User talk:Stubacca/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Kimbo Slice

I am new to editing Wikipedia content. I see people vandalizing this page every other week with stupid things like changing "Kevin Ferguson" to "Kevin Faggot" or changing "Ferg" to "Byrd" - over and over again. And sometimes even deleting whole sections! Why is that content is allowed to be so easily changed? Shouldn't editing at least require a confirmed IP matching a permanent email address i.e. @msn.com @comcast.com etc.? That sort of thing could be automated. And how do you ban an IP that is obviously vandalizing a Wiki page? Anyone could just use a proxy, which is why the IP should be looked up and verified with the email domain. I'm just looking for a quick answer before wasting more time on wiki editing, hopefully you can answer or point me to a direct link containing info.

And, why delete the links to the official high quality videos? I spent the time to make sure I only posted direct download links so that people would not be taken to any porn sites when clicking them. The ones on youtube are horrible quality and almost not worth watching.

Then later I see even your youtube link deleted by another person. Isn't it better to have information available to those that can use it rather than no information at all? Justifying removing something simply because "everyone" may not be able to access it is worse than leaving it only for those that can. It's like throwing away printed books because the blind cannot read them. :)

What a dissapointing experience, this Wiki thing.User:Sempi

Hi Sempi. On the subject of anonymous IPs editing, it is a very complicated subject! IP addresses can be banned, but usually aren't as different people can share an IP. So if you ban one person, you might actually be banning several, including innocent parties. To be honest I'm not an expert on the subject, have a read at Wikipedia:Blocking policy if you're looking a fuller explanation.
I tried clicking on the links you added and my work server denied access. So I'm assuming people with parental controls couldn't access them either. Regarding the other person who removed my link to youtube, this seems to be a new policy and one I don't fully understand. But what I think the reasoning is that videos uploaded to youtube may be copyrighted and youtube provides no information as to whether they are copyrighted or not. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, both in our own articles and external links provided in articles. So linking to any of the fight videos is going to be difficult I think. Maybe inserting some text in the article stating that "the videos are available widely on the internet, on sites such as youtube and sublimedirectory" is best. I hope you're not put off editing. There are a lot of things about Wikipedia that annoy me too, mostly around copyrights too actually. More specifically around uploading images, which is a total minefield!
By the way, I added your signature in. If you end your talk page comments with four "tides" ( the ~ symbol) it adds your username. It helps people to know who's saying what! Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you stay. I'll post this on your talk page as well. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRA member/Volunteer

Your "bold attempt" at a compromise in the Thomas McElwee article is genius. My worry with the use of "V/volunteer" was that it would be taken too literally (and having connotations of good deads), yet using "member" and linking it to "Volunteer" would both prevent this from happening, and explain further the use of "Volunteer" for those persuing the term further. I commend you, and will append the mediation case with this compromise. Well done! Logica 10:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Logica. I only noticed the Mediation Cabal page when I finished changing all the pages that link to Volunteer (republican). Maybe I was being too bold, we'll see. There are other pages that say "IRA Volunteer" which will need to be changed if people agree to the comprimise. See this Google search. I also changed the Volunteer (republican) page to clearly state that it is the IRA who primarily use the term. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "American grammar"

I'm not sure why you consider the amendment of "Derry City F.C. are a ..." to "Derry City F.C. is a ..." as some sort of Americanisation of the grammar. Although I do like to refer to a club as if it had a plural sense, technically, I don't think it is correct to do so. Is the word "club" a plural? I don't believe it is - hence, shouldn't "is", as opposed to "are", succeed it?--Danny Invincible 15:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a controversial subject on Wikipedia, but in British English nouns that describe multiple people, for example a football club or a band, are treated as a plural. ie Derry are a football club, Snow Patrol are a indie band etc. See American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey. Thanks for the note (earlier this year) about the Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board. I've just been slowly building up my knowledge of Wikipedia over the last year and have just launched a userbox. Will check the notice board again soon and see what's up. (NIwebber 18:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)) Happy new year too by the way!

