User talk:Vintagekits

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Vintagekits, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors 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 IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! -- Alf melmac 14:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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 Vintagekits 11:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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. --Guinnog 00:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacManus

All 4 versions of the name should now point to the article Joseph MacManus weggieWeggie 22:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Good man Weggie, I've also put in link to a reference on Seam MacManus also Vintagekits 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No probs the name change to Joe, he already has a re-direct for that name so you could use that page if necessary...Weggie 19:55, 13 November 2006 (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...Weggie 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? Vintagekits 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Countessm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Countessm.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:CarmelGunning.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CarmelGunning.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BoxRec

You shouldn't write a reason for why it should be changed, only tell the story of the controversy. If you write a reason, someone is just going to go in and delete, or counterpoint it, and then you will come back and give your two cents. Keep this simple, don't make this into a pro/con debate. I don't think that is what this is site about.

This controversy is really not a controversy to me, it's just people making a big deal of something that is personal to them (nationality/ethnic identy), that is really not important to the essence of what BoxRec is.--Matt1978 02:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree - its states the reason why Boxrecs reason they didnt change it and makes Duddy fans look like they had no basis in asking for the change. It needs to show 1. that there is a disagreement 2. Boxrec side 3. Duddy's side and 4. the conculsion Vintagekits 10:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Duddy

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

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! Vintagekits 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please recheck the facts, the IABA is a transnational body, it is not the Irish team. To state that is missrepresenting the situation.

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 Vintagekits 18:32, 14 October 2006 (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.

[edit] Please keep it civil

This comment [1] was not in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy (WP:CIVIL). Please be more civil in discussions here. Georgewilliamherbert 19:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:JimBreen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JimBreen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw you removed the tag at this image. Please add source and license tags to the image instead. Thank you. --Fang Aili talk 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I took the photograph myself in Dublin Vintagekits 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Then put that in the image description, and add {{gdfl}}. --Fang Aili talk 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New images

You need to add tags to the images you uploaded lately. Images uploaded with no tags are automatically tagged with "I3", a speedy delete criteria, and they can be deleted immediately. Please add tags, or these images will be deleted quickly. This is a friendly heads up. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

what tags? I stated where it came from and that the owner of the website has given me permission to use them here Vintagekits 23:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. You cannot just say "they gave me permission". We have to have proof of that. The easiest way to do this is to have the website owner post its content as "GFDL"; this makes it usable on Wikipedia. --Fang Aili talk 23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boxing Images

Wikipedia only isn't free enough. they need to be released under a free lisence such as the GFDL or certian CC lisences we are also trying to cut down on the number of promotional images particularly those of living people.Geni 13:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Séamus McElwaine. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Demiurge 10:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

you can go and take a jump, I have noticed that you have now taken to bullying newbies - you sir are a clown and I will permanently keep my eye on you. Vintagekits

I am asking you for the last time to stop disrupting Wikipedia by adding spurious warning templates to my talk page, just because I added a civility warning to your talk page. You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Demiurge 17:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, someone needs to pull your reins in - you need to check your attitude and how you deal with and handle other editors - it in no wonder you attract so more trouble and vandals! Vintagekits 17:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. This is based on the above discussion. Logica 12:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You make this claim on what basis? Vintagekits 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Based on the language of yourself above - something which is considered as a personal attack on Wikipedia. Your sentance "it in no wonder you attract so more trouble and vandals!" is considered a personal attack. Please see: Wikipedia:No personal attacks if you are unsure. Logica 01:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing

With regard to your edit at [2], I remind you of Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view.". Demiurge 17:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Its hardly canvassing if I ask interested parties if they would like to input their view point. My I remind you that you have also done the same on many occasions. Vintagekits 17:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Sands revert

You have broken the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I will not report you on this occasion, but if you continue in this manner, I will. Logica 01:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think you will find that the first was an edit, then there was two reverts and the third was adding a citation. In fact you will find that you have broken the 3RR and also not looked at the discussion page. Do you even know what the term Volunteer means? Vintagekits 01:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I have not broken the three-revert rule in any of my edits. You reverted to the use of the term "Volunteer" in the Bobby Sands on 4 occasions within 24 hours, breaking the three-revert rule. For clarification, your reverts include:
  • 00:40, 1 December 2006 Vintagekits (Talk | contribs) (Volunteer is used as it is the correct title)
  • 16:26, 1 December 2006 Vintagekits (Talk | contribs) (rv, please read the discussion about this term. It is purely descriptive not POV please see Volunteer
  • 17:09, 1 December 2006 Vintagekits (Talk | contribs)
  • 22:29, 1 December 2006 Vintagekits (Talk | contribs) (rv, why revert when citation was given?)

