User talk:Setanta747/Archive7

Wikiproject:Terrorism

Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:John Marshall Watson.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:John Marshall Watson.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, I was about to ask you about this particular photograph, only I have been needlessly blocked once again. In the unlikely event that you see this message, I'd like to know what the procedure is regarding photos that have been uploaded with the author's permission to use in Wikipedia.

I had went to the extreme of contacting the owner of the picture (two pictures in actual fact) and had gained his permission that the photograph could be used in Wikipedia with regard to the article about the subject. I promised to include a credit on the image page.

I had taken a leave of absence from Wikipedia, and wasn't able to respond to the 7-day limit. Thanks in advance. --Mal 01:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment

Hiya Mal. I'm not quite sure on how to do the whole article rating thingy so was wondering would you be able to see about an article rating for this page Tobermore which i've done a hell of a lot of expanding from the simple stub it was. Mabuska 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mal seems to have left the building. I would rate it is as Start class or maybe verging on B class. You add the rating by placing the following template at the top of the talk page: {{WPNI|class=Start}}, or {{WPNI|class=B}}. Good job on expanding the article. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 20:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Marillion has been nominated for deletion

FYI: Wikipedia:WikiProject Marillion has been nominated for deletion and is under discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Marillion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lough Neagh in the British Isles or not.

Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PR^talk 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland flag userbox

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia (2nd nomination), this userbox violates policies and guidelines, and so I have removed it (again). Please do not try to circumvent the MFD. --Core desat 12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit my userpage again. Thank you. --Mal 23:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to circumvent the MFD decision. You do not own your user page, see WP:USER and WP:OWN. If you continue to revert war, you may be blocked temporarily. --Core desat 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalising my userpage. Wikipedia is not censored. If you continue to vandalise my userpage, you may be blocked. If you have a problem with my userpage, feel free to discuss it instead of issuing threats. --Mal 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox was deleted in MFD and consensus was that it was not acceptable in any form. Attempting to restore it is circumventing consensus, and restoring it again will cause you to violate WP:3RR. WP:NOT#CENSORED does not apply here, WP:CONSENSUS does. --Core desat 00:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are suggesting that I be censored. I refuse to be censored. I am not using a userbox and I took part in no debate regarding any userbox. Nobody informed me of the debate. Other userboxes have been deleted by consensus, and I have replaced them with code instead - you are not censoring those, nor making an issue there. Neither will you censor this. Again, I ask you: please stop meddling with my userpage. --Mal 00:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a 3RR violation. I suggest you listen to consensus and drop your uphill battle. —[[Animum | talk]] 01:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is my appeal table please? If you're going to waste peoples' time by blocking them, at least do it properly. --Mal 01:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins need not template users; that can be done at their discretion. If you want to be unblocked, use {{unblock|your reason here}}. —[[Animum | talk]] 01:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[de-indent] Thank you. Would you mind letting me know the duration of the block as well? --Mal 01:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - I figured it out. 09:09, 14 October 2007 --Mal 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I protest most strongly at this nannying and censorship. This issue is, yet again, getting in the way of valuable editor contribution. The campaign to censor the flag of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia is ridiculous, and bolstered by administrators who feel they are only doing their job, based on 'consensus'. Let me tell you: there is consensus, and there is censorship. This is censorship - not only am I not allowed to place the flag of Northern Ireland on relevant articles, but now I am not allowed to voice my concern either. I have userboxes on my userpage which voice my concern over other Wikipedia issues, or which have been deleted. Why is this one being treated differently?

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for violating WP:3RR. Your unblock request does not address this issue. — Sandstein 07:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As it has been pointed out to me that my bad boy behaviour was for reverting my user page three or more times under the WP:3RR rule, I would like to point out that this was in fact, therefore, an edit war: another user also reverted my userpage three times. In the interests of fair play, I'd like to see the other user blocked for the same duration, or my block lifted immediately. Thank you.

Decline reason:

"He did it too" is not grounds for unblocking. — jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nevertheless, my point still stands: Wikipedia is treating me unfairly. Either unblock me or block the other offending editor please. --Mal 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is doing no such thing. Consensus was clearly against the inclusion of the userbox on any userpage; you circumvented the explicit consensus, and indeed edit-warred over the userbox's inclusion, by recoding it back into your userpage multiple times. —[[Animum | talk]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Animum we have a situation whereby Wikipedia is at odds with itself: it respects consensus, yet it also respects non-censorship. I am being censored.

I will think of a compromise with regard to this matter but I repeat: I will not be censored (unless Wikipedia changes its policy on that particular matter). --Mal 09:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animum

Your edit comment when you censored my user page reads: "No, you will not. You will demonstrate consensus is what you're going to do." Please learn some Netiquette, and learn how not to rile up users - you do NOT order me to do anything. Respect my status as a fellow human being, and do not throw your weight around as an administrator. It is most unprofessional. --Mal 01:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back.

Nice to see a friendly name back on wiki. There aren't enough. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have to admit that I can't remember you.. but that's not saying much, as my memory is pretty crap these days! :) --Mal 23:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well .. it was a short-lived return: I've been blocked again, and this time also censored. --Mal 01:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How pathetic. Well, please don't let it discourage you. It might be worth trying to be a fencer rather than a warrior in future, and not giving them opportunity to block you.

I'm quite recent to wikipedia, and only really started editing after you seemed to have stopped (sort of June 2007). That's when I got wrapped up in this 'debate'. Baptism by fire? I was in awe of your patience with the issue, my lack of which got me blocked twice. Ah well. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got pounced on by an editor who is particularly prolific when it comes to removing the flag of Northern Ireland from Wikipedia. I'm surprised they find any time to actually contribute anything useful to the 'Pedia tbh - obviously removing the flag and stalking users' contributions is more disruptive than anything else.

I had loads of plans to use some spare time I've found myself with, to pour lots of effort into improving Wikipedia. I stopped editing because I was so pissed off with the pettiness of certain users here, one of which has now been indefinitely blocked, so far as I can tell. That user had actually gone to the extreme of recruiting people from other websites to aid him in his petty campaign. It's ridiculous, and bordering on the scandalous. More importantly, it stops decent editors from contributing.

Much more of this extremist and insulting behaviour and I will probably give up editing Wikipedia all together.

These days it appears that one needs (to be) a solicitor in order to make any edits here. --Mal 18:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have said it better myself. It's quite obvious that I'm contribution-stalked myself. Now that a bit more interest has been developed in this, well, quite important issue hopefully it will be resolved. Though maybe I'm giving wikipedia too much credit there?

The user has been indefinitely blocked. But what does that mean? He's been unblocked by a very sympathetic-to-his-cause admin so that he is able to contribute to the 'arbcom'. But he still seems to have managed to make other edits, like on Talk:United Kingdom. It wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't given yet another chance.

The solicitor comment was complete class by the way, and sadly very true. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland flags issue on UK article

Hi. I noticed you were involved in the revert war that has been ongoing there, so thought I would ask for your input at Talk:United Kingdom#Edit war over inclusion of Ulster Banner. I hope we can take the matter forward there. Best wishes, --John 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise there was a revert war taking place on the UK article. I just added some information I noticed was incomplete. Thanks for the heads up about it though. :) --Mal 23:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Joe Doyle Actor/Musician

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Joe Doyle Actor/Musician, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Joe Doyle Actor/Musician is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Joe Doyle Actor/Musician, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Template:Northern Irish cities was created to avoid protection on Template:Northern Ireland cities and was subject to an Tfd where it was decided to make Template:Northern Irish cities a redirect, so don't interfere with that decision.--Padraig 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a cfd long ago, which settled the problem you have with the proper noun "Northern Irish". Please don't interfere with that decision.

Do not tell me what to do either. --Mal 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about I tell you, so. Please stop edit-warring on the flags issue. This is currently the subject of an ArbCom case. Would you like to join the ever-growing list of flag-warriors over there? Your recreated-deleted template has now been speedy-deleted per WP:CSD#G4 and a redirect has been put in its place, redirecting to the proper template (which, incidentally, has been protected by another admin for the very type of edit-war that you have indulged in) - Alison ^❤ 03:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about you learn some respect also Alison: you DO NOT tell me what to do. As an administrator (as I believe you are), you ought to surely know this. I hope I have taught you a valuable lesson here: in future, please improve your tone with me.