[edit] Image:Waterfront Hall, Belfast.jpg

Hi. I'm a bit confused about the status of this image. The tag says it is a copyrighted image licensed under fair use. If that is the case it should be deleted as it is easily replaceable. However the file history shows you uploaded a new version on 2006-12-06. What is its status? Thanks Mark83 20:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I uploaded a new free version on 12/06 with the correct Creative Commons tag, but it doesn't seem to save properly sometimes. Done now. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Mark83 22:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Wiki

Hey Stu. I was wondering if you knew what theses new numbers are I've found in my watchlist. Here's an example:

  1. (diff) (hist) . . Grosvenor Grammar School‎; 17:21 . . (+1,038) . . Stubacca (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 98333328 dated 2007-01-04 03:32:01 by 82.18.181.127 using popups)
  2. (diff) (hist) . . Portadown‎; 17:21 . . (0) . . 88.106.202.2 (Talk)
  3. (diff) (hist) . . Enniskillen‎; 16:39 . . (-1) . . Stubacca (Talk | contribs) (move images)

Cheers. --Mal 11:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Been wondering that myself Mal, no idea! Stu ’Bout ye! 12:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Added or removed characters Weejack48 23:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belfast is Booming

Hi Stub. I'm very disappointed that you deleted the Booming section without discussion, as I had attempted to on the talk page. Just because it's pov doesn't mean it's a criteria for deletion. It is a very simple fact that since the end of the Troubles, there has been a great deal of development in Belfast, and I think this is relevant, if it is wikified. Would you consider simply letting it stay until someone has the time to wikify it? For example, it could be called Urban Regeneration. Please don't delete something with out debate, when there is a pov tag on it. Please respond to my talk, so I do not need to check back here constantly, to know when you have answered me.martianlostinspace 12:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub, please answer my question. The point I am making is that just because it is pov does not make it useless. It can be so if someone gives them the chance to wikify it, that will not be possible unless there is the time to do so. That means its insertation not being reverted.

And I did not add it. I simply defend the anon who did.

I haven't got the time now, but I will get to the point of going through it myself, and come to my own judgement on how much of it has been duplicated.

Even if that were not the case, would a section on urban regeneration not be appropriate? If not, why? There has been a vast amount of regeneration recently, you are clearly aware of that, and neither can you avoid that fact.martianlostinspace 15:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then. Maybe you can tell me where the content of the last few paragraphs is repeated. Obel Tower? Victoria Square? Can't see it.martianlostinspace 15:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, not all of it, anyway.martianlostinspace 15:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Samson & Goliath.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Samson & Goliath.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Mark83 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Mark83 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference deletion

Stu, I'm not going to get int oa mass brawl with you today as I think the past few days has zapped my energy, however, can you explain under what section of WP:RS you felt you could delete thoses sources.--Vintagekits 11:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There are other concerns, such as some of them are blogs, but it basically comes down to neutral point of view. Websites such as troopsoutmovement, relativesforjustice and An Phoblacht can in no way be described as neutral. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I take your point with blogs, but with regards troopsoutmovement, relativesforjustice and An Phoblacht etc can you show me the exact section from WP:RS that you are citing for deletion of these references. When dealing with republicans and republican issues you are joining to have to cite sources which you percieve as overtly republican.--Vintagekits 12:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevant sections are:

  • "Using reliable sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Wikipedia standards for verifiability, originality, and neutrality."
  • "Bias of the originator about the subject".
  • "Recognition by other reliable sources — A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it. Sources which have been attacked, or have rarely or never been cited, may be more suspect."
  • "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication."

While only an essay, Wikipedia:Independent sources is also relevant here. "Any article on a topic is required to cite a reliable source independent of the topic itself, to warrant that an article on the topic can be written from a neutral point of view and not contain original research."

If I was being cynical, I would suggest you were only using these kind of sources so that you can link to them from the articles to further your impressively determined mission on Wikipedia.

