain above, the block is not there because I want to stop you from editing, it is there in the hope that you will think a bit about the various concerns that various editors have expressed, and make a few changes in how you edit. Most of your editing is absolutely fine, as far as I can see, but a few changes would make it better still. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I made over 500 edits this month, creating thousands of links. I checked the vast majority of these thousands to ensure that they didn't lead to disambiguation pages and changed scores, perhaps in the hundreds, of them. A grand total of ten slipped through the cracks from those thousands. The sourced information I removed was totally irrelevant to the article concerned, which you would have seen had you taken the time. I would dearly love to see the evidence for this "ownership" of articles; the only article I regularly patrol without waiting for it to come up on my watchlist is Ulster Protestants, an article I created and which was the victim of sectarian redirecting by User:Snappy some months back, leading me to keep a more careful eye on it since. No-one has ever raised URL citations with me before, nor have I ever seen anyone complain about my or other editors' failure to fill these in. Ever. A cursory examination of articles both I and Mabuska edit will show who waits to talk things out and who rushes to make sure their version of the article stands. Once again Mabuska, I encourage you to look to the beam in your own eye first. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It's your editing that is in question here and if you have a problem with mine then t0file a complaint. So reverting an article to its prior stable state when someone makes an edit that is contentious is trouble making or makes me a hypocrite? It's Wikipedia protocol. The onus then is then on the editor who made the contentious addition to take it to talk to get a consensus. It's the fundamental basics of WP:BRD. I have told you quite a few times to go to talk and even in two articles recently to open an RfC for more input. Also Snappy's reverts were not sectarian driven, the category you wanted to enforce was highly dubious. Mabuska (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I regard redirecting a page about Ulster Protestants to Unionism in Ireland as nakedly sectarian; pushing a hardline Catholic Irish nationalist POV is not acceptable, no more than its converse would be. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Snappys redirecting of that article is not nakedly sectarian and it is quite extreme to construe it as such. If anything Snappy simply stereotyped. Mabuska (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You need to stop enabling Snappy - in the long run, it's not in his best interests. If you're right, why didn't he redirect Irish Catholic to Irish nationalism? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Official Irish Republican Army may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Disappeared (Northern Ireland), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. GiantSnowman 09:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I gave a valid reason. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:GiantSnowman Gof lofa's edits in regards to Ireland related articles, especially Trouble articles, is littered with instances of removing sourced information and convoluting other content, mostly under dubious and at times quite misleading edit summaries. Mabuska (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Absolute balderdash, give us an example of your convolution and misleading. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Well here is a very recent (yesterday) example of convolution where you add in original research and then add a source that does not back it up. I don't see mention of "state power", but I do see "security forces" in the source which is the first thing that came into my head when thinking of how to describe the RUC and USC. Likewise the source makes it clear that the B Specials are a unit within the USC, yet you word it as if the USC and B Specials are simply alternate names for each other disregarding the other units in the USC. Also "had a worse reputation"?, I must of missed that in the source, but the source does state "notorious" in regards to the B Specials. My rewrite of this closer matches the source you provided, and maybe it will help show you how to use sources better. Mabuska (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Wait. I didn't replace "security forces", I replaced "existing police forces", not too clever a description of an army regiment. The B-Specials were the vast majority of the operational USC and its most public face; the terms are used interchangeably in practically every article that discusses the organisation and I've never seen you complain before. By hiding that the USC were more mistrusted than the RUC, you're tarring the RUC with the same brush, despite the latter's attempts to become fairer since the 1920s. Why are you trying to rewrite history? The RUC weren't all bad. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Who said you replaced "security forces"? I never did. It is also pushing it stating that I am trying to rewrite history by making a statement match what the source actually states rather than adding WP:OR and WP:WEASEL, hoping no-one checks the source. You on the other hand have been with many of your edits in the Troubles area. Mabuska (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You implied it. That's not how you're rewriting history; you seem to be deliberately playing down the RUC's attempts to move toward impartiality in contrast to the USC, perhaps from some kind of anti-RUC bias you have. If anyone wants to look at OR, they could check out your stream-of-consciousness justifications on talk pages, e.g. at Talk:Glenanne gang. How is it OR or weaselly to describe a police force as an instrument of state power? Do you believe they served the Orange Order instead? Your convolution is getting worse, Mabuska. Must be about time for you to accuse someone else of it. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If the valid reference which you keep on removing from Disappeared (Northern Ireland) is "out-of-date" as you claim then I suggest you a) relocate the content to confirm the historical position and b) introduce a new source to show it is out-of-date. If you cannot / will not do so then please do not remove the reference again; if you do then you will no doubt be heading for another block swiftly... GiantSnowman 11:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you be blocked for insisting on including outdated material in an article lede? Please be careful. There's nothing wrong with your reference; the problem is it references a person who no longer leads the commission because of death. Would the lede of any other article talk about a former boss while making no mention of the current one? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Erm the wording as it stands says "was led by forensic archaeologist John McIlwain" i.e. already indicates it is not current. As I've said, your options are to leave it alone, or to replace the info and relocate the current info/reference into an appropriate section, given that it is valid content. GiantSnowman 11:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It's valid in the body of the article but not in the lede; given this, your options are to stop putting it back in the lede or put it somewhere else. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
If you think it's "valid in the body of the article but not in the lede" then why have you been removing it rather than re-locating it? I'd agree with a move into another section, I won't revert again. GiantSnowman 07:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm surprised there's anything in the lede that isn't developed further in the article. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Susan McKay