I was not "edit-warring" - you will find that Padraig has been kind enough to edit-stalk me and, as a result, is the one who has engaged in edit-warring. --Mal 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you break the rules, I and others are perfectly within our rights to TELL you to not indulge in that sort of behaviour. The reason I'm here at all was as a result of a complaint which was made against you. Please become more familiar with WP:AGF, WP:3RR and WP:NPA before you reply. Oh, and a certain default respect is afforded to all, needless to say. However, in certain cases that can get eroded based on a person's subsequent behaviour, but I suspect you already know this - Alison ^❤ 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the point I have made to you Alison, and therefore you have learned nothing as a consequence. I am familiar with all the guidelines you linked to above, none of which are relevant to our discussion.

I would remind you (again) to please watch your tone with me. See WP:CIVIL.

There are two things you have said to me which I feel need expanding. Please explain your following statements in more detail:

Would you like to join the ever-growing list of flag-warriors over there?
However, in certain cases that can get eroded based on a person's subsequent behaviour, but I suspect you already know this

Also, please detail the complaint that was made against me, and point me to where I can find said complaint.

Finally, I intend to make corrections as necessary to the article and affected articles mentioned above, as I consider befits consistency. The CfD I created was quite decisive, and established that "Northern Irish" is the correct nomenclature. The affected article (the one I noticed was inconsistent) points to a template with the correct naming convention, as ratified by the CfD. Any beneficial suggestions to aid me in this would be most appreciated. --Mal 20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Flags

Read this:

The Union Flags and flags of the United Kingdom

The English, Scottish and Welsh Flags are National Flags, but none for Northern Ireland except the Union Flag.--Padraig 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this:

That's the flag of Northern Ireland. --Mal 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the former flag of Northern Ireland (defunct since 1973). GoodDay 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was also used as the flag of the former government of Northern Ireland. During and since, it has been used to represent Northern Ireland and is therefore the flag of Northern Ireland. --Mal 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right support everything thats British, until the British Government says something you don't like, then ignore it.--Padraig 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Padraig?!? Please leave my personal opinions, or rather what you think they might be, out of this discussion. Do not leave a message like this on my talk page again please. --Mal 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C3K Trains

I really apologise for asking this out of the blue, but if possible, do you think at some point you could add an image or two of the C3K trains used by Northern Ireland Railways? I ask because no one seems to be the least bit interested in uploading some free use pictures, and every time I try uploading one it is classed as non-fair use. I would do this myself, only I live in London, so obviously getting pictures of trains in Belfast is slightly difficult!! I'm asking you because I've noticed you've made the odd edit to the NIR page, and that you live in Belfast. It's a massive bugbear of mine that all the train operators in the UK and Ireland have pictures of their rolling stock except NIR. I'm most grateful. Thanks for your time. Hammersfan, 29/10/07, 21.54 GMT —Preceding comment was added at 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer thanks for asking. I'd be happy to do this within the next month or so actually. I'll take a look at the other pics to get an idea of what's expected. Keep me posted - I'd certainly like to know if anyone, within the next few weeks, has already uploaded pics of the trains. --Setanta 07:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Northern Ireland

Setanta, Padraig, VK: I have protected the above article to prevent another edit-war. Given the ArbCom ruling, this really would not be a a good idea. Use the talk page, please. ELIMINATORJR 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look - yet another article protected by Wikipedia in a pro-Republican agenda state!! --Setanta 00:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "ArbCom" ruling? --Setanta 01:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read what I've just put on the article's talk page, and consider withdrawing that statement. The ArbCom ruling on The Troubles is here. ELIMINATORJR 01:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast synagogue

Hi Setanta. My only concern about naming wasn't about the word "synagogue" per se but to shift from a generic to the official name of the congregation. Is it called "Belfast Hebrew Congregation" or something like that? Usually, articles on synagogues use the community's official name. It's so great you live in Belfast, you can find this out for us easily. Or we can just rely on this website: JCR-UK. Listen, I'll move the article and you can revert etc if I've made a mistake, ok? I was going to do it before; seeing the website now makes me think it's correct. Be well and thanks so much for encouraging us so nicely. HG | Talk 12:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FWIW I think IZAK misread you. It seemed clear to me you meant that Jews in NI is a small topic. Thanks for moving things along, keep up the good work, etc. Kaisershatner 15:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I did Kasiershatner. :) Thanks.

HG, the following info from that website convinces me that the move was a prudent one - I had understood the congregation of the Great Victoria Street synagogue to be called "Belfast Hebrew Congregation", and I was right. But the previous address of the 'Belfast Synagogue' was Gt Victoria St.

Previous addresses: Annesley Street, Carlisle Crescent, Belfast  from 31 August 1904
(foundation stone laid 26 February 1904).
Prior thereto - Great Victoria Street from 1872 (foundation stone laid 7 July 1871).

I have absolutely no reason to oppose the move. Good call. :) --Setanta 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're right. Maybe it's ok to say "the only", I was thinking (tired?) that it meant the only that's ever been (since there have been others). However, when I write, I try not to reference the current time, since the articles will last and we may not be around to note changes. But I leave it up to you. Also -- to which building does that description apply (eg circular)? Maybe you'll find out when you visit the old ones.... Have fun, Take care, HG | Talk 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the circular one (with the Star of David motif on the top) describes the current building. There was a link to it as viewed from above on Google Maps I think.. hang on... (keyboard seems to be acting up - Ill post the link here later) --Setanta 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK the link is here - you can see the circular structure clearly. We should be able to link to that in the article without a problem. --Setanta 08:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Quiz

You might be interested in this --andreasegde 15:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys know much more about the Beatles than I do.. and I know more about the Beatles than anyone else I know in 'real life'!! Thanks though - keep in touch. :) --Setanta 09:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Warning

I invite your attention to the following edit. [1]. SirFozzie 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are QUITE aware of the whole situation, there was recently an Arbitration case based off articles about Northern Ireland and The Troubles, amongst other things. ArbCom is the highest level of authority on Wikipedia (well, of coourse, besides Jimbo Wales). One of the remedies passed by the Arbitration Committee is that editors who get involved with edit wars on articles like the one you are on currently, can be placed on a probationary status (where you are limited to 1 Revert per WEEK on the contentious articles). Since you and Padraig were not named parties in the ArbCom committee, I had to specifically notify you that there is the possibility that if you continue your actions, that you can be placed on probation, and blocked if you violate that probation (once placed). Let me give you A link to the Arbitration Committee's finished case so you can see what I'm saying is true. SirFozzie 00:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you chose to ignore the above advice and revert the article despite the fact that a discussion was taking place? (Not to mention that the article now makes less sense, because you've moved the Union Flag into the section which discusses the Ulster Banner?) Can you give me a good reason why I should not now invoke the terms of the ArbCom ruling?. ELIMINATORJR 09:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of reasons, yes. Firstly, I was not named, nor involved, nor even aware of the ArbCon ruling (until yesterday). If Padraig was not mentioned or involved in it either, then I would presume it doesn't affect him either. Secondly, I did not realise it no longer made sense - the last few times I corrected the article, it seemed to make sense. Certainly, it makes sense having an image of the actual subject of the article at the top of the page. I will look at the article again, and try to find a more suitable position for the Union Jack - thanks for pointing it out to me. --Setanta 09:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I assume that you are now aware of the ArbCom ruling and what it means? ELIMINATORJR 10:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said - I was not involved. There is a list of involved parties here. --Setanta 05:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is binding on all of those invloved in editing on these subjects. You have been editing warring and editting in a disruptive manner on this over the past week and inflaming arguments that other editors are trying to settle. You have been warned - expect admin to act if you continue.--Vintagekits 09:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, and I resent your personal attack - I never asked for your opinion, and I find it odd that you should even find yourself on my talk page. I hope you're not another of my wiki-stalkers. --Setanta 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary for non-admins to chip-in here when they seem to be handling it fine themselves. It's just asking for trouble. Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion.--Vintagekits 10:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the ArbCom ruling, after a warning, parties that were not originally involved are also subject to the ruling. You may take the note above as such. ELIMINATORJR 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminator, to be frank I'd rather not have to trudge though a mountain of words on the subject. I suspect nothing has been said that hasn't already been said. Do what you feel you must - if that includes blocking a valuable contributor who is interested in this encyclopaedia reporting the facts, or otherwise taking action against me, then so be it I guess.