I think if you looked hard enough you could probably find independant references anyway. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I will go through the points you made above later but let me just clear this up first - Are you proposing a blanket ban on any material from those websites no matter what the content or the reference?--Vintagekits 14:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If you're referring to an event specifically about An Phoblacht then that's ok. But if you're talking about a general historical event, then a neutral and independant source should be used. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Stu, unless you can come up with a source which discredits the sources I have you used then they are allowed, An P and Tirghra and referenced and used as sources of information by many, I think you are possibly stating this because you percieve them to be biased, there is a big different between a potentially biased source and an unreliable source, please reread WP:RS, infact in that policy it stated
"Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view."--Vintagekits 09:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to provide a source which discredits them, they discredit themselves. Again, I stress that sources have to be neutral and independant. An P, rfj, Tirghra etc are in no way neutral or independant. Also, the fact that other people are using them as sources has nothing to do with Wikipedia using them as sources. Just becasue others use them, doesn't mean it is ok to use them here. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This situation does not seem clear-cut to me. There isn't a rigid ban on anything as a source: it all depends on what it is being used for and how it is used. Blogs, for example, can be used for information about themselves. That is different from using them as objective sources about other people or events. A major political party's web site is biased, but we would use that to accurately show what the view of that party is. If the source being discussed above are accepted as reliable by external authorities (e.g. national newspapers) that does lend weight to them, but it needs to be specified as to exactly who is referencing them and in what way.
If there is an incident where a "neutral" source (e.g. The Daily Telegraph) has covered it, then that is obviously the source to use, and there is no need to put one of the disputed sources in tandem with it. If there is a significant or controversial subject which does not have any other neutral source, then the disputed sources cannot be used alone to substantiate it, but they might be used to show a claim or a viewpoint of that disputed source, in which case it would have to be made clear that that was what it was, i.e. in this case the source would be used for information about itself.
There may, though, be circumstances in which the disputed sources could be treated as reliable. For example, if they were to give the birth date and place of an individual, then I presume there is no reason to doubt its accuracy, and quite probably it is likely to be more accurate than a mainstream daily newspaper.
The bottom line is that these things really need to be discussed on a citation by citation basis — on the article talk page, please, not here. We are engaged in consensual editing, so there needs to be dialogue. A blanket ban seems counter-productive, and an unthinking acceptance equally so, but VintageKits is not advocating that, and he makes seemingly sound points.
Tyrenius 04:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated above sources like saoirse, troopsoutmovement, An Phoblacht, bobbysandstrust, larkspirit, relativesforjustice, Tírghrá etc are not reliable. I have no problem with them being used in an article specifially about An Phoblacht or Tírghrá or whatever, but it is wholly inappropriate to use them as sources for historical events, as they are clearing biased and not neutral or independant. In some cases the references he has been adding have had nothing to do with the article anyway. Also, I notive VK has been reinserting them without any edit summary. VK edits most often on IRA articles, and from a heavily republican point of view. A look at his take page will show how many disputes he has had while on Wikipedia. It is my belief that he is adding these references for the sole purpose of being able to link to these kind of external articles, to further his republican views. Those are on own views, but the basic point is the sources are being used as historical references, and that is entirely inappropriate. If VK wants to add a reasoning on each article's talk page, for each reference, I'll be happy to take a look. But otherwise I'll be removing them. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Stubacca, stop your blanket removals of outside sources. This matter has to be discussed on article talk pages, which I see no evidence that you've done despite Tyrenius' comments above. I've opened a discussion on Talk:Diarmud O'Neill to discuss this matter, but in the meantime, it looks to me like you're edit-warring from a POV perspective, and if you continue to do so rather than engaging in a dialogue, you may be blocked for disruption. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've said above, if VK wants to state his reasoning for the addition of the sources on the individual talk pages of the articles in question then I'll respond to each. It is the insertion of these sources that is controversial, NOT the removal. Would you not agree with that? It is VK who has not provided any reasoning, or answered any concerns I have raised, so it really should be him you're threatening with a ban and not me, as I see VK has gone ahead and reverted all my changes.
I think I've made my case fairly clear, in general historical events should be referenced from neutral, independant and reliable sources. Saoirse, troopsoutmovement, An Phoblacht, bobbysandstrust, larkspirit, relativesforjustice and Tírghrá etc are not. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


(edit conflict with previous 2 posts) You are failing to assume good faith, you are making a personal attack on Vintagekits, and for that matter violating WP:BLP. Unless you can prove otherwise and are prepared to take it further, please keep your beliefs about other editors to yourself. Repetition will lead to being blocked.

