Revision as of 13:51, 28 January 2007 view sourceEl chulito (talk | contribs)635 edits →[]← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:52, 19 September 2023 view source Courcelles (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators434,776 editsm Changed protection settings for "User talk:Vintagekits": Restore prior. ( (indefinite) (indefinite)) | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{collapse top}} | |||
Comments from unregistered users and ] will be deleted! | |||
== Since you continue to be disruptive.. == | |||
Take 48 hours off, VK. Your attacks on Elonka are outside the lines, and you should know that by now. ] (]) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Welcome to Misplaced Pages! == | |||
:Yawn! exact reason?--] (]) 17:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Personal attacks and disruptive editing. I've brought it up here. ] (]) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I am quite astounded by your retarded logic! Not sure why because I shold come to expect it to be honest. So who am I attacking and what is the attack because I cant figure it out.--] (]) 17:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Well?--] (]) 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::So why is vvvkts....zzzz....ACCUSED (sorry) of not observing good manners? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I dont know why anyone ever does one of these because they are never overturned and fellow admins always see things from the other admins perspective. Sir Fozz says that I have been disruptive and made a personal attack yet refuses to clarify the block, which is poor form. I wasnt being disruptive at all - I hadnt been involved in the revert war that was being discussed and I never suggested that Domer should ignore the probation only that putting him on probation was wrong - I wasnt alone on that. So there can only be the personal attack issue - I made no personal attack, I asked Fozz what was the attack and who was it made towards? Sir Fozz certainly does have a COI with regards me so maybe that clouded his judgement.|decline=You clearly don't ''want'' to understand the meaning of ] or ]. Look right above this unblock request for a perfect example of why you shall remain blocked. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that | |||
*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, <u>or</u> | |||
*the block is no longer necessary because you | |||
**understand what you have been blocked for, | |||
**will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and | |||
**will make useful contributions instead. | |||
Please read our ] for more information. ] (]) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)}}] (]) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hello {{PAGENAME}}, ''']''' to Misplaced Pages! | |||
{{unblock reviewed|1=there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack. ] (]) 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)|decline=No one appears to have objected to your first edit to that thread, but the second one constituted a personal attack. Per your block log, this does not appear to be an isolated incident. I suggest that you consider modifying your behaviour to reflect Misplaced Pages standards, rather than implying that you are being singled out due to cultural differences. ]<small>]</small> 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi! | |||
:What "second bit" - throw me a fecking bone here and explain exactly why I am actually blocked instead of having me chase my tail.--] (]) 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::. ]<small>]</small> 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::You dont like making it easy do you. What '''EXACTLY''' is the personal attack that warrants a 48 hour block.--] (]) 00:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::What a load. You just refactored this page to remove the links to the ANI thread and previous attempts to explain it to you. I'm revoking your talk page access for the duration of your block to avoid you're wasting any more of other's time with this foolishness. ] (]) 00:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::The fact that, considering you have a block list that is literally as long as my forearm you still don't get what you're doing wrong here makes me a sad panda. Which, in itself is odd, since I'm not a panda. It ''does'' still make me sad, though. Have you ever considered maybe going somewhere else on the internet? ] (]) 00:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::(EC x2) I have Elonka's biggest fan, and for all I know she may not have made the correct decision as far as Domer48 is concerned. There is nothing wrong with questioning the probation itself. To that end, however, it is unnecessary to disparage Elonka herself; a review can take place without such comments, which are not conducive to a productive editing environment. As a corrollary of what you can see at the top of ], comment on the action, not on the administrator. If you really feel it is necessary to review an administrator's action on a wider scale, there are other venues for that which are more productive. Likewise, note that ] says that "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruption." Much as in the case of the probation mentioned here, your history of being blocked for personal attacks was likely considered as a contributing factor when deciding to block your account. ]<small>]</small> 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Ban== | |||
If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Misplaced Pages is a ], so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the '''{{MediaWiki:edit}}''' link. Misplaced Pages convention is to ] and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at ], or try out the ] to test your editing skills. | |||
As you already know, you have been indef'd and banned per . <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::FYI to all the summary in the block log was the result a wrong pasting job. It should have been <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I have restored your email and talkpage rights. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Thank you, Rlevse. Vintagekits, please set a good example with your communications. I've vouched for you to a certain degree. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::Jehoch, which is in effect, SirFozzie's 48 hours block or Rlevse's indefinate ban?--] (]) 10:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this.....== | |||
You might like some of these links and tips: | |||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
*'''some ].''' | |||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
*] and the ]. | |||
|rowspan="2" | | |||
*Find out how to ], ] pages. | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar''' | |||
*] using four tildes (~~~~). | |||
|- | |||
*Add yourself to the ] and a ] | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Glad to see some one <s>has</s> had the '''ability''' and '''tenacity''' to defend NPOV against the imposition of POV-by-numbers <span style="font-family:Celtic">] (])</span> 09:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
*Ask questions at the ] or ]. | |||
|} | |||
*Use the ] button | |||
*Provide an ] | |||
*Add the correct ] to any images you upload | |||
*Take a look at ] | |||
*Create a ] | |||
Jeez Vk; you break my heart! Why keep effin' and blinding at people when you '''know''' what will happen????? Still, hope you get back. Maybe look up ''"apology"'' in the dictionary and practice in front of a mirror - without head-butting the glass :) ] (]) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
If, for some reason, you are unable to ], feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the ''']''', where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type '''<code>{{helpme}}</code>''' on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. | |||
Misplaced Pages has a vibrant ] who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are ], where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance. | |||
:Hmmmm.....Maybe '''I''' should be apologising: it seems you were merely ''explaining'' the phrase "cop yourself on" when an Admin interpreted that as a personal attack. Bad call. ] (]) 10:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
If you have any questions, feel free to '''ask me''' on ]. Thanks and happy editing! -- ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 14:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Is the Barnstar something I should NOT wish to have on my name? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
cheers, its saturday is I'm am going to work on it for most of the day - come back and have a look at it later as there are plenty of things that I do not know how to do, cheers ] 11:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Not banned yet == | |||
The debate about blocking or banning is still ongoing at ANI, as such VK should be permitted to edit his talk page. Everyone has a right to defend themselves before a sentence is passed. There seems to be a lot of unssemly and undue haste on this matter - why? <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Well done== | |||
These are mainly good edits you are making now. Maybe just check and correct after you make a link that it works. Anyway, no hard feelings, and happy editing. --] 00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I have to say this looks like a witch hunt. As I look at it, it is beginning to stink. A discussion about a possible ban was opened... a dozen or so people voted straight away to say ban... and then people tried to close the discusion AFTER AN HOUR and impose a ban. Sounds like some canvassing was going on there and some people letting their hurt feelings over rule their reasonable side. Having had a look into this yes VK has some WP:Civil issues but really... complete ban after an hour's discussion? I have to say I think a number of editors should step away from this issue completely. --] (]) 10:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==MacManus== | |||
In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point: | |||
All 4 versions of the name should now point to the article '''Joseph MacManus''' weggie] 22:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
<blockquote>"To RLevse: ''The discussion about my block is ongoing and as half of Europe has just woken up I think you should allow them the chance the have there say.'' | |||
''Can you a. please restored by block to the original 48hr b. unbar me from sending emails and c. unblock me from using my talk page.'' | |||
Good man Weggie, I've also put in link to a reference on Seam MacManus also ] 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
''You have left me utterly armless and legless in being able to defend myself against the allegations put.''! From Vintagekits</blockquote> | |||
::No probs the name change to Joe, he already has a re-direct for that name so you could use that page if necessary...] 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Posted here by <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Yep, sorry was working on another page! Had another look - the only other piece of information that I removed was the claim that he was a B-Special. I was going to check to see if this can be verified before I re-added. Which bits are you concerned with apart from this? Will be leaving the site until tomorrow night in about 10 mins...] 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::I am going to revert it and input the minor editing remarks that you suggest and you verify the details in the book, have you got the book? ] 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I'd support that. I'm of the view that Vk was by no means the only person sending emails last night. And the initial block was so bad it merited a severe reaction. IMHO. ] (]) 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== John Duddy == | |||
:Show me the diff that justifies preventing this user from any sort of communication. I don't see it. When people get blocked we expect them to get heated and do a little cussing on their own talk page. Escalating at that point is harmful to Misplaced Pages. Just let them blow of steam and if they are still in the mood to cause trouble after 48 hours, reblock them. If you think the user has warn out community patience, you need to give the community a chance to comment. One hour of discussion is not enough. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi Vintage, | |||
you have missunderstood the Irish amatuer boxing situation. There is no Irish team or British NI team, there is a combined All Ireland team. Duddy fought as a British representative on the All Ireland team not for the Irish team. | |||
see http://www.iaba.ie/boxing/main/IABA-profile.htm | |||
::If you do adjust the block, and consensus seems to be against the idea, please do not re-enable e-mails. I don't appreciate e-mails of the type I was sent last night, I don't need to hear how disgusted VK is with me or any of his other opinions on me. There is always the unblock mailing list, or arbcom to e-mail. E-mailing other Wikipedians has already been abused. ] 15:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
You dont need to give me that link to his profile - I posted in on his page. You obviously havent a clue what you are talking about, I know the IABA situation, I should do my family has been through it at all levels! Duddy didnt fight as a British representative he fought for the All Ireland team - there is no distinction between the fighters, trained in Ireland, based in Ireland coached in Ireland and won his Irish title in Dublin, Ireland. If he wanted to fight through the British system he would have fought in the commonwealth games - he didnt! ] 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Have we had a chance to look at this infamous email yet or do we have to just take you word on it that it was as bad as you have been making out? --] (]) 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Please recheck the facts, the IABA is a transnational body, it is not the Irish team. To state that is missrepresenting the situation. | |||
*Chillum, you have email enabled so you can receive emails - was the email abusive or was it not, perhaps you are "''confused''" - again? In fact, I think I will seek VK's permission to post it here, then we all may judge. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
*Wow, the choke hold is off! I would like to know why I was banned from my talkpage in the first place. If my talk page wasnt banned then no one would have received any emails - as it was my only outlet of communication at a time that editors were discussing my very "wiki-life" what was I supposed to do. | |||
:Even though it was late and I was tired and should have been in my nest, I dont think I sent anything untoward, I may have expressed my disgust and disappointment the way some experienced appeared to be screwing the facts in what I considered a "witch hunt". I am happy for any editor to disclose the content of any email I sent last night to allow others deem if it was offending or not. --] (]) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
you need to recheck the facts, both countries fight under the banner of Ireland and the flag of the repblic of ireland and no distinction is made between either country - its based on a provincial system ] 18:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
*SarekOfVulcan, asks if Elonka considered my comment a personal attack. Shouldnt the more pertaintant question be to Domer - i.e. if my interpretation of what he meant by "cop yourself on" was a more polite version of what I said.--] (]) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Yes excactly as you say, both countries fight under the banner of Ireland, thus saying Duddy fought for the Irish team is missleading as it implies that he fought for that team alone and not the combined team. | |||
*I have little desire to continue explaining my actions here over and over. My removal of talk page access had nothing to do with the discussion at ANI, and pre-dated any serious discussion of a ban/indef block. I was simply trying to prevent VK from posting any more unblock requests during what was at that time only a 48 hour block. Next thing I know this is in my email inbox: | |||
<blockquote>You obviously have never experienced bashing your head against a brick wall for months on end. I am hounded by British sympathising editors on every page I venture onto because of my support for physical forces Irish republicanism - what you Americans would now call "terrorism". | |||
I never expect a fair shot so was not suprised by your decline - admins look at my block log and say "fuck me this guy is a monster" - however the vast majority of the blocks were bad blocks and most of the time an admin with enough balls to spot it unblocks me. | |||
Its simple just come to an end now - I've had enough.</blockquote> | |||
*and another: | |||
<blockquote>its utterly contemptable and inflamatory to block someones talkpage - a talk page should not be blocked unless it is being used to abuse wikipedia, cause further breaches of policy or to out another editor. NONE OF THESE WERE BEING DONE!!! | |||
YOU ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO PUSH ME INTO MAKING A REAL PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU WHICH I AM ON THE VERGE OF! you are a disgrace!</blockquote> | |||
:I'm not particularly offended or appalled by these, but they are not exactly helpful or logical either. VK seems to believe he is the target of some vast British Wikipedian conspiracy. I can only speak for myself of course, but I can assure you my actions were not based in any way on his nationality or political views. ] (]) 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::*you are not offended because there is nothing to be offended by - he is merely explaining to you how he feels. If he feels ganged up upon and victimised, can you really be surprised after the events of last night, when while all of Europe was fast asleep a group of mostly American acted as they did in a seemingly co-ordinated fashion and at such speed. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Get real, the idea that this disruptive user feels ganged up on and victimized is a joke. ] (]) 17:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::(ec) You need to stop beating that drum. Perhaps the closing of the discussion and imposing of a ban was a bit hasty, I must say I was surprised to see things progressing so quickly, but the idea that it was some deliberate "anti-European cabal conspiracy" has little to no merit. If anything it was VK who was doing the canvassing with all of his email activity. ] (]) 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
*I'm very much afraid you people should have considered your actions and words more carefully during the night - then things may not appear as they do. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::: "Perhaps the closing of the discussion and imposing of a ban was a bit hasty" - when you can say something like that I really just shake my head and wonder how you were ever allowed be an admin. Rlvese acted acted as judge, jury and executioner last night - and all down in the record time of an hour - whilst all of other had slept, they would have awoken to find me beheaded. I find it strange that until Alsion turned up this was unanimous to ban me - but since then it is even with regards bans and opposes. I find that very strange. Either there is a mailing list or there are a lot of lemmings - maybe both. I dont know, all I know if that I have had the shitty end of the stick here. You personally havent even taken one moment to consider this from my perspective and it shows.--] (]) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Howdy Vk. It's your usage of foul language, that's getting ya into these block problems. Personally, I don't mind the colorful words, but it appears an increasing numbers of editors do. ] (]) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I know i have a potty mouth - it doesnt bother me to be honest its not turned on to insult people its just the way I talk. I supposes it could be a cultural thing.--] (]) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::If the community chooses 'not' to ban you, I'd recommend no more foul words. Afterall, once the Wiki community tells an editor he/she is out? he/she is out. ] (]) 17:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Perhaps somebody could write a Javascript filter that would clean up your posts. Watch out for the ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I hear you GD, and thank you for all your support and advice in the past. It is genuinely much appriciated.--] (]) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::No prob, Vk. ] (]) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::PS: I've voted '''oppose''' on the Wiki ban proposal, as you haven't vandalized any articles. ] (]) 17:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::My personal motto at Misplaced Pages is "go with the flow". Right, GoodDay?--] (]) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::::PS, I also voted '''oppose'''.--] (]) 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Yep. ] (]) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Howdy Vk. I decided to delete my 'vote' from your Ban case. I shall have to take a neutral stand on it. ] (]) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==POV== | |||
:I saw! I have to say that I am a little disspointed that you did that. Answer me this what made you change it? When in the last year have I vandalised a page or caused so much disruption that it woul dwarrant an indefinate ban?--] (]) 10:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I had to revert to 'neutral', when I was reminded of your past sock-puppetry. Which (I'm glad) you haven't committed for over a year, since your last Banning case. ] (]) 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
I have to say that certain people have been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill over VK's emails. They frankly look like reasonable responses given his limitations on communication at the time. I have taken some time to look over some of the troubles articles and there does seem to be a systematic Britsh POV bias going on. No wow I will lay my cards on the table here... I am a Brit... but being from an Irish family I am probably more aware of and attuned to the issues at hand than most editors. Most editors seem to take the Britsh POV and are backed by what would seem to be a a number of admins all with either a British POV or American ones with a strong anti terrorism POV. Take the "British Isles" as an example. Geographically and geologically speaking the term seems fine to me - simply meaning the group of Islands the biggest of which happens to be called Great Britain. That is pretty standard terminology for any group of Islands to be refered to by the biggest. Now the term is also used in political and economic sense where its use is not so clear cut and can have overtones that are not welcome that most British editors are simply unaware of, and the term is used in this way, which can be considered an inflamatory way, throughout wikipedia. There are alternatives to the British Isles which can and should be used outside of purely geographic or geological articles yet the weight of editors on the British side surpresses this. It is no wonder to me that editors who try and redress this balance problem feel like they are beating their head against a wall sometimes because frankly they are, though I would say it is not a wall of anti Irish sentiment but one of ignorance to the issue. --] (]) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
I've changed my mind (yet again). I'm once again, opposing the indef-ban, as I've no evidence of sock-puppetry (since the last Banning case). ] (]) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