You may take note of my objection, considering I wasn't involved in the discussion.. or whatever process this 'ArbCom' went through to arrive at the decision or policy it did arrive at. --Setanta 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:John Marshall Watson.jpg

I looked at that image again since you asked. The issue is that the photo doesn't show Watson racing, receiving a prize, or otherwise document an historic event. It merely shows what Watson looks like. Our nonfree content policy doesn't permit the ue of nonfree images for the purpose of showing the appearance of living people. If the photographer would like to grant us permission to use this image, they must release it under a license that we regard as free, for example CC-BY-SA. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is far too complex for me. It didn't seem quite as complicated when I uploaded it and obtained permission. Frankly, it seems like I wasted my time for nothing. Thanks for answering anyway. --Setanta 23:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irmapping

Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Irmapping, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NIHE (disambiguation)

Per this edit, are you going to actually add anything else to NIHE (disambiguation)? It is pointless to have a disambiguation page with one blue link. In fact, I think that used to be specifically mentioned as a reason for a housecleaning speedy deletion. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see someone else has changed the redirect back. There's really no reason to have the disambiguation page before the one red link is turned blue so I will re-delete that page too. I see in your talk archives where you discussed this with someone but I think the logic was flawed. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: if I don't, somebody else will (see also Template:Northern Ireland tasks). Having the red link there will undoubtedly encourage people to create and write the article. Please stop re-deleting it. Thanks. --Setanta 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it won't. Even if there were such an article, an entire disambiguation page is not needed. A hatnote on the other NIHE page would be sufficient. There are now two people disagreeing with you and no one agreeing so I'm puzzled how you're so confident as to blindly revert. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the hatnote for you. Can we call that good enough? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Now the silly dab page is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NIHE (disambiguation). —Wknight94 (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NI murals NI football.jpg

Hi I was working with some images on the NI page, adding a lot of free ones, and removing one fair use one Image:Northern_Ireland_wall_of_heros.JPG. I was looking at the image you uploaded Image:NI_murals_NI_football.jpg, it could be vunurable to being deleted as an imagevio, could you supply a reference as to the artist releasing the image into the PD, Thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ruby_Murray_promo_photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ruby_Murray_promo_photo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:M punch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:M punch.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kremlin (bar)

I have nominated Kremlin (bar), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kremlin (bar). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Marillion singles

A tag has been placed on Template:Marillion singles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Marillionlp

A tag has been placed on Template:Marillionlp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Colourluna.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Colourluna.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Council roll call

Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Setanta747 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008

The Space-Time Telegraph

The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter

Issue 1

March 2008

Project News: We have five new participants: Sm9800, Seanor3, T saston, Type 40, Jammy0002.; One editor has left the project: StuartDD.; The Doctor Who portal has expanded to increase the number of selected stories to 33.

Articles of note

New featured articles

None

New featured article candidates

Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (FAC)

New good articles

Delisted articles: None

Proposals: A proposal for changing the layout of the episode pages is under way here.; A discussion about the formatting of the cast lists in episode pages is under way here.; A discussion to move United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to UNIT is under way here.
News: The Torchwood project has become a task-force under the project's scope.; The Torchwood series 2 finale airs on 4th April, and the 4th series of Doctor Who will start to air on 5th April.

For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre ^(talk) 19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have received this letter because you are on the newsletter recipients list. To opt-out, please remove your name.

Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

The Terrorism WikiProject
April 2008 Newsletter

News

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was made a Featured Article
Omar Khadr has an ongoing peer review as it begins the slow crawl towards Featured Article status

Trials have begun this month in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Benbrika affair and 2006 Toronto terrorism case, each article could use a good vetting, and the articles on specific alleged terrorists are desperately in need of some clean-up.
Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein had his case overturned by the Iraqi courts and was ordered released, although the US military says they will not release him.
China announced that they had disrupted a plot targeting the 2008 Summer Olympics, while detractors claim it was fabricated.
The bail hearing for Abdullah Khadr, fighting extradition to the United States, is scheduled for April 29
Former Turkish Member of Parliament Leyla Zana is sentenced to two years imprisonment for praising Abdullah Öcalan.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list needs votes on whether or not it should be kept on Wikipedia.

Archives • Discussion

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, and Probation

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sock puppetry, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Setanta747. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I am additionally warning you that any further sock puppetry will result in an indefinite block. You are hereby placed on probation for one year, per the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Enforcement. Please read and follow those restrictions, or you may be blocked without further warning. Jehochman ^Talk 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me - the case hasn't been closed yet. In fact, there was no result: no action had been decided. I have not engaged in sock puppetry, and I take offence at the suggestion.

Perhaps you didn't read the comments I had made, which you subsequently deleted. The only thing I might be considered guilty of is not understanding your policy regarding archived articles in Wiki-space. Had you been a little more helpful regarding the deletion of my arguments, I wouldn't have felt it necessary to re-add them. As it is, I now feel like I am being censored and not able to defend my points. I appreciate that may not in fact be your intention. However, it remains that the defence against accusations has been removed. Where would you have suggested I placed the comments in response to those particular statements?

I think this is also quite a sudden, stern and stark decision by you. You have made a summary decision that I am guilty of sockpuppetry, despite my arguments, and despite the fact that the case remains open and without conclusion.

Do you not want to listen? Is that too much work for you? Presumably you have better understanding of policy, and perhaps you might have fixed it for me, instead of becoming as annoyed with me for having re-added my comments as I had been with your removal of them. I don't think you have been particularly helpful to this point, though I am asking for your help now. If you do not wish to help me, please offer me an admin who wouldn't mind. Thank you for your time. --90.206.36.159 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Case unclosed. No decision had been taken. Attempts to debate and defend were removed. I have not engaged in sockpuppetry.

Decline reason:

You have been editing anonymously, as your post above proves. This is sockpuppetry, because it has the effect of avoiding scrutiny by others in view of your previous sanctions. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Setanta747, which is now closed, comes to the same conclusion. — Sandstein (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There are no rules against editing 'anonymously'. (As an aside, the post above proves nothing about my association to Setanta747, by the way). This is not sockpuppetry, and I have not been "avoiding scrutiny by others". I'm afraid you have not been informed of the full facts. Lastly, the SSP is not closed, it just expired, and it came to no conclusion either way. --90.206.36.159 (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

if you would like to request an unblock, please do so via your main account (this one). Please note that while blocked, you may not continue to edit anonymously. If you wish to be unblocked, then request an unblock from you main (blocked) account, not via an anonymous IP address.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wait a second, according to the block log: [2] This account is not even blocked... What is going on here?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I have now fixed that. The account is blocked for two weeks. If the socking continues, I will extends this to indefinite and request a community ban. Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to have listened very well Jehochman - there was no socking in the first place. --90.206.36.177 (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the case that my IP address has not been blocked either. I have however, not edited any Wikipedia mainspace articles since I became aware of the block. I was advised, on my own talk page, to respond on this user talk page. --90.206.36.159 (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the unblock request again, if you don't mind. If some you or some other admin is currently investigating the problem(s) associated with this account and my IP address, and is fully aware of my request, feel free to remove the request and keep me informed here. Thank you. --90.206.36.159 (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There are no rules against editing 'anonymously', so far as I'm aware. (As an aside, the post above proves nothing about my association to Setanta747, by the way). This is not sockpuppetry, and I have not been "avoiding scrutiny by others". I'm afraid Jehochman has not been informed of the full facts. Lastly, the SSP is not closed, it just expired, and it came to no conclusion either way. (Note: I have since looked at the page, and it has been closed by Jehochman yesterday. --90.206.36.159 (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's called block evasion. And your IP address is now blocked for it. See WP:SOCK. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Once again, I place this request and ask that this time an admin listen to what I have said: I am not involved in "block evasion". I have read WP:SOCK before. I have read WP:SOCK each time the link has been posted on the various pages. Placing a link doesn't make it any more true or valid. I am not guilty of sockpuppetry. You are not aware of the full facts. I request the attention of an (non-partisan) administrator who is willing to listen to my case via private correspondence by e-mail. Thank you. --90.206.36.177 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You may not edit via any method, including an IP address or another account, while one of your accounts is blocked. If you wish to request an unblock, you must log in to the blocked account, and request one that way. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

W projects

Indeed - perhaps you'd be interested in WP:Unionism in Ireland, unless your interest is mostly geographic?Traditional unionist (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My interest is mostly in Northern Ireland specifically (not just the geography of the country), though it does extend to the rest of the UK and to the whole of Ireland too, obviously. I started the NI WikiProject a fair while ago now, and the unionism project seems to be a new one. After I created the NI and Belfast wikiprojects, there were created both an Ireland WikiProject and a Scotland one, both using the NI one as an initial template. After that, an 'IRA WikiProject' was created, which was subsequently renamed. Now we have this 'Unionism in Ireland' WikiProject. All of this leaves the NI project basically unattended. My initial thought had been to work on the 'main' NI project and, once complete, create smaller spin-offs (such as geographical ones like the Belfast WP) and work on them and concentrate harder on those areas.