The discussion above has not been resolved. Vintagekits has made some sound points about the references, which I acknowledged. You decided unilaterally how they should be treated, posted your response above at 09:26 and 3 minutes later started removing these references.[1] You then spent just over an hour going through around 20 articles removing all the references you had decided were invalid.[2] This is a violation of the need to reach consensus, a wiki policy. It is an uncivil way of behaving. I have suggested that there are some uses which may be valid and others which may not be, and that this needs to be discussed and agreed on. You have ignored that and simply gone on a mass deletion. This is not done in good faith, as you were fully aware that matters had not been resolved. It is disruptive editing. If you act like this again I will block you, until you are prepared to engage in collegiate editing and respect for others, both of which Vintagekits has demonstrated.

However, in this instance I am going to apply the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You have, let us say somewhat generously, been BOLD. The next stage is for Vintagekits to revert what he feels you have incorrectly changed. You will note that the following stage is not for you to revert again, but to discuss to reach an agreement. I will see failure to follow this as disruption, which again can result in being blocked.

When Vintagekits does the next stage, I would ask him not to do a blanket reversion, but to consider each use individually. I take it that some of these sources do have an official or semi-official representation of the IRA or such groups, and to that extent they voice the opinions of such particular groups.

  • In that case, it would seem to be acceptable that they can be used to show a group's attitude to something or claim about it.
  • I suggest they are also suitable for non-controversial details, such as birth date and place, and mundane details, e.g. occupation, about an individual's life.
  • Where a mainstream source exists these sources should not be cited in tandem.
  • Where a mainstream source does not exist, these sources should not be used to verify a controversial point.
  • However, it may be that they can be used to verify a group's claim about or attitude to a controversial issue.
  • This is not a blanket endorsement of that. It would depend on the issue and on the particular source being used. Sometimes it would not necessarily be valid to quote the viewpoint, e.g. of an extremely small breakaway group that was not even directly involved in the issue, but is simply trying to make propaganda.

I would ask Vintagekits also to find page where certain things can be discussed, perhaps the talk page of a central article. The different sources should each be given a heading and, under the heading, a brief description of each source, showing its claim to authority and its relationship with any IRA or other groups, i.e. does it represent them? Also, what mainstream sources have given these sources any credence by treating them as authoritative in any way.

Vintagkits should also make a brief rationale for each edit, on the talk page of any reference he re-inserts. We will wait for this process to finish before there is any interference in it. It's easy enough to delete; it takes longer to consider and present an argument.

Tyrenius 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait until one of you responds to my last comments before replying to this. Stu ’Bout ye! 17:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Take my posts on this page as your response. I am working from here onwards. Tyrenius 17:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
With respect, you haven't answered any of my questions. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


From reading the discussion on both this page and the Diarmuid O’Neill page, I take it that you will not accept any republican source as reliable. From reading through the republican sources you have mentioned, there is not one of them who have claimed to be anything other than republican. Therefore, it is safe to assume that you are getting a republican view point. Can you in the interest of fairness, cite to me, one paper in the UK that represents the views of conservatives, one which would represent the views of liberals, and one that represents the views of labour. If you wish, you can use the Irish equivalents. --Domer48 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Breslin

I've been asked by Vintagekits to have a look at this. I have reverted your last edit by using the admin rollback button. This is only to be used for vandalism. I have done this because you have deleted valid references in the article to e.g. NY Times and Daily Telegraph. Furthermore you have admitted that these are valid and should be in the article in your edit summary, so there is no excuse for you deleting them. Please don't do it again. I will get back on other aspects. Tyrenius 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

When I did that, it was to remove the unreliable sources that VK added at the same time as he added reliable ones. If he wants to add reliable ones, that's fine, but by adding ones from An P, troopsoutmovement etc at the same time he's trying to cloud the issue. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I really think you need to reread WP:RS again.--Vintagekits 14:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The end of the mediation cabal on the term Volunteer is ending in two days.

The mediation process is ending in two days - you have two days to have you final say and 1. show any proof that Volunteer is a rank and 2. leave your final vote in coming to a consensus here. Thank you.--Vintagekits 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking?

