User talk:UpTheRa

Welcome![edit]

Welcome!

Hello, UpTheRa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --TeaDrinker 02:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, comrade[edit]

I wanted to let you know how happy I am to see the articles you have posted on the members of the East Tyrone Brigade---well done. A couple of the articles were tagged for speedy deletion as nonnotable individuals, but I mounted a protest and convinced the editor to remove the tags. We have to be vigilant, mostly because a lot of editors here know nothing about the IRA, or know only what the US media tells them, so the importance of the struggle, and the importance of the men who have fallen in that struggle is an unknown quantity to them. Keep up the good work, lad. Cheers! ---Charles 03:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you say, you are new, so don't worry about it. You will get the hang of how to use these talk pages in time. Read the template at the top of my talk page for some tips. To reiterate, I am always happy to see another comrade. Keep up the good work. And, be sure to keep an eye on the articles you write, lest they be deleted before you know it. As for the list of Volunteers who were killed at Loughgall, there will need to be a new article written on Eugene Kelly---the article refered to a Eugene Kelly who was a punk musician. Cheers! ---Charles 03:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the new Eugene Kelly article. I titled it Eugene Kelly (PIRA Member), just for reasons of clairty and what's he known for.GiollaUidir 14:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I've just started these articles to have them up there. I'll enter more detailed accounts when I get more time.--UpTheRa 17:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aahhh! Well done. Before I take a long wiki-break in August, I hope/plan on making a contribution to these articles. The both of you are to be congratulated for the work you have done. ---Charles 17:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate username[edit]

Your username "UpTheRa" is inappropriate under Wikipedia's username policy: "Names that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view (e.g. that "Islam is evil")". You can request it be changed at Wikipedia:Changing username. Thanks. Demiurge 08:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between the username "UpTheRa" and your hypothetical "Islam is evil". First and foremost, very few people would even understand what the phrase Up the 'RA means---it derives from a very specific time and place, and has a history and notability known only to a few. Secondly, it may advocate support of a "controversial" political organization/movement, but it is not explicitly hateful, which the phrase you offer certainly is. I will take this matter as far as policy allows, because the argument you have offered here is simply, in my opinion, and with all due respect, too broad and all-encompassing. Thank you. ---Charles 17:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I'm concerned I didn't select the name to offend anyone but choose it as I'm a supporter of the Republican Movement in Ireland.--UpTheRa 17:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per wiki guidelines WP:USERNAME I find this username grossly offensive - This is a very well known allusion to the IRA and is used as a sectarian chant/slur in Britain and parts of Ireland. Please change your username. .--Weggie 17:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By my reading of WP:USERNAME, this name is not inappropriate. It does not "promote or imply hatred" or "refer to symbols of hatred." The only one that is close is that it can be "recognised as [a] slur or insult"---but I still feel that this is so subjective far too many names could fall into this category. Some people would find my name offensive simply because they find the idea of anarchism offensive. ---Charles 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the use of this particular phrase is regarded as suggested as an sectarian slur. I do not find abstract concepts offensive, but this phrase is akin to using a racial slur 17:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)~~

I'm sorry, but "akin to using a racial slur"? I truly mean no offense, but I think that pushes the level of credibility. ---Charles 17:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it certainly does promote "a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view". This name is guaranteed to offend many unionist Wikipedia editors (and quite a few nationalist ones too). As for "a history and a notability known only to a few", the people who are likely to be offended by it will surely know what it means. It's completely inappropriate just like a "UpTheUVF" or "UDA supporter" username would be. Demiurge 18:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is with language like "a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view" that is so broad that a great many names could fall under it. Where would it stop? I suppose I really have to step back from this particular discussion now, because when I read your comment "guaranteed to offend many unionist[s]," a part of me thought, 'Well, good, let them be offended'---indication that I am not impartial in this discussion. That said, I still have a problem with this language, which is too broad to be very helpful. As for this specific discussion, given my republican sympathies, I will abstain from further comment. UpTheRa knows he has my support, but I simply cannot be objective in this matter. Please know, both Demiurge and Weggie, that I never intended or meant any disrespect in this discussion. ---Charles 18:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Where would it stop?" — It would stop at the point where a reasonable person wouldn't be offended by the name. Demiurge 08:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I love the smell of sectarianism in the morning. Since the Wikipedia is frequented by a great many very knowledgeable Irish Wikipedians, I doubt a "Big Up The Three Letter Abbreviations" username is going to lend much credibility to your edits. As for Charles, tell me, how is the peace process coming along in Indiana? Yours in kneecapping, IslaySolomon 01:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, talk about sectarianism. I have no comment for a man who would make such an idiotic remark about kneecapping. ---Charles 04:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel if a user came up with the username TwinTowers or TradeCentreFreedomfighter? That's the measure of offence this username is causing 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~

Charles, the inhabitants of the IONA are blessed with the gifts of sarcasm and irony. Since you are not, I will explain my point in simpler language:

Green/Orange, Celtic/Rangers, Tricolour/Union Jack, "Ohh Ah Up The Ra"/The Sash are sadly parts of working class culture in the north of Ireland and west of Scotland. "Up the ra" is a well known football chant which does not necessarily profess the unconditional support of PIRA that you seem to think it does.