I did peruse McKay's Northern Protestants An Unsettled People but while far less obnoxious and triumphalist than Tim Pat Coogan, her own biases were abundantly plain. Quis separabit? 01:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Biases? Gob Lofa (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Banner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Lodge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Unblock

Gob Lofa, I have reconsidered, and unblocked you. I don't have time now to explain why, but I'll try to remember to come back tomorrow and tell you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, talk to you then. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I read your comments above, thought about what you said, and had another look at your recent editing history. The conclusion I came to was that, while there is room for improvement in your editing (I suppose there is for all of us) the problems are very small in proportion to the amount of editing you do, and that blocking was getting it out of proportion. The main thing, for me, was coming back to your talk page after a very long absence, and thinking " oh my god, Goba Lofa is still getting disambiguation link notifications, even after all that has happened in the past: will he/she never learn?" However, I now accept what you say about it: in proportion to the amount of editing you do, it is a small detail, and not enough to justify a block. I also think there is some element of truth in at least some of the criticisms of your editing raised by other editors, but there is more than just an element of truth in the idea that much of your editing is in a controversial area of a kind that is likely to attract criticism from one side, the other side, or both sides, no matter what you so, and allowing for that, the element of truth in the criticisms is not all that great. All things considered, I now think that blocking you was a mistake, and I hope you can forgive me for that mistake. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Your insistence on bare URL citations is still a problem. Also add in continued convolution of sources. The source you supplied does not state hundreds of houses were looted but that a number of incidents of looting had occurred. Personally the block should of stood for the full two weeks seeing as you've learnt nothing. Mabuska (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I will admit that I have no problem with the majority of Gob Lofa's edits, even if I find some of them trivial and not needed, however there are a few issues that really need sorted to inspire greater good faith. Mabuska (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a coincidence. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Why? Did you realise you have issues yourself or is it from other people telling you? Mabuska (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