I left a note for Vintagekits on his talk page, and you responded within minutes. Are you stalking him? Why are you responding to a user talk page note that wasn't left for you? | Mr. Darcy talk 13:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, it is concerning a discussion I'm involved in. I'd appreciate an apology please. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If an apology is owed anywhere, it's from you to Vintagekits. You shouldn't insert yourself into a discussion on another user's talk page unless it involves you directly, which this one did not. You've already made clear your feelings on Vintagekits and have been warned that you're dancing on the edges of several policies. Don't add harassment to the list. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is between myself and Vintagekits, so there is no issue at all with me commenting on his talk page. If he added comments to this section it wouldn't be stalking either. A user's talk page isn't private property, discussions about articles and policy take place on them, and to stop other user's input and accuse them of stalking is ridiculous. I'm not dancing on the edge of any policies, I'm following the policy of WP:RS. I'm going to repost my comments from above, as no one has replied to them yet:

      • As I've said above, if VK wants to state his reasoning for the addition of the sources on the individual talk pages of the articles in question then I'll respond to each. It is the insertion of these sources that is controversial, NOT the removal. Would you not agree with that? It is VK who has not provided any reasoning, or answered any concerns I have raised, so it really should be him you're threatening with a ban and not me, as I see VK has gone ahead and reverted all my changes. I think I've made my case fairly clear, in general historical events should be referenced from neutral, independent and reliable sources. Saoirse, troopsoutmovement, An Phoblacht, bobbysandstrust, larkspirit, relativesforjustice and Tírghrá etc are not.

I'd apprecciate your response to this. I was threatened with a ban after doing a revert on all the articles involved to remove the unreliable sources. I have provided a detailed rationale for removing them. As you can read above Vintagekits has not provided any reasoning as to why any of the references he has added should be used. He has only stated that he believes they are ok, and that I should read WP:RS again. Vintagekits then did a blanket revert reinserting all the references. While I was threatened with a ban for doing this, Vintagekits was not. Both admins involved seem to be happy to allow the articles to stay as is, which in my belief and according to the rationale I have given, is in breach of WP:RS. Sources like blogs, saoirse, troopsoutmovement, An Phoblacht, bobbysandstrust, larkspirit, relativesforjustice and Tírghrá etc are not reliable.

Threats to ban me for following procedure while allowing another user to ignore procedure, together with unfounded accusations of harassment amount to bullying in my opinion. I have made almost 8000 edits on Wikipedia over the 18 months or so. I've contributed dozens of new articles and improved countless more, always adhering to policy while doing so. I don't appreciate being treated like this. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not the sole arbiter of whether sources (such as a partisan newspaper) meet WP:RS. If you have an issue with the use of those sources, you need to take it to a talk page. You've been told this twice by two separate admins, yet you continue to insist that you're in the right. And by the way, no one has threatened to ban you - you might be blocked if, for example, you're harassing Vintagekits, or if you continue making widescale reverts without discussing the matter on talk pages, but no one said anytihng about a ban. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of my points above have been ignored. I'm not saying I am the sole arbiter. But I have set out why I think they should not be used. VK is still to state why they should be used. Ban/block, same difference. I maintain that I have not harassed anyone. Posting comments on other user's talk pages about discussions you are involved in is not harrassment. I have done mass reverts, but so has VK and I am the only one to receive warnings.
I'm going to propose a comprisemise. That the above names sources should only be used for basic, uncontroversial details. And if other, reliable sources are available then these solely should be used. In a lot of cases there is a reliable reference from a newspaper or a book etc, but with an unreliable one tagged on. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thats not a compromise, in my opinion that is a whitewash of the republican viewpoint in articles concerning republicans! With respect to Tírghrá and An Phoblacht especially, these publication are widely known and would have to conform to a British laws regarding libel etc so they are edited well, most of the articles are attributed, 1,000's of copies of An Phobalcht are sold every week and Tírghrá is referenced in the The Daily Telegraph, Bloody Sunday Inquiry, 2, UTV, The Guardian and The Impartial Reporter.--Vintagekits 09:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But where possible, articles should be referenced from neutral, independent sources VK. Tírghrá and An Phoblacht show a heavy republican bias. Out of all the contested sources, Tírghrá and An Phoblacht probably have the strongest case for inclusion. I would be prepared to accept these where other neutral and independent sources are not available, and where they are used for basic details and not controversial claims. My main problem is with saoirse, troopsoutmovement, bobbysandstrust, larkspirit, relativesforjustice and the blogs.