The term IRA "Volunteer" is ], just as is "terrorist" (although the latter is accurate); please use "member" from now on or this matter will have to go to Arbitration, especially if you continue to revert other people's edits without notice or explanation. | |||
] 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
* Thats YOUR POV, its factually incorrect but its your POV nonetheless ] 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Official statement requested == | |||
==]== | |||
Jehochman has asked for you to write up and post an official statement to be contributed to the ANI discussion before it's closed. Can you create one here and indicate when you are done editing and want it copied over? Thank you. ] (]) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you regarding Operation Flavius and wrote my response on the 'Discussion' page for ]. I wrote: | |||
:George, I wasnt on line much yesterday and will be away from my computer for most of today as well as I have family visiting. That issues would you like me to address.--] (]) 09:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Vintagekits, my advice is to request a full and thorough Arbcom case, so much has happened in your career here that is does need cold and calculated scrutiny - a laying bear of facts if you like. Then a few people can assess if you are of any value to the project rather than a braying bob. The strange behaviour of some very important Wikipedians yesterday in the threads concerning you has convinced me, you need to be examined only by the Arbcom. It will be unplesant for you - you have many wiki-faults, but are not alone in that - as I see it you are standing on the trapdoor with a noose around your neck, and the mob have their hands on the lever - the lever needs to he in the hands of a responsible few. That's my advice take it or leave it. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I think the issues which I would hope you would address are the comments and issues raised in the ] thread. A number of editors have commented, there and in the various alternatives which flowed out of that in the major heading. | |||
:Since they were immediately killed, they had no chance to defend themselves so we don't know what their personal intentions were. Meanwhile, since the British government had infiltrated the PIRA with numerous spys - including bomb experts - we don't know how reliable the evidence was against them. Do we? See the following references regarding just some of the 'outed' British spys within the PIRA: , , Because of the infiltration with bomb expert spys into the PIRA, no one will ever know what ] operations were carried out by the British spys - rather than any PIRA members.] 02:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Any specific ideas, comments, opinions that were raised there and statements you'd like to make. Someone's going to have to make a determination and close the various proposed community actions threads, and it's only fair if you have a chance to be heard and respond to the issues. | |||
:I see Giano's comment above requesting an Arbcom case. That's probably premature at the moment - nobody has closed the community remedies threads, so for right now you're just indef blocked, not banned or otherwise restricted. I recommend that the community discussion be allowed to come to an end and then if you disagree then appeal any decision to Arbcom. That's purely procedural - I think Arbcom will want to wait until the community decides, so it wouldn't make sense to appeal to them before. Once there is a community decision of some sort then you should feel free to file an Arbcom appeal or ask for a case to be opened. | |||
:If waiting 24 more hours while you have family over and are unavailable to comment here will help, I will post a request to the thread asking for no admins to close during that period, until you have a chance to respond. I believe there's no harm done to anyone by a decent wait - a week would be hard to justify, but another day (or even two) won't hurt the community or you in any way. | |||
:] (]) 02:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::George, if you could that would be great. There is a ] and they will want to be brought out for that as well. I hope to put an hour aside tomorrow to get my thoughts down. Thanks. | |||
---- | |||
Yep agree a full and thorough Arbcom case. To cut out the BS insist on Diff's for any and every accusation. --<span style="font-family:Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></span> 10:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
==Lift the block== | ||
Hi, I think you put your Paddy Cunningham AFD contribution in the wrong place. It ended up at ]. --] 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Sorry, its my first time deleting anything ] 13:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
**No problem. I have added the correct AFD nomination template. To do this yourself in the future just type subst:afd (including the brackets) at the top of the article--] 13:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
***Thanks for the update ] 21:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Given the nature of the block and my suspicion, based on personal experience, that this is a ''tactic'' in a banning process I believe the ban should be lifted ''before'' any further proceedings. Here we have a trial in progress while the accused has already been locked away without bail - all the better to provoke him. Not the circumstances for a fair assessment of the many issues at play here. It's not as if Vk can abscond while out on bail. I think my proposal here will tease out the ''real agenda'' of the block and ban lobby. ] (]) 12:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Spanish Gibraltarians== | |||
::No, any debate about lifting the block will split any arguement in process and confuse things further, let one decision be made at a time. If he can't be mentored, and he can't have an Arbcom case then there is no point unblocking at any time. VK can post here and a hundred helpers can post where he wants things. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi Vintage. If you have more references could u please introduce them in the talk page of the article so we can discuss them? | |||
Thanks and merry christmas | |||
--] 23:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, I didn't ask for any "debate". I asked for the bad block to be lifted, given it's nature and context. I am still asking for the block to be lifted, first. ] (]) 13:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
If you know any, publish their names and we will buy them a one way bus ticket to San Roque. --] | |||
::::That's my advice, take it or leave it. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Mentorship == | |||
Vintage, you are getting it all wrong. Please just fix the reference system again without changing the text which is now the consensus version. Thanx--] 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Why should I have to fix the referncing system that I work hard setting up? If you had any respect you should be the one that edits the article back in from that point. ] 14:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Would you be willing to have me, and likely some others (which will need to include people you don't care for - so to be acceptable for those who do not appreciate the effort being expended to keep you editing this project), as mentor(s)? This would run concurrent to Jehochman's suggested limiting you to sport/boxing topics and ban from Ireland/Troubles related areas. I am asking the community the same thing at ANI, and will only accept supping from the poisoned chalice if there are two positive responses. ] (]) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Reverting a banned user== | |||
:There doesn't seem to be much likelihood of the community accepting you being mentored, so there is little point in you agreeing/committing. Perhaps the ArbCom option above is the only venue left to determine if there is a way for you to continue to contribute. ] (]) 11:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I agree, but suggest leaving the mentoring option just a little longer - people do change their minds - occasionaly. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:The Mentorship option is acceptable. ] (]) 15:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I would offer mentorship as part of any Arbitration decision, should a Request get to such a stage, in any event. I regret that those opposing mentorship currently appear to be too numerous for anything but a complete about face to bring about a consensus for it. I think 36 hours from my initial offer should be sufficient time to establish the communities position on it, so there is a little time yet. ] (]) 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
I noticed that you restored comments posted anonymously by ] on ]. Please note that Gibraltarian is banned permanently (see ]) and please also note this part of the ]: | |||
== Completely unconnected question == | |||
:'''Enforcement by reverting edits''' | |||
Is Manny Pacquiao's fight on Miguel Cotto British TV tonight, if so when ? I can't find it anywhere and the dog has eaten today's newspaper? someone watching this page is bound to know. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:'''Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.''' | |||
: ]<span style="color:black">e</span>] 22:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Than you Rockpocket, but I on a computer wired not to let me look at anything pleasurable (probably why it permits Misplaced Pages) could you have a quick look for me, I think I have a few hours yet. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::: Oh. Its being shown live at 2am on ]: | |||
:'' Live Big Fight Special in HD. Manny Pacquiao v Miguel Angel Cotto. All the action from the bout at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, as Pacquiao steps up a division to challenge for Cotto's WBO Welterweight title. Pacquiao's last fight was the second-round knockout of Ricky Hatton in a light-welterweight contest in May, and he can further add to his reputation as arguably the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world should he take the belt from Cotto.'' | |||
::: As far as I can tell, it is not being shown on any free-to-air channel. So it depends whether Giano's household subsidizes Mr Murdoch or not ;) ]<span style="color:black">e</span>] 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Well actually we do, purely for the children's educational purposes you understand. In fact, it's purely for the children's educational purposes that I fiddled with the parental controls of this computer and now can't reverse them, this is the problem with passwords when you seldom spell the same word twice two days running. Thank you for that. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Block and associated discussion== | |||
If you see an anonymous user from 212.120.*.* editing Gibraltar-related articles or talk pages, it's almost certainly Gibraltarian again; anything he does can and will be reverted, so please be aware of this! -- ] 20:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
I have closed the discussion at the ] regarding your block. At this time, there is a strong, albeit not unanimous, consensus that the block is to remain. You may, as normal, request that the ] review the matter. As I stated in my closing rationale, if you post a request for arbitration on this page, I will move it to ] for you. | |||
:Cool, I didnt realised the editor was banned--] 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Whatever the outcome here is, I urge you to strongly consider why things have come to this point. I hope that you will do so. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Damaen Kelly == | |||
:Came on to post a response now. Is it too late.--] (]) 16:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::It aint too late. ] (]) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Well it looks like ] has now closed the discussion.--] (]) 16:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Yep, it's closed. But ya got the option of requesting a review by ], per Sera's above instructions. ] (]) 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Take a peek at ], another option. ] (]) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Your revert seemed to be slightly misguided. Kelly fought for British and Commonwealth titles and thus must have dual nationality. Now, as you seem to be a republican I can understand your position, but it's a fact that Kelly must have British citizenship to fight for Commonwealth and British titles, isn't it? Kelly never fought for Irish titles and never fought in the Republic of Ireland, instead he fought over half his career in England. Its certainly NPOV to suggest that Kelly is a British citizen. | |||
:PS: The RFAR route, is much less risky (of course). ] (]) 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:You also removed various other updates to an article in urgent need of an overhaul. Maybe actually reading my edit may have helped? ] 14:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
::VK, I strongly advise you to take this whole matter to Arbitration. I repeat, your value and worth to the project needs to be formally and quietly assessed by the Arbs. If you are concerned, and I think you should be, RLevse can be asked to recuse, banning you in an hour while Europe slept was totally wrong and biased all further debate on ANI. I am unsure if you should remain or not, but I truly beleive what I said here in the now famously oversighted edit <small>(outing indeed - no one was fooled by that excuse)</small>. You need and deserve a fair rational hearing, and that is probably the only way you will get one. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Pacman, WBO welterweight champion == | |||
== Volunteer debate == | |||
Pacman TKO's Cotto in 12th rd. I was close, eh? ] (]) 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
I think we have a settlement. What do you think? | |||
== The Third Road == | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage | |||
] 16:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hi Vintagekits, the two paths laid before you are both ] because both of those paths mean more unhappy work for me. | |||
== Personal attack warning == | |||
Come over to ] for a while! Bring all your friends!! ;-) | |||
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}| as you did at ]}}, you will be ] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. <!-- Template:Npa3 --> Referring to other editors as "" and "" is not acceptable. ] 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Wikisource ''needs'' someone with your passion. ] doesn't mention boxing. Someone needs to create ] We have a few poor quality works in ]. | |||
== Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point; ] == | |||
As an example, I have set up ] and ], where you can clean up and improve existing biographies written long ago. e.g. ]. Simply log in, click edit, and fix the ] errors. The Wikisource community will help you with the syntax voodoo; you'll get the hang of things pretty quickly. | |||
Please '''stop''' arbitrarily removing information from articles as a protest against the proposed compromise in the "IRA volunteer/member" mediation case. ] 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
*You are removing all information about the IRA's internal structure from multiple articles as a protest against the proposed settlement in ]. This is ] and will not be tolerated. Please stop or you are liable to be '''blocked'''. ] 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not ] 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
I'll be happy to set up projects for any old book that interests you; any topic, any language. I'd rather spend my time helping you settle into Wikisource rather than spend that same time in arbitration or investigating socks. | |||
== What are you up to? == | |||
After a few months, you can then appeal your Misplaced Pages ban either to Arbcom or to the community. | |||
Could you please stop deleting my work on the ] page? Why are you doing it? | |||
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 13:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Please do come over. We are very friendly and only bite if you ask us very nicely. ;-) Gotta to be beat all that poetry stuff that some love! We need more sport, things of real consequence. More than happy to show you the ropes, and it is great for building up resources and links to be used here. ] (]) 11:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
] 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
: I have outlined the reasoning for these edits. If wiki users prohibit reference to IRA military structure then they should be deleted if we are to be consistant. ] 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions== | |||
While I actually agree with you about the use of the term volunteer, what you are doing is just childish. You can argue your case without vandalising other people's work. Get a hold on yourself! | |||
As a party in '']'' arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted ''']'''. | |||
] 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I also agree with you, I am just a bit disillusioned with wiki at the moment and cant believe that POV is able to be pushed over fact just to satisfy some members. Saying that will refrain for the night to calm down. P.S. I did not intend to vandalise, simply edit to make them in line with what whould be the POV which I cant believe is being taken serious ] 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
''For the Arbitration Committee'' | |||
Please stop your childish vandalising of pages I've worked on.--] 02:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
''']''' <sup>]</sup>|<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Involvement of ] == | |||
== VK is blocked indefinitely, not retired == | |||
Hi Vintagekits, will you let me know where ] is involved in the previous discussion. Please do not campaign about the mediation cabal. The purpose of mediation cabal is to ]. Regards, ] <sup>(]/])</sup> 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
: See for his previous involvement. I am not going to campaign on it and infact I am going to stay away from it for a few days as I am so mad that you dont not seem to have grasped the issues at hand and seem to be willing to accept POV over proven facts. ] 14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Why is the tagging of his user page with ] even up for debate? Why are certain people so absolutely desparate to make themselves look like tag teaming edit warriors that are utterly blind to reality? Considering there are already descriptions of this nature of these exact editors before arbcom right now, you would think they might take the hint and actually stop acting like tag teaming edit warriors. It is precisely this sort of lack of ] about reality that got VK indeffed in the first place. ] (]) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Creating a category == | |||
:If the blocking admin did not put the tag up, other editors should not. It is unnecessary ]. This user has contributed a lot of content to Misplaced Pages; he may be blocked indefinitely but we have not shut the door behind them, and adding a tag that queues their userpage for deletion like we do to mere vandals is insensitive at best. –]] 19:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::This is the same kind of logic that allowed him to be 'retired' for the past 6 months when he wasn't, allowing him to flip off the countless people who rightly pointed that fact out, hilariously, even Giano. VK's feelings are paramount I guess, plain common sense and consideration for other users has no place here, as usual. If the template serves no purpose, then delete it. How it is in anyway usefull to Misplaced Pages as a whole to suggest to all visitors to this page that VK is not indef blocked, but has merely wandered off into the wilderness and could return at any time, is utterly beyond me. ] (]) 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
It's the same as creating a page, just add "Category:" before the name. To add a category called "My New Category", type "Category:My New Category" in the searchbox and press Go. BTW you can use <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> to ask for help. ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::And not that it even matters, but Beeblebrox was the admin who originally revoked VK's talk page privelages on 12 November, and he was the one who then placed the indef blocked tag here one hour after VK was indef blocked the same day , which Rlevse the final blocker has never seemingly objected to. It was only in the subsequent intervention hours later by you Xeno that suddenly this tag is apparently not appropriate. If none of you admins can agree as to how the template should be used, that's fine, but don't pretend like this convention of 'must be placed by the blocker' has any legitimacy at all. ] (]) 19:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, this issue perhaps needs to be clarified at the appropriate venue to try and get folks on the same page. –]] 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
* Please add <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> to ] to get it ]. | |||
* Also, change your userpage category from | |||
:<nowiki>]</nowiki> to | |||
:<nowiki>]</nowiki> | |||
Regards, ]<sup>(])</sup> 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:It's just VK's best buddies trying to be as disruptive as him, I bet that within a few months they will all be going down the same line as he is. Being sensitive to VK is a laugh, since when was he ever sensitive? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">]</span> <sup>(])</sup> 19:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Why do we think that this image is in the public domain? When and where was it first published? ] 19:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
*I saw a pamphlet in ] that was handed out amongest the Irish American community with this picture on it --] 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I'm not clear on what you think that might mean in terms of its licensing. It looks very much like it is old enough to have an expired copyright, but it seems we have no information to verify that. ] 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:: I am not VK's best buddy; in fact I barely know him. However, I do not think treating a long-time contributor like a garden-variety troll or vandal is appropriate - no matter who that contributor may be. Adding the "indef blocked" template serves no constructive purpose and if the blocking admin wanted it there, they would have added it themself. –]] 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Volunteer shambles== | |||
