User talk:Trickyjack

Civility[edit]

I removed your vote from the Edward O'Brien AFD, as it clearly was intended as a provocative personal attack, rather than an actual vote. Please keep it civil if you want to vote again. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, as you are a Republican wikipedia admin, I respect your duty to push the republican agenda wherever you can. But be honest about it please, you removed my vote because it was for the deletion of an article on a provos "volunteer". Don't fucking insult me by suggesting otherwise. Trickyjack (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Stu that the tone was uncivil. Indeed, by the few number of contributions on your account, Trickyjack (talk · contribs), there are strong concerns that this is simply a throwaway account created to participate in bad faith, and stir the pot. Or in other words: If you would like to engage in constructive editing of the encyclopedia, please do. But if you continue with provocative acts, account access may be blocked. --El on ka 02:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do whatever you want. I understand BigDunc, another Republican, requested that you block me. Articles on the troubles are so dominated by one side, I never knew there could be such clear bias on wikipedia. I could name you editors with an edit history solely focused on pushing their anti British, pro terrorism POV, but would you care? No, just do whatever BigDunc and the other Republicans tell you to do. See if I care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickyjack (talk • contribs)

I think that BigDunc will be one of the first editors to tell you that I'm not exactly biased in his favor. ;) But the point isn't about political views here, it's about working on the project. In the past couple weeks, your account isn't working on articles. All you seem to be doing is jumping from talkpage to talkpage, complaining about bias. If you continue that behavior, your account access may be blocked. To avoid a block, the choice is quite simple: All you have to do is work on articles. If you're not sure what to work on, check WP:CLEANUP, or Category:Articles that need to be wikified. We definitely have lots of work that needs doing! --El on ka 03:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, firstly I'm not an admin. Secondly I'm definitely not a republican. Thirdly, you obviously voted in the AFD without actually reading it. I nominated the article, and was arguing for it's deletion. I removed your vote for the reasons given, nothing else. If you think there's a bias in any article, then your best course of action is to fix it, while complying with our policies. Spouting hateful shite on take pages as you're doing now will only earn you a fairly quick ban. I guess that's the easier approach though, isn't it? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it? Hah, this is an encyclopaedia that regards An Phoblacht as a valid source..Trickyjack (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community restrictions[edit]

The article Ulster Defence Association, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are:

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related.
- Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

O Fenian (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just broke the above rule at Provisional Irish Republican Army, please use the talk page for disputed edits per WP:BRD --Snowded ^TALK 13:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 revert per day? How did I break that rule? Trickyjack (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17:47 on the 27th is your original insertion, you then reverted at 13:46 today. You know full well that such behaviour is edit warring on Troubles articles. Please stop. --Snowded ^TALK 13:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "classified" is the correct terminology, I will edit loyalist organisations articles so that they are no longer Republican POV. Or would that offend you? :) Trickyjack (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for personal attacks. 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. El on ka 02:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Elonka, keep driving the unionists down. Tiocfaidh Ar La. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickyjack (talk • contribs)