Just because an article is about a republican, it does not mean it has to be referenced from republican sources. It if is then the article is going to be biased. So for every nationalist/republican biased source in an article you should have a unionist/loyalist source as well for balance. However I think this is unworkable, so the best way forward is to primarily use neutral and independent sources. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you just because an article is about a republican, it does not mean it has to be referenced from republican sources. However, these sources can in many cases show the other persective to an issue. I would also say that blogs shouldnt be used unless they comply with what Ty has said about blogs. I would say that these sources do comply with WP:RS but do show the republican persective and at times use a lot of peacock language - this peacock language should be striped out and where there there is information in it that conflict with other sources, by that British Army reports etc then it should be stated the "Republican sources state.....".--Vintagekits 10:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
By referncing these kinds of websites, you are only showing one perspective to an issue. Do you not take my point that if heavily republican biased sites are referenced to, then for balance similarly biased loyalist sites should be referenced? It is the fact that the sources contain this peacock language and republican propaganda that they should not be used. As I've said, without the contested ones most of the articles are adequately referenced from neutral and independent sources. To add others from only one viewpoint is in no way balanced, which I'm sure you agree all Wikipedia articles should be. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think MrDarcy was over-severe regarding your post on Vintagekits' talk page, as you were mentioned in the thread and it is an ongoing issue that involves you. It would be usual to watchlist relevant pages in order to make a quick response. However, the caution is worth noting, so that you make sure a personal element doesn't intrude.

I recognise that you are acting in what you see as a correct interpretation of policy in removing references links. However, it has now been pointed out that in the circumstances a mass removal of them is not appropriate, is antagonistic and disruptive. This is because it is not clear-cut (although it may have seemed so to you at the time) that these references are completely unacceptable. Even before you removed them, I pointed out that Vintagekits had made some valid arguments. This does need to be talked through properly in order to come to a resolution. I have given guidance as to how I think they can be used appropriately and when they cannot. I have treated the recent incident as WP:BRD. We are now in the discuss page. Rather than blanket assessments of the references, I suggest the examination of particular usages is the way forward. Take one article. Take the references you object to. Give an argument for each ref and each usage individually — each one under a sub heading, so they can be discussed separately. Let me know.

Your contributions to wikipedia are much appreciated and you have done a lot of good work. Please note that you have not been blocked. You have been warned. This is with the aim that you will not end up getting blocked, as no one wants to do that unless they have to. Communication and consensus before action is highly recommended, and the safe way forward. We do have time. Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow.

Tyrenius 20:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Tyrenius. Firstly I think I misunderstood the WP:BRD process, so apologies for that. However I do think it is the wrong way round. If something is contentious it should be omitted until its case for inclusion has been made. But anyway, I don't have the time to argue the merits of every reference in well over twenty articles. It will take weeks, and all my time on Wikipedia which is limited enough already. So unless there is any other solution, the articles will stay as they are. To summarise this they are either sourced solely from highly biased republican sites with no balance or fact checking, or properly sourced from independent and reliable sources but with republican sources added on for no reason but further a republican viewpoint. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The solution is simply to take one article and address the issues in that. When that has been resolved it can be applied to other articles also. There is no need to tackle all of them in one go. That would be counter-productive. I have already agreed with you as regards contentious sources used in tandem with a mainstream source: there is no need for the former in such instances. However, I have suggested that certain of the contentious sources may well be reliable either for mundane details (e.g. someone's birth date and occupation) or, on occasion, to represent the viewpoint of a group such as the IRA. You do not address these points I have made. Tyrenius 14:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, with you now. As some of the articles concerned are now on AfD, I'm going to wait for the outcome first. Thanks for your help Tyrenius. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peel artists category for deletion

Hi - it is currently likely the category for artists who recorded Peel Sessions may be deleted. I think you contributed or supported it at one time. If you support keeping it please contribute here[3] Thanks Tony Corsini 01:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of sources

At a quick glance, that looks very good to me, but I'm going to let someone on the other side (likely VK) weigh in before I swoop down from on high give it my blessing (/sarcasm). Keep me posted if something radical changes, but I do have it watchlisted. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] New Rave

Thanks for your attempts to sort out that page. Together we'll sort it out. People refuse to let deleted bands stay deleted, so i've added 'citation needed' comments to them all. Famico666 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Best

Hi, I agree that it's necessary to be consistent about Pele and Maradona, and have edited those pages to be consistnet with Wiki policy on what I've called "absolutism". But I suppose we should be prepared for a flood of counter-revisions now. I must see again exactly what the guidelines say bigpad 21:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done the same with Cruijff. I wonder if there are any others making the claim. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, I see that this article is the subject of incessant revisions to "greatest from British Isles". When is this going to end? bigpad 10:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darren Clarke

I just pointed out the 3rr rule to User:PaddyBriggs, and saw you had reverted him so here's a reminder for you to be careful too. Catchpole 09:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder Catchpole. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check your edit summaries

I think there might be something wrong with the 'popups' script; have a look at some of your recent reverts. Just thought you might want to know. Thanks – Qxz 11:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that on my own and other people's edit summaries when using popups. This seems to explain, but not in simple enough terms for me unfortunately. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Image:Carrickarede2.jpg

I can see your point, but the fact of it being licensed as cc-by-nc means that it qualifies for speedy deletion: {{Db-ccnoncom}}. If the license is changed by the author, feel free to contact me and I will undelete it then. enochlau (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do, cheers. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Best

Claims are supported by reasonably broad consensus and attributable information, none of that is present for your claim that Best is one of the greatest. So please ommit until sufficient supporting evidence and general consensus can be produced.

I fully accept that in (Northern) Ireland he is considered the greatest or one of the greatest of all time, but this is a global resource and his qualifications should be weighted down accordingly.

[edit] Re:You Message

  • >Firstly, my edits were not vandalism so please don't infer that they were.

Man, I never said your edits were vandalism. I said they did not have consensus. If you check my edit, you'll see I restored some text ("and SSC Napoli") an anon IP removed.

Secondly, I still think we should reach a consensus before removing those greatetest sourced claims or not. --Mariano(t/c) 17:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see where SSC Napoli was restored in that diff? Stu ’Bout ye! 11:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding consensus, that would be good but consensus to insert POV is still POV. Regarding Maradona, rather than just stating he is regarded as one of the greatest it is better to state what the two sources say, ie Cantona regards him the greatest and his result on the FIFA poll. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I though I was re-inserting Napoli, but didn't realize it was on the next line.
You've got a point when you say you just can tag anyone to be "regarded as", but I believe there are a few examples which are widely regarded as one of the best in their field. The problem is where to draw the line between the Peles, Ronaldinhos, DiSteffanos or Maradonas and the Ronaldos, Platinis, Zico, Cruyffs, Eusebios and others.
Nevertheless, you can't say that it is untrue that the firsts are widely considered to be among the best players in football history. I'm not sure how to source it, but it is true.--Mariano(t/c) 12:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head there, it is impossible to draw the line. Which is why only the player's acheivements should be listed. For example, I edited the Maradona article to state what the references actually say. It doesn't read properly at the minute and kinda repeats what is said later in the article, but you'll see what I mean. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I still believe it should be first resolved how to handle this for all topics, not just football, to avoid incoherencies in the Wikipedia. --Mariano(t/c) 12:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV covers it. This section especially:

To Stubacca: You dont understand that not all football greats are equal. Please look at respected opinion polls from a wide variety of sources. It is safe and also just to say that players that appear consistently in the top ranks of these polls are regarded by many as one of the greatest. Reading the thread on wiki:football project it seems like you have been left frustrated about the G.Best debate.

A simple formulation Alternatively: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

Stu ’Bout ye! 13:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with you Stu. There are times when you can safely say that someone or some group, like the Beatles, as long as there is well founded and widespread acclaim available to support that. widely regarded as .... or regarded by many as .... is probably as far as one can go on wiki - the greatest, the best etc is too subjective and disregards the preference of others.

"Widely regarded as" or "regarded by many" are weasel words. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

--- "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources, lending them the force of authority without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable."

"Widely regarded" gives enough room for people to make up their own minds and also does justice to the general (wide) acclaim they have won through their distinguished careers. On the pages of the footballers concerned there is plenty of supporting evidence (individual and team trophies, respected polls from a variety of sources, etc, etc) to do justice to the "widely regarded" qualification.

You are pushing your POV on the pages of Pele, Cruyff, Maradona, Di Stefano and also Platini + perhaps some others (Puskas) - as there is enough to suggest that these are the greatest footballers of all time. Everyone has their local heroes, so have you I noticed (George Best), but the players above have won global admiration. "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others". I have read somewhere that all this is driven by your frustrations about George Best - who was good but not great, so