::*jeni, it is just that sort of negative and uninformed comment that has caused most of the problems which surround VK and irritated him so. If you read some of the diffs surrounding this case, you will know that far from being one of VK's best buddies, I am merely one of many that want to see things brought to a satisfactory and happy conclusion for all. This may be a happy conclusion for you, but it is not happy or even satifactory for many others. I am not re-hashing the debate that has been had, but if you think this will be the conclusion and the end of Vintagekits then you are indeed uninformed. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi, I wrote the greenbook P/IRA article and a few on the IRA during WW2. Noticed your changes and the debate youre involved in about use of volunteer. Nonsense like that from one particular editor drove me off wikipedia but if you want me to chime into that discussion and support you with reference to use of term Volunteer let me know. ] 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::* Xeno is right. Regardless of the correctness of the indef block (I am in two minds about it myself), dancing on someone's grave is looked on dimly both IRL ''and'' on Misplaced Pages. Stop it, please. <b>]</b> 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::* Ditto. I was just about to say the same thing. Grave dancing is not welcomed. Our goal is to help contributors, not push them over the edge and celebrate when they fail. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::*I'm guessing none of you then give a monkeys about the people who are utterly confused when they arrive here and are greeted with the impression VK has just wandered off, or were similarly concerned about the treatment of the dozens of people who were greeted with such sensitity here when they arrived because of one or other of VK's edits to find a 'retired' editor was more than active, and duly commented as such. None of these people seem to be in your considerations at all. This is supposed to be a community, where basic things like notifications of status have a pretty obvious and logical purpose. Pandering to the sensitivites of people blocked after one of the largest shows of community displeasure I have ever seen for an established contributor, is utterly secondary to plain and simple common sense tbh. ] (]) 19:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::*The first thing I do to check an editors activity level is look at their contributions page. And the first thing you are presented with at ] is the fact that they are indefinitely blocked. –]] 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::*I'm guessing that's what most experienced editors do (although its a bit of a fiddle to do even for experienced users for the likes of Giano with his multiple redirected user pages), but Misplaced Pages is not made up of just experienced users as you well know. ] (]) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Let the administrators decide. ] (]) 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Which ones? The ones who placed the tag, or the ones who removed it? ] (]) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::If necessary, contact the ]. If one wishs Vk exiled, one shouldn't be risking a block, over Vk's userpage. ] (]) 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::Considering Jimbo once said that if he weren't American, he would have loved to be born British, I think that's an <s>excellent</s> crazy suggestion. ] (]) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Oh, for crying out loud, somebody who cares should just ask Beeblebrox if he wants restored or not. And regardless of the response, move along afterwards. — ] (] '''·''' ]) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
The next person who edit wars over the tag earns themselves an indefinite block of their own, and I will press for a formal ban. In the face of any objection, we should err on the side of decency, compassion, and polite behavior, and ''not'' screw around with the user and usertalk space associated with others.--] (]) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Northern Ireland Flag== | |||
:An indef block or ban, is a little heavy. A 1-hour block would likely do the trick, IMHO. ] (]) 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:For crying out loud, it is just a silly little tag. Just let it be people. The presence or lack of tag doesn't do anything to change the status quo. | |||
I have not broken the 3RR rule- ie more than 3 edits within 24 hours. Please check the history and count the edits if you want to confirm this. | |||
:Why so many want to edit war over a tag is beyond me, but to suggest edit warring should result in an indefinite block and formal ban is beyond ridiculous. It isn't even remotely that important. There are a thousand ways people could better spend their time 1) arguing over the tag and 2) worrying what other people think about it. --] (]) 20:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Actually, Thaddeus, it's not just a tag -- it's a tag that says "Hey, everybody, come delete me!"--] (]) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::: And frankly, anyone who even thinks about deleting it will get a ] followed by an ]. Just ... don't. <b>]</b> 20:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
''"All we are saying.... is give peace a chance"''. ] (]) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
The best solution I've found in these situations is often to delete the userpage altogether. ] (]) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
In any case- the issue at hand is that the Flag is that of Northern Ireland and is used by many offical bodies to represent NI (Football, Rugby, Commonwealth Games etc). There is no basis or source for your claim. In any case, it is not an issue for the precedence template. The issue has been discussed at length in the NI article, and attempts to replace the Flag with that of the Union Flag have been rejected. ] 13:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Firstly, it is not used by the rugby team. Secondly it is not the official flag and has no legal basis and therefore should not be used. For further info see ] 13:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Why don't you read the article you linked to again? It is the ''de facto'' flag of Northern Ireland and is even displayed in that very article as the flag of Northern Ireland in the "Flags of United Kingdom" section. Looking at your contributions on WP it seems this is far from the first time you've broken the reversion rules and it seems you're more interested in enforcing your own political agenda then of furthering the cause of WP with neutral information. If you're incapable of separating your own personal views from objective information maybe you should consider if WP is really the place for you? ] 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I would rather it stayed as is, if reality and common sense isn't going to win the day. The sooner that uninformed readers learn about the various idiosyncrasies of Misplaced Pages, like the running joke non-status of tags, the better for them. Coming here and finding a red-link won't help them on this learning path one bit. ] (]) 21:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== 3RR == | |||
:Plus deletion removes some of the evidence from those users seeking answers to the question as to why VK is blocked indefinitely from editing the site (presuming that is that they get that far in their knowledge quest, and have passed the first hurdle in knowing not to trust any tag they see on a random users page and to instead delve behind the scenes, WP:CSI style) ] (]) 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
My reasoning for threatening an indefinite block are simple. This kind of edit warring is disruptive, and is all about ] ]. Quite frankly, its often grave-dancing behavior, which should be strictly discouraged. I have no tolerance for such displays, and neither should any of you.--] (]) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
You have violated ] on ]. I won't block you but please refrain from making more changes to the page in this 24hr period. | |||
==Why is this editor's talk page being vandalized?== | |||
Thanks | |||
An indefinite block is not a ban. If Vk chooses to retire that's their decision. Their block was unseemly enough and pushed by the worst kind of partisans, but now to have this abusive antagonistic and disruptive display is outrageous. Anyone who alters this editor's talk page from <s>their</s> Vintagekits' desired state should be indefinitely blocked. Simple as that. This kind of bullying is unacceptable and makes clear the kind of abuse this editor was suffering. ] (]) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
: |
:Just one question, why are some of ya describing Vk as ''they''? Vk is a ''him''. ] (]) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
:: See ]. ]<span style="color:black">e</span>] 01:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I haven't blocked you, therefore I am not sure why you get upset at me. It was just a friendly warning. I've been an admin for more than a year and fully aware of 3RR so kindly refrain from aggresive comments (such as the one left on my talk page) as I haven't been anything but polite to you. Thank you. ] <sup>'']''</sup> | |||
:::Phew, I thought ya'll were describing Vk as having 'multiple personalities'. ] (]) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I would just like you to show me where I have broken the 3rr. I am not getting upset nor am I being aggresive but when someone accuses me of doing something then I would have the deceny to highlight the facts of the issue. As I said I have not broken the 3rr as some of what you may consider reverts were actually edits.--] 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::I took the comment "you have to read WP:3R fully" as aggressive. As I said, I haven't blocked you for it and the policy is clear that "undoing edits by another editor" are reverts. In any even, the page is blocked making this point useless. You aren't blocked and won't be if the page continues to be blocked. I am not even required to leave the friendly message, but I did anyway. I don't need to provide evidence or defend my actions, and I'm not planning to do so. I wish you a good day. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:So you cant back up your accusation and wont! interesting! Also you consider that a request that you read a wiki policy is aggressive - if you do then you are very sensitive and you are not assuming good faith--] 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Why not just take Sebastian's advice. You can't fight against everyone here and last very long. he is perfectly correct in what he says, ] 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Proof? Ever heard of it? Try using it--] 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I dont know what you are talking about, but admins can block you and if you dont remain civil they doubtless will do so, ] 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::They wont because they need a reason, I play within the rules so thats a ridiculous thing to say!--] 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Well good luck to you then, though according to Sebastian he already had a reason, ] 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Yeah his reason was "that I asked him to read a wiki policy!" - really uncivil yeah!--] 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Your are missing the point, if he blocks you arent likely to find an editor to unblock you, you know how lawyers are with the lawyer, and admins do have leeway on interpretation, and your commets to me could easily have been construed as a personal attack, esp if you had carried out your threat. I have been around here long enough to know, ] 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Which comment exactly?--] 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::'''If you engage in vandalism then I will report it - deleting referenced material IS vandalism. I understand your POV, however it is just that - a POV, the facts show otherwise.''' This one about 3 lines down, ] 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:As I hope you can see I may dislike your Falklands views but I am not against you as an editor working to make this a better encyclopedia, ] 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I was only stating facts, sorry if you tyhought it was aggressive, it wasnt meant to be--] 01:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Not appropriate. == | |||
==Malvinas war?== | |||
It may exist but it isnt notable enough to be included in the opening, I have never heard of it and it sounds thoroughly obscure given most people either call it The Falklands War or use spanish and call it "La guerra de las malvinas" which we do include in the opening. I am not the only one who thinks this, and the problem with Malvinas war is it gives credibility to the nname Malvinas in English, which I dont believe it has. Please dont threaten to report me for vandalism as you will be considered acting in very poor faith making what you know to be a false claim, edits need to be notable and not merely referenced, and anyway the article is protected, so much for alleged vandalism (lol), ] 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:If you engage in vandalism then I will report it - deleting referenced material IS vandalism. I understand your POV, however it is just that - a POV, the facts show otherwise.--] 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Referenced material is absolutely subject to deletion if it doesn't fit NPOV and notability, in this case it fits neither. Marking yourself out as POV pushing trouble-maker is, I am sure, not whjat you want, so please dont even threaten to make false vandalsim claims, any good faith edit cannot be considered vandalsims and to acuse 2 editors of bad faith when you know this isnt true will just bring trouble onto ypour own head. The admin would have reverted any vandalsim before locking the page and there can no discussions about the validity of real vandalism on an article's talk page. Your POV comment is a clear indication that you know I have not committed vandalsim, so take this as a warning, ] 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Reminding me what you are warning me of again? Telling the truth, adding referenced material or requiring others to put forward a reason agrument to back up their POV--] 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::No, threatening to or making false claims of vandalsim, ] 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Oh right, thanks for the warning, c ya!--] 21:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
This back and forth bickering is not appropriate on a banned users talk page. The hint should have been taken when the user page was protected. If it continues I will protect this page and take a trout to those who led me to do so. Take it to ANI(or even better just drop it), arguing here is nothing more than a drama magnet. ] 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
::Ah Chillum, you are in error; VK is not banned but blocked, a subtle difference I agree, but a nevertheless a difference. The problem is that all debate that lead to the blocking, before and after, is null and void. The reason for this is that the Arbitrator and those few that quickly arrived in the night and pushed the block through in an hour were in error by their unnecessary haste. Therefore all debate that followed was biased, poisoned and influenced by the fact that an Arbitator has already declared him guilty. This is the reason I want VK to take the matter to Arbcom (RLevse if he is still around, recused). Then, at least we will have a fair and impartial result, otherwise the bickering here is unlikely to cease. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi, Vintage. User:Logica has contacted me as he is slightly concerned about the disputes that have been occuring between you. Although I've told him that you're not obliged to retain warnings on your page, it is also considered bad practice to remove stuff unless you think it was added in 'bad faith'. | |||
:::Agreed. --<span style="font-family:Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></span> 10:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
As for your comment at the top of the page; well I can stress to you ] for the first one? As for Logica's edits; again it is your priority but its not going to get you anywhere in resolving disputes if you take such a stance. --] 08:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I've currently 'no clues' as to Vk's status. Is he retired, banned, indef-blocked, a victim of abduction, re-programed, etc? ] (]) 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:], I understand what you are saying but I consider him to be acting in bad faith and to be disrupotive and therefore he and his sockpuppets are not welcome on my talk page. regards--] 14:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::He added the retired tag some months ago, and resumed editing with the tag in place. He is currently blocked indefinitely. Personally, at this point, unless the editor files a request for lifting the block with the ArbCom soon, I would favor turning the user page into a redirect to the talk page, and then full protecting the redirect. It would allow someone who really wanted to see the user page history to still do so, but it would take a bit of pointed effort to do so. ] (]) 17:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Okie Dokie. ] (]) 17:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::The talk page history is viewable. If this editor chooses to retire and to post something on their page accordingly that's within their discretion. The vandalism and campaign of attacks against this editor, who's already been blocked indefinitely, need to stop. ] (]) 17:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::Which edits were ]? — ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::Have ''you'' read the history CoM? His (latest) 'retirement' was 3 months, 800 edits, 5 blocks and 30 edit wars ago. Giano is just playing his usual role, VK is indef blocked, defacto banned, and will remain so barring a miracle. Still, new arbcom, new direction and all that. ] (]) 17:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::So let him go quietly as he chooses. There's no need to rub salt in his wounds or to stick unsightly templates on his usertalk page. It looks like a vendetta in a dispute that you and those siding with you already won. There's no policy restricting people from retiring or unretiring. Just leave him be as you would want to be treated had you been the one to receive such a harsh sanction. ] (]) 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Why is this such a problem for you Mick? <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::You can't get that from the numerous statements above? ] (]) 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Alright. New idea, everyone out, this is a dead horse argued on the page of a non-present editor, but if you insist on continuing to discuss it, do it on ] or I can sacrifice my own ] to the task.--] (]) 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::I agree that it should be discussed elsewhere. Vintagekits' page should be restored to the state he put it until there is a consensus directing otherwise. The standard policy seems clear in favoring respect for other editors even when they've been sanctioned and to allow editors to retire and unretire at their discretion. This looks like a disruptive campaign of antagonism by partisans who aren't satisfied with the indefinite block they already won. ] (]) 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Trouts all around. Take a hint, this should be discussed in a neutral venue or not at all. VK is not participating in this discussion and that is the only reason to have a discussion here. I am protecting this page for 24 hours, hopefully by tomorrow more sense will be shown. ] 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
== ] nomination of ] == | |||
Dear Sir/Madam: | |||
]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]"). | |||
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). | |||
I am unware of what "controversial" edits I made re McGeough and what "info" I removed. I only fixed a dysfunctional wikilink (Fermanagh and South Tyrone), and made a minor grammatical correction (deleting a comma). | |||
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. | |||
Is this really controversial?? Pls. respond on your talk page. Thanks. | |||
'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Cheers. | |||
*Sorry bud, mistaken identity - the correct messege is now on the talk page--] 16:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==RfD nomination of ]== | |||
== ] == | |||
I have nominated {{la|'The Great White Hope'.}} for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ]. Thank you. — <span style="font-family:gill sans">]</span> ] 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Request for feedback == | |||
Saw your very weak keep on this article. I agree that it has NPOV and sourcing problems, but I think the real root of the issue is that it is a dicdef. What do you think about shortening as such and transwikying to Wikitionary? ] 17:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Alright VK, Kattis from the HB here. Myself and the Da finally finished out wiki page and was wondering what the next step is re; feedback. Type this into the wiki search bar... | |||
== lost virginity == | |||
Free State Intelligence Department - Oriel House | |||
I'm not sure if the page is properly live yet as its not coming up when I google search it. Could you make the other members of the 'The Irish Republicanism WikiProject' group aware as I couldn't see a 'talk' tab to share this. | |||
Congratulations on your first user page vandalism! ] 21:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Thanks again. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Hi mate, which page?--] 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
To ''your'' user page by ] is what I'm refering to... ] 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:: Can I just point out that isn't vandalism - the sock has been proven to be illegit and indefinantly banned. As per our discussion with the admin, I will not place the tag on Vintage's page, but I still had the right to. ] 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I know - the really has it in for me! ah well!--] 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Unreferenced BLPs== | |||
Beats me. The rules seem to be inconsistently applied. Alt accounts are not forbidden, and if they never edited the same articles, talk pages, etc. there should have been no reason for blocking. There are good reasons for having alternate accounts... say you have a technical specialty but are also interested in bondage or S&M, you might not want to edit both sets of articles from the same account.... AFAIK, that's allowed. ] 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
] Hello Vintagekits! Thank you for your contributions. I am a ] alerting you that '''4''' of the articles that you created are tagged as]. The ] policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure ], all biographies should be based on ]. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current '']'' article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{tl|unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list: | |||
# ] - <small>{{findsources|Robenílson Vieira de Jesus}}</small> | |||
P.S., now they'll probably start saying that I'm your sock or vice versa. Some people... ] 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
# ] - <small>{{findsources|Georgian Popescu}}</small> | |||
# ] - <small>{{findsources|Asylbek Talasbaev}}</small> | |||
# ] - <small>{{findsources|Cathal Boylan}}</small> | |||
Thanks!--] (]) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
==] of ]== | |||
:By the way, does your user name refer to any particular type of vintage kit? And is that kit as in build-it-yourself (American) or kit as in equipment (British)? ] 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
More along the equipment type of thing than anything else - its a long story!--] 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Audiophile? Amateur radio? Those are the usages I'm most familiar with... ] 22:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::No, its nothing to do with that, I might have a look into it however--] 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