I think by identifying with one side of the sectarian divide in such strong terms User:UpTheRa is seriously damaging his credibility as an editor, especially given his interest in the history of the IRA. It would be in his interests to change his username.

I think this username has the potential to seriously upset a great many people. I refer specifically to the many thousands of victims of sectarian violence from both sides of the religious divide or anyone who has been at all affected by the piteous waste of human life that is so understatedly referred to as The Troubles. I urge User:UpTheRa to change his username is the strongest possible terms.

I think if User:UpTheRa found himself on the wrong side of a barroom brawl, working in the wrong branch of the Northern Bank or accused of selling drugs on the wrong estate, his support of the Provos might diminish rapidly.

And finally back to you Charles. It's a big man who offers his support for political violence from thousands of kilometers away, safe in the knowledge that he will never need to live with the consequences. Well done. --IslaySolomon 12:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me 'IslaySolomon' but you don't know me and I don't identify with "one side of the sectarian divide". I'm neither Protestant nor a Catholic merely an Irish republican.--UpTheRa 16:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, one side of the partisan divide then. The point remains the same. --IslaySolomon 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why does that present a problem? We exist in the real world ye know so why not in the world of wikipedia? You seem to be looking for an excuse to complain. For what it's worth if there are users who want to call themselves 'UptheUVF' or 'UptheSAS' then I personally wouldn't have a problem with that no matter how much I'd disagree with them--UpTheRa 16:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't live under a rock and I know that expressions like "Up The Ra" are common currency (see the first point in my second post) and would be like water off a duck's back to many people. Also, I'd admire your restraint in not complaining about a user calling themself "UptheUVF", because I assure you I'd be saying exactly the same things on their talk page. However, WP:USERNAME sets out very clear rules on what is not an acceptable username. This includes:

[Usernames that] promote or refer to violent or otherwise illegal real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime)

I defy you to explain how this definition does not include your username. --IslaySolomon 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is quite complicated and can't really be solved without solving the real world political issue of whether and when violence is morally acceptable and correct, which has no easy answers, and is certainly beyond the capabilities of Wikipedia community. I'm not entirely convinced that this username warrants a block - it can be read as supporting the now defunct original IRA, which would leave a plausible good-faith explanation that it's equivalent to GoImperialLegions or SupportOurTroops.

Having said all that, I think that having such a username is not very useful. First of all, it gives the appearance that you are only interested in a narrow topic, and even that from a narrow POV. Editors like that are not highly respected, not because their POV is less valid than others, but because they're likely to be inexpirienced with other topics and non-controversial articles and thus have no idea of what Wikipedia really is or how it should be written. Another real concern is that people who perceive your username as offensive, even if that is not at all your intention, will read your contributions as coming from an extreme point of view. You are likely to get into useless revert wars over spelling or interpunction, or a mass of people reverting your valid additions, because they read them as more extreme than you intended because they are offended by your username.

I know that, at least in your opinion, these people are wrong and they are offended only because of their POV. But imagine an analogous situation - let's say you used a made-up word for your username, and it turns out to be a genuinely offensive slogan in a foreign language well known to other editors who edit the same articles as you do. Would you consider changing it then? Zocky | picture popups 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with User:Zocky that this is a complicated moral issue. The rule forbidding usernames that "promote or refer to violent or otherwise illegal real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime)" is extremely clear cut. Whether or not the violence in question is morally justified is irrelevant.

Also, I hate to keep coming back to this but, "Up The Ra" is a widely known and used sectarian slur from the north of Ireland and west of Scotland with an utterly unambiguous meaning. It is impossible that User:UpTheRa could have lived where he does all his life and misunderstand its meaning or used it by chance. --IslaySolomon 00:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are and aren't "violent or otherwise illegal real-world actions" that that rule refers to is the complicated moral issue. We have users named after allied generals from WWII, weapons, and whatnot. All those refer to violent actions, and plenty of others are or can be construed as referring to illegal actions. Deciding which should or shouldn't be allowed is not as clear-cut as it sounds.

Also, there are plenty of cases where slogans and symbols are perceived and indeed used to mean other things than their original meaning. Sometimes, the new meaning entirely supplants the old meaning, sometimes the old meaning remains current in certain settings. So far, nobody has provided any evidence that this slogan is used by Republicans primarily as a sectarian slur and that it's fair to stop assuming good faith and decide that this user means offense.