In regards to Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army actions, where User:Tmol42 and then myself reverted you, there is no need for a talk page consensus for there to be an actual consensus if an entry in an article has stood uncontested for a long time. In this case the original that stood for 4 years was [9], the most recent before yours [10] over three months. Yours [11] not even a full two months and considering your bias which is evident here, time scale may mean nothing anyways. Whilst the second link there has a degree of legitimacy, I would say that the first one that lasted four years should have preference, but then all its links have been moved to the category in the second link anyways, and if it's good enough to cover UVF, RIRA, and UDA terrorist attack articles then by heck it's good enough to cover PIRA terrorist attack articles. Mabuska (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mabuska. I believe it's preferable to use neutral terms, especially over value-laden ones already discouraged by Wikipedia:Words to avoid. If you believe I have any biases, please tell me what they are. I don't notice you rushing to describe British government terrorism by that name; in fact you seem to have done the opposite recently at Bloody Sunday (1972). I have no problem describing the UVF, RIRA and UDA as violent non-state actors, which might have occurred to you sooner had you realised they are also violent and not acting on behalf of any state. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, List of violent non-state actor incidents in London

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

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

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of violent non-state actor incidents in London. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of terrorist incidents in London. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of terrorist incidents in London – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.

Comment: despite the even handedness of this template notification it is clear your motives are not innocent. Having been repeadedly warned on the talk page of the legitimate article - Talk:List of terrorist incidents in London - to desist from repeatedly taking unilateral action to change the title content and substituting categories you try to subvert Wikipedia principles by creating this duplicate article you attempt to satisfy yourself with creating a duplicate.Tmol42 (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I find your doublespeak horrifying. How many times did I attempt to engage in debate only to be met with diatribes that had only a nodding acquaintance with English? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I reviewed the responses (and have put that article on watch). As far as I can see you were treated with considerable tolerance given that you were editing against consensus. That matches my experience of you on other articles. You escaped a ban recently but I suspect you won't for long if you carry on like this. Insisting you are right and refusing to provide examples or citations when requested is problematic to say the least. ----Snowded TALK 05:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Far from it; despite repeated attempts, using clear intelligible English, I was met with a stream of illogic that hurt my head. My experience of you on other articles is far from happy Snowded, so your characterisation of what I insist on doesn't surprise me. I insist on consistency, I've provided endless citations and I don't have a clue what you mean about refusing to provide "examples". Please be more careful with your English. Gob Lofa (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a way of dealing with editors who don't listen - just check out how many editors have told you that you are getting this wrong and how many agree with you. If you can't take that on board then its only a matter of time before the blocks start to hit. ----Snowded TALK 18:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
You address none of the points in my response and then tell me about editors who don't listen. Nice. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerry Adams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Gregg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015 again

You've already been informed to stop adding in bare URL citations and yet you still do it regardless, for example here.

Your argumentative "I am always right" attitude is also getting you into conflict with more editors, for example here and above here.

And you are still getting disambiguation notices, and even though you did fix it not long after getting the notification, you still added in the ambiguity and left it anyways without checking if the wikilink needed disambiguated - the same old.

There was also no need for the this response you posted on that talk page. And whilst it is commended that you eventually accepted and assumed good faith on the revert I made, to which I then restored as I realised I made a mistake, all done before you even left that message, it is a personal attack that was not merited.