OK, then, thanks for answering. See you around... ] 22:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Cool bud--] 22:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
The article ] has been ]  because of the following concern: | |||
== Our relationship == | |||
:<b>Non-notable footballer who fails ] as the Irish leagues are not fully professional. Also fails notability and verifiability due to lack of sources.</b> | |||
While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ]. | |||
Vintage, even though I think you have violtated Misplaced Pages policies, I'd still like to say that if you took anything in bad faith, then I apologise. If you think I get anything wrong, tell me clearly and calmly why you think it is wrong, and I will double check, and I will gladly apologise. | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
With regard the issue of your sockpuppet, we will see what happens as I'm not totally sure of the process. Although I still think it an illegitimate account, we shall leave it to others to decide this,. The same goes for your removal of negative content. | |||
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> will stop the ], but other ]es exist. The ] can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> -- ]] 12:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Conisder this an olive branch... ] 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:cool--] 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== ] nomination of ] == | |||
== Uncivil? == | |||
<s>What is so uncivil about this: ''"Vintagekits your opinion of this article is irrelevant as you clearly state that you are part of the "Wikipedians who support Irish republicanism" Misplaced Pages category and thus have indicated your bias on an article addressing parts of Irish Loyalism."''</s> | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>I have nominated ], an article that you created, for ]. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
<s>All i did was state why your objection to the article is irrelevant - essentially the possibility of bias towards a rival ideology.</s> | |||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg== | |||
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
<s>And considering you were giving a warning for making personal attacks, it would appear that i'm not as uncivil as some other Wikipedians. So please do not make statements that may come across as hypocritical.</s> | |||
'''PLEASE NOTE:''' | |||
<s>] 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)</s> | |||
Striked out by myself ] 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
* I am a ], and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. | |||
*If you dont consider that that was uncivil, maybe I should report it and let others decide! I make NO bones about supporting Irish republicans, in fact I am very open about it, however, that does not preculde me from editing any articles.--] 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
* I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again. | |||
* If you receive this notice ''after'' the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request. | |||
* To opt out of these bot messages, add <code><nowiki>{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}</nowiki></code> to your talk page. | |||
*If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off ] and leave a message on ]. | |||
*I've altered my comment to be, i hope, more civil, and i hope you agree. However i still don't think that comment was uncivil, just badly worded. I suppose i should also of used the word "objections to this article" rather than the words "opinion of this article". However your political/ideological opinion does give a very real possiblity of bias to an article on a rival ideology. If i offended i didn't mean to. ] 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:*I have learned that the way to get along on wiki is to solely deal in facts not opinions--] 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::*The point i was making initially and still am is that the openness on your republican affiliation does give the possibility of bias against a loyalist article. Just as we would both assume a marking for deletion of an article dealing with an Irish republican matter by someone who is open about their loyalism is possibly biased. ] 19:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::And vice versa - I dont think that the article satisfies ] just like like i would consider a deletion for an article named ]--] 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::The vice versa would work if i was a loyalist :-P As stated in my progfile i consider myself a Northern Irish Socialist Nationalist which contradicts loyalism. Then why did i create an article on Tobermore Loyalism? Because i am from Tobermore and want all aspects of it chronicled. If there was any republican history in Tobermore i'd have added it to the article and named the article ]. ] 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Clothing store listed at ] == | |||
== Show Preview == | |||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Clothing store'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, ] and a clue-bat • <sup>(])</sup> 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
I know what you mean lol, its mind boggling, i am using it more though. ] 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Possibly unfree File:Kieran Nugent.jpg == | |||
==Edit conflict== | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the ]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at ] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> --] (]) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
how can yopu lose material to an edit conflict. Your version is stored ready to be copied and pasted, read the instructions (dont want to see you wasting your time), ] 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I dont understand. Which edit is missing?--] 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:: I think this is referring to my post. ] 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== |
==Unblock request== | ||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=time to unblock I think. The actually block was malicious in the first place but I think time has been served anyway. | decline=I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that | |||
Who is the sock[puppet? I noticed you made a sockpuppet claim, can you back it up with | |||
*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, <u>or</u> | |||
facts? ] 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
*the block is no longer necessary because you | |||
:An un registered user makes his first edit and that happens to be a revert of something that just happens to have been revert 4 times in the last ten minutes! Lol!!--] 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
*#understand what you have been blocked for, | |||
:: Agreed that this is suspicious. But where is the good faith? Plus, it isn't proven, so you can't say it was a sockpuppet - "suspected" perhaps. ] 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
*#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and | |||
:::I agree that is why I posed a question--] 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
*#will make useful contributions instead. | |||
Please read the ] for more information. In particular, you should see ] and would have to address the fact that stringent terms have already been attempted before (]). See also comments at the . ] <sup>]</sup> 11:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
I just checked and it is BT ip based in London, and given I was reverting from Central America where I am sweltering in the heat at 6.50pm right now. How is that sockpuppetry (as only JoR 70 and I cant revert further). I would never edit from an ip address myself anyway as it isnt anonymous. I advise you to get solid evidence before making anyy accusations against me as as you know I know how wikipedia works, ] 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
See discussion at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Get it right mate, I didnt say it was sock of yours!--] 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:So far the few who have participated are unanimous in opposing an unblock. Doing this on Christmas is probably not going to win any sympathy. ] (]) 21:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Err wrong page, Vintagem, if you think the anon is someone's sock get a user check and make the allegation in the right place, 3RR isnt it. I suggets you remove our comments from 3RR. i assume you are referring to me as nobody else would use a sock in this case, ie I cant edit any more because I would be breaking 3RR, none of the other anti Malvinas as a terme editors would, ] 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
: Can I just point out for the record that VK is '''not''' currently socking, nor has he been - to my knowledge - since his indef block - ] <sup>]</sup> 23:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::I was posting about his 4 reverts within an hour - not the sock situation, regards--] 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::In that case, I've no probs with unblocking. ] (]) 18:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::(a) you should have warned him, hes a complete newbie (I have now done so) and (b) you need to format properly like I did or they wont take your complaint seriously, ] 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I note the SPI on ] being suspected as a sock, has been closed per lack of 'diff's for evidence. ] (]) 18:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::That is your 3 reverts too. You could run a user check on the latest editor or request partial protection or both, ] 01:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::If by mentioning socking you intend to imply that the ] applies, I wish you would just say so. The conversation at ANI is not about socking, and he was not blocked for socking. The SPI case did not find evidence of socking. Fine. I'm willing to believe that, it doesn't change my position one bit as I wasn't previously aware of it anyway. The offer is just a suggested course of action, it does not apply in every case. I am a big fan of it myself but I don't believe this is a situation where it should be invoked. Even if it was VK continues to blame others for his own blocking, showing no signs of intending to change his behavior. ] (]) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
VK, I recommend you admit responsibility for your own indef block. If you don't? well you see the trend at ANI. ] (]) 00:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:And the few users who do support unblocking you have indicated a rather elaborate set of restrictions, including a topic ban from all articles related to Irish or British politics and all articles related to The Troubles, and supervision by a mentor that will not be chosen by you. In the interest of moving the conversation forward it seems appropriate to ask if you would even agree to such restrictions as a condition of being unblocked. ] (]) 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Indeed, stick with the Boxing articles. Leave the political stuff to others. ] (]) 03:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
This editor need to be unblocked. his opponoents, who have behaved in far worse fashion, have been unblocked. What is the difference with VK? Please explain that to me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Damaen Kelly Boxer == | |||
:]. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Don't quote stupid, ridiculous essays and links to me! Explain why this is acceptable and an unblock of Vk is not? Are you even aware of the facts? I very nuch doubt it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:If "opponents" have "behaved in far worse fashion" then that is an argument to block or chastise them, not to unblock VK. I will support appropriate measures against "opposing" editors to minimize disruption when those are proven with diffs. Let's address that on ANI as an independent issue. This is an encyclopedia, not a boxing match. We don't need to find sparring partners. <b>] ] </b> 11:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Proposal of changing the name on this article to Damien Kelly as this is how it is spelled. What do you think?--] 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::*Get hold of Alison then, and ask her for some explanations of her behaviour here, I am enjoying a pleasant and relaxed holiday, to which I am hurriedly returning, and leaving the sleezy mire of hypocrisy which I have found here while looking in briefly. Disgraceful and disgusting exhibition of double standards. I have never seen such gross hyppocrisy from so called admins here before. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
*Just did a redirect for Damien also--] 22:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Um, is "hypocrisy" aimed at me? You realise I had no involvement with the unblock of Counter-revolutionary? Also, I think this is another instance where supporters of an editor vocally and even aggressively trying to defend them in their absence is, if anything, counter-productive. If VK makes a serious unblock request (which you're welcome to help him formulate), ''that'' would merit lengthy discussion. Discussing the now-declined request this much merely prejudices any future request. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Eh, it's Giacomo. Everything he disagrees with is proof of Misplaced Pages's moral decline & hypocrisy. Best to just ignore him. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::You know what would be totally awesome? If we used Vintagekits' talk page to talk to and about Vintagekits, and not each other! Vintagekits, there are three audiences that will be reviewing your block request. People who know you and are inclined to help you out, people who know you and are disinclined to help you out, and people who don't know you at all. If you even appear to place any of the blame for your block on someone else's shoulders, that last group will not help you. Its just the way it is around here.--] (]) 18:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:With unblock requests worded like the one under discussion here, standard procedure is to decline the request. If he's serious about being unblocked, he is free to submit a properly-worded unblock request. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
*Far from ignoring the multitude of reason for my various blocks I am fully aware of them and hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. My indefinate block was ushered through on the back of a bandwagon whilst half the world slept. When the remainder of the world awoke they were basically told it was too late. | |||
*Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. | |||
*Do I understand what I have been blocked for, yes. But I also understand that there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished and many have shown their faces here already. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with those editors in futures - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. | |||
*will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion is enough to prove what I have said above is true. | |||
*will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. | |||
p.s. apologies for the shoddy original unblock request, one would think that with all my experience that I would know what the correct procedure was, however I am obviously out of practice.--] (]) 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Well that sounds a little more like an unblock request, though you should probably address the old ] specifically since that came up in the recent ANI discussion. When you're ready, use the appropriate unblock request template, and someone should then start a new thread on ]. Unfortunately the starting of an ANI discussion in relation to your recent request may have poisoned the well a bit, so you may have to work extra hard to convince people to have you back. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:A friendly word of advice: In such an unblock request, don't say ''anything'' about other editors. It will, ''for sure'', result in an "unblock declined". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I think what's being sought, is an apology for being un-civil (the colour languages on talkpages) & prior to your indef-block, the usage of socks. Plus a promise to do neither again. ] (]) 19:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Point Taken == | |||
::The second time VK was blocked for incivility, back in February 2007, he solemnly promised to "avoid comments that even could come close to being perceived as attacks or incivility". He's been blocked 20 times for personal attacks since then, not to mention the edit warring blocks. Following many of those blocks he's promised to reform. But he is who he is, and at this point it'd be foolish to assume he's capable of change, no matter how sincere his promises may be. See ]. <b>] ] </b> 08:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Maybe, I'll find this out by asking people from his area, but people might find his wiki page easier if its done like that. It might even expand the acticle.--] 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I'll do a redirect page for ]--] 14:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Sound just googled it Damaen it seems thats right (-: apologies --] 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
No probls - give my regards to the Turf!--] 15:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I think that WeniWidiWiki is a Scottish editor who has some problems with a certain player playing for the Ireland team. I was looking at the history of his edits, and he wasn't long putting some absolute ''point of view'' stuff onto the article. He used to call himself ]. The article is still pov-ridden. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 18:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
:::I thought as much a chara--] 18:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Why the fuck should VK apologise for the "usage of socks"? When was the last time he socked? It certainly wasn't anything to do with his last block was it? VK has certainly got it half right though, you only have to look at the history of the now disgraced admin who blocked him last time, who clearly had it in for VK to such an extent that he was busy gathering villagers with pitchforks to ban VK while ignoring that the article that caused the problems had a BLP violation in that his death was completely unsourced! And isn't it funny how two things I've taken to ANI recently have had little to no input, the no input being an IP editor who violates BLP with virtually every single edit they make. But VK posts an unblock on what should be a quiet day of the year and people are there in the blink of an eye, it would seem keeping VK off Misplaced Pages is far more important than upholing BLP round here... <span style="font-family:Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></span> 13:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
== 1996 Manchester bombing == | |||
::::Why should he? Well, how badly does he want to edit? Editing here is a privilege, not a right. And blaming others for getting blocked will accomplish nothing, so I'm trying to imagine how your comments are likely to help the blockee in this case. As to the other items you mention, I'll take a look, but IP's can't be given lengthy blocks except in limited circumstances. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Oh just grovel to them VK, crawl on your hands and knees shouting "''I'm nout but a thick bog peasant, please kind sirs let me edit, I'll be ever so good and brown my nose''" I rather think that is what is required. Were you pretending to be a fine upstanding English gentleman, then of course you would be aplauded and welcomed back, even if you had been "abusing multiple accounts and using threatening behaviour" all behaviour seemingly taught on the playing fields of Eton. It looks to me like you are perceived to be the wrong nationality and type. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::How badly does he want to edit? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:*About as badly as ], one of his old prime-agressors, who has just been welomed back after a two year block for all forms of deporable behaviour. It seems there is one rule for the Brits and one for the Irish. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::*Yeh, a lot of us Yanks have it in for the Irish while we love the British (guess which one we fought two wars against). ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Oh I had no idea, that decisions solely up to you "Yanks." I thought this was an internationally collaborative project. Silly me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::And how does a baseless accusation of anti-Irish bias aid in that collaboration? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::*The unblock of the other user looks questionable, and you're free to follow the guy's edits and see if he misbehaves, and then take it to the admins. None of that has anything to do with O'Vintagekits, though. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:*I support Vintagekits return to productive contributing. Under some restrictions perhaps for a couple of months to help him settle back in and on a short rope as regards rudeness to other contributors, all he has to do is to be polite or be blocked again. ] (]) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::*That seems fair, provided he stops playing the "look what you made me do" game. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
To focus on socking is a red herring. Yes, Vk has socked before—persistently—but there is nothing to suggest he has done so during the length on this block, despite ample time and opportunity to do so. Expecting (or demanding) an apology for socking is both pointless and punitive. Giano has a point beneath the nationalist spin: every block should be reviewed in the context of the reasons for the block, not other sundry past crimes. | |||
Vk seems to have addressed the reasons for his block on the second attempt. But, in my opinion, a major concern remains: denial of responsibility ("''The actually block was malicious in the first place''", "''there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished''"). If you don't demonstrate that you appreciate ''why'' your actions led to a block (and instead blame the actions of others) its unlikely you can make the judgments required to avoid making the same comments in future. My reading of both requests is that Vk believes he was blocked unfairly by a conspiracy of others. Only if the community accepts this should he be unblocked. ]<span style="color:black">e</span>] 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
So you did - my apologies. ] 19:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::*I dont really want to focus on this as it is exactly the type of negativity that I want to avoid but do you agree that there are a band (orcastrated or not) who would not wish to see my return to wiki no matter what I said. Lets not kid ourselves here eh!--] (]) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