However, as said above, regardless of the hard and subjective decisions about what words primarily mean and what is violent but acceptable, a username like this is likely to cause the user and the encyclopedia unnecessary problems, and it would be best if the user chose another username. Zocky | picture popups 01:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"So far, nobody has provided any evidence that this slogan is used by Republicans primarily as a sectarian slur..." — "for sheer venom, an "Old Firm" match between Glasgow's crosstown rivals, Rangers and Celtic. A football ground is a good place to witness hard feelings, but nothing beats the Old Firm game, which is best described as "90 Minutes of Hate." Protestants traditionally support Rangers, and Catholics, Celtic. The one time I went (never again) I stood at the Celtic end, listening to the people around me chant, "Oh Ah, Up the Ra!" in praise of the i.r.a., while the Rangers fans facing us sang "Noooo Pope of Rome!"[1] "The powerhouse of the west of Scotland's bigotry is the Old Firm - Rangers and Celtic football clubs. Traditionally support for the teams is polarised along religious grounds: Catholic support Celtic; Protestants support Rangers. On the terraces one side will sing about being up to their knees in Fenian blood; on the other they will chant support for the IRA...Only then will the sound of the Sash and the chant of Up the Ra fade in Scotland into the obscurity it deserves."[2]. "Up the 'Ra" is most definitely a sectarian slogan which is offensive and threatening to many people, particularly in Ireland and Scotland. Demiurge 08:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last post. Please change your username09:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Weggie

Thank you so much Demiurge. I hope two of the world's most repected news outlets good enough for you Zocky. Since you don't seem convinced that this is a current problem here is an article from BBC News Scotland's "Glasgow and West" page, from two days ago. Quote: "My first experience of sectarianism was on the school bus, where children sitting around me sang bigoted sectarian songs - at the time I found it confusing and frightening and I find it no different today."

As for "What are and aren't "violent or otherwise illegal real-world actions?" They are actions that:

are violent
take place in the real world
are illegal

The Provisional IRA's actions are violent, they are not ficticious and they are illegal in both the Republic of Ireland and the UK. --IslaySolomon 09:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the above sources refers to the football chant, not the expression itself, the other one doesn't mention the expression at all. I can cite a mass of sources that say that e.g. General Patton was a violent man in the real world, some of whose actions, like slapping a hospitalized soldier, were clearly illegal. Yet we don't ban such usernames and nobody has suggested that we should. I suspect we don't have a much better reason for that than winners writing history.

As said above more than once, a username like this is counterproductive. OTOH, automatic application of that guideline would be even more counterproductive, as it would require us to ban a bunch of non-controversial user names. Zocky | picture popups 11:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the rule is:

"...promote or refer to violent or otherwise illegal real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime)".

and is clearly intended to prevent the glorification of actions that are illegal by merit of being violent. There is such a thing a legal violence, specifically warfare that abides by the laws governing armed conflict. This was the case with General Patton's actions (except of course for the slap). PIRA's actions however were illegal because of their violence.

The examples given in the wording of the rule are "terrorism [and] organised crime". General Patton did not participate in either of these. PIRA have participated in both. --IslaySolomon 11:38, 28 June 2006

There is also such a thing as illegal violence, in which some of the allied forces and generals did indulge. There are also modern organizations like countless security agencies which have participated in both terrorism and organized crime. Not to mention things like Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay, which much of the world regards as terrorism and organized crime. Yet if somebody proposed banning a name solely because it refers to CIA or US, they'd be rightfully laughed at.

I'm out of this discussion. I have said that IMO the user should change their username, and no amount of evidence will convince me that deciding what's (un)intended, (il)legal, (il)legitimate or (in)offensive are clear-cut questions. Zocky | picture popups 12:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to "break character" for a minute but "no amount of evidence will convince me" is the single most hilarious thing I've heard all day. I'd hate to be the policeman who tries to arrest you:

Policeman: "Sir, do you know that you were driving at 20kph above the speed limit."
Zocky: "Ah, but the illegality of speeding is ambiguous and open to debate."
Policeman: "No it isn't. Here is a clearly printed speed limit sign. Here is a copy of the local traffic regulations. Here is a history of court judgements against speeding drivers in this area."
Zocky: "No amount of evidence will convince me. I don't believe that speeding is illegal."

