Jump to content

User talk:SonofSetanta/Archive N

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the note

About DPL bot - I always want to know when something goes wrong. In this case, though, the problem came from the tool you used to do the fixing - Dab Solver. I've dropped a note at Dispenser's talk page to ask about it. (The bug appears to have already been fixed BTW.) Cheers, --JaGatalk 15:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Black Watch, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages George II, Charles II and Gaelic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bill Bellamy (soldier)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

1RR article

If what your claiming is indeed the truth I urge you to self revert on the article, if not you are aware of the troubles restrictions and the sanctions which cover them. Mo ainm~Talk 13:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

AE report

See here Mo ainm~Talk 15:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Change to AE comment

Using caps to "shout" at another use is not appropriate. Neither is calling them an "idiot" like you did. Since that bad action was easily remedied I removed the caps and replaced "idiot" with "editor" so it won't inflame the situation. Please remember to stay cool even in the face of accusations of policy violations.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at The Devil's Advocate's talk page.

Outing of other editors

Please read WP:OUTING, then Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive623#User Mo ainm's alternate account status. Specifically "His clean start is legit, and a Checkuser and Oversighter confirmed it. She also stated the previous account was connected to his real name, hence no public connection as that would defeat the entire purpose of the new account and would be WP:OUTING. If he gets into trouble with this new account, he will of course receive consequences, and the connection will be utilized by those aware of it if necessary. At this point, I recommend you stop beating the dead horse". I have redacted various uses of a username which may or may not be correct, and I strongly recommend you don't attempt to link Mo ainm to any previous account due to the reasons already given. Obviously you can't make any similarly claims about WP:OUTING, since you claim you're not a sock.... 2 lines of K303 10:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not give you authority to redact anything I have written. If you have assumed this authority based on precedent then be aware the privilege does not extend to you. I also ask you to cease the personal attacks and incivility you are directing at me. I am not a sockpuppet. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with me posting the information when it's true and has been admitted? Also, who had the right to redact anything from my comments except me or an admin? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Where has it been admitted? Mo ainm~Talk 13:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I am an admin (Arbitrator, Checkuser and Oversighter). In this very specific instance, if I tell you to stop, you stop. I have also said that others should drop arguing about whether you had a previous account - if you did, it's not blocked, and it stopped editing too long ago to be relevant. You're going good to get this account blocked even if it is new, so I suggest you calm things down a bit.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
How is asking for help going good to get my account blocked? I've come to you, genuinely with cap in hand, asking for help. I note your advice and will take it, as I hope others do. All I want to do is edit Wikipedia, I don't want any hassle. Advise me as much as you want and I will take your advice - that's what I want. I'm a littler bit slow to edit and see everything as it changes around me though because I'm not used to all of this page to page conversation.SonofSetanta (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick tip - Underpants of Doom is a sock of a banned user. Now there is a very strict rule about being banned and coming back as a sock.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah I didn't know that. I'm afr4aid I still have much to learn. That kind of blows the theory about me being a reincarnation of an experienced user. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Redaction

If any redaction is to be done in an AE thread, it will be done either by the author of that comment or by an uninvolved administrator; it will not be done by the subject of the complaint, period. Don't do it again. T. Canens (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing me because another editor did exactly that to me this morning and when I undid it I was threatened with sanctions (see post above yours). SonofSetanta (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

AE report

FYI here Mo ainm~Talk 16:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Result of the complaint about your edits at WP:Arbitration enforcement

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Per this AE decision on a complaint that you violated 1RR on 8 January at Ulster Defence Regiment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that you've not yet received a formal notice of the discretionary sanctions, I'm leaving one now.
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to The Troubles. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your appeal template below, you actually have to fill in the contents for it to be copied over to AE for you. You can't just say 'I appeal' and give no reasons. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Appeal

Appeal withdrawn. Whether I like it or not I have fallen foul of the 1RR restriction due to gaming by others. Had I not been locked down tight since last week I would have appealed through a sense of chagrin but other things are now assuming more importance than being cornered by gamers. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Harry Baxter (Soldier)

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

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

A tag has been placed on Harry Baxter (Soldier) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Harry Baxter (Soldier)

Hi SonofSetanta, you recently removed a deletion tag from Harry Baxter (Soldier). Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, SonofSetanta. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. When you recently edited Harry Baxter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab Regiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Report at AE

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 2 lines of K303 13:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sono, you should fix up your reports at AE. They're a tad sloppy, concerning broken links. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry mate I really haven't got a clue what I'm doing so I'm just doing my best until I can forget about all this fighting and get back to editing. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

AE Result

Pursuant to this AE Report you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, broadly construed across all namespaces for 90 days. Further, for filing multiple frivolous bad-faith requests at Arbitration Enforcement you are banned from participation there for 90 days. You may only post to WP:AE to appeal this ban. --WGFinley (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Block

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for violating your Troubles topic ban listed above. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. WGFinley (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

You went and participated at the talk page at Ulster Defense Regiment after your ban listed above. You were previously blocked a week for violating 1RR, since you can't seem to follow your warnings I am blocking you for 2 weeks.