*No problems--] 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::: I expect there are editors that consider your bridges well and truly burnt, and no matter what you say now will be unlikely to support your unblocking. But you might consider ''why'' some people feel that way (hint: the 31 prior blocks may have something to do with it) and instead try to convince those who are willing to give you another chance that you know how to avoid reaching 32. ]<span style="color:black">e</span>] 21:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::*Thank you Rockpocket, I think we will both agree that VK was a thorn in many sides and I will conceed that when in drink he could be objectionable. However, as he says "''Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with those editors in futures.''" I know that his RL responsibilities have increased and with them his sense of responsibility. Does one punish the adult for the sins of the child? returning to that punishment, the reasons many were unhapy with his block was becase it was most defiitely as VK says hurriedly "ushered through on the back of a bandwagon whilst half the world slept." I have never before or since seen such a hurried indeff, in one time zone. Regardless of if you like it or not, VK was indeffed while Ireland was asleep. Now that his old adversaris are all unblocked, '''My view is that comon justice demands the lifting of this block'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Population & Stuff == | |||
:::: But irrespective of whether the indef was hurried through or not, the fact remains that there was a good reason the initial block was placed. Few, if any, of the editors who argued against the nature of the indef took issue with that. Vk-with-added-responsibilities said he would be happy to answer queries. So I have four before offering an opinion on the merits of his request. | |||
I agree to those edits on the foreign population bit, there is no way to verify them unless M'felt council did a survey which i doubt they'd spend the money on. I didn't word the band CD bit properly either, what i meant was that they contributed more tunes to the CD (16) than any of the other bands on their own (all contributed under 16 each). | |||
::::#Do you think it is acceptable to refer to another editor, completely unprovoked, as a "fucking arsehole" or an "ego maniac"? | |||
::::#Should editors who repeatedly or persistently use bilious language in personal attacks or in reference to other editors be welcome in our community? | |||
::::#Pursuant to your answer above, why? | |||
::::#If you were unblocked and used such language again in reference to another editor, should this block be immediately reinstated? | |||
:::: Thanks, ]<span style="color:black">e</span>] 17:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
The comment on more developments planned for the town is accurate i just have to find out the Mid Ulster Mail edition that published the planning approvals for a housing and commercial development (edition published within the last few months). Even better i'll just go to the planning permission website and see if they have it archived. | |||
] 22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Cool, all I will say is that even if you can prove ]. clippings from the Mid Ulster Mail do not always prove ], regards --] 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Nationality of MON == | |||
Just to be clear: I support having Vk's indef block lifted, therefore I aint requesting anything from VK in his unblock request. I merely observed about the kind of unblock request he'll need, to get the community to support his unblock. ] (]) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Hi. I noticed you were editing the Celtic article to remove the NI flag beside O'Neill's name. Can I ask you please not to do this; O'Neill was born in Northern Ireland and represented NI internationally. If you really want to argue this out I suggest you do it at the article's talk page. Best wishes --] 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
You're doing fine Vk. Remaining patient, no foul language usage, no socking. Such an approach helps & I believe at some point in 2011, you'll be unblocked. ] (]) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Northern Ireland == | |||
I take it you know about our rule on ]? PLease don't remove the flag again as it would be such a shame to have to block you. Instead you should discuss on the talk page and seek to build a consensus there for the changes you proprose. Best wishes, --] 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Its been discussed - you are breaking with the consensus my friend--] 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
{{unblock reviewed|I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. | |||
== Downdaroad == | |||
Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. | |||
Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editor in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. | |||
Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. | |||
Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them.|decline=At this point, there's no way for you to be unblocked without a community consensus at AN or ANI (or appeal to BASC). Trouble is that starting such a thread so soon after the last one is unlikely to accomplish much. Consensus can change, but rarely does it overnight. My best advice would be to either wait a few months and try for return per ] or to email BASC. ] | ] 03:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
:*Here's the problem: At the recent ANI discussion, most users were opposed to you being unblocked. The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor. I asked above if you would be willing to agree to these conditions and I don't see an answer anywhere. You have a few more supporters here now, but another discussion will be warranted if we are to seriously consider unblocking you. I don't see any point to initiating said discussion until you indicate whether or not you would be willing to accept such restrictions. ] (]) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::It's quite apparent (at the moment) that if/when Vk is unblocked, another ANI community review will occur. ] (]) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{hat|side conversation}} | |||
Well no harm to you, you're a good editor I agree with in most disputes but I suspected you of breaking the rules of wikipedia and was apparently correct. I don't want to get in a fight over this as you seem like a decent chap (and fellow Fenian bastard :P) but I think sockpuppetry is fairly low. I don't really know what happened about that volunteer thing, as I lost interest when it got too big. Was any consensus reached? I don't feel I need to apologise about the usercheck, I was following guidelines (although largely due to curiosity) and no action was taken over it anyway. -- ] (<small>]-]</small>) 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::the problem with that is, were similar restrictions imposed on his adversaries who behaved in far worse fashion and who are now unblocked after similar blocks - are you seeking to bias the Troubles debates and pages? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I didnt think I broke the rules as I sent it to editors of opposing views, anyway, I think "we" - well we are almost there.--] 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Giano, your backhanded accusation of bad faith is really not going to help the situation. I'm sure you are aware of ]. I'm not saying VK has to agree to these terms, I'm saying he should answer the querstion of whether he would be willing to agree to them or not. If the answer is no, then we know before re-starting the discussion that that particular option is off the table. That's all, there is no conspiracy, just a simple request for clarification of a point that has already come up in these discussions. ] (]) 21:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Sir Norman Stronge &c.== | |||
:::*Please don't quote these ridiculous ] to me because I never read them as they are usually written by Admins atemptimg to justify their own bad behaviour. I can assure you I meant nothing "backhanded," in fact, my meaning was quite obvious. You have allowed back his adversaries (who committed worse "crimes") without a murmer of dissent; now, just get on and unblock VK who has, unlike them, promised to mend his ways. It's begining to look like a huge bias. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::I haven't personally allowed anyone back in. I don't even know who you are talking about and I don't care to find out either. We are discussing VKs possible unblock. Some other user being unblocked by some other admin is a separate matter, and has abcolutely nothing to do with the simple question I am asking for an answer to. This bias you speak of, as it applies to me anyway, is purely a product of your imagination. ] (]) 21:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::If you have not bothered to avail yourself of the facts pertenent to this case perhaps you sould not be commenting here at all. Such ignorance is worryingly common amongst Admins keen to have their names seen here, there and everywhere. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::I have to wonder, at this point, if Giaco is actually trying to sabotage VK's attempt to get unblocked. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
I have reintroduced the material which was sourced to Sir Norman's article, as per your request. I have also clarified it for those who may not be aware of Sir Norman or the background surrounding his murder.--] 00:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::Your wonderings are of very little value. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Sir Norman (as he should be referred to on Wiki.) was not "targetted", whatever upon earth that means, he was murdered and in reprisals to murderes had no connection to. A reader without prior knowledge may think he was implicated in those. Assassination is a factual word, whether you want it to be or not Wiki. guidelines allow it.--] 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::{{small|My comments are every bit as valuable as yours. But thanks for the non-denial denial :) ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
::Assisnation and murder are both POV. The article is completely POV and biased. God only know how it has lasted this long!--] 00:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::This entire conversation is of little value at this point, all I wanted was a simple yes or no answer to a question, and you have decided to drag imaginary nationalist conspiracies into it. I don't care one bit if VK is Irish, English, Iranian, Australian, Navajo, Greek, Albanian, etc. I'll have you know I'm half Irish Catholic myself, so if anything I would be more inclined to be biased in his favor. Now, if we could just let this non-issue alone and give VK a chance to answer the question with either a yes or a no that would be ''super''. ] (]) 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::When someone kills someone it is murder, when they are high-profile it is assassination. Why should this be PoV. You may not like the use of the term but it best illustrates what occured, it's not as if they passed away in their sleeps after some warm milk is it? The were murdered. --] 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
: Giano - who are these ''"adversaries who behaved in far worse fashion and who are now unblocked after similar blocks"'' because I'm really not seeing them? I hope that's not a reference to Counter-rev, as he was 1) neither Sussexman nor David Lauder, both of whom are still well and truly blocked and 2) was never as abusive as VintageKits was in his prime. See my talk page where I went over that already during the week - ] <sup>]</sup> 10:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::I suggest you educate yourself further on the terminology as you dont seem to have a full grasp of it at the moment.--] 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::*I see, so WJBscribe was lying/grossly exagerating here: "''19:26, 1 July 2008 WJBscribe (talk | contribs) blocked Counter-revolutionary (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (abusing multiple accounts, threatening behaviour)''" and that well known upstanding paragon of Wiki virtue Rlevse (renamed as Vanquished on VK's block log) was mreley upholding the sacred Wiki after the disgraceful night of dirty knives when North America hurriedly sent VK packing while Ireland slept - I hope you are proud of that in North America! One only has to look at the names on his block log to see what was happenng a combination of monumantal and engineered ignorance. You Alison, released Counter-revolutionary from his cage in time for the 2010 election after asking for few if any reasurrances of futire behaviour. Yet, when VK wants similarly releasing all hell breaks loose as the drones march out to comment, clearly (as Beeblebrox admits) with mot a clue about that which they are comenting on. I find this all very odd indeed. I am delighted that VK states he is a reformed charactor and hope he has the chance to prove that - a great pity you did not require similar assurances from CR. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::I do have weaknesses, but education isn't one of them. This is from wikipedia; "Assassination is the deliberate killing of an important person, usually a political figure or other strategically important individual". I think this applies here.--] 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I'm glad you found that page - three lines further down - "Assassination itself, along with terms such as terrorist and freedom fighter, is often considered to be a loaded term." - end of story. An apology and I will forget about it!--] 01:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Please cease posting comments to this thread in the recent nationalist-battleground and what-about-that-guy vein. You clearly support VK's unblock, but your efforts are counterproductive to that aim and you seem unable to recognise that (as I said before, if you have current issues with other editors, then pursue ] as appropriate). My expectation is that VK will address the issue of whether he would accept the previous unblock terms and why they would work this time (with the hope that successfully respecting them would later give some chance of them being lifted) or else make the best case he can why he should be given the chance to show that such terms aren't necessary now. Then we can have another AN thread, where I don't rate his chances in the near future, but with a good enough effort, who knows. At any rate, there's no other way back, and you're not helping - quite the opposite. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::It may well be considered "loaded", whatever that means, but it doesn't mean that it can't as fact. I suppose JFK just died? No, he was very much assassinated and so was Sir Norman. An apology you shan't have.--] 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::*I'm sure you all hate haveing the nationalistic overtones of this debate brought out into the open, but there are no other conclusions one can draw? Bad behaviour hapened on both sides, yet only one side continues to be punished - or have you just unblocked VK? Oh and will you all please stop quoting these stupid ] at me, all written by yourselves. Either behave fairly or be quite yourself. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::You dont have to wonder what it means - just click on ] and all shall be clear my dear boy--] 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::Any more of this nonsense and I'll page ban you from here, mostly for VK's benefit but also for your own. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Wonderful, how very kind. To describe, however, the violent assassination of an elderly former politician, with no provacation, as a death (one has images of a fall down the stairs) in the article of a third party clearly shows either your detachment from relaity or your bias.--] 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::*{{small|Well, he's still blocked. Your reverse-psychology strategy worked. :) ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
:Yeah, yeah, this is an encyclopedia not site to wax lyrical about the Tynan Dallas, sorry, Dynasty--] 01:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, and nor is it a place to "wax lyrical" about appeasing a vicious murder from a republican perspective. I have made my position clear and am no longer willing to continue this discussion.--] 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Now, now - dont get yourself into trouble - please note ]--] 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::On another matter, and these are my parting comments to you, it is also against wiki. policy to follow a particular editors contributions altering them. It is this which you seem to be doing. I shouldn't like to have to have you written up.--] 01:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
== Category:Irish-Scots == | |||
* - the question to Vintagekits .... | |||
Thanks for your offer there. There's no prejudice at you getting on with this while the category is up for deletion. Basically, unless the article on a person contains good, ] evidence that the person belongs in the category, they need to be removed from it. I'm off out for an hour or so; why not see how many you can get done? Thanks again, --] 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor...Would you be willing to accept such a condition? I am unsure but I imagine such a condition would not be indefinite but perhaps for say six months or until the community could see you moving forward in a collaborative manner and a measure of trust and support was there to lift the restriction.] (]) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Agree - address that, VK, or else make the best case you can why you should be given the chance to show that such terms aren't necessary now. Then we can have another AN thread and see where we stand. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::*that conditionality wouldnt annoy me to be honest. I think people will be surprised with how I handle my self from now on so I would have no objection to a restriction like that.--] (]) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::IMHO, an AN or ANI report/thread shouldn't be opened until Vk's unblocked. ] (]) 15:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::VK shouldn't be unblocked until the community has agreed to removal of the effective community ban. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Oops, I forgot, it was a community ban. ] (]) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Bringing it up again at ANI could result in disappointment for VK, but could also be the fair thing to do, as the worst the group is likely to do is say "No" again. Just make sure you-know-who doesn't put his oar in and gum up the works for VK. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:*I find it fairly hard to take this process serious, especially considering the CR episode. My first unblock request was largely rejeced out oof hand because I didnt explain myself and then I did in the second and it was rejected because it was "too soon". Whats a guy gotta do?--] (]) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Be patienet. Remember, there's alot of editors out there, who still don't trust you & aren't quick to forgive your past behaviour. ] (]) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Make a third one. You've explained yourself better, and as it seems you're willing to accept the terms, it seems reasonable to now discuss an unblock at AN. I think the "too soon" issue may have been because at that point you hadn't addressed the terms, and now you have I wouldn't expect it to happen again. (And if it does, I'm happy to start an AN thread anyway.) ] <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::As per the above, you have explained your position and alluded to your understanding of why you were restricted and you have offered and accepted the possible restrictions such as mentor and topic restriction, so moving forward and with this in mind your offer and request is worth presenting to the community, although I am sure you know there is no guarantee, if you are serious I suggest you present the new situation in an unblock template for community consideration. ] (]) 19:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Disclosure; I'm half Irish, so maybe I empathize a bit too much, but I suggest you try again right away(apppears to me you have a bit of positive momentum right now) and if anybody who might be Christian throws up the "31 blocks" objection, just remind them, especially at this time of year, that 31 is not ]. ] (]) 16:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Unblock Request - Take III== | |||
== Tommy Burns == | |||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editors in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project? Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am here for. Will I disagree with people? I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues which is the main thing. That is about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. | decline=Enough si enough. I have revoked your access to this talk page, please direct any further appeals to the Arbitration Committee via their Ban Appeals Subcommittee, the community is not receptive to unblocking you. Any unblock at this point will have to come from the Committee. ] 03:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)}} | |||
*You might want to fix the spelling errors and also clarify the "not...not" statement. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Chuck in a bit about your agreement to being sanctioned from the British & Irish political areas of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi again I was interested in your edit . I couldn't see any evidence that Burns claims Irish heritage. Would you be able to provide any? Otherwise I'd say it has to come down. --] 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
*Bit disappointing, VK - you just copied and pasted Take II without even reading carefully enough to find obvious spelling mistakes, never mind address the points discussed after Take II. This might easily look a bit cavalier to some, which seems silly when you're trying to convince people. Try and fix the issues mentioned before anything else happens. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:And again. The reference you provided, only mentions ] is of Irish descent. That doesn't seem to justify saying that he is a Roman Catholic. ] is also of Irish descent, for example. Don't get me wrong by the way; it's good that you're adding references to these articles, just make sure the reference actually says what you are using it to verify. Cheers. --] 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::'Cavalier' - do you agree with the rationale behind the closing of 'Take II'. By the way, my spelling is always terrible. It always has been, it always will be. If you find that offensive then I can only apologies. --] (]) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Well, that response robs me of any remaining desire to help you. I wash my hands of this. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I almost closed this one out of hand, thinking it a duplicate of the previous one. Which it is... ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::What more would you like to see in this request?--] (]) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::What do you think are the reasons you got into trouble here? ] ] 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Many because I was reeled in by dishonest people. What about you?--] (]) 19:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::What were you blocked for? ] ] 19:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::It's all set about in my block log and the above discussions.--] (]) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Do YOU understand what you were blocked for? ] ] 19:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Now now KB, have a bit of manners when you are on my talkpage. Its not like you have showered yourself in glory when you have been here before. I'll answer your question with a question. Have you read my unblock request?--] (]) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I have. And I don't believe your reasons for requesting an unblock. You were on a final final chance and you blew it out of the water. ] ] 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