So despite escaping a 2-week ban because User:JamesBWatson felt he made a mistake in blocking you, you decide to continue on the exact same to prove that in reality that the only mistake he made was to not block you for longer and to ensure it lasted the whole term. Mabuska (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Mabuska has posted a link to me, I have been alerted to this message, and I may as well make a couple of comments.
  1. There are advantages in giving more than just a bare URL in a reference, but it is not essential. The URL enables anyone who wishes to see the source to do so, which is the purpose of a reference. Putting in more detail can occasionally be helpful to a few readers, but it takes a significant bit more time and trouble, especially in the case of an editor who creates large numbers of references, and if an editor thinks that extra time and work is disproportionate to the benefit, then he or she is not required to do it. Anyone is, of course, free to ask an editor to use more than bare URLs, but nobody has the right to demand or insist that they do so. I know that what I wrote above about this expressed a different view, but since then I have thought about it more deeply, and I think what I wrote above was not helpful.
  2. In connection with the incident referred to in the paragraph beginning "There was also no need for..", the wording used by Gob Lofa may not have been ideal, but to call it a "personal attack" seems a bit extreme. Gob Lofa made a mistake, and then accepted that he/she had done so. Mabuska acknowledges above that he/she made a mistake too. Is there any reason to treat one of those two editors, who both made a mistake and corrected it, as more blameworthy than the other? Gob Lofa's mistake was caused by taking Mabuska's edit at face value: at the time Gob Lofa made the relevant post, he/she had no way of knowing that Mabuska's edit was a mistake. That being so, there was some degree of justification for Gob Lofa's comment, even if, as I said above, the wording may not have been ideal.
  3. Mabuska has a regular habit of writing to this page in an aggressive and unsympathetic way about, as far as I can see, pretty well anything that Gob Lofa does that Mabuska doesn't agree with. It might help to have a more collaborative spirit might help.
  4. None of this means that I think nothing in Gob Lofa's editing might reasonably be criticised, but I do think that the way that Mabuska goes about making criticisms is very unhelpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Replace "aggressive" for "blunt" and I might agree with you on my writing style habit here (my user page makes my style of commenting clear). It is more than just me that disagrees with Gob Lofa, and I have a long history of being able to work with editors I disagree with unlike Gob Lofa. OR and synthesis, source convolution, POV-pushing, attributing sources to statements that they do not back up, edit-warring, ownership of articles, disregard of cautions and notifications does not create an atmosphere for good faith and a collaborative spirit, especially when it comes to the sensitive area that is Troubles related articles. Compared to some of the criticism I have seen directed at other editors in the WikiProject without a single eyebrow being raised, my attitude to Gob Lofa is quite tame. I only tagged your name in my comment above since you have prior experience with Gob Lofa. All that did was call your judgment and integrity as an administrator into question.
If Gob Lofa started editing responsibly and without the convolution and POV contained in some of their edits, then maybe, just maybe, good faith can be restored and we can all go about our merry ways. It is up to them. I highly doubt anything will change. (notices yet another dablink notification below) Mabuska (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015 again (again)

OK I have had to revert several edits from you to articles related to Northern Ireland. I don't know if you are aware of the Arbcom ruling on editing in this area but I strongly recommend that you read them via the link. If you carry on like this then a case can easily made to have you topic banned. Please respect the need for a neutral point of view based on balancing what the sources say. ----Snowded TALK 06:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

