User talk:O Fenian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
all the old news


Re your report at WP:AE, I've recused myself from this one as I'm a UK resident. This is purely to avoid any allegations of bias being made and in no way reflects badly upon your report or suggests that you have done anything wrong in raising the issue. There are plenty of admins from outside the UK and RoI that can handle this issue. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)



I see you've reverted my edit on the 9M133 Kornet page. May I ask what exactly striked you as POV about it? I do think that shooting an ATM into a yellow school bus is a "terrorist attack" and ought to be labelled as such. At the very least, this is not a regular instance of a "combat history".

What do you think? Maybe we can work out another formulation. Bazuz (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well some would say that all Hezbollah uses of the weapon would be terrorist attacks, and according to the source in the article it is unclear whether the bus was the target. I am sure the reader can make their own mind up as to whether it was a terrorist attack. O Fenian (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
1. Well, first of all we're talikng about Hamas here, not Hezbollah. I for one do think that the designation of an instance of weapon use depends on the target. Firing at a tank is not terrorism - it's an act of war. Firing at a school bus is terrorism, plain and simple.

2. As for whether the bus was the target, it's highly unlikely that it wasn't. Modern ATM's usually do not hit things by mistake - If it hit the bus it was directed either at the bus or at some other vehicle. Since the bus is large enough and presumably distinctly visible at the ATM operator's screen. The only other possibility I see is that Hamas tried to hit another civilian vehicle on the same stretch of road and took down the bus by mistake - but this possibility is neither likely nor serves to exculpate them from intentionally targeting civilians.

3. In support of the claim that this was indeed a terrorist attack, please consider the following text from the CNN article ([1]):

An Israeli military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Thursday attack was launched from a location about 3 1/2 kilometers away from the bus. There was an attempt to fire a second missile after emergency personnel had responded to the scene, the official said. For reasons unknown to the IDF, the second launch failed.

4. Another passage from the same article:

Hamas controls the Palestinian government in Gaza. Listed as a terrorist organization by the United States, Hamas has carried out dozens of terrorist attacks killing Israelis and others.

May I ask what is yout opinion? Is firing an ATM at a school bus an act of terrorism or not?

Best, Bazuz (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"It was not immediately known if the bus was targeted, but Leibovitch said it looked like "a direct hit."" seems to be missing from your analysis of source material. The state targeted by Hamas or Hezbollah would doubtless consider attacks on tanks to be terrorist attacks in addition as would some sources and governments, so I do not see how singling out one attack for special treatment would do any good. Do you not think the reader can make their own mind up as to whether it or other attacks were terrorist attacks? O Fenian (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey! You're right about me disregarding this bit but recall the opening paragraph:

Hamas claimed responsibility Thursday for shooting a missile that struck an Israeli bus, critically wounding a teenage boy on his way home from school.

For me, it more or less clinches it, it's not as if Hamas claimed that they were shooting at something at else, although they could have. Besides, I am quite certain of my analysis in the previous post.

Now, O' Fenian, I believe you have ignored my direct and simple question: do you personally regard ATM'ing a school bus as an act of terrorism or not? I have stated my own view on this above and would like to have yours. Is it too much to ask for in the context of this discussion?

P.S. I feel you might be a bit too solecist about this. By your reasoning it seems that nothing can be labelled terrorist at all. Do I miss something?

Best, Bazuz (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Your own analysis has no place in this discussion, or Wikipedia articles. Your analysis of the quote is also wrong. It does not say;

Hamas claimed responsibility Thursday for shooting a missile at a Israeli bus, critically wounding a teenage boy on his way home from school.

It does say;

Hamas claimed responsibility Thursday for shooting a missile that struck an Israeli bus, critically wounding a teenage boy on his way home from school.

As the source, and indeed the "quote" (I note there is no record of the actual wording of the claim of responsibility) make clear, it is unclear as to what the target was, only that a missile was fired that hit a bus. O Fenian (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, looks like we're bogged down here. For the record, I do see now that Hamas tried to weasel their way out of responsibility for this atrocity - [2]. I continue to stand by everything I wrote here, but let's move on.
So, here's the compromise I suggest: A subsection called 'Attacks against civilians', where we'll put a wikilink to Hamas school bus attack - turns out there is such an entry and it has all the argument rehashed there. How about that? Bazuz (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No answer for three weeks, so I'm doing what I proposed on May 30. Bazuz (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
all the 'new' post-May-2011 news goes here

Mau Mau[edit]

As soon as it was taken off semi-protected, the sock showed up and started re-adding his stuff. He's got a new IP now. Is it possible to get the MM article permanently semi-protected, so only registered users can edit it? That will end his fun, and I am tired of reverting his stuff. His additions will be only a thin edge of a wedge, too, in my opinion. Subsequent edits will increase the apologetics, I've no doubt. I'm English, and while I'm not a nationalist, please don't worry about me being anti-English! On the other hand, as you will have seen before, I've repeatedly, prominently mentioned Mau Mau's unspeakable atrocities (I am certainly not pro-Mau Mau). I admit the article desperately needs finishing off, and reducing in size, but I will have some time next week again to do it. His stuff about being "rooted in tribalism" is simply wrong. There were pan-ethnic, anti-colonial political groups in Kenya years before the Mau Mau rebellion, so his suggestion that Kenyans were somehow incapable of comprehending a concept as simple and universal as nationalism is, demonstrably, absurd. Indeed, the apologist sock shoots her/himself in the foot, for such a claim detracts from the fact that the reason many Kikuyu didn't support the movement was because of its extreme violence. Anyway, if you can somehow get the article perma-protected, it would be good! Best wishes from London. Iloveandrea (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ryan kirkpatrick[edit]

I think he's back again - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryan kirkpatrick. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Belfast riots[edit]

The 2011 Belfast riots needs to be expanded if you're available. Exiledone (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


You have a much better eye for this sort of thing that I do. This account was dormant for a long period, then comes back targeting a specific article around the BI issue - and a small pattern of scottish editing. It feels like a sock but I can't put my finger on which. --Snowded TALK 20:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Where are you?[edit]

Have you retired, old boy? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 00:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

List of organisations known as the Irish Republican Army[edit]

Reinforcements needed over here. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 21:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

all the 'new' 2012+ news goes here

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Liam Neeson". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Liam Neeson, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello O Fenian. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents - your opinion needed[edit]

I noticed you were active in a 2011 discussion considering some general guidelines on what to include in the list of terrorist incidents, how to phrase it, and how long to keep it, as well as what kind of attacks should be on the list (because we obviously can't have ALL of them, or even a large percentage). Since a few conflict points have surfaced in the last few months, I would like to invite you to share your opinion on an ongoing discussion between myself and User:Lihaas that is taking place over here. Of course, I'm not expecting you to take my side, but it would be great if more people can weigh in. I have copied this to the talk pages of other people who were previously involved in editing these articles. Skycycle (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

so how is your bonk, nowadays?[edit]

Hello, noticed some article-talkpage conversations you were involved in back-in-the-day™ and came to ask you a question, about whether you still are in favor of a suggestion you made at one point. It looks like you may still be laid up in the BTI facilities however (Bonk Treatment Institute). Hope you're doing well, ping my talkpage if the nurses permit you to access the internet.  :-)   — (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)