As unionism concerns the union of the UK, perhaps 'Unionism in Ireland' is not the best, or most encompassing title. Is there currently a 'British Unionism' or 'British Isles unionism' WP in existence? Is the 'Unionism in Ireland' WP purely geographic? --Setanta747 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with most things, it doesn't exist without members. I would certainly be open to extending it. I think it is the way it is now due to the all Ireland context to Unionism historically.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Unionism Wikiproject", which might avoid some of the unpleasant petty objections we've had in the past to various established nomenclature? Is 'Unionism', as an ideology, used in any other regions of the world and, if it is, is there a level of commonality? Not that it seems possible to edit many articles on Wikipedia anyway, considering the ownership of articles some people have (see below). --Setanta747 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report

I have file a report here over your breach of probation. --Domer48 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked 48 hours for two reverts in a day. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one revert was made by myself, after I had made an edit. Therefore:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Only one revert was made by myself, after I had made an edit to the particular article in question. Also, I had submitted a 3RR report as both my 'opponents' had made no effort to explain their reverts.

Decline reason:

You were placed on probation, with a 1RR - I count 2 reverts. — :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Again, I only count one revert. Two edits, and one revert.

Additionally there was the matter of the 3RR which I reported, for which an admin decided, incorrectly(?), that no action was necessary. The admin suggested "3RR is for one individual, not tag-team reverting", yet doesn't provide assistance with regard to where one might report "tag-team reverting". The admin then went on to explain that "3RR is four reverts for a violation", whereas I seem to remember being blocked in the past for only two reverts (well before I was unfairly placed on 'probation') - it being explained to me that three reverts need not be reached for it to be considered edit warring.

I gave ample opportunity for those two individuals who started the edit war on the article to explain their reverts on the article's talk page, which they never bothered to do. I conducted my attempt at editing in a fair an civil manner, giving those who might protest every opportunity to explain why.

Decline reason:

Sorry, but I'm definitely seeing more than one revert there. Furthermore, I came here to warn you about your behaviour on User talk:BigDunc, so all in all it's not been a good day — Alison ^❤ 16:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Re-added request (see section below)

Again, I only count one revert. Two edits, and one revert.

Additionally there was the matter of the 3RR which I reported, for which an admin decided, incorrectly(?), that no action was necessary. The admin suggested "3RR is for one individual, not tag-team reverting", yet doesn't provide assistance with regard to where one might report "tag-team reverting". The admin then went on to explain that "3RR is four reverts for a violation", whereas I seem to remember being blocked in the past for only two reverts (well before I was unfairly placed on 'probation') - it being explained to me that three reverts need not be reached for it to be considered edit warring.

I gave ample opportunity for those two individuals who started the edit war on the article to explain their reverts on the article's talk page, which they never bothered to do. I conducted my attempt at editing in a fair an civil manner, giving those who might protest every opportunity to explain why.

Decline reason:

Four admins now agree that you violated your probation - in any event, your conduct in dealing with User:BigDunc is unacceptable. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|I have agreed to the conditions suggested by Alison in the section below. My 'conduct' regarding BigDunc has nothing whatsoever to do with this and was, in any case, well within policy guidelines. If you, or anyone, has a problem with my notifying BigDunc about his own 'conduct' in regard to edit warring, feel free to discuss this with me here on my talk page. Please read my statements below, as well as Alison's offer before making a decision with regard to my block. Thanks in advance.}}

You appear to have been unblocked. I checked and there is no autoblock of you so you should be able to edit. If you cannot, please clear your cache and try again. If you still cannot, check and see if the block message has an autoblock ID # and please add a new request with that number. Thank you. --B (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison

I'm not sure you should be involved with my unblocking requests, as I'm not confident you would necessarily be completely non-partisan - I seem to recall having seen your name quite a few times regarding Northern Ireland-related articles. Therefore, I am putting up another unblock request, above.

As regard a separate issue you seem to have about BigDunc's userpage. What is it you feel I deserve a "warning" about. Some kind of "behaviour", you say..? Feel free to reply here because, as seems to be becoming the norm recently, this is the only page in the whole of Wikipedia I believe I can edit. I'm sorry you haven't had such a good day. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've remained non-partisan on NI issues for quite a long time; I'm equally disliked :) Go ask. As for Dunc's page, you should know that repeatedly warning him, esp. boilerplating is entirely unnecessary and point you to the fact that users are quite welcome to revert talk page comments as they see fit. Go ahead, BTW, on the third unblock request. Hopefully, a numerically-challenged admin will be along this time ;) - Alison ^❤ 17:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! :) Nevertheless Alison, you have an interest. I can't remember having had much (or maybe any) discussion with you, but your name is familiar to me. I'm happy you you haven't taken what I said as a personal slight against you though, as it certainly wasn't intended that way.

As for WP:DTTR, I've never been aware of that until there now. Of course, it hasn't stopped people from repeatedly doing it to me.. then again, I've not deleted them. In point of fact though, I restored the template itself what .. once? Then I realised that the job of the template was done, whether it was still present or not, as it's job was to notify the user of policy, and I made a reply advising of that. After my last edit to his talk page, I even went so far as to try to find information in WP policy regarding removal of templates from user talk pages. It wasn't particularly easy to find, though I did note that opinion is very much split on the matter.

As for my latest unblock request - I noted the one reversion I made. After that reversion, I made no others. Besides that, there are still the other matters I brought up, one of which was dismissed off-hand: apparently 3RR only applies to one individual. Of course, that doesn't help if one is sprung upon by multiple editors, reverting every time one makes an edit. Nor did the admin in question suggest where the page exists to note a "team-tagging" campaign.

Just to note, as I'm sitting here writing out explanation after explanation (which I had done on my edit to the article in question, while my 'opponents' get away scott-free, if you notice, with not having attempted to explain their reverts), it struck me as ironic that I seem to spend most of my time in Wikipedia discussing actions taken against me, then working on actual articles.. which is why I started editing Wikipedia in the first place! I don't necessarily want to get to know personalities or get involved in the administrative side of things, or have to get involved in bloody Wiki-lawyering.

The work I have managed to get done (most of it before this latest craze of informing on others and ownership of articles) stands for itself: I have been a valuable contributor for around three years now, and the thanks I get are these stupid red tape processes which only ever serve to anger and frustrate - especially when the complaints made are from the same predictable old faces.

There needs to be something done, otherwise Wikipedia will lose yet another prolific and balanced editor. Don't take that as any kind of threat, by the way. I'm just stating a fact. Of course, I appreciate that Wikipedia will go on without me! But hey - the more this kind of thing happens, the more editors Wikipedia will lose, and the less credibility Wikipedia will have. As a fellow Wikipedian, Alison, I'm sure you can appreciate what I'm talking about. --Setanta747 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly understand your frustration here, having tried to referee Troubles articles for some time. And yes, you're a good editor :) I've had a word with the blocking admin just now. The blocking policy notes that blocks are meant to be preventative of disruption, not punitive. With that in mind, can you undertake 1) not to edit-war on Troubles-related articles for the next 48 hours? 2) Can you also undertake to leave BigDunc and his talk page alone for the same length of time. If you agree to this, I will gladly unblock - Alison ^❤ 19:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this episode and I must agree with Setanta. I'm feeling very disillusioned about the way items connected to Irish history seem to be manipulated. I'm very sad about it.GDD1000 (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't let yourselves succumb to edit warring, breaking arb sanctions, etc. That's the worst way to handle this. Use the WP:DR process and refrain from those tactics. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison what you propose seems quite fair to me. While I don't appreciate having yet another inappropriate block on my record/log, I would certainly agree to what you propose.

I should note that it had not been my intention to get involved in edit warring in the first place: I edited an article in good faith (an edit I had made before, earlier this month, which was also reverted on me earlier this month - again, with no explanation) because I felt the wording of the part I edited gave undue weight in a relative sense.

As for BigDunc, as I explained earlier, I had conducted myself in a wholly appropriate manner in accordance with guidelines throughout Wikipedia. By placing the template on his page, I had performed my duty as an editor and the point had been made, so there is certainly no reason to edit his user page again. Besides that, his 'shouting' at me in his edit comment, where he 'ordered' me to "stay off my talk page" etc, makes it quite clear as to his feeling toward me, and I have (and had) no intention of provoking him - he's obviously quick to anger.

I agree to not edit any articles relating to Northern Ireland for the remaining period of my block (should you decide to unblock me). I say "any articles relating to Northern Ireland" because it is more than just articles relating to the Troubles that some editors seem to have a problem with, and constantly guard.

Although there is not long to go now on my block, I would still like to be unblocked under the terms Alison set out. To that end, I will be adding another unblock request (with a comment for the last admin that refused me), above.

Rlevse, I appreciate the advice you have given me. I would like to stress though, that it is not easy to avoid getting into an edit war with people who refuse to explain their reversions of your edits. I invited the editors to discussion on the talk page, and they ignored my request (until after one of them had reported me with regard to ArbCom (by which time it had obviously been too late). What I fear however, is that any edit to articles relating to Northern Ireland may well be blocked (especially ones by myself, it seems) by the editors I have mentioned, and others who often seemingly work in tandem with them. This makes any changes and attempts to balance an article a hugely lengthy process, for even the merest of changes, involving implementation of policies, possible long-winded debate, repetition, and the possibility of the dreaded consensus policy which would inevitably lead to a continued protection of unbalanced articles. This is a highly undesirable situation.

When I say that it is hard to avoid getting involved in an edit war, I mean that it is hard to see what type of edits will appear to offend those who obsessively defend certain articles. This is exacerbated by the fact that, I believe, my contributions are being watched by certain people. Perhaps this keeps me in check, to a certain extent, and that in itself is no bad thing (though I have to say that I don't of course feel it is necessary to do this in my case). But it leads me to a question: who watches the watchers? They appear to be more obsessive, more numerous, better defended by admins, and to have better knowledge of how the system works - because it appears to work favourably for them in the vast majority of cases - the merit of each individual edit which becomes 'controversial' never seems to be taken into consideration. It is simply a case of who conformed to policy, who complained first, and a numerical advantage. This is the reason 99% of the time, that I have been blocked.

I have no doubt that my block log will be used against me at some point in the future, ignoring completely the quality and quantity of work I have made to Wikipedia. In fact, an attempt to do so has been made in the past (I think it was by [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits). Any admin not quite so familiar with my good relations with other editors, my extensive contributions, my positive and accommodating attitude in 99% of cases, may well look at my block log and decide to 'punish' me excessively for any future technical 'infringement' that I have been manoeuvred into. You will also notice that any time I have been blocked, it has always been as a result of my attempts to edit articles relating to Northern Ireland. This is an area that I had attempted to avoid in Wikipedia for a while, hoping that a certain obsessiveness by certain editors would die away, or be replaced by reason. I have not been blocked for the editing of any article which doesn't relate to Northern Ireland, and have a good record of communicating with others and attempts at resolving any conflicts that have arisen.

I'd like to end by letting you know that I intend to appeal against the probation enforced on my account (via an ArbCom that I was not informed about, nor invited to take part in, nor even aware of until after my only warning with regard to it - despite the fact that I am a prolific editor with regard to the set of articles it relates to), as the admin responsible for the decision was not in possession of the full facts. Perhaps you could let me know of the appropriate venue to make such an appeal. --Setanta747 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per above agreement. Thanks for that.

Request handled by: Alison ^❤ 22:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. And yes, I can totally understand where you're coming from there, and the frustration involved. If you wish to appeal the probation, you can probably directly appeal to ArbCom via email. Or possibly post a request to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarifications_and_other_requests and nudge an arbitrator to comment on it. But yes, you definitely have recourse - Alison ^❤ 22:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Alison (and B) - just to clarify, it seems like the unblock went through OK. --Setanta747 (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my thanks to Alison and also point out my support for an investigation into obsessive "ownership" issues regarding items pertaining to Northern Ireland and the Troubles.GDD1000 (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:90.206.36.142

I've replied to your questions at the IP talkpage. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history has been transferred over to User:Setanta747/Kremlin (bar). I don't think there's much of a reason for having an article on this bar, but I wish you good luck in proving me wrong. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I tried to say, I think it's likely quite a notable bar as far as Belfast is concerned. Thanks for doing that for me. :) --Setanta747 (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSSIs in Northern Ireland

Hi

We need to resolve the issue of whether Northern Ireland appears in the SSSIs template. As you appear to be aware, NI doesn't have SSSIs, so I would prefer to see it left out. If we can find a good reason to keep it in, we're going to need to find a suitable title for the template that covers both SSSIs and whatever types of Northern Irish sites we want to include, as the current one isn'wouldn';t be appropriate for obvious reasons.

SP-KP (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer it to be kept in. Northern Ireland does have SSSIs, only they are called ASSIs ("In Northern Ireland the designation Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs) is the equivalent of the SSSIs" ref).

I'm not sure the template necessarily needs re-naming - at the minute at least. The article on SSSI mentions the Northern Irish version, and the JNCC states that SSSIs and ASSIs are equivalent. The one thing I'm currently not clear on is whether the ASSIs are generally organised by county or by council regions. I suspect the latter, though I can't be sure. It may be that they are allocated on a governmental basis, treating NI as a whole entity, which is why I've placed List of Areas of Special Scientific Interest in Northern Ireland in the template as a placeholder until we can determine how the "Area of Search" is organised here. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio on Mary Lou McDonald

Re. this comment. I'm not suggesting for a second that you "did it for a laugh". However, as I stated here, I'm not seeing any copyvio. Can you please quote the exact sentences in question, as I can't see them at all - Alison ^❤ 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't suggest I added the copyvio tag for a laugh Alison, but you gave no explanation for removed the tag after I had added it. To me, it seemed as if you had discounted my edit as mere vandalism. Obviously I gave explanation, as I added it to the relevant alert page.

You can see in the difference here that the text is sufficiently similar to warrant concern. I also think the tag should remain until this is sorted out. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a serious {{sofixit}} moment. I'm not really seeing a whole lot of similarity, to be honest. Best thing is to excise the line if there's any doubt and write your own version ... - Alison ^❤ 04:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, though I spent more time trying to find citations for the article. I showed you the difference between the web site text and the article, and there is only one word different (removed). It's hard to not see the similarity! --Setanta747 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This look okay? - Alison ^❤ 17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, Alison. Cheers. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for being patient :) - Alison ^❤ 18:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you. :) --Setanta747 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European capitals

Hi I noticed this edit this edit, I was wondering by what definition England has a capital. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would have understood a capital city to be the seat of government, and obviously England doesnt have a goverment in anyway that cannot be equally applied to any other non devolved part of the UK. 10:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasach Nua (talk • contribs)

Hi Fasach Nua. That London is the capital of England, as well as the national capital, is quite well established. The capital was moved from its previous location of Winchester some hundreds of years ago. As is tradition with the UK, most capitals are I believe de facto - neither the UK nor England have had a written constitution. England is therefore in a unique position as such (and because, as you say, it doesn't have it's own government), but it is generally accepted that London is that region's capital.

In common with the rest of the UK, England is administered from London. The laws governing England and Wales are legislated from that city. It's complex, and I understand your questioning of it to be honest, but I do think it's pretty much established, in the absence of any other, London is the de facto capital of England. British citizens are taught this in school at an early age. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate

There is a heavy discussion right now, in this article, Miss Pakistan World here and it was nominated for deletion here; your opinion will be highly appreciated, especially your vote. Your participation in this matter is noteworthy, in view of the fact that you are a member of the Wiki Project Beauty Pageants. It doesn’t matter if your vote is favorable or not, but what matters most is your involvement since it seems to me that some commenter are against pageantry. Personally, I think that the article should be kept but should be freed from tremendous advertisement lines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the The

Yes folks, it’s "the beatles" or "The Beatles" time again. You might like to add your opinion (whatever it may be) on this page.--andreasegde (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A different straw poll on Talk:The Beatles

It would be easy to overlook because there are now two polls going at the same time. The newest one is here. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Pursuant to the report at WP:AE#Setanta747, I've blocked you for three days for violating the conditions of your revert parole on both {{IrishL}} and Category:Real Irish Republican Army. You can request an appeal by placing {{unblock|your reason here...}} on this page. east718 // talk // email // 16:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it makes a change that some rampant republican has tried - and succeeded - to block me! Didn't take them long, either. Here we go again...

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If an admin would kindly take a look at the issue in question, instead of just responding straight away to any block request simply because of some weird 'arbcom' rule (and I will be addressing the issue of the previous charade as soon as this latest block business is out of the way), I would greatly appreciate it.

It appears to me that the first to complain are always these republican editors on Wikipedia: I rarely complain. This isn't really a fair and just process because of that. It seems that I might be more tolerant of these revert wars that people like to engage in, and don't go crying to mummy every time somebody changes something about an article that I 'own'.

I remind any admin who will happen along that the person who reported me, Domer48/Fenian is also subject to the 'Arbcom' in question, and is also guilty of reverts. In his case, they were unjustified, unexplained reverts - as opposed to my fully explained edit.

I'm sick, sore and tired of this ongoing campaign to continually harass and attempt to block (presumably in the ultimate hope of banning) editors of certain opinions on this 'encyclopedia'. I'm also sick of Admins taking the side of the first person to complain, with NO RECOURSE: it's simply a process of complain ---> block ---> appeal ---> appeal ignored (block remains). Usually it takes two of them.

This time I would request that an Admin, or another editor, complain on my behalf about Domer48 with regard to his own violation of the Arbcom. He reverted a good faith edit by myself, with no reasonable explanation here, here, and here. I suggest that Domer48 is gaming the system by monitoring, collaborating with other like-minded individuals in a by now well-established routine, and taking the earliest possible opportunity to make a complaint. Notice his late attempt at explanation for his comrade's reversions of my edits to Category:Real Irish Republican Army. Notice, in contrast, my attempts to explain the rationale of my edits in both cases.

I suggest that accuracy in Wikipedia's articles is not of concern to Domer48 or RepublicanJacobite. Rather, they would like to retain ownership of a genre of articles and try their best to continue their campaign of harassment of certain editors. What it results in is disillusionment of editors - at least a couple of prolific editors have all but stopped contributing because of the hassle caused to them by the likes of Domer48 - and in removing the ability other prolific editors have to contribute.

I further believe that this 'Arbcom', which I wasn't party to except as an afterthought, has created far more trouble than it has ever solved. I suggest that it isn't working, and that a better solution or process should be considered.

The issue in question regarding the use of the flag of Northern Ireland in a template about Loyalism, as I explained already on the template's talk page, is that the flag is not representative of Loyalism specifically - it is used by individuals and bodies who would never describe themselves as Loyalists. This is despite the fact that the flag is flown in what would be described as Loyalist areas in Northern Ireland. The flag I used in its place is specifically representative of a Loyalist group, however. The equivalent to what Domer48 would like would be to have a template on White Supremacy in America, and then filling the image of the template box with the Stars and Stripes: just because some people in the USA may be white supremacists, it doesn't follow that the flag is representative of their ideology.

In addition to what I have already suggested above, I believe Domer48's intent is to 'dirty' the flag of Northern Ireland by removing it from some articles (which may show it in a neutral or positive light) and making sure it stays in other articles (ones which would attempt to show the flag in a bad light). Either that, or he doesn't fully understand the usage of the flag as pertaining to Northern Ireland and the Northern Irish people.

Thanks in advance to whatever Admin takes the time to read this reasonably lengthy appeal. Please restore my faith in what one might term due process in Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

I've looked at the issue. If this were standard editing then the block would not be justified. However, you clearly did violate your ArbCom parole (and are welcome to report other users if they have done similarly). Stifle (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My editing was "standard editing" - I was attempting to improve Wikipedia's accuracy. I cannot report other users as I am currently blocked from editing any pages other than this one.

I would also prefer that an Admin who doesn't express a relevant political opinion - of any shade - review my block, given the information I submitted above, to wit: editor(s) have successfully taken ownership of a genre of articles on Wikipedia, and that they indulge in the attempted blocking of editors who do not share their view of how information in Wikipedia is presented. Further to that, with each revert by others, in the two examples cited, no satisfactory explanation was given - I gave reasons for my edits and subsequent reverts. I also attempted to discuss the issue on the articles' talk pages.

Once again, the enforcement by a couple of editors on certain articles on Wikipedia is upheld by the system, and by a simple matter of them basically saying "No - I don't allow you to do that", followed by an attempt to block a good faith editor.

While I may well have been in violation of an Arbcom, that is the simplistic picture - I urge Admins to look at the wider picture instead of just concentrating on this one issue. This pattern has been going on for months now, and it will continue. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of that matters here, what matters is that you violated the terms of your probation and have been blocked for doing so (you have even admitted to violating your probation). Unblock request declined, — Tiptoety ^talk 17:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I only suggested that I may have violated the Arbcom ruling.

It does matter - very much so. This is part of a wider issue, and I'd like it considered as such.

Decline reason:

Okey, well the unblock request form is not a dispute resolution forum, so once your block expires, pursue the wider issue. — MBisanz ^talk 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Setanta747 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The wider issue affects me right now. I am again requesting an unblock on the grounds that I have been unduly harassed and pursued (on more than one occasion, and always by members of the same group), and unfairly gamed. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not the forum to make such requests, and it is becoming disruptive. Consider this your only warning, further disruptive unblock requests will result in this page being protected. — Tiptoety ^talk 19:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mal, you may be interested in this.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TU.I was wondering if there might be a way to contact you, possibly via a willing third party. Cheers. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact me though the E-mail this user feature.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh aye - I forgot about the links down the left hand side! --Setanta747 (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Tiptoety

I'd like to know why you feel you should punish me, instead of responding to my requests. In what way do you consider my request to be "disruptive"? Have I not been punished enough (unjustly so) for my alleged violation?

If you cannot answer me, considering I cannot edit any other page except this one, my only recourse will be to include yet another unblock request.. or a help request or something. This punishment has already severely limited my ability to contribute to Wikipedia, and has wasted much of my valuable time. --Setanta747 (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can request another unblock using the unblock template, but you may not use it as a political forum, but instead a place for you to address the issues of your block, and your actions, not the actions of others. Tiptoety ^talk 04:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to answer, Tiptoety.

I do not see that I have been using the template as a "political forum". I have been describing the problem that a couple of editors have which led directly to this action having been taken. I feel you need to see through the 'red tape' of Wikipedia and address the problems which led to my block.

Once again, I remind you that every attempt had been made by myself to stick by the guidelines: edit summaries and attempts at discussion on the talk pages. In contrast, my accuser was guilty of a breach himself, and made no effort at communication... unfortunately the fact is that, as he was the (first) one to complain, his complaint is being upheld.

What this amounts to is that any edit to an article can be blocked by this kind of action, and no progress can be made. At the same time, certain peoples' accounts accrue an ever-increasing block-list. Therefore, the rationale behind my unblock request is that it was unfairly requested. --Setanta747 (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jim Neilly

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jim Neilly, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Sandstein 09:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland/ROI Questions at WIkipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)

This is a courtesy notice to say that the three original 'polls' (now called "Questions") at Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) (here), were amended during the voting process. This was due to initial confusion in their meaning. They are now unambiguous, and fully according to their original intent. You might like to check your contribution. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matt. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on the UDR

I believe the tags you attached to the UDR are not correct. To attach an external link for each of the three sources listed would turn it into a link farm. The deaths can easily be referenced at the Palace Barracks site as they are listed by battalion and year to match the Roll of Honour, so why discredit the list by saying there are no inline citations? Furthermore it is a sub-page of Ulster Defence Regiment which is categorised. Why does it need to have its own categorisation? The Thunderer (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to provide sources for each of the salient facts though - even if it should be a single reference to the Palace Barracks website under the references section, or the three sources you mention listed there. Inline citations can be placed at the end of each section, as opposed to after each fact though.

Categories are standard for articles. I'm sure there are some cats the article belongs to - for example, Category:Northern Ireland-related lists is just one I can think of.

My addition of the tags were only put there as a helpful reminder to any potential authors - including both yourself and myself - not to discredit you, the Regiment, or any victims living or dead. If I get some time later I might look back at the article and try to chip in, if you like... though it's not an area I have a great deal of knowledge about specifically. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a subpage of Ulster Defence Regiment the categories just needed to be copied and pasted. No disrepect but couldn't you have done that? Plus, the article was composed to link with the categorisation on the Palace Gardens Memorial site so that I wouldn't need to make it a link farm - now I have to go and do just that. Not that it makes any difference to me but it would have looked a helluva lot tidier if I didn't need to.The Thunderer (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm busy doing other things.. which is why I left the tags there. On top of this, I hadn't realised that a simple cut and paste of the same cats on the other article would have sufficed.

As I said above - you don't need to place the ref tags at every sentence necessarily - at the end of each section would probably be best. --Setanta747 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you tell me - after I've turned it into a dog's dinner with feckin links everywhere. I realise you meant well but all you've achieved is to make the page look like eff all - why on earth couldn't you just discuss with me what was needed before wading in? I realise I don't own the article but couldn't I get a little credit for creating it and being the only person to add information to it? The Thunderer (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm wondering if it might be prudent to create a new category, for all sub-topics relating to the UDR? If you want, I could do that now-ish. --Setanta747 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's a valid thing to do I certainly wouldn't object. I hadn't considered it because I just considered the two sub-pages as just that, not a separate category.The Thunderer (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right - link farm removed. I've spent a lot of time on this now that I don't think I should've had to. You owe me a pint! The Thunderer (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! You now have two sub-pages for the Regiment? What are they? Is there currently a category for UDR soldiers or anything? It might be a good idea to organise the cats accordingly. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The other one is Ulster Defence Regiment Operations. The Thunderer (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (outdent) Thanks for those edits, I appreciate it. Could you take a look at the Blood Money poster again? In my browser it's off the section. The Thunderer (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Personally, I think if an image splits a line/section, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I've changed it around anyway, but bear in mind that adding more text to the article will probably skew the image placements anyway. Keep up the good work: I've not had a decent read of the article now but, from a cursory inspection, it looks as though you've added some decent content and put in a decent amount of work. --Setanta747 (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best with it but it's been a fight almost all the way. Nice to have somebody else editing from time to time. Stops the article from getting too POV. The Thunderer (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. What I did though was just basic layout stuff. Keep up the work on it cos it looks like it's shaping up to be at least B-class. Go for a peer-review once you've finished the vast majority of it. --Setanta747 (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firearms Amendment Act

Hi. You are incorrect in your assertion that the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 covers the whole of the United Kingdom. The legislation specifically covers Great Britain only. Northern Ireland is covered by a parallel series of legislation that includes some significant differences. This difference is identified through several sources;

The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 states that it extends to England, Wales and Scotland only. This Act derives from the Firearms Act 1968.
Northern Ireland is covered by the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order series, as evidenced by the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (extends only to Northern Ireland). This series derives from the Northern Ireland (Firearms) Order 1981.
The Home Affairs Select Committee report into Controls Over Firearms (6 April 2000) "Controls over firearms in Northern Ireland are provided for in the Northern Ireland (Firearms) Order 1981, which is separate, and significantly different, from the body of legislation which provides for firearms control in England, Scotland and Wales."

Do you have any sources to support your viewpoint? Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "viewpoint", and I'd thank you to assume good faith and all that.

The bottom of this page suggests that the extent of the law applies to "E+W+S+N.I." - England & Wales & Scotland & Northern Ireland. There was obviously some confusion by whoever compiled the webpage.

In any case, the article should make this clearer. There are one or two inaccuracies in the article, which I'll address shortly. --Setanta747 (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a commencement order. It commences the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 within the United Kingdom. Once commenced the Act is only applicable to England, Scotland and Wales. Do you have any source to suggest otherwise? While I have been assuming good faith that you are just unfamiliar with the topic, continued reversions against the sources does stretch belief a little far.

Even if you do not believe the first two sources I have provided, do you have anything that can counter the Home Affairs select committee's clear statement of the legal position?

If you are not familiar with UK law and still assume bad faith on my part, can you please invite comment from a knowledgeable third party of your own choosing. Perhaps someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Law? Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I mention that you should assume good faith (and all that), I meant that you shouldn't assume that I am editing an article because of some "viewpoint" that I hold.

I have not assumed bad faith on your part. You have also apparently misunderstood the reason I included a link in my last reply to you. It was not intended as a "source", as you had assumed. A look at the article in question should make things clear for you.

The rest of your points are irrelevant. --Setanta747 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you have misinterpreted "viewpoint" as some derogatory phrase. I wasn't aware of any negative connotations connected to the word. You view what you have written into the article as fact. Therefore from your viewpoint it is factual. Again I am sorry if my phrasing has upset you. Road Wizard (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple - I hadn't held a "viewpoint". Apologies accepted, although you still seem to persist with this talk of my "viewpoint" and my "viewpoint [being] factual". Again, I didn't have a "viewpoint". I think you should take a look at the article now, instead of writing on my talk page! :) --Setanta747 (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why I repeated the phrase was to attempt to explain the context in which I was using the word. However it is probably best if I leave it there with just my apology as I don't appear to be making my point well today.

I had already read your edits (hence my keeping quiet about the issue in the most recent replies). Your edits are a good contribution to the article, though I too am rather unsatisfied with the article as a whole. I had started work on a replacement article in my sandbox a few months ago though I have been distracted by other projects since then. I should really get back to it I suppose. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the article could be improved immensely. A sister article could do with some improvements too (not just with regard to explaining the legal situation and history in Northern Ireland), though it is more full at least.

I'd help if I actually knew anything about 'legalese'! ;)

Good luck with it. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Freeland

On 1 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ian Freeland, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Erskine-Crum‎

See my query on talk:Vernon Erskine-Crum‎, I think we've got in a bit of a tangle over the date of his relief, and that of his heart-attack. Can yo try and straighten it out? David Underdown (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Creasey DYK

On 10 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Timothy Creasey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Mspraveen (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Category:United Kingdom film actor stubs

Pleased don't keep adding this stub type to the speedy list at CFD. As explained in the instructions on CFD, stub categories go to WP:SFD, where I relisted this the first time you posted it at CFD. Oh, and FWIW, "United Kingdom film actor stubs"" is standard naming per stub naming conventions. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but it isn't, as I clearly pointed out. I added the stub category once and then, when I realised somebody had deleted it, I re-added it because the editor had claimed, wrongly, that it failed the criteria. At that point, nobody had informed me that it had been listed somewhere else. So it's not a case of "keep adding" to the speedy page. Having said that, that is where it belongs. --Setanta747 (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parades in Northern Ireland

Hi Sentata. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 'ostensibly' means 'for show, to disguise some hidden reality' (I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the picture). So unless you're arguing that the Orange Order and similar groups are secretly Catholic or Buddhist or in some other way not really Protestant, you should not use the term 'ostensibly Protestant' to describe them.

Saying that Protestant groups such as the Orange Order do most of the parading in NI doesn't imply that all Protestants parade or approve of parading, any more than saying 'the majority of skinheads are white' implies that all or most white people are skinheads. There is a discussion to be had about how truly religious the Orange Order actually are, but I don't think the intro to the parades article is really the place to get into that. For the purposes of that paragraph I think it should be enough that they strongly identify as Protestant. --Helenalex (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean "to disguise" in this context. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ostensible as "apparently true, but not necessarily so", which is exactly the case in this context. I wouldn't suggest that they necessarily "strongly identify as Protestant" either.

I think the word should remain. The parades themselves often have very little to do with Protestantism, other than historically, to a certain degree. Perhaps there is a better way to phrase it that we can both consider a kind of compromise, which is more accurate (in my opinion) than the version you have changed it to. Or perhaps we can suggest there are Roman Catholic parades as well, because most Republicans also happen to be of that particular religious sect, or of that background. --Setanta747 (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy

Why on earth is a "veteran editor" creating an AfD for I HATE MEXICANS? What was wrong with {{db-vandalism}}? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. I don't think I've ever used it before, so I probably wasn't aware of it. The AfD apparently worked though - job done. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of tunnels in Great Britain

There is a recent, long discussion in WikiProject Waterways (of which I'm a member) which started on my talk page. It would have been better to consult with the WikiProject before changing the name to "United Kingdom". All Irish canals are covered by Canals of Ireland. I will leave things as they are so you can consult with the guys about this, but the consensus was to leave things as they were. Regards' Renata (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The convention is for articles to relate to countries, and not usually to islands or geographical regions. Irish canals may well be covered by the Canals of Ireland article, but the canals of Northern Ireland are also the canals of the United Kingdom (ie: British canals). Due to the nature of water of course, there is no reason why canals should not be mentioned in both sets of articles. Thanks for your notification. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that I had been previously aware of the discussion, as I left a message on the Project's talk page about a month ago. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

Your comments are requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Enough_is_enough.--Tznkai (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WW2 and Ireland

Hi

If you look at the text for the category of Wars involving Ireland you will see that it is specifically stated that it refers to wars involving independent Irish states, not other parts of the island of Ireland. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category is badly named then - it should be more specific. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR - Northern Ireland

I'm obliged to give you this warning.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Canterbury Tail talk 12:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I'm not sure that I am. Would you mind telling me which article I'm supposed be be involved in an edit war on? --Setanta747 (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Ireland article. I'm obliged to give you the warning. Canterbury Tail talk 16:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring seems to have been initiated by an unregistered user whose identity appears to be that of a banned sockpuppeteer... but if you feel you must... --Setanta747 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle Sam

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hi Uncle Sam, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.flemingmultimedia.com/Personal/ulsterlinks.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Hi Uncle Sam

A tag has been placed on Hi Uncle Sam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Non-dropframe (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur O'Sullivan

Setanta, I would like to discuss your recent edits to Arthur O'Sullivan. You contend that, because he was born in pre-independence Ireland, he should be labelled as British. This may be technically correct but has far wider implications. Do you intend similarly editing articles whose subjects were born before 1922 in what is now the Irish Republic? For instance, Patrick Pearse or Jack Lynch to name but two examples? Without knowing Arthur O'Sullivan's politics, I think it unwise and a little perverse to label him British. However, I am happy to refer this matter to a third-party adjudicator if such a thing is possible within Wikipedia. Jim Bruce (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim. I don't see that it has any "implications". I have made many changes to articles, through the course of my being an editor, in a similar manner. I'm convinced that I intend to keep doing so. The fact is that O'Sullivan was both British and Irish. I fail to see any reason he shouldn't be listed under both category branches. Normally problem resolving in Wikipedia follows the steps of discussion, then a feel for some kind of consensus. This seems pretty cut and dried to me though. --Setanta747 (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Setanta. "The fact is that O'Sullivan was both British and Irish." At one stage Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but it was never part of Britain itself, which is the island incorporating Scotland, England, and Wales. Therefore to label as British someone born in Ireland, either before or after independence, is I believe incorrect. Have a look here for an historical perspective. This is far from cut and dried but I suggest that the weight of historical evidence does not support your edits. I hope you agree. Jim Bruce (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with the sub-national entities on Great Britain. The location of the islands Britain or Ireland has nothing to do with it. For example, people born on Hawaii, situated 2,000 or so miles from North America and the United States mainland, are US citizens: it doesn't have to be physically connected to the larger landmass in order that the residents are American.

As for your assertion that "to label as British someone born in Ireland, either before or after independence, is I believe incorrect", let me just inform you that I was born in Ireland, after the Free State's secession, and I am British.

Again, I'm familiar with the history of the British Isles. While the article section you pointed to doesn't seem to assert your position, I should point out to you that Wikipedia is not a source.

Historical evidence suggests that the people of the United Kingdom were British. Further to this, anyone born in the Irish Free State or Republic of Ireland prior to 1949 did not automatically lose their British subject status upon the acquiring of a new national identity (ie Citizenship of the Republic of Ireland). O'Sullivan, however, was born before 1922 - in the United Kingdom.

Again, I see no reason why the actor should not be included in both (sets of) categories. --Setanta747 (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical evidence suggests that the people of the United Kingdom were British." I would love to see any reliable evidence to support this assertion, seeing as you won't accept Wikipedia's reliability on the matter. You seem to regard the terms 'United Kingdom' and 'Britain' as synonymous when clearly they are not. "For example, people born on Hawaii, situated 2,000 or so miles from North America and the United States mainland, are US citizens." This is indisputable but Hawaii is part of a country called the United States of America - not the 'United States of America and Hawaii'. Ireland was part of what was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Scotland, Wales and England were and are the constituent countries of Britain. Ireland never was, hence the term United Kingdom etc. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, a person from Northern Ireland can choose to designate him or herself as Irish or British or both. This may well be a unique situation in the world, I don't know. I don't know either how Arthur O'Sullivan would have described himself. But all the article states is that he was born in Ireland and to label him as British when he was not born in Britain is just plain wrong. I would not normally labour a point like this over such an unimportant article. However, as I stated previously, your edits potentially carry significant implications for many other Irish-related Wikipedia articles and, for that reason, I am copying our discussion to Talk:Arthur O'Sullivan where perhaps some other editor will raise the matter with you in the future. Jim Bruce (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I would love to see any reliable evidence to support this assertion" - the whole of the island was a part of the United Kingdom at the time of the actor's birth.

"You seem to regard the terms 'United Kingdom' and 'Britain' as synonymous when clearly they are not." On the contrary - I have tried to point out to you that Britain and the United Kingdom are not synonymous ("The location of the islands Britain or Ireland has nothing to do with it."). On the other hand, you asserted, "[Ireland] was never part of Britain".

"This is indisputable but Hawaii is part of a country called the United States of America - not the 'United States of America and Hawaii'." Eh? That's correct. The territory includes some 50 states I believe. The territory of the United Kingdom includes four states, which are described in the country's full name. "Scotland, Wales and England were and are the constituent countries of Britain. Ireland never was"... Yes - those three territories are, and were, on the island of Britain. What's your point?

"Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, a person from Northern Ireland can choose to designate him or herself as Irish or British or both." The actor of this article died well before negotiations started on the Belfast Agreement. The article suggests that people can choose to describe themselves as either British or Irish or both, as you point out. This doesn't have any bearing on 1912, however. Nor, in fact, does it negate the fact that anyone born in Northern Ireland, to Northern Irish parents, are British by default. It has no relevance to this actor though.

"I don't know either how Arthur O'Sullivan would have described himself." He could have described himself as Chinese or as a Martian. However, being born in the United Kingdom, he was British and Irish.

"But all the article states is that he was born in Ireland" - which in 1912, was part of the United Kingdom... "and to label him as British when he was not born in Britain is just plain wrong." again, as I tried to tell you earlier, one does not have to have been born on the island of Britain to be British. Britain only refers to that (largest) part of the United Kingdom.

"I am copying our discussion to Talk:Arthur O'Sullivan where perhaps some other editor will raise the matter with you in the future." I actually considered doing that myself. You beat me to it! Unfortunately, I think there may be some others who hold the erroneous view that you have to be born on Britain to be British. Hopefully sense and logic will prevail, of course. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.E. Welcome (to WPNI)

Hi thanks for the kind warm welcome! i hope to create numerous articles and help out WP:NIR. Thanks again Adster95 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Flag

Having read over [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Deliberate Disruptive Editing

Stop moving articles from "Flag of Ireland" to "Flag of Republic of Ireland". This is plainly disruptive, especially in light of the recent discussions to reverse the latest moves. 75.145.158.173 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been engaged in disruptive editing. In fact, I haven't moved any articles for a couple of weeks. By the way - get an account. Oh you can't, can you Wikipéire? --Setanta747 (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have got an ID and I do think you are being provocative given all the other discussions. An open discussion about the various proposed moves on the Irish project page. For the moment you feel like those inserting or removing British Isles. --Snowded TALK 03:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded I don't quite follow what you have said here, so please bear with me. Firstly, I'm guessing that you are declaring yourself to be the IP 75.145.158.173 yeah? If that is the case, then your IP is similar (from what I remember) to that of some of Wikipéire's anon edits. Please accept my apology for the misunderstanding and assumption, if this is the case.

I don't think I am being provocative at all. Rather, I feel I'm being useful to Wikipedia as an editor, clarifying here and there, tidying up elsewhere and adding information still elsewhere.

Unfortunately I can't understand your second and third sentences. --Setanta747 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I have, and only ever will edit under snowded. I think all IP edits should be subject to a 0RR policy for example. So I accept your apology although I am miffed you should even have thought it possible. As to the rest, you have been around these pages for long enough to know that the moves were controversial. You did not inform editors or post to the pages under watch as a result of this the flag article was pushed through quickly (there is a possible complaint about the admin here). We have a massive problem with two editors who have been inserted or removing "British Isles" which finally got up into formal complaint. You are in danger of going to same way with multiple edits on one day. --Snowded TALK 03:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was your "I have an ID" that confused me! Sorry, again! :) I'm still of the suspicion therefore, that our anon here is Wikipéire.

I haven't made any "moves", as I told the anon IP editor above. I think you and the anon are going to have to specify what it is you seem to have a problem with - which edit(s)? As for "multiple edits in one day", I wasn't aware that there was any kind of restriction. I have been editing more than one page per day for years now. --Setanta747 (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of Wiki Lawyer here you know. Multiple edits to propose moves, remove county numbers etc. It is the same pattern as British Isles and it is simply not helpful. --Snowded TALK 04:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. You'll have to be clear and specific about which edit(s) you have a problem with. You suggest I have made "multiple edits to propose moves", though I am only aware of one such proposal I have made recently - the Counties of Ireland article. As for "remove county numbers".. presumably you are referring to the extraneous "the six counties of Northern Ireland" in Ulster Scots article? I was quite surprised that you had reverted my edit and in fact I'm just after leaving a query on the article's talk page about it.

In what way do you feel my proposal for a move, the edit I made to Ulster Scots and this conflict about "British Isles" you mention, are related? --Setanta747 (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) two move requests and related edits, even if you didn't intend it (assuming good faith) it looks political. If you don't get what I am saying then look here to see what happens. --Snowded TALK 04:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you'll have to be specific, Snowded. You are not making very much sense to me. Let's start at the beginning: which "two" move requests? --Setanta747 (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really are not that naive --Snowded TALK 04:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Snowded, please be specific about your apparent problem with my editing. Otherwise, I cannot begin to attempt to help sort the problem out. --Setanta747 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the dispruptive editing, changing Ireland to ROI throughout wikipedia. It is wrong and you been warned for it as indicated by all these comments.Ιρλανδία (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been involved in any disruptive editing. Nor have I been changing Ireland to RoI throughout Wikipedia unless in circumstances which I believe disambiguation is necessary. As for it being "wrong" - that is highly subjective.

I don't think you've grasped the concept of multiple posts by one user. Most people should be able to see that "all these comments" have been left by myself, one user and one anonymous IP address. I don't consider my edits to be "wrong" either - I consider them to be useful and helpful to the target audience of Wikipedia. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]