...these all represent reverts. This excludes the citation edit and the original edit where you added the term "Volunteer". You have thus reverted 4 times within a 24 hour period, breaking the three-revert rule. I hope this clears things up, please follow Wikipedia guidelines in future. Logica 02:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How can the first be a revert is it is an initial edit! edit, then revert, then revert, then ad citation Vintagekits 02:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
No, your first edit was at 00:00, 1 December 2006 Vintagekits (Talk | contribs). The 00:40 edit was your first revert. Logica 02:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claim of Logica reverting the three-revert rule

You wrongly claimed that I broke the three-revert rule. Please check the edit history of all of my edits, and you will see that I did not. In good faith, I assume this was an oversight by yourself. I have removed your accusations from my talk page, accordingly. As above, please see: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule to understand why your accusations were incorrect. Logica 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Acutally you are wrong [1], [2] and [3] = this is three revert by you and you come over here and accuse me!?! In my humble opinion you have only a superficial knowledge of the issues at hand here and should gain more knowledge on THIS specific subject before editing before editing it again. If you dont self revert the page I am going to report you Vintagekits 02:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The dates of these reverts represent a time span greater than 24 hours, specifically the reverts were:
  • Revision as of 00:38, 1 December 2006
  • Revision as of 13:03, 1 December 2006
  • Revision as of 01:35, 2 December 2006

...thus, these occured over a period greater than 24 hours. Moreover, the three-revert rule is for GREATER THAN 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. Even if I did revert 3 times within a 24 hour period, I would only break the rule if I did it a fourth time within this period, as you have done. Please read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Logica 02:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So as you can see you have broken the 3RR not I, ok you did it over 25 hours not 24 - admin would still take a dim view of it. As you can see from the history that I have only reverted twice - the rest were edits Vintagekits 02:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
No, the three-revert rule only applies if you revert MORE THAN 3 times in 24 hours. I didn't do either, I reverted 3 times in 25 hours. You reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours, breaking the rule. Please see the last discussion point - it includes evidence from the edit history that proves this. Logica 02:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, please do not make personal attacks such as implying a user knows little about a topic. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (WP:NPA). Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Logica 02:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Merely an observation from reading your edits and your lack of reasoning for your reverts, no attack merely observation and advice Vintagekits 02:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I have informed administation of your claim that I broke the three-revert rule. I do not think this necsessary, however, given the obvious fact that my edit history shows that I did not revert more than 3 times within a 24 hour period. Logica 02:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Vintage; Logica is correct in that to break the rule specifically you have to commit more than 3 (i.e. 4) reverts. Although your interpretation of not needing a 24hour period is accurate, Logica is still only on 3. That said, I have noted to Logica that we don't consider the rule a 'right' to revert 3 times within 24 hours either.

Your edits do break the rule however. Please familiarise yourself with it at WP:3RR. Within 24 hours on 1st december, you made four reverts at Bobby Sands. I'm happy to let you take a warning this time, though any future violations would almost certainly result in a short block from editing. Reverting is not a helpful way to edit and repeated reverts only harm your and the article. We want to prevent users from continuous reverting; so this warning should not be considered as a comment on the content of the debate. Robdurbar 11:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide the links to entries that you believe were reverts Vintagekits 11:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Volunteer" Mediation

Hi, sorry, I moved the sentance about member being the only "member" sufficing to the "compromise offer" box. I meant to write it in here in the first place, so have moved yours as well, since it was a response to it. Logica 19:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The term IRA "Volunteer" is POV, 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. Hope Springs Eternal 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thats YOUR POV, its factually incorrect but its your POV nonetheless Vintagekits 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaning articles to using "Volunteer" during mediation

You are aware that use of "V/volunteer" is under mediation, yet you have changed "terrorist" to "Volunteer" at 23:04 and 6 December 2006 at Patrick Magee (bomber). You should await the result of mediation before using the term in place of any other description, including "terrorist". Logica 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Duely noted, thanks for the heads up Vintagekits 20:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Flavius

I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you regarding Operation Flavius and wrote my response on the 'Discussion' page for Operation Flavius. I wrote:

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: Matthew Teague talks about "Double Blind," his extraordinary profile of a double agent who helped undermine the IRA, 'Stakeknife' The Story of Britain's Army Spy at the Top of the IRA, Sinn Fein British agent shot dead Because of the infiltration with bomb expert spys into the PIRA, no one will ever know what false flag operations were carried out by the British spys - rather than any PIRA members.Bcsurvivor 02:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paddy Cunningham

Hi, I think you put your Paddy Cunningham AFD contribution in the wrong place. It ended up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lothlorien Hall. --Edchilvers 13:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, its my first time deleting anything Vintagekits 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--Edchilvers 13:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/n/User_talk%7EVintagekits_6ef0.html"