OK Snowded. You had to revert my edit on Economy of Northern Ireland, linking bolded text, using a pipe instead of a straight link, using the present tense to describe the past, and removing a description of a conflict for the uninitiated. My first question is, why do you believe I might be topic-banned for my edit? My second, what are you playing at with an edit like that? Gob Lofa (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't be disingenuous ----Snowded TALK 06:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Take your time. Gob Lofa (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
None needed. I've reverted all instances of the POV category you created and nominated it for deletion. The only reason to spend any more time is if you persist in this behaviour at which point it is either ANI or Arbcom enforcement given that you are editing on Troubles issues. ----Snowded TALK 07:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do you link bolded text? Why do you describe violent non-state actor, a neutral term, as point of view, and by implication contend that terrorist, a very loaded term, is somehow neutral? Orwell much? Gob Lofa (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
We work from references and I am afraid they use terrorist. As Wikipedia editors we do not decide what is or not neutral we go with a balance of what the reliable sources say. Its a basic lesson you need to learn. I gave you the references to policy and I suggest you read them. You are not an inexperienced editor so you have little or no excuse for not being aware of policy. ----Snowded TALK 07:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
You've answered none of my questions. When we work with references that use value-laden labels, we're required to use in-text attribution. How do you do this with a category or article title? I agree that lessons need to be learned. Gob Lofa (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Read the policy links, the answers are all there, If you disagree with my interpretation raise it on the talk page of the article or at ANI. ----Snowded TALK 09:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I have read them. What parts are you under the impression that I don't agree with? Can you explain your strange edit and edit summary at Economy of Northern Ireland? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or just plain ignorant of how Wikipedia polciies and guideline work, but reverting an editor and asking them to take it to talk only has credence and standing when its not your edit that is was originally reverted and being contested. I think Snowded's call elsewhere for a possible topic-ban for you is a good idea. Mabuska (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Then you haven't understood them at which point the 'strange edit summary' will have to be enacted ... I've wasted enough time on dealing with your obduracy here so I reserve the right not to reply again. If you disagree with me then there are plenty of channels to engage other editors. You do a lot of good detailed work on wikipedia. Don't ruin that by taking a partisan approach on NI issues. It's not often that Mabuska and I agree so we are united on this you should pay attention. ----Snowded TALK 10:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska, you're re-inserting contentious value-laden terms that I've replaced with neutral ones; which of us is being bold? Snowded, you've still to answer any of my questions. Reserving a right not to reply is not going to change much if all your replies consist of you continuing an internal conversation. I find that obdurate. Your characterisation of my position on Ulster issues is insulting and, par for the course, short on details, but hardly surprising. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Only contentious to you. As already described to you before, an edit that have been in an article uncontested for a good deal of time have a form of undeclared consensus as no-one reverted or challenged it. Your edit is the bold one and it was contested within a short space of time compared to the wording you were trying to change. Seeing as your edit is contested you must discuss it regardless of whether you think your right in your viewpoint. If your case has merit and others agree or a compromise is found, then the edit can go ahead in full or part. Do you really know so little of Wikipedia policies after all these years?
Snowded's characterisation is pretty accurate and several other editors would quickly agree. Mabuska (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
You've outdone yourself, Mabuska. The term 'terrorism' is contentious to me alone? There's no excuse for POV, no matter its longevity. I have no problem discussing my edit, despite your implication. Given your interpretation of policy, you're one to talk, bucko. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnny Adair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Wright. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Troubles restrictions and 1RR

You were close to breaking this fundamental protocol at Birmingham pub bombings. Consider this a formal caution and notification of the Troubles restrictions, which no doubt you know of by now. Mabuska (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Formal, old pal? When were you promoted? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You removed terrorism and also used a misleading edit summary. Please self-revert on that issue as you are breaking the ArbCom ruling, Mabuska is being generous there ----Snowded TALK 19:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You're welcometo join the discussion about the use of that term at the relevant talk page, Snowded. Coming from a master of the cryptic edit summary, I find your accusation particularly disingenuous; I spelt out in detail in my edit summary what I was doing. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You use edit summaries that indicate you are making minor changes, but then change terrorism to violence which you know is controversial. That is not acceptable behaviour on wikipedia ----Snowded TALK 20:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I specified in the edit summary that I was invoking Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. By replacing value-laden terms with less contentious ones, it's not I who's courting controversy, but rather those who insist upon them. Which isn't acceptable behaviour. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
OK so you admit you made a controversial change but disguised the fact with a misleading edit summary on articles subject to ArbCom restrictions. I suggest you stop doing that as my patience for one is wearing very thin and the next instance would be enough to take the matter to Arbcom for enforcement ----Snowded TALK 06:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No I didn't, and no I didn't. However, you've done both recently, so do what you feel. Gob Lofa (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Your call, you've had fair warning ----Snowded TALK 10:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Who says you need to be "promoted" to issue a formal caution? It is standard procedure so that an editor is aware of certain things so that if they continue and they end up reported, they can't plead ignorance. Mabuska (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith

It is quite bad faith to regularly revert someone when your not even reverting an edit, instead adding in new changes whether it be a new reference or phrase of wording. I kindly request you to stop. Mabuska (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia
added a link pointing to Unrecognized state
Mid Ulster (UK Parliament constituency)
added a link pointing to Donaghmore
Water supply and sanitation in Greece
added a link pointing to Tanker
West End of London
added a link pointing to Camden