I realize you have a pending appeal of your ban at AE, you can post comments for AE here on your talk page for them to be copied over. I really wish you would treat this a bit more seriously, right now it seems you intend to keep editing these articles without any regard to your behavior or your ban. --WGFinley (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the circumstances that led to this block and the topic ban it is enforcing, I believe your statement at AE that you're not a troublemaker. However, you've got yourself into a bit of a pickle, and I'm concerned that if you keep following the trajectory you're on at the moment, you're only going to get into more trouble. My advice is to take the two weeks off without fighting it, and then come back refreshed and find something that takes your interest and isn't going to get you into trouble—you say you have an interest in military history, so why not help out at WP:MILHIST, or find something completely different that you enjoy and that keeps you out of trouble. Then after your 90 days are up, you can go back to editing "Troubles" I hate that term, but it's the least-worst option topics, and make a real effort to keep your nose clean, but people who edit only in one area (especially a controversial one) often lose the perspective that an editor with broader interests might have. If I can help keep you out of trouble, or if you're looking for something to do when your block expires, get in touch. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
HJ is right and if you explained to me the circumstances of your violation of the ban I might be inclined to review it. --WGFinley (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I just didn't know. I thought the ban meant a block and when I was able to access the talk page I edited. I didn't expect my editing world to come crashing down.SonofSetanta (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Based on your email I am going to lift your block since you seemed to think the system would prevent you from editing banned articles. Topic bans are something you control yourself, there's no way for us to block you in the system. That means you cannot edit any article or participate in any discussions related to The Troubles for the next three months. Please take a look at HJ's suggestions above and when in doubt ask before editing, a future block is unlikely to be reduced so easily. --WGFinley (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Denis Ormerod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Malaya
Harry Baxter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Malaya

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

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

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

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

1RR breach

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 2 lines of K303 16:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN case

Hello! You recently filed a case on Dispute resolution noticeboard. I would ask you to revise the nomination, as it currently lacks the list of editors involved in dispute. You should also invite each of them personally on their talk pages using {{drn-notice}} template. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Latest 1RR violation

Your latest 1RR violation is being discussed here.--Domer48'fenian' 14:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Closed thread at DRN

The DRN thread is not going anywhere, most of the involved participants did not participate. DRN is voluntary, it is best if all parties agree to it before filing at it. I also note that you appear to be forcing your changes despite the DRN being open. For both of these reasons It's clear then that the DRN thread is superfluous and so I've closed it: no binding consensus can be reached there. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Bare urls

Hi, can I ask you to be careful of using bare urls in your refs. Making them readable is as simple as enclosing them in square brackets, and adding a space followed by a description, e.g. instead of "http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0135/S.0135.199304290006.html" you write "[http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0135/S.0135.199304290006.html Seanad debates 29 April 1993]". Instead of "http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0135/S.0135.199304290006.html" you get "Seanad debates 29 April 1993". Scolaire (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to oblige.SonofSetanta (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per the consensus of uninvolved administrators in this AE thread, you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, broadly construed across all namespaces for a period of 4 months. This topic ban may be appealed at AE, and every six months thereafter. Per WP:AC/DS#Appeal you may appeal this ban the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or directly to the Arbitration Committee--Cailil talk 13:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The dispute at Provisional IRA

Hi. I see you're still arguing the toss with KillerChihuahua over at AE. I think you're labouring under a couple of misapprehensions. The main one is that your edits of the lead had some sort of consensus. They didn't. I for one totally disagreed with them. I tried to tell you why, but you have an uncanny knack of misinterpreting all my criticisms as support for your position. Any edits I made to your version were not meant as an endorsement, but rather as damage limitation in case the “wrong version” got edit-protected. I was not about to blanket-revert, because I don't do edit-warring, but I was not sorry when Hackney did, and I think his detailed critique of your version was bang-on and didn't deserve to be ignored the way it was. DagosNavy said he "partially agreed" with your version, but nobody else said anything positive about it at any time. Your frequent invitations to editors to comment on your version sounded collaborative on the face of it, but there was also an implicit challenge there: discussion of the stable version was not invited.