*I don't think you realise Kittybrewster, that it is your friends who have largley caused the problem which VK has had. However, I'm sure all concerned are noticing, that VK is behaving with maturity and gravitas and not rising to your bait, so perhaps a little introspection would be beneficial for you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Indeed you are right; I don't realise that my friends (whatever that means) have largely caused VK's problem. Nor do I think VK has begun to make clear that he is responsible. ] ] 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Whatever makes you happy Kittybrewster can only be applauded. However, I don't think you will find than VK or indeed anyone other eager to respond to yout trolling here. Good evening. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I was about ready to read yet another attempt by Giaco to sabotage VK's comeback attempt, but VK seems to have done a good job sabotaging ''himself'' this time. I can only conclude that he really, really does ''not'' want to edit on wikipedia. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ | |||
Folks, this bickering is pointless. Whatever anyone's view of the unblock request, it's going to need an ANI discussion to consider it, and a finger-pointing exercise here does not nothing to assist anyone. --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Can you please ]? I would really rather you answered the point about the difference between people of Irish descent and Catholics before you make any more edits like that. --] 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I was ready to log a "support unblock", but it's clear he's not serious, so forget it. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I have added the reference for Gerard Butler--] 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
*Just a courtesy notice that I have asked at ] for a previously uninvolved admin to come deal with this, it has obviously dragged on far too long. ] (]) 03:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::I haven't checked it yet. Would you please address the questions above? --] 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I am working, I dont have you dance around to your timescales!--] 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::If your work is against important Misplaced Pages principles like WP:V, it will be reverted, though not by me, as I don't revert-war. It would be better for you to go back and amend some of your (apparent) errors I pointed you to, than to make more edits. I know you are making good-faith edits there, but maybe you need to slow down and make fewer, better edits. --] 01:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Userpage == | ||
The userpage should be changed to ''indef block'', as that's what VK's status currently is. He's certainly not retired. ] (]) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Bloody good . Nice one (especially as I had edited it just before you!). Well spotted. --] 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:True though that may be, is it ''really'' that big of a deal? Anyone can see from this page that the "retirement" was not voluntary. In short you are correct but it is hardly the most pressing issue here. ] (]) 02:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::It's just illogical to keep thate ''retirement'' tag, when that's not the situation. ] (]) 02:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::I agree completely. I just don't see it as a pressing problem. There has already been a slo-mo edit war over this for over a year, and it's still there. There are things that are worth fighting for and things that are not. I suggest this falls into the "not" category. ] (]) 03:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::: I changed it to indefblocked yesterday, especially since consensus was formed at AN/I that he's blocked indefinitely, but I was reverted out of hand by his friend. As usual, on Misplaced Pages, it's not about what you do but who you know. - ] ] 14:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::It's not worth edit-warring over. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Nothing ever is.--] (]) 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{collapse bottom}} | |||
*I'm sorry you feel you have been treated unfairly, there have been several community discussions wherein a clear consensus was established that you should remain blocked. Emailing me as if this was all my doing isn't going to change that one bit. You may contact ] if you want to appeal this any further, I'd appreciate it if you did not email me any further regarding this as I couldn't override the community's decision even if I wanted to. ] (]) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Replaceable fair use File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg == | |||
== Irish == | |||
] | |||
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of ], but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our ] in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please: | |||
# Go to ] and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, '''without deleting the original replaceable fair use template'''. | |||
Can you think about this edit here please? You are right that NI didn't exist, but at that time Ireland was not a country either. The use of the tricolour is certainly inappropriate. At least you didn't categorise him as Irish-Scots again, so there is hope for you yet! --] 17:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
# On ], write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. | |||
:I've fixed some of your errors from yesterday as you did not do them when I asked you. Can we please be clear that: | |||
:1) Being of Irish descent is not the same as being a Roman Catholic | |||
:2) Blogs are not acceptable references, see ] | |||
:As I said, you need to slow down and make better edits as it is a lot of work to check your edits and correct your errors. You should be able to do that yourself. Thanks. --] 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, ], or by taking a picture of it yourself. | |||
== Sock accounts == | |||
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> ] (]) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Hi Vintagekits, I have a solution for your sock account problem that I think will help you. Go to ], and follow the instructions on the page. Last time I checked, multiple accounts on Misplaced Pages are allowed, '''''as long as you follow the rules'''''. I think you should limit it to two accounts, any more is kind of annoying.--<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]] ]</span> 05:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
: What you seem to be avoiding is the fact that the account he wants to use has been banned for breaking these rules. ] 14:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg== | |||
==Michael Dickson== | |||
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
I didn't see anything in the article to indicate he had Irish ancestry and still cannot, so why are you the category? Also, can you please not misuse the edit summary "rvv"; ] implies a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia, which this certainly was not. Categories, like anything here, meed to be ] and as I've tried to exaplain to you before, being a Roman Catholic, being of Irish extraction and having an Irish surname are three different things. Please stop. --] 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Dickson is an Irish name now!?--] 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Not as far as I know. Why did you add him again to the category? --] 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::I see you're at it again. Will you please stop? --] 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::what are you talking about?--] 15:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::I mean you are making sloppy edits again. Irish is not the same as Catholic. Simply adding the categories without any explanation looks like ]. If you add the information to the article along with a verifiable reference then that is fine. Once again, slow down and do a better, more thorough job and that way your edits are more likely to persist. --] 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:stop posting nonsense please--] 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I'm choosing to ignore your rudeness for the moment. Take a look at ]. This is what you should be doing; adding well-referenced information '''to the article''', not just a category. Please slow down and do a better job. --] 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::] is another example. --] 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::I have added the Cat and a reference, that is sufficiant for now. also you are reverting articles where I have provided a reference for the Cat - such as ]--] 15:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== John McAllion == | |||
== File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg listed for deletion == | |||
See, there's a perfect example of what I mean. By adding the '''information''' to the article you actually improve it as a resource. Growing up in a Catholic family is not the same as being a practising Catholic. I am struggling to understand why you find this so difficult. --] 15:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] 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. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 05:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:He stated in parliment - "I was born and grew up in Glasgow, a member of an '''Irish Catholic''' family." - what more do you want?--] 15:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I want you to '''add the information to the article''', not just the reference (which on its own is fairly meaningless). I want you to realise that '''the RC category is not for people who grew up in a Catholic family, but for practising Catholics'''. Does that make sense? --] 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== File:Toi tim.jpg listed for deletion == | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] 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. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== File:O'hanlon.jpg listed for deletion == | |||
Actually, ] you are entirely inaccurate. Look at what the Category: Northern Irish Roman Catholics page states right at the beginning: | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] 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. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 05:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
* Moved to Commons and now used on ] - ] <sup>]</sup> 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Poster50r.jpg== | |||
'''''"The following persons from Northern Ireland are or were members of the Roman Catholic Church. Membership does not necessarily indicate personal Christian faith."''''' | |||
] | |||
] 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from ] is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. | |||
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair --> ] (]) 05:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Faint praise == | |||
== File:Irhm sign.jpg listed for deletion == | |||
Well, your edits have moved from being very very poor to just being poor, so I suppose that's progress. In your hurry to push your POV, you don't seem to be making much effort to actually improve the articles. For example, how can you look at an arrticle like ], and not see that it needs cleanup? Worse than that, your revert removed my tag from it as well as another edit I made. Please make an effort to improve the encyclopedia. Why should I have to search through an entire reference to find your cherished racial distinction? Add the info, make some actual improvements to articles, and I will start to take you seriously as a contributor. At the moment I just see you pushing your POV. --] 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] 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. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 05:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Conversely, your work could be construed by some to have undertones of anti-Irish bigotry - but not I--] 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Well I'm glad then that we understand each other. The difference is that I am trying to improve the articles I edit. As I said, I see some small progress in your editing, but it needs to get better still. --] 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks Dad, I just wanna make you pwoud!--] 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::LOL, I enjoyed that. In spite of what you may think, I am actually just trying to make he encyclopedia better, as I'm sure in your own way you are too. Don't you think the category we are arguing over looks better with only actual Irish-Scots in it, rather than a random selection of people with Misplaced Pages articles with Irish surnames? The funniest ones I took out were ] (no Scottish connections whatsoever) and ] <s>(added mistakenly by you I think)</s>. --] 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::My mistake, that was ]. --] 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, there were some funnies in there. However, I think you will admit that many if not most of those you took out are actually of Irish descent. Proving it is a different matter.--] 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:: is another bad edit I'm afraid. As I explained the RC categories are for people who profess to be practising Catholics. Merely having grown up in a Catholic family is not enough. Unfortunately too, in your haste to revert, you removed information from the article which I had added. This was a bad edit. I invite you to revert it yourself. --] 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Does he say the he is no longer a practising Catholic?--] 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::No. He doesn't say he is not a Muslim either, but we don't add that to the article. The onus of proof is on an editor wanting to add information (including categories). Please revert it as a sign of good faith. --] 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::That is nonsense, does he have to make a statement daily? The edit is good, I have proven he is Catholic and until you can come up with to show he is not then it stays!--] 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
The reference states he was in a Catholic family as a child and suggests he identifies as one now, but it does not prove it. It has to be proved. Under ] we exercise caution and sensitivity to living people in articles about them. This is not a good edit summary: ''(you got any proof that he is not? Why dont I take a roll call outside Mass on Sunday - crazy!)'' It is not a question of proving he is ''not'' a Catholic. It has to be proved that he ''is''. Otherwise the category shouldn't be used. ] 05:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::That is an incorrect interpretation of the pocily. If he states that he grew up a Catholic and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that has changed then it is safe to say that he still is a Catholic as once you are baptised into the Catholic church then you remain a member of that church.--] 10:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::Well, there's two people saying your interpretation is incorrect, so I suggest you seek a wider consensus before reinstating it. ] 22:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Possibly unfree File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg == | |||
==James McDade== | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the ]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at ] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> --] (]) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Cheers for that, they neglected to do that. Think their over-use of the word "terrorist" gives a lot away. Vote seems to be mainly in favour. :) ] 11:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I know, he is doing the same on a lot of articles, see also ] - in fact just go and see his edit history to see what he has been up to!--] 12:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== File:Grave of emmet.jpg listed for deletion == | |||
== I just noticed this == | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] 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. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
: Moved to Commons. We'll have it for ga.wikipedia - ] <sup>]</sup> 06:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg listed for deletion == | |||
What is this: "Logoistic is using the fact that you have banned the account against me in arguements to make a point" found at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive176#User:Vintagekits.27_sockpuppet_tag. Where have I done this? Please provide evidence. ] 19:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] 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. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 06:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Bresli an phob.jpg== | |||
== Stop using my talk page as your own personal forum == | |||
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Vintagekits, you and Logoistic need to stop writing stuff on my talk page that has nothing to do with me. I see no reason to get involved in this with you. Just read the rules and obey them, and you will be fine.--<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]] ]</span> 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:That wasnt my intention mate, sorry!--] 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== File:All 350.jpg listed for deletion == | |||
==Gerard Mongtomery== | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] 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. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 06:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Provide references, or the article will be deleted. Don't throw nonsense tags at me, as that will not do you any good. You are on the verge of being blocked. ] is policy. Without verifiable references, we '''''cannot''''' keep your allegations. ]|] 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Blocked for what, writing well referenced articles?? They are not my allegations they are the ]s. --] 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Repeating the same claim doesn't wash. No, for recreating libelous claims without evidence. ]|] 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::I am only repeating them because they are true and you are ignoring them for some reason. Remember I am not the only editor who has used this article as a source/reference!--] 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::I am ignoring them because you haven't provided them. The links you provide are not ], and fail our policy at ]. Have you read BLP? ]|] 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::I cannot believe you deleted the other article without a prompt or even any debate! This is amazing!--] 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I repeat. Have you read BLP? Especially, ''Jimmy Wales has said:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."''? ]|] 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Why did you delete the other articlres??--] 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Are you not reading what I am writing? I deleted them because they were not only poorly sourced, '''''they were not sourced at all'''''. As the quote above says, it should be removed, aggressively. Provide '''''reliable''''' references, and the articles can be recreated. ]|] 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::How can I access the history of those pages so I dont have to totally rewrite them from scratch as I dont think I have the stomach for that. Also you need to calm down and discuss these things as you are going way over board. Did you even ask EricR where he got that quote? Thats seems like it would have been the first thing a reasonible admin would have done.--] 22:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Provide reliable sources on the article Talk pages and I will undelete them. And I didn't need to ask Eric where he got the quote, as he didn't provide a link, despite multiple requests for one. ]|] 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:So you only consider as source verifiable if its on the internet? That is not standard policy!--] 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::No, but we only have the word of the bloggers and forumeers of the existence of the Daily Mail link, when the Daily Mail's own archives contain no mention of the people. ]|] 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Nothing is stopping you getting a hardcopy of the article direct from the DM. I see that EricR has posted further details. Also as an act of good faith can you reinstate the other two articles so I can do a couple of hours work on them - and then you can judge them. regards--] 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Do you have a hard copy? Perhaps you can provide a scan of it. ] 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== File:JimBreen.jpg listed for deletion == | |||
== Astrotrain == | |||
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] 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. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 06:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Clarification motion == | |||
You left a comment at User:Astrotrain's Talk page saying "you are supposed to let the originator of the article know first". I am not sure that that is really the case. For example whenever I nominate an AFD I usually assume that the original author (and subsequent editors) have "Watch"ed the page. Of course, as a courtesy, you ''could'' go round notifying people. Some may consider this politeness, but others consider it to be ]! Either way, it should remain a voluntary practice, not an obligation. --] 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Mais, I am sure I read that you should let the originator know in the AfD policy page.--] 21:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I defer to your greater knowledge!! I rarely read these things :) Often, in real life, as well as at Misplaced Pages, ''common sense'' should be our guide, not bloody rulebooks. It is often very useful to ask oneself: "what is ''reasonable''"? I, personally, consider it reasonable to choose ''not'' to invest one's time in notifying people of AFDs. --] 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
A case (]) in which you were involved has been modified by {{oldid2|631252824|Motion|motion}} which changed the wording of the ] to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --]] 21:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
==] at AfD== | |||
Another editor has listed an article that you have been involved in editing, ], at ]. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --] 23:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC) <!-- Template:Adwnote --> | |||
== |
==Happy New Year== | ||
Hi VK, I just thought I’d drop by to wish you a prosperous New Year and say it would be nice to see a little more of you around the place. That’s assuming, of course, I’m not already seeing you and am too stupid to realise it. Be happy! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 22:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC) | |||
