User talk:O Fenian/Abuse

I think you need to be more selective if you want this to be evidence of a substantial problem. I've looked at a couple of edits, and

the 6 aug [1] labelled "disruptive unsourced addition to BLP" is adding some background which isn't directly about the person, so BLP isn't the issue. It is unsourced, but it's hardly disruptive.
The Roger Casement episode seems to be just the IP using a source to update the article, without giving the source, and then you finding a different source and a discussion about the contradiction. Abuse? The only real wrong done was this revert which removed your source without adding his.

I'm working backwards here and it's a lot, and I don't want to go through it all; highlight particular things if you wish, but I suggest the next time you have a problem like this, bring it to my attention. Rd232 ^talk 11:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The particular issue with regard to Dolours Price is "In protest at the referendum, the IRA planted four car bombs in London", that is attributing a motive to someone (or the organisation) which is not sourced. While the bombs may have been timed for the same day as the poll for publicity reasons, I have never seen a source claiming that the bombs were in protest of it.

With regard to Casement and to virtually the same extent Dolours Price and every other article they edit, you need to look at the overall pattern of edits and warnings to all articles. Surely when someone has been warned that many times (and I am sure there are more) they would cite sources when they make their edit, not only add the source when making the edit for the third time over 30 hours later?

This long term pattern of editing is disruptive according to disruptive editing, there are countless examples of citing no source, misrepresenting sources (Irish general election, 1918 to name but one) and manufacturing original research (Irish general election, 1918 again, to name but one). O Fenian (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't make the Price edit disruptive. More generally, how many of the warnings are from people involved in those articles, and how many from third parties? Repeated templated messages from involved editors isn't all that helpful. A personal message can be more helpful, and a templated message from someone uninvolved has more impact. Rd232 ^talk 11:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly making the same unsourced edit over and over again after being warned it is unsourced is not disruptive? Making it once is not disruptive I will agree, repeatedly making it is disruptive. And I suggest you look at the Seamus Twomey and John McKeague examples, they are more telling. O Fenian (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O Fenian your not going to get anywere in this discussion. Keep putting the diff's together and then file the report. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]