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

AN/I notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gob_Lofa_disruptive_editing_on_Troubles_related_articles Mabuska (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee notification

I have filed an Arbitration Committee request for enforcement of Troubles restrictions against you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gob_Lofa. Mabuska (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - The Troubles

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, ta. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Obviously it has been raised before about your problems with filling out web citations and misusing sources, and whilst you seem to not want to take that extra effort, at least try too. Articles such as Kingsmill massacre have a B rating, and poor citation formatting and inaccurately using sources only denigrates the hard work other editors such as Jeanne boleyn and Asarlaí have put into such articles. Bare citation links and inaccurately used sources, whilst not fine, should only be expected in articles rated stub, start, and possibly C. Whilst there is no law as I found out against just doing links your way in B rated articles, it helps to sustain the standard so its easier to get the article raised to a higher rating. Mabuska (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously your problems with inserting your POV are of far greater concern, most recently your pro-UVF edits at Billy Wright (loyalist). I urge you to take the extra effort to ensure your edits are NPOV. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat nonsense

Your recent edits at Protestant decline in Ireland and Protestantism in the Republic of Ireland veer on the edge of violation of the tit for tat principle of the Troubles restrictions. You had no prior interest in these articles (one which I recently created, the other I changed from a redirect to an article today) until you followed me too them. I would suggest that having been recently notified of discretionary sanctions by an administrator in regards to violating the Troubles restrictions you should stop.

In regards to this, you removed a valid history merge request that would fix the problems of me having done a copy-and-paste (of my own edits), such as move the page history from the original article to this one so that everything is properly attributed and maintained. If you wish to create a redundant article then go ahead, however the history merge must be done to maintain article integrity. Either that or I simply revert it back to the original namespace and Protestant decline in Ireland will be as it was yesterday. If you have issue with my reasoning then take it to talk rather than simply being disruptive about it. At first glance it appeared that you simply restored the lede, and I will amend the reasoning as such. Think before you decide to go disruptive. Mabuska (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as you have decided to act first and non-diplomatically about this, I am notifying an administrator to see whether this is a breach of 1RR. It is also bad faith to edit another editors comments. Mabuska (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Your hypocrisy is reaching stratospheric levels, Mabuska; in the past few weeks you've edited many articles that had never been graced by your presence before, and you may have forgotten that you've been quite open elsewhere about the reasons that brought you to them. Seeing as you've recently been educated about discretionary sanctions in regards to violating Troubles restrictions, will you now stop? Also, you've had a week's notice of my intention to develop Protestant decline in Ireland into an article that actually resembled its title. If you're going to post merge requests, then I insist you accompany them with honest summaries. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
It is standard procedure to follow and check the edits of editors who don't make accurate and NPOV edits to articles as you yourself have done. You have no existing reason for doing the same to me so it is not hypocrisy. Your edits will continue to be monitored due to your inability to accurately quote sources and the discrete POV changes. Also I'd like to see evidence of this notice that you were going to develop the article to be about the island especially considering I made it more than clear on the article talk page that it was about southern Ireland not the island. Forgive the south for chosen Ireland as its official name and me following WP:IMOS on when to use Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
And regardless of any of that, if you are guilty of 1RR, even if only by a partial revert, you only have yourself to blame, not anyone else. Mabuska (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Mabuska, it is standard procedure to follow and check the edits of editors who don't make accurate and NPOV edits to articles as you yourself have done. Your POV edits, most recently your pro-UVF edits at (the "bold") Billy Wright (loyalist), pretty much mean I have a duty to ensure you don't spread your POV wherever you care; I don't think tit-for-tat applies in this instance, as your bias is clear. Your edits will continue to be monitored. I gave you notice of my intention at Talk:Protestant decline in Ireland, on the 6th. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You altered sourced statements and added in unsourced information, so if you think that will hold as an excuse for future tit-for-tating, then good luck trying to prove a pro-UVF bias. Any edits of yours that I've had to take action on are easily proved as contentious. Don't forget no other editors have backed you up in any of the "discussions" you've been involved in. No really I insist you go ahead and try to prove it, in the meantime I'll concern myself with making contributions to Wikipedia. Also you didn't make any intention clear considering you never responded to my comments about why the article was called what it was so that doesn't wash either. Mabuska (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Al-Nusra Front
added a link pointing to Gulf States
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
added a link pointing to Wana
Plan R 4
added a link pointing to Lapland
Reforestation
added a link pointing to Vichada
Rojava
added a link pointing to Turkmen
Syrian Civil War
added a link pointing to Douma