I warned you once about personal attacks. Don't make any more, or you will be blocked. ]|] 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Which personal attack?--] 00:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::At ]. ]|] 00:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::I dont know if you know just have it in for me because we disagreed over the Montgomery article but I was raising a serious issue - Asrotion has taken to mass deletion of my work all at once how am I supposed to defend them all at once? I feel like I am being bullied here.--] 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::I don't have it in for you. I just think your understanding of BLP and reliable sources is wrong. If you look at my contributions, you'll see I've been issuing NPA warnings to several people today. ]|] 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::Cool, I just think that Astrotrain has been pretty crafty today, he knows if he puts things up for deletion all at the one time then there is less time to defend - it only takes seconds to nominate for AfD but it takes a good while to extand and defend articles.--] 00:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Is that why you've just done the same thing to me Vintage??] 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I proddy a couple of people who are glorified local councillors - Astrotrain has nominated over 20 just today!--] 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
If something is a good article about an appropriate subject, properly written and set out, and soundly referenced, then it will speak for itself and the community will decide to keep it. If it's not all those things, then get your act together.... ] 09:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Apology== | |||
No, this isn't one, but you will get one if I turn out to have been mistaken. I'm a reasonable chap, or so I like to think. ] ] 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:For your information, I've requested that ] be reopened. Cheers, ] ] 12:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I think you've rumbled me!<!-- not -->--] 12:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Exactly what it says: no, they won't check. You can ask Mr Gordon why, if you like, but I doubt you'll get an answer. ] ] 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Why wouldnt they check? I wont them to (looking forward to see you groveling!!--] 17:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Well, there's nobody going to see it where you left it. Try ], but based on past "please disprove I'm a sockpuppet" attempts you've got two chances: fat and slim. ] ] 00:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::What reason could they have for not lookinh into the case?--] 00:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::Why did they knock me back? They may believe you are innocent as the driven snow. Or they may think I'm fishing. They might think there isn't enough evidence. They could think that evading a block is not a big enough deal to justify the effort and the invasion of privacy. If you meant why did they ignore your request, first off they never do checkusers for the subject and secondly someone had aleady taken it off the list when you left your message so they wouldn't have seen it. You may be in line for that apology all the same: Bluegold never posted when he'd been on the drink that I remember. Cheers, ] ] 01:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
Thanks. I recommend not creating stubs, but bringing articles up to this standard, so they become AfD-proof. They need to be tightly referenced. Please note how the info is presented in the references. Don't worry if stubs (or other articles) get deleted. You can recreate them, provided you create an article which is ''substantially different'' to the deleted one — i.e. with extra material not present in the first version. Never recreate an identical version however. ] 04:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==References== | |||
The sources you are using, particularly (but not limited to) Relatives for Justice and Republican News are not neutral or independant, please read ]. ] ] 12:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
Thanks for your advice. I think it's pretty obvious his name was Gerard, not Gerald; the ], among other sources confirm this. | |||
As far as using the "move (move page)" option, I have never done so, and I guess I am a little nervous about trying something new for fear of losing all the data if I screw up, but I'll try it the next time I have to redirect something. | |||
] 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
P.S. After reading ]'s comments just above I must say that I agree with him.] 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Well if you dont know how to use thing just ask, people as usually willing to help. As for the name change, there is a discussion on the page - you are more than welcome to join in. regards--] 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Bastin8== | |||
That felas a dope.He really was getting me wroked up.Althoguh he was probably taking the piss. ] 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I hear ya a chara, just remember ] and dont get yourself banned! I am also having trouble with some editors with a similar viewpoint to Bastin--] 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Your comments on ] were unwarranted. It is hardly useful for this project to attack users who try to ensure compliance with copyright law and Misplaced Pages policy. —]<sub>]</sub> 20:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
For issues with the conduct of another user, try ]. However, I’m fairly certain that the PUI entries were justified. The images really don’t quite meet the requirements. —]<sub>]</sub> 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Using a non-free image of a poster for illustration of an article about a person is like copying an entire newspaper article because it happens to discuss the same person as a Misplaced Pages article. Basically unless you can track down the copyright holder and get an image under a free licence or prove that the image is legally usable for some other reason, you’re out of luck—even if other websites use images of the poster with somewhat less consideration of copyright issues. (Non-free images of posters are usable under ] e. g. when the poster itself is notable or if the poster is an important example of an art form.) —]<sub>]</sub> 21:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks for the advice mate, I appriciate it--] 00:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Terrorism Categorys== | |||
You have recently removed categorys on articles about terrorism in the United Kingdom. You state in the edit summary that it is a ]. But I can not see how it is a ] that these incidents were not terrorism. If it is not terrorism then what would you call these incidents? I am keen to resolve this issue to stop a ]. --] 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:1. Define terrorism. 2. Have you read wiki policy on the use of the term terrorism?--] 21:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
About the same issue with regards the ] and the ]. I did reply to you on the Shankill Road bombing talk page, see there for my objections to your changes to that article. With regards to the Hyde & Regents Park attacks, they are a seperate incident and should be discussed seperately at that article's talk page. With regards to your edits of IRA attacks within the United Kingdom, your attitude is woefully short on wikiettiquette and consideration for NPOV. You are repeatedly pushing the idea that the IRA are not a terrorist organisation. As stated on Misplaced Pages' own article on ], the Provisional Irish Republican Army was listed, at the times the articles in question are referring to, as a terrorist organisation by almost the entire English-speaking world, including the UK, Ireland and the United States. | |||
The articles you have been editing are not simply attacks on an "occupying force" of the British Army, but have included a ], a ] and two off-duty military units in England, which attacks caused respectively ] and ]. The UN depiction of terrorism, with my own emphasis on aspects which make the IRA a terrorist organisation, is below taken from the ] article: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
Terrorism is an '''anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action''', employed by '''(semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors''', for idiosyncratic, criminal or '''political reasons''', whereby — in contrast to assassination — '''the direct targets of violence are not the main targets'''. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and '''serve as message generators'''. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are '''used to manipulate the main target (audience(s))''', turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988). | |||
</blockquote> | |||
By this standard, all the acts you have repeatedly edited are unequivocally by definition of the UN, terrorist. | |||
Finally, your own attitude does not reflect the ethos and environment in which Misplaced Pages should be worked upon. You have relentlessly criticised, insulted and degraded those that disagree with you, have made little effort to discuss changes with other editors and repeatedly changed articles in a manner you know to be in bad faith. You have done this despite repeated warnings and cautions from many different users over a protracted period of time. Please stop this. In future please discuss any controversial changes on an articles talk page '''before''' making them. If you do this rationally, then a compromise can be reached which stops endless and fruitless edit wars and conflicts, which only harm Misplaced Pages as a whole. Thankyou--] 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::You are very close to breaking ]--] 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Anyway we have --] 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Stop removing these categories: NPOV policy states that "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views." not removing views with which one disagrees: these are designated terrorist offences in UK law. ] 10:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Close but no cigar. If I have offended you then I apologise and in any case I am withdraw from his debate, I don't have time to fight with you over every article about the IRA and will leave the issue for future editors to clear up. Just to note, the discussion you linked to and the Misplaced Pages guidelines indicate that the use of the word terrorism should be sourced. I agree with this totally. However, you have been removing the '''categories''' linking to terrorism. This is deliberately disingenuous as a category cannot be sourced no matter how well referenced the article is. Anyway, goodbye, I have already been drawn to far into this and would rather be working on articles, not debating semantics, so I'll leave you to it.--] 10:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::If you notice I havent removed the category from each article only those in which civilians were not the specific target.--] 12:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== SPG == | |||
Thanks for the comments. | |||
All I had prior to searching the web was the quotes from McCaughey in Bandit country. However, just searching the web this afternoon for stuff on collusion, there's stuff that would actually make your eyes pop out. Read this http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/2.1_CODE_weiraff.html and this http://www.nd.edu/~cchr/publications/IIP_final_11_06_06.pdf. Absolutely shocking. Allegations that the RUC, UDR and British Army were all involved to one degree or another in sectarian killings. Really disturbing stuff. | |||
Also on a less serious note, I may have made a mistake about the nature of the SPG, it seems it was a counter terrorist division of the RUC, with a number of different units, rather than being just one unit based in Armagh. I'm going to have to look up a book or two to sort this out. | |||
] 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Background== | |||
In response to your inquiry: | |||
I am neither Guatemalan nor Puerto Rican. | |||
Btw--your spelling is atrocious. Does this mean you were not educated by the ]?? | |||
Slainte. | |||
] 03:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Yeah I was educated by ICB but never listened, I know my spelling is terrible, I should use a spell check more!--] 03:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
I knew you were educated by the ICB anyway given your Fenianism. | |||
] 03:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
This is the correct terminology, the other (]) is emotive, manipulative and POV, for example the American Revolutionary War is never called the "American War of Independence". | |||
P.S. I haven't read your last message yet (the "new messages" sign just arrived in (lol) orange) but if it's to whinge about my reference to your Fenianism, forget it, bub. If you can call people "idiots" and "West Britons" (as per ]) then you have lost the right to squeal about ]. | |||
Slainte. | |||
] 04:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I didnt mention you calling me a fenian (which if I was in a more sensitive mood could have called a personal attack!!). Anyway, ] and ] are both redirects to the correct page which is ], so how can that be, as you say, "emotive, manipulative and POV" - if anything that shows me that you possibly do not really have an indepth knowledge on the subject, and that to you calling the PIRA "terrorist's" and this shows you potentially biased POV.--] 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
You have just admitted that the use of the term "Volunteer" (as applied to the IRA) is "in mediation" - therefore you have no right to use it or at least I have the right to change it, and I will. | |||
'''You''' are the one who made the redirect in question, which I told you I am going to let slide, although I could easily reverse it. Don't push your luck, bud. | |||
And btw, I have plenty of in depth knowledge of this subject matter as you must realize by now, but since that (your accusing people of lacking knowledge of something that they disagree with you about) has become a boilerplate response on your part I am not even going there. | |||
] 05:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Everything you said there is incorrect. | |||
*What is in mediation is whether or not "member" or "Volunteer" should be used, in the mean time both can be used but should not be substituted for each other. Did you read the links I provided? | |||
*] has been a redirect to ], , what you have mistake is my additional redirect of ] which I made for additional clarification. An apology for that would be nice. I will ask you again, ] and ] are both redirects to the correct page which is ], so how can that be, as you say, "emotive, manipulative and POV"--] 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Harrod's Bombing== | |||
I am happy to explain - you conveniently removed all references to civilian casualties (one of whom was an American citizen, although I can understand if you didn't know that) and that and the issue of not having time to defuse the bomb constituted most of the change '''back''' overriding your prior rv. | |||
Slainte. | |||
] 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Actually, this just goes to show that you didnt even read what you were reverting. Please read what you reverted and then come back and apologies.--] 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Volunteer/Member== | |||
Why would I make a necessary correction just to revert my own work? If you want to report me about something which is already in mediation and give momentum for a final ruling, fine. Anyone who reviews your talk page and most of your edits will come to the same (sane) conclusion as I have -- you are inserting a republican slant to almost everything you touch. | |||
P.S. - give up the notion of ever getting an apology out of me. You are wasting your time, bud. | |||
] 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
As far as the changes go: | |||
*a) You can indicate your feelings - you do not tell me what to do | |||
*b) You inserted Oglaich as part of his name in Gaelic when you know full well that is not the case and what that word means. | |||
*c) I readded the Northern Irish Roman Catholics category because as you yourself argued earlier once someone is born and raised Catholic, unless they officially leave the Church, they are Catholic, and I agree with you on that (hard to believe, huh) | |||
*d) The fact that his mother who introduced him to republicanism (as it states on the page and which you never removed) was also the one who got him off the strike (and I read all about it and can quote the "epileptic fits" part) is exceedingly notable. | |||
*e) The fact that other families did the same following her example is also quite noteworthy. | |||
What problems with the above do you have? | |||
] 06:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I do not tell you what to do but when you edit on wiki it is expected that you should abide by there rules, policies and procedures.--] 06:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Paddy Quinn (redux)== | |||
I am getting sick and tired of your refusal to answer directly a question posed to you rather than using some nonsense like implying that your opponent does not "abide by the rules" or is "breaking with consensus" or "POV", which you yourself do too much of, but overuse the word way too much as an accusation against others -- these are not answers, these are braindead soundbites which you employ when you cannot answer something or know you are wrong. | |||
Thus I am no longer going to respond to any questions re Paddy Quinn when I have already provided the answers (see above). | |||
==Tom Begley== | |||
The claim that he was fervently anti-sectarian is POV and unsubstantiated (unsubstantiatable). | |||
The Glenbryn Estate incidents had nothing to do with Begley, but '''merely coincided with the date of his death''' -- there is no connection as far as I know, nor have you provided any such connection. | |||
As far as the "illiterate" goes, I know I read it, but for now I cannot source it so I cannot stop you from removing it for now. It appears I will have to wade into the ''An Poblacht'' archives -- what a horrific prospect. | |||
] 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Harrod's Bombing== | |||
*Q: As the target of the attack you stated "Christmas shoppers at Harrods" - can you clarify this answer and the store and not the shoppers was the target and this is confirmed by the prior phoned warning to evacuate. | |||
*A: I did not insert that, although the IRA obviously knew that there was a strong possibility of civilian casualties, and given your undoubted links to the IRA, you know it as well. | |||
*Q: You deleted the time of the explosion and replaced it with "Unfortunately they did not have time to defuse it" - a. why do you delete the time and b. "Unfortunately" may be correct but it is POV, why did you and it. | |||
*A: "Unfortunately" '''is NOT POV'''. | |||
:'''Not every adjective or adverb is prohibited from being used on Misplaced Pages. There is a clear universality that it was unfortunate that the bomb could not be defused, except by die-hard ] supporters, which I suppose includes ...''' - guess who. | |||
So "Unfortunately" is fine, unless you can provide an impartial third party to confirm otherwise. | |||
*Q: You previously added the line "Three officers and three civilians (including one citizen of the United States) were killed." but then deleted from my last edit, can you please explain this. | |||
*A: I don't remember offhand whatever I removed but I am sure if you wrote it it deserved to be removed. | |||
*Q: you removed the line "It stated that a bomb was placed the C&A deptartment store on the east side of Oxford Street, London." and replaced it with "They claimed a bomb had been placed in the heart of Oxford Street. It was said to be at the C&A store on the east side of the shopping street." the later sounds messy and POV can you explain the edit. | |||
*A: I did not make that change to the best of my knowledge; it doesn't sound like anything I would have done; pls. check the edit history to confirm who made that particular change. | |||
] 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Harrassment== | |||
Harrassment is not going to get me to do anything for you. And considering the mood I'm in right now, you do NOT want to cross me right now. ]|] 07:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I really do not understand your aggresive attitude towards me. I simply asked you if there was any update with the issue. You asked me for certain links which I provided you but since then I havent heard anything, what do you suggest I do? Why/how can you consider this harrassment?--] 07:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::It's not harrassment: you are being responsible. However, Zoe is under pressure at the moment and rather sensitive to things, so the best thing is to back off from her. I would wait a few days, and '''if''' you have sound sources, then you can start the article again with them, and explain exactly what you are doing in the edit summary and on the talk page - and why the situation is now different. However, I suggest you are very careful in how you write such an article and cautious in the statements you write. It would be best to say something like, "The Daily Mail said..." and put in a quote. You are welcome to link to this post on the article talk page. You might also want to liaise with another editor to review the article to make sure that it conforms to ]. However, if you can ] with ] then it is legitimate. ] 13:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 12:52, 19 September 2023
Extended content | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Since you continue to be disruptive..Take 48 hours off, VK. Your attacks on Elonka are outside the lines, and you should know that by now. SirFozzie (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I dont know why anyone ever does one of these because they are never overturned and fellow admins always see things from the other admins perspective. Sir Fozz says that I have been disruptive and made a personal attack yet refuses to clarify the block, which is poor form. I wasnt being disruptive at all - I hadnt been involved in the revert war that was being discussed and I never suggested that Domer should ignore the probation only that putting him on probation was wrong - I wasnt alone on that. So there can only be the personal attack issue - I made no personal attack, I asked Fozz what was the attack and who was it made towards? Sir Fozz certainly does have a COI with regards me so maybe that clouded his judgement. Decline reason: You clearly don't want to understand the meaning of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Look right above this unblock request for a perfect example of why you shall remain blocked. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (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. Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 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).Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack. Vintagekits (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Decline reason: No one appears to have objected to your first edit to that thread, but the second one constituted a personal attack. Per your block log, this does not appear to be an isolated incident. I suggest that you consider modifying your behaviour to reflect Misplaced Pages standards, rather than implying that you are being singled out due to cultural differences. Dekimasuよ! 00:41, 12 November 2009 (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.