FYI, this account has been added to the list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irvine22. --El on ka 16:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For no reason other than I share similar political views. Seems on around here if someone doesn't like you they accuse you of "sock puppetry". Quite ridiculous, the accusers should be punished for lying and false accusations when I am vindicated. Trickyjack (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Incivility, personal attacks, disruptive single-purpose account behavior in the Troubles topic area.. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. El on ka 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(followup to block template) Trickyjack, previous communications do not seem to have been getting the message across, so your account is now blocked indefinitely. If you would like to resume editing, you must indicate that you understand the policies of the Wikipedia project, and you must give your word that you will abide by them. Specifically, this means to use Wikipedia for its primary purpose, which is to build articles, not to use it as a battleground. It is also important that you review Wikipedia's policies on civility and no personal attacks, and promise that any future communications from you will be strictly focused on articles, and not on other editors. If you are willing to make such assurances, the block may be lifted, just put your understanding in your own words. Thanks, --El on ka 16:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I will in due course, but answer me this: have BigDunc's communications focused on articles, not other editors? He has accused me of sockpuppetry countless times for seemingly no apparent reason, made countless complaints against me and other editors he disagrees with, and has generally focused on pushing his own POV. As for single purpose account, I don't understand what is wrong with that. Ulster is my home, it is a topic close to my heart and most important to me. These other editors cannot understand that, as very few are actually from Ulster and have personal experience of the troubles. Trickyjack (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say above that you have been accused by BigDunc of sockpuppetry "countless times". Given that this account has only been in place since November that implies that you have previously edited under another name. Perhaps you would tell us which ones? --Snowded ^TALK 18:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I have not edited under any other name - I have been accused of sockpuppetry more than once since November. Trickyjack (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any warnings on your talk page which would be normal --Snowded ^TALK 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to offhand, uncivil comments rather than official warnings. I have been subject to pretty severe personal attacks. Trickyjack (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a couple diffs of the more egregious examples? --El on ka 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Now you want diffs...? Do I sense a little inconsistency here...oh, I think I do!) Irvine22 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like searching for a needle in a haystack, we are past it. However I consider the recent sockputtet investigation to have been conducted in very bad taste. I was accused based on political speculation. I also wonder why I have been blocked indefinitely after having been blocked only once before, whereas users like Domer have been blocked many times. Dunc n Domer are like tweedledum and tweedledee, backing each other up, trawling through troubles articles pushing their own POV. Yet whenever Dunc comments on Elonkas page it results in action against the latest individual he has accused. I feel as though there is little point contesting an indef block until some time has elapsed anyway, or the chance of getting it repealed is practically nil. It is very hard trying to be civil towards armchair IRA supporters from the south of Ireland, I will say that. They don't have any idea what a war is. Trickyjack (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that your block proceeded so swiftly is for two main reasons: (1) You weren't paying attention to earlier warnings; and (2) You weren't actually working on articles. If you look at the contributions of BigDunc (talk · contribs) or Domer48 (talk · contribs), you will see that ideology aside, they actually spend a good amount of time working on articles or doing useful project cleanup. Whereas for your account, since you weren't doing anything constructive, your activities were a net negative to the project, which is why a block was appropriate. If you'd like to resume editing, you need to give assurances that you are here for the right reasons (building articles), and that you are willing to engage with other editors in a civil and collegial way. So, for example, if your block were lifted, what exactly would you like to do for the project? If the answer is "Argue with BigDunc", that's not helpful. Better would be to say something like, "I'd like to expand the articles related to Ulster artwork" or "I'm interested in updating biographies of 1920s politicians," or "I'd like to help revert vandalism", etc. --El on ka 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations against me[edit]

Seeing as Domer a few days ago posted accusations about me where I cannot reply, including unfair accusations of sectarianism, (I don't hate all catholics, just ones that want to take my freedom and steal my land) i'll say this in reply, in case Domer reads it. It is scarcely possible to find an edit you have made that is not positive towards republicanism, or anti British in some way. I happen to love Britain and Ireland, Ireland is my home and I have British citizenship. The reason I edited in a somewhat partisan manner, was to counter bias on wikipedia as I saw it. For instance, capitalising the "D" in "Deputy First Minister" in the McGuinness infobox as per wikipedia rules. All wikipedia articles related are so riddled with errors and POV nonsense, I would certainly never use it as a serious source of information. On citizendium I have the freedom to edit in a much more neutral way, because articles related to the British isles there are not policed by republicans, and are fairly good quality. It is more about adding quality material and improving the encyclopaedia than petty squabbling. On wikipedia if you happen to disagree with partisan republican editors you are shouted down and ganged up on by the whole fenian crew, it is generally impossible to achieve anything that conflicts with the likes of your own revisionist view of history. I don't think you have bad faith, I think the sad thing is you believe 100% in every edit you make, you are perfectly sure your opinions are true. Fuck neutrality, you are correct about every historical and political point.

Wikipedia is a battleground where the most competitive group achieves their version of an article, neutrality is not desired or in any way achieved. When it comes to Ireland, obviously most Irish live in the republic, so clearly most editors with an interest in irish subjects will favor the anti-British view. Then you have the so called "Irish" Americans, experts on the fight for irish freedom. Neutrality never stood a chance. Trickyjack (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice rant off to citizendium then with your NPOV. BigDunc 12:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted here on your talk page [1] were you could reply and you removed it![2]. Baby Jesus cries when we tell lies! --Domer48_'fenian' 14:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if I had a problem with someone Domer I would address it to them, if they were not interested I wouldn't post it elsewhere on other peoples talkpages. I didn't lie, another unfounded accusation. Typical of you to try and waft a genuine point away like that, you aren't capable of real discussion.

BigDunc, I have one question to ask you. Do you honestly believe you are neutral here on wikipedia, and your edits don't have a republican bias? I am truly interested in your answer. Trickyjack (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I always try to maintain NPOV. BigDunc 17:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I had concerns you might have a slight bias, with your denial of the true 1970 origins of provisional Sinn Féin. Perhaps some background reading is required to understand the split. Because surely you wouldn't willingly deny the 1970 creation while having a sound knowledge of the history. Wikipedia probably isn't the best source of information on Irish politics. Trickyjack (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]