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Troubles

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs), can you back up your statement that the term 'planter' was used pejoratively? And why did you change

The planters were planted by London for a reason and it was/is decidedly not a term of endearment. Quis separabit? 12:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Protestant political dominance in Ireland was ensured by the passage of the Penal Laws that curtailed the religious, legal, and political rights of anyone (including both Catholics and Protestant Dissenters, such as Presbyterians) who did not conform to the state church, the Anglican Church of Ireland.

to

  • Protestant political dominance in Ireland was ensured by the passage of the Penal Laws that curtailed the religious, legal, and political rights of Catholics and Dissenters, neither of which groups conformed to the Anglican Church of Ireland.

How is that an improvement? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

a) "How is that an improvement?" -- I guess that's a matter of opinion. The main difference is of anyone (including both Catholics and Protestant Dissenters, such as Presbyterians) who did not conform to the state church, the Anglican Church of Ireland to of Catholics and Dissenters, neither of which groups conformed to the Anglican Church of Ireland. Look, I didn't say everything was going to be agreeable to both sides and I am not married to any particular edit (just living in sin). My version was just a little trimmer, and reflects the fact that "anyone" means Catholics and Dissenters (who were not all Presbyterian by the way). Let's not kid ourselves -- we are not talking about Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, etc. Quis separabit? 11:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
We're definitely talking about Jews. You're omitting Quakers too.[12] Gob Lofa (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder about the Quakers. I know about O'Connell's efforts on behalf of Jews in England, but these were not resident in Ireland. How many Jews were living in the island of Ireland during and after the Penal Laws? And the main obstacle facing the Jews in England before the mid-19th century was discrimination, not the practise of religion or, as far as I know, property ownership. Quis separabit? 12:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
b) Also, before we get there — the following text: "The Irish War of Independence (often called the Anglo-Irish War, depending upon the speaker's point of view and political sympathies)" -- whilst accurate in my opinion -- is admittedly POVish. I did not expect it to stay and was just waiting to see how long it would take to be removed. I am cognizant of this and never expected it to last, so don't waste your time on it. Yours, :) :) Quis separabit? 11:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you telling me there were no Jews in Ireland, and then asking me how many there were in the next sentence? You're editorialising a lot too, especially with your interpretations of the decline in Protestant physical force nationalism and your economic and religious criticism of most of Ireland. It's not encyclopedic. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
"Are you telling me there were no Jews in Ireland, and then asking me how many there were in the next sentence?" Yes, since you are including them as victims of the Penal Laws in Ireland -- one of the few places in the world where they have not tended to be victimised (aside from the 1904 pogrom in Limerick and the heartless WWII refugess policies by de Valera's government), but this is largely because there have always been very few, and became much fewer post-1922. Yes I know that Margaretta D'Arcy's mother was Jewish, and that Sir Daniel Day-Lewis (whose mother was Jewish) holds dual UK/Irish nationality and owns a home there, and Barbra Streisand has visited Ireland, and Peggy Lipton's mother was born in Dublin, but this a rather meagre compilation. Quis separabit? 12:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
...[e]specially with your interpretations of the decline in Protestant physical force nationalism and your economic and religious criticism of most of Ireland" — — will get back to you on that, Gob. Quis separabit? 12:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gob_Lofa/Archive_4&oldid=1136184870"