As an argumentative London taxi driver once contemptuously grumbled to comedian Stewart Lee, "You can prove anything with facts". --IslaySolomon 12:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's more like "no amount of evidence will convince me that the moon is made of cheese". Zocky | picture popups

You can only stand so confidently by your assertion that the moon isn't made of cheese because of the evidence you have that it's made of rock. So you're actually proving my point. --IslaySolomon 13:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I can only stand so confidently by my assertion that what's (un)intended, (il)legal, (il)legitimate or (in)offensive are not clear-cut questions because of the overwhelming evidence from real world that that is not the case. Zocky | picture popups 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not contesting that intention, legitimacy and offensiveness are subjective. The only thing in question is legality. Obviously the question of whether or not a certain law should exist is a matter of opinion, as is whether or not an individual or group have violated a certain law. What is not a matter of opinion is whether or not a certain law exists. For instance the answer to the question "Should cannabis possession be illegal in Scotland" would be a matter of personal opinion. However, the answer to the question "Is possessing cannabis illegal in Scotland?" could only be "Yes". Similarly the existence of laws in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic making PIRA an illegal terrorist organisation cannot be disputed. They simply exist.

Obviously there can be debate as to whether a certain situation, such as your example of Guantanamo Bay, is covered by existing laws and to what extent. However when the law is written specifically to forbid the group in question, as is the case here, I don't see how it can be open to interpretation. If the law states "X is forbidden, if X exists X is breaking the law", then asking the question "is X breaking the law?" is acknowledging the existence of X and is therefore proof of guilt. --IslaySolomon 19:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. I'm pretty sure that there's no Slovenian or Rwandan or Chinese law that says "IRA is illegal". OTOH, there are laws in those and other countries which make many of the things we use as usernames illegal. Legality is a useless concept without choosing a specific jurisdiction. Zocky | picture popups 11:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd submit that the only reason that situation isn't more of a problem is because this is an English language web site and therefore most users are citizens of liberal democracies with largely common laws. If someone had, inadvertently or otherwise, chosen a user name that referenced a group or action that was illegal, by merit of being violent, only under, say, Indian law, I'd argue such a user would still be violating the rule. Even if such a group or action were explicitly legal under a different country's law, the name would still need to be changed.

In this specific case the IRA were legal (or at least not illegal) in Libya, where they purchased weaponry from the government of dictator Colonel Gaddafi. However since they were illegal, by merit of being violent, in a location, invoking their name in a username still breaches the rule.--IslaySolomon 19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedias in different languages are just that, not national Wikipedias of the countries where those languages are spoken, so we can't presume any jurisdiction based on that. The only jurisdiction that is specially relevant is US, and if a coherent legal argument was presented that this username violates US law and is potentially damaging to Wikipedia, I'd be first to block it.

Your suggestion to use the laws of any country as the criterion is sensible and coherent, but is likely to be very problematic and affect a large number of user names which are now not considered problematic. There are places where communist and/or other parties are banned for supposed violence, places where certain religions are banned for supposed violence, places where whole other countries are considered illegal. To make a far-fetched example, if Iran proclaimed whole of Israel illegal on account of violence, would we have to ban all names that mention Israel? Zocky | picture popups 05:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC/NAME - Issue raised here12:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)12:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Demiurge 13:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is very simple. This username is in support of the organisation that did this and this and this among many other things over the last 30 years. It is very offensive to people who had relatives and friends killed by this organisation, the same goes for usernames about the loyalists. Please change it - go for something republican if you like, but not so confrontational. Since people invoked WWII, a comparable username would be BomberHarris_gets_Fritz, or Spirit of Hiroshima 1945, or NKVDKatyn'39 something. Wouldn't you say that was offensive? Jdorney 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition[edit]

Hi on the PIRA page you want to this in; "Because these people were almost exclusively Protestant and unionist, these killings were also widely seen as a campaign of sectarian assassination. However both the RUC and UDR (later re-formed as the RIR) were almost exclusively Protestant in their make up and the IRA also killed Catholic members of the RUC and UDR."

The first sentence does the job. There is no need to repeat the fact that RUC/UDR were predominantly Prot./unionist twice. Jdorney 16:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies 'Jdorney'. I was mis-reading it and see your point.--UpTheRa

16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey there[edit]

Quis separabit!!!!

Taigkiller 19:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya :)

--UpTheRa 23:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Your username (UpTheRa) has been blocked indefinitely because it is either inappropriate or too similar to an existing username (see our blocking policy for more information). You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username, and in a constructive manner. See Wikipedia:Username for guidance on selecting an appropriate username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under an inappropriate username. If you would like to discuss the block, you may edit your talk page or email the administrator who blocked you.

Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible — if this doesn't happen within an hour or so, please email an administrator and explain the situation (see the list of administrators).

If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new one, please add the following to your user talk page: {{Username change request|new username}} (or {{ucr|new username}} for short). This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page. Note that this can only be done before you create the new one. If you wish to change to a new username, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username for information. In many cases (especially if your account has few or no edits), it is a lot easier to simply create a new account.

Please choice a more appropriate name. Iola k ana|^T 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin McCaughey[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Martin McCaughey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Shyam ^(T/C) 07:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Martin McCaughey[edit]

I've nominated Martin McCaughey, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Martin McCaughey satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin McCaughey and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Martin McCaughey during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tyrenius 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]