BanAs you already know, you have been indef'd and banned per this ANI thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this.....
Jeez Vk; you break my heart! Why keep effin' and blinding at people when you know what will happen????? Still, hope you get back. Maybe look up "apology" in the dictionary and practice in front of a mirror - without head-butting the glass :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Not banned yetThe debate about blocking or banning is still ongoing at ANI, as such VK should be permitted to edit his talk page. Everyone has a right to defend themselves before a sentence is passed. There seems to be a lot of unssemly and undue haste on this matter - why? Giano 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point:
Posted here by Giano 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Vk. It's your usage of foul language, that's getting ya into these block problems. Personally, I don't mind the colorful words, but it appears an increasing numbers of editors do. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Vk. I decided to delete my 'vote' from your Ban case. I shall have to take a neutral stand on it. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that certain people have been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill over VK's emails. They frankly look like reasonable responses given his limitations on communication at the time. I have taken some time to look over some of the troubles articles and there does seem to be a systematic Britsh POV bias going on. No wow I will lay my cards on the table here... I am a Brit... but being from an Irish family I am probably more aware of and attuned to the issues at hand than most editors. Most editors seem to take the Britsh POV and are backed by what would seem to be a a number of admins all with either a British POV or American ones with a strong anti terrorism POV. Take the "British Isles" as an example. Geographically and geologically speaking the term seems fine to me - simply meaning the group of Islands the biggest of which happens to be called Great Britain. That is pretty standard terminology for any group of Islands to be refered to by the biggest. Now the term is also used in political and economic sense where its use is not so clear cut and can have overtones that are not welcome that most British editors are simply unaware of, and the term is used in this way, which can be considered an inflamatory way, throughout wikipedia. There are alternatives to the British Isles which can and should be used outside of purely geographic or geological articles yet the weight of editors on the British side surpresses this. It is no wonder to me that editors who try and redress this balance problem feel like they are beating their head against a wall sometimes because frankly they are, though I would say it is not a wall of anti Irish sentiment but one of ignorance to the issue. --LiamE (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I've changed my mind (yet again). I'm once again, opposing the indef-ban, as I've no evidence of sock-puppetry (since the last Banning case). GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Official statement requestedJehochman has asked for you to write up and post an official statement to be contributed to the ANI discussion before it's closed. Can you create one here and indicate when you are done editing and want it copied over? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep agree a full and thorough Arbcom case. To cut out the BS insist on Diff's for any and every accusation. --Domer48'fenian' 10:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Lift the blockGiven the nature of the block and my suspicion, based on personal experience, that this is a tactic in a banning process I believe the ban should be lifted before any further proceedings. Here we have a trial in progress while the accused has already been locked away without bail - all the better to provoke him. Not the circumstances for a fair assessment of the many issues at play here. It's not as if Vk can abscond while out on bail. I think my proposal here will tease out the real agenda of the block and ban lobby. Sarah777 (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
MentorshipWould you be willing to have me, and likely some others (which will need to include people you don't care for - so to be acceptable for those who do not appreciate the effort being expended to keep you editing this project), as mentor(s)? This would run concurrent to Jehochman's suggested limiting you to sport/boxing topics and ban from Ireland/Troubles related areas. I am asking the community the same thing at ANI, and will only accept supping from the poisoned chalice if there are two positive responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Completely unconnected questionIs Manny Pacquiao's fight on Miguel Cotto British TV tonight, if so when ? I can't find it anywhere and the dog has eaten today's newspaper? someone watching this page is bound to know. Giano 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Block and associated discussionI have closed the discussion at the incident noticeboard regarding your block. At this time, there is a strong, albeit not unanimous, consensus that the block is to remain. You may, as normal, request that the arbitration committee review the matter. As I stated in my closing rationale, if you post a request for arbitration on this page, I will move it to requests for arbitration for you. Whatever the outcome here is, I urge you to strongly consider why things have come to this point. I hope that you will do so. Seraphimblade 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Take a peek at here, another option. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Pacman, WBO welterweight championPacman TKO's Cotto in 12th rd. I was close, eh? GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) The Third RoadHi Vintagekits, the two paths laid before you are both shithouse because both of those paths mean more unhappy work for me. Come over to Wikisource for a while! Bring all your friends!! ;-) Wikisource needs someone with your passion. s:Wikisource:Sports doesn't mention boxing. Someone needs to create s:Wikisource:Boxing We have a few poor quality works in s:Category:Boxing. As an example, I have set up s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 1.djvu and s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 2.djvu, where you can clean up and improve existing biographies written long ago. e.g. Thomas Smallwood. Simply log in, click edit, and fix the OCR errors. The Wikisource community will help you with the syntax voodoo; you'll get the hang of things pretty quickly. I'll be happy to set up projects for any old book that interests you; any topic, any language. I'd rather spend my time helping you settle into Wikisource rather than spend that same time in arbitration or investigating socks. After a few months, you can then appeal your Misplaced Pages ban either to Arbcom or to the community. John Vandenberg 13:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctionsAs a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here. For the Arbitration Committee Seddon | 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) VK is blocked indefinitely, not retiredWhy is the tagging of his user page with {indefblocked} even up for debate? Why are certain people so absolutely desparate to make themselves look like tag teaming edit warriors that are utterly blind to reality? Considering there are already descriptions of this nature of these exact editors before arbcom right now, you would think they might take the hint and actually stop acting like tag teaming edit warriors. It is precisely this sort of lack of clue about reality that got VK indeffed in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The next person who edit wars over the tag earns themselves an indefinite block of their own, and I will press for a formal ban. In the face of any objection, we should err on the side of decency, compassion, and polite behavior, and not screw around with the user and usertalk space associated with others.--Tznkai (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"All we are saying.... is give peace a chance". GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC) The best solution I've found in these situations is often to delete the userpage altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
My reasoning for threatening an indefinite block are simple. This kind of edit warring is disruptive, and is all about making silly points in a conflict that has nothing to do with improving an encyclopedia. Quite frankly, its often grave-dancing behavior, which should be strictly discouraged. I have no tolerance for such displays, and neither should any of you.--Tznkai (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Why is this editor's talk page being vandalized?An indefinite block is not a ban. If Vk chooses to retire that's their decision. Their block was unseemly enough and pushed by the worst kind of partisans, but now to have this abusive antagonistic and disruptive display is outrageous. Anyone who alters this editor's talk page from
Not appropriate.This back and forth bickering is not appropriate on a banned users talk page. The hint should have been taken when the user page was protected. If it continues I will protect this page and take a trout to those who led me to do so. Take it to ANI(or even better just drop it), arguing here is nothing more than a drama magnet. 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Trouts all around. Take a hint, this should be discussed in a neutral venue or not at all. VK is not participating in this discussion and that is the only reason to have a discussion here. I am protecting this page for 24 hours, hopefully by tomorrow more sense will be shown. 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) AfD nomination of Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Edward O'Brien (Irish republican). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Edward O'Brien (Irish republican). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC) RfD nomination of 'The Great White Hope'.I have nominated 'The Great White Hope'. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Request for feedbackAlright VK, Kattis from the HB here. Myself and the Da finally finished out wiki page and was wondering what the next step is re; feedback. Type this into the wiki search bar... Free State Intelligence Department - Oriel House I'm not sure if the page is properly live yet as its not coming up when I google search it. Could you make the other members of the 'The Irish Republicanism WikiProject' group aware as I couldn't see a 'talk' tab to share this. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.209.68 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Unreferenced BLPsHello Vintagekits! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Mark McAllisterThe article Mark McAllister has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Articles for deletion nomination of The Lying Down GameI have nominated The Lying Down Game, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Lying Down Game. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Orphaned non-free image File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpgThanks for uploading File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).PLEASE NOTE:
Clothing store listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clothing store. Since you had some involvement with the Clothing store redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Kieran Nugent.jpgA file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kieran Nugent.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Saibo (Δ) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Unblock requestThis 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).Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: time to unblock I think. The actually block was malicious in the first place but I think time has been served anyway. Decline reason: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. In particular, you should see WP:NOTTHEM and would have to address the fact that stringent terms have already been attempted before (User talk:Vintagekits/terms). See also comments at the ANI discussion about this request. Rd232 11:02, 27 December 2010 (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. See discussion at WP:ANI#Vintagekits seeks unblock. Sandstein 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
VK, I recommend you admit responsibility for your own indef block. If you don't? well you see the trend at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This editor need to be unblocked. his opponoents, who have behaved in far worse fashion, have been unblocked. What is the difference with VK? Please explain that to me. Giacomo 11:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. apologies for the shoddy original unblock request, one would think that with all my experience that I would know what the correct procedure was, however I am obviously out of practice.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
To focus on socking is a red herring. Yes, Vk has socked before—persistently—but there is nothing to suggest he has done so during the length on this block, despite ample time and opportunity to do so. Expecting (or demanding) an apology for socking is both pointless and punitive. Giano has a point beneath the nationalist spin: every block should be reviewed in the context of the reasons for the block, not other sundry past crimes. Vk seems to have addressed the reasons for his block on the second attempt. But, in my opinion, a major concern remains: denial of responsibility ("The actually block was malicious in the first place", "there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished"). If you don't demonstrate that you appreciate why your actions led to a block (and instead blame the actions of others) its unlikely you can make the judgments required to avoid making the same comments in future. My reading of both requests is that Vk believes he was blocked unfairly by a conspiracy of others. Only if the community accepts this should he be unblocked. Rockpocket 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I support having Vk's indef block lifted, therefore I aint requesting anything from VK in his unblock request. I merely observed about the kind of unblock request he'll need, to get the community to support his unblock. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC) You're doing fine Vk. Remaining patient, no foul language usage, no socking. Such an approach helps & I believe at some point in 2011, you'll be unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editor in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. Decline reason: At this point, there's no way for you to be unblocked without a community consensus at AN or ANI (or appeal to BASC). Trouble is that starting such a thread so soon after the last one is unlikely to accomplish much. Consensus can change, but rarely does it overnight. My best advice would be to either wait a few months and try for return per WP:OFFER or to email BASC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:47, 31 December 2010 (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.
The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor...Would you be willing to accept such a condition? I am unsure but I imagine such a condition would not be indefinite but perhaps for say six months or until the community could see you moving forward in a collaborative manner and a measure of trust and support was there to lift the restriction.Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Unblock Request - Take IIIThis 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).Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editors in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project? Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am here for. Will I disagree with people? I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues which is the main thing. That is about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. Decline reason: Enough si enough. I have revoked your access to this talk page, please direct any further appeals to the Arbitration Committee via their Ban Appeals Subcommittee, the community is not receptive to unblocking you. Any unblock at this point will have to come from the Committee. Courcelles 03:34, 4 January 2011 (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.
Folks, this bickering is pointless. Whatever anyone's view of the unblock request, it's going to need an ANI discussion to consider it, and a finger-pointing exercise here does not nothing to assist anyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
UserpageThe userpage should be changed to indef block, as that's what VK's status currently is. He's certainly not retired. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
|
- I'm sorry you feel you have been treated unfairly, there have been several community discussions wherein a clear consensus was established that you should remain blocked. Emailing me as if this was all my doing isn't going to change that one bit. You may contact WP:BASC if you want to appeal this any further, I'd appreciate it if you did not email me any further regarding this as I couldn't override the community's decision even if I wanted to. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Toi tim.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Toi tim.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:O'hanlon.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:O'hanlon.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Moved to Commons and now used on Fergal O'Hanlon - Alison 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Poster50r.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Poster50r.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Irhm sign.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Irhm sign.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Grave of emmet.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grave of emmet.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Moved to Commons. We'll have it for ga.wikipedia - Alison 06:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Bresli an phob.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bresli an phob.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:All 350.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:All 350.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:JimBreen.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JimBreen.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Clarification motion
A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Hi VK, I just thought I’d drop by to wish you a prosperous New Year and say it would be nice to see a little more of you around the place. That’s assuming, of course, I’m not already seeing you and am too stupid to realise it. Be happy! Giano (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)