Another misapprehension IMO is that a significant number of people thought the lead was "wrong". There is something you are probably not aware of: the current lead was the result of a long-drawn-out and surprisingly successful collaboration in 2009. The discussion (or at least the productive part of it) is at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/draft-talk. The draft agreed on then is at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/draft. The differences between it and the current lead are minimal. The fact that it was agreed by editors with a wide diversity of political views says a lot for its NPOV. The fact that you believed Hackney was restoring a "POV" version says something about your idea of neutrality.

You call yourself a historian. So do I. There are plenty of things in the IRA article that could be improved by a historian in terms of clarity, sourcing etc. without jumping straight into controversial questions (Óglaigh na hÉireann, "is" v "was", "Catholic" v "nationalist"). To say, as you have said, "I have no agenda except to competently rewrite the article" seems to me just a tad disingenuous.

If you were interested in a genuine, concerted, collaborative re-write of the article sometime after Christmas (ideally leaving the lead until last), I would be all for it. Scolaire (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Dolan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your email

With your email regarding Larrywyse, there is nothing you can do to 'help' him. In my opinion, he writes in a different style to you and that's it. I'd advise you both stop edit-warring against each other over minute details such as buried/interred/he/his ashes etc etc. Just lay it off and if another editor comes along and think he/she should change it, then let them change it. The best thing to do in an edit war is to communicate (which you haven't done - you said you've emailed but you should post a personal message on his talk page), and if that fails, just back off. If it's such a big issue, ask someone to have a look (like you did just now). But in my opinion, Larrywyse isn't doing anything wrong/unconstructive, on the article of Dolan. Talk to each other. Make love not war. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 15:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SonofSetanta. You have new messages at Kinkreet's talk page.
Message added 17:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 17:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ulster Defence Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IRA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Ulster Defence Regiment, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You have deleted these images incorrectly. As outlined on your talk page they are all directly related to the text they accompany and significantly increase a readers understanding of the subject matter. Furthermore there is no copyright issue. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 2001, pp. 366–369</ref><ref>Rebel Hearts – Journey's within the IRA's soul, Kevin Toolis, 1995. PB) ISBN 0-312-15632-4 p.334</ref> An account of this (second) attack on Corporal Glass was carried in
  • * Brigadier [[Mervyn McCord]] CBE, MC, ADC (1976–1978) [[Royal Ulster Rifles, [[Royal Irish Rangers]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Warning

  • SonofSetanta regarding this[1] stop. It is not incumbent on Werieth to self revert here. You are equally at fault for reverting him in the first instance. Let the NFCR thread run its course and disengage. Trying to use the Troubles RFAR to win a dispute is just as bad as breaching it. This is a warning. Step back--Cailil talk 14:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Message received, loud and clear. For the record I wasn't going to use the sanction policy to win the dispute but merely to illustrate that the sanctions apply to everyone, even keen picture deleters. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for breaching 1RR mandated by WP:TROUBLES and general edit-warring in relation to non free images images on the page Ulster Defence Regiment,
you have been blocked from editing for 48 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Cailil talk 16:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

(ec)You need to realize SonOfSetanta that if you report someone for a breach of 1RR and then you do it yourself you are likely to get sanctioned[2]. Furthermore waiting exactly 24 hours to perform a revert just to reimpose your preferred version of an article is considered gaming 1RR and is blockable. So you are blocked both for actually breaching the 1RR and for general editwarring behaviour on the Ulster Defence Regiment article. I've repeatedly told you to step back. You have refused to do so. Relax there's no deadline here. The NFCR discussion will remain open at least until July 11th. Take this time to please read wikipedia's policy on non free images and the restrictions around them Also please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks--Cailil talk 16:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Calil I did not report the guy. I discussed it with you and took your advice not to, extending the WP:GOODFAITH that I hope will be extended to me now. I've not been generally edit-warring, just using the options open to me because I feel the files which have been removed are valuable and if it's a simple matter of protocol then all I have to do is find the correct one in each case to allow me to proceed, which I thought was what I was doing. I've not been rude to anyone and I've not been fighting with anyone. I'm asking you to extend WP:GOODFAITH to me now on the basis that I have no previous knowledge of fighting NFCR cases. Take a look at ALL of my edits over the last week - nothing contentious, nothing with undue weight, just straight forward NPOV editing with good sourcing and reffing to try and raise an article to A Class. I even asked for and obtained a mentor (Scolaire). SonofSetanta (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
PS. You got it wrong when discussing my block record. I have not been blocked since January 2012, a block which was immediately lifted because I was not at fault. Ok you topic banned me in August 2012, 11 months ago but this is not a repetition of that type of behaviour. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't play word games SoS. You came to me saying Wereith broke 1RR. You then broke 1RR. You cannot have it both ways.
It *is* 7 months since your 4 month topic ban (which I imposed) expired. It's 18 months since your last block, but not your last sanction under WP:TROUBLES. Good faith would apply IF I had not told you multiple times to STOP and step back and allow the NFCR thread to run its course.
Furthermore waiting for the clock to hit 24 in order to revert aint good enough - that's battle ground stuff and indicative of edit warring. This could have been a far harsher sanction given your history in this topic area I have already been lenient. My advice stands: there is no deadline - take the 2 days to learn about non free content on wikipedia; the NFCR thread will remain open till well into next week; step back try to see the bigger picture. And BTW please 'read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks. Using {{unblock}} as you have doen is pointless. No other sysop can reverse this kind of block on their own--Cailil talk 19:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Calil would you please consider letting me use my sandbox in the interim? At least I can work there without offending anyone. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm afriad that's not possible due to way blocks work. The Block will actually expire in around 24 hours time. If you really want to work on text I'd suggest saving work in a Notepad (or quivalent like TextEdit or Gedit) document and copying and pasting changes tomorrow. But please avoid *any* changes relating to non free images on that page until the NFCR thread is closed by an uninvolved sysop--Cailil talk 14:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Given the time of day it's hardly worth it now but thanks for the reply. I would like to take the opportunity however to make you aware, if you didn't already know, that my heart is in the right place with regards to all of this. You've only got to look at my edits to see what I've been trying to do. It's been easier this time round in the absence of any bullies or tag-teamers but I'd already decided to just stop editing if they appeared - I'm not well enough to cope with that sort of carry on, (if you were kind enough to contact me directly I'd be happy to explain). I simply wasn't prepared for the intervention by Werieth when it happened and wish he'd discussed his intent on the article talk page in advance. I feel that would have had a better outcome as I have a mindset for collegiate discussion on articles themselves. A point of fact is that I hated the inclusion of the two political posters and had tried to have them removed in the past but was always voted down or edit-warred into submission at a time when I didn't have the experience or mindset to cope with such things. (You'll remember all of this). I'd come to believe however that, in the right contxt, they provided necessary balance. I still have a lot to learn with regards to some protocols on the wiki and this experience has been a harsh lesson in my opinion. Nevertheless I am happy to confirm my commitment to try and improve the articles on the site which fall into my sphere of interest.
BTW I'm less than impressed with Werieth's apparent gloating in the post below. Hardly conciliatory or polite, would you agree? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


Let me highlight a few points here:
  • One, you threatened me with a 1RR block several times
  • Went to an administrator, notified them of the breach.
  • Threatened me again, basically demanding that I self revert
  • You do not understand WP:NFCC (You have admitted that yourself)
  • I have a lot of experience and knowledge in that area
  • I removed the files based off of NFCC
  • You filed a NFCR
  • Several people told you that all but one or two of those files really cant meet NFCC
  • You waited just about 24 hours to re-insert files that you don't understand why where removed (after being repeatedly told they don't meet policy)
  • You violated the letter of 1RR, and the spirit of not editwarring
  • I could have taken this to arbcom enforcement, but I tried to ask an administrator which you have a history with to see if they could step in and put you back on track before I escalated things. (Please note I never threatened you with a block or to drag you to arbcom enforcement)
In my opinion you should shut-up and take your lumps like an adult. GOODFAITH really has worn out see WP:PACT. Werieth (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I did not edit war on Ulster Defence Regiment. I made a WP:GOODFAITH edit on a new day's editing and didn't note that the time was 1hr and 20 minutes inside the 24 hour period. By the time this was brought to my attention there was no point in reverting as the 24 hour deadline had passed. There was no urgency with the work and it could have waited until after the deadline if I had paid sufficient attention to the clock. I am unfamiliar with non free images and whilst I have accepted advice and started a case at Wikipedia:Non-free content review I also discussed my options there and felt that I had acted reasonably with regards to the two images I restored; in one case altering text to fit and in the other making alterations to two other pages, including doing a redirect for the first time and thanking the editor who made the suggestion. I feel I have acted in a collegiate way and as a responsible Wikipedian. Given the extensive amount of work I have contributed over the past week on Ulster Defence Regiment without causing any trouble at all I believe I have demonstrated that any previous difficulties I may have had are long in the past. I request that the block be lifted to allow me to proceed with the work I have planned - with the lesson learned. I would also ask the imposing editor to consider that it was I who went to him seeking advice. I felt I had taken the guidance offered, particularly as I did not act without properly discussing my actions and motives at NFCC. Enforcement of this block will be very frustrating for me as I feel I have done a lot of good in the last week or so and I ask for mercy. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whether you thought you were edit warring or not, you were edit warring, and next time you will certainly be more careful as you will understand that WP:EDITWAR isn't about 1RR or 3RR; it's about edit warring per se. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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.

File permission problem with File:UDR Memorial - National Arboretum.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:UDR Memorial - National Arboretum.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:UDR Memorial Seat - National Arboretum.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:UDR Memorial Seat - National Arboretum.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

1st/9th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to RUC
8th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Caledon
Militia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Royal Irish Regiment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

UDR Milhist A-class review

G'day, Sonof Setanta, welcome to the Military history project's A-class review. So that you know for next time, in relation to your nomination of the Ulster Defence Regiment, when you transcluded the review you posted it on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French ship Vengeur du Peuple page, rather than on the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review page. This wasn't quite correct procedure and resulted in your review going to the bottom of the list, rather than the top. I have corrected this for you with this edit: [3]. Anyway, good luck with the review. As ACR relies on volunteers, while you are waiting for someone to review your submission, please consider reviewing one of the other articles that hasn't yet been reviewed. To help you assess, the A-class criteria can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Cap Badge of the Ulster Defence Regiment.jpg

This has an invalid source and because its non-free you need to restrict its usage (I have already removed it from all non-complaint pages) Werieth (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not re-add that file to all of those pages, it fails NFCC on multiple points. Werieth (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't. You listed the two points: wrong source and no fair use rationale for each image. That's now been taken care of. It's a crown copyright image used in a military infobox to identify units of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Only this image does that - there is no alternative. However I will raise this on MILHIST straight away. They are the experts on copyright of military insignia. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I didnt not state all reasons for removing in the edit summary. See WP:NFCC#8, and WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFC#UUI. Please lets not have a repeat of last time. I dont want to see you blocked again. Werieth (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You need to stop, if you don't by only remaining alternative to having you blocked is a NFC topic ban. Werieth (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Stop what? all I've done is replace the licence and fair use rationales? SonofSetanta (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Corporal Eric Glass - 4 UDR.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Corporal Eric Glass - 4 UDR.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

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

5th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Captain
6th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ballygawley
9th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Antrim
Glenanne barracks bombing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Private

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Help Requested

SonofSetanta (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping by. I believe I am in a situation of interpersonal difficulty with another editor. That is Werieth (talk. I've come across him as a result of his copyright enforcement work and I believe that my efforts to comply with copyright have made him angry at me to the extent that he is now stalking me on Ulster Defence Regiment. He has displayed a good knowledge of Wikipedia copyright but lacks understanding about military articles and as a result he sees my efforts as trying to thwart his. This has resulted in him editwarring with me and trying to make a frivolous complaint against me at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SonofSetanta_and_TROUBLES. I believe I have a clear understanding of what he's trying to do and I would like him to have the same understanding of the contributions I make to the wiki. Can you help? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I can. I suggest you read and follow the procedures in WP:Dispute resolution. You should be able to get some closure that way. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 13:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have read the information you supplied and as a result have opened a case here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Ulster_Defence_Regiment. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Help me

Can the case I opened at Dispute Resolution be reopened please? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the explanation at the top of your dispute resolution request, you'll see that you've been instructed to take the dispute to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Requests for comment/User conduct, or Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. You may file a request there, but the discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard won't be reopened, as that noticeboard is for content disputes only. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The Yellow Crad.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Yellow Crad.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The Blue Card.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Blue Card.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that you might want to pause your work on images and addition of images to articles until you get out of the conflicts and either put your reasons together well or gain more understanding of how copyrights works in Wikipedia. Persistence to make these edits without complete understanding of Wikipedia policy or without reasonable explanation from you on the already ongoing copyright issues with your existing images will lead to more conflict among or with other editors. Please take this as a friendly advice by a co-editor. Hope you understand.  A m i t  웃   18:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi SonofSetanta. I understand that you want to contribute in a policy compliant manner. I would have liked to help explain things, but I myself am not familiar with image copyright issues, despite being here for about a year now. These issues look snaky to me. I suggest that you may consider voluntarily stopping uploading any images for a few weeks. Undertake to discuss image copyright issues with other users during that time. And undertake to upload your next few images only after clearance from an admin. I am not an admin. Please consider this friendly advice. If you are facing problems with others, it is not good to try to bulldoze ahead. I am sure the problem can be solved with some discussion and by trying to understand the correct way to comply copyright policies. With some discussion and growing experience, you should be able to solve the difficulty. Cheers.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop overwriting uploaded files

Please do not overwrite uploaded files with images of different sources, as you recently did at File:RUR.jpg. There were several ongoing discussions, here and on Commons, hinging upon the copyright and licensing status of that image; your replacement of it with an altogether different one will now introduce a great deal of confusion, as no one will be sure whether comments refer to the old image or the new one.

In the future, if you want to replace an image with one from a different source, please upload it under a new filename. However, given that many (if not most) of the files you have contributed recently have raised objections, it might be better to avoid uploading altogether without first announcing in detail at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions what it is you intend to upload (including a description of who produced the image or photograph, what it depicts, and if it depicts some piece of artwork or handiwork, who produced the artwork or handiwork). Then give the community some time (say, a day or two) to discuss the proposal with you; if no one sees any problems then it's probably safe to proceed with the upload. This way any obvious problems can be headed off in advance. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In fairness to me I did announce well in advance that I was going to use a Crown Copyright image and licence on that file. And in fairness to me again most of the images I have uploaded recently have caused no problems at all. We're actually talking about only 2 or 3 images which there is an issue with and, as you say, there are ongoing discussions regarding them. I won't stop uploading images because there is no problem with most of them and I'll continue to work with you to try and resolve the problems with those that have them. I hear what you say regarding images which are under discussion however and I'll be more careful. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Harry Baxter

Irish born, even with the cite its still not fitting right. Any place given in Ryder for it? Murry1975 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No just want to make it neater bud, will get back to it after the Saturday afternoon shopping! Murry1975 (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
PS is that county or city? lol Murry1975 (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Oh dear, someone is a bit, well you know. Its odd, if you think about what he claims, that he works for celtic and all he can add is, well, nothing much really! Thanks for that bud. Murry1975 (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Militia etc

Re Ulster Special Constabulary, the only Northern Irish category I could think of for it (apart from establishments) is Category:Military history of Northern Ireland. Is a new category for Northern Ireland (eg Militia of/in Northern Ireland) warranted? Hugo999 (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure

Regarding this request, I left a note at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#Request for closure, so hopefully someone will get to it soon. Just thought you'd want to know. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Denis Ormerod, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 4th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The first training Major (TISO) was Major KW Battison (Royal Welsh Fusiliers]]. <ref>Potter p27</ref> Part of his job was to find accommodation for the various companies of the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • force was almost exclusively Protestant and and as a result was viewed with great mistrust by [[Irish Catholics|Catholics]. During the 1920s, it is alleged to have carried out several revenge
  • pg_police_museum/pg_the_royal_ulster_constabulary/pg_ulster_special_sonstabulary.htm PSNI]</ref>); {{Dead link|date=March 2009}} (originally 19,000 members)<ref name="ReferenceA"/> and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of images

I notice that you've added an image to Wikipedia and used it in articles claiming that it is IRA men disguised as UDR soldiers. The original source has this as just UDR soldiers, not as IRA imposters. As a result this is misrepresenting the image/using a photo to present something it is not. Please don't so it again. Also the photos you've been uploading will need to be checked through as you've uploaded them as CC licensing despite the fact you've just snipped them from a blog. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, yes sorry about that and the misrepresentation, I see the descriptions better now. However the point about the images taken from the site still stands. Canterbury Tail talk 16:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've begun a discussion about this image on its talkpage (here). ~Asarlaí 16:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to wrap this up. I became doubtful about the provenance of this image when I saw that it's caption had changed at the source. As a result I have now nominated the picture for deletion. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

1RR

2 reverts in 25 hours could be seen as trying to game the 1 RR on USC but you're well aware of that and it never stopped you before so why would it now. Mo ainm~Talk 11:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Another brick in the wall

No matter how much you complain about certain editors who are blatantly gaming the system to get editors topic-banned, it will almost always fall on deaf ears. You're not the first, and you won't be the last. Solution? Don't bite the bait. Mabuska (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ulster Defence Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monkstown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SonofSetanta/Archive_N&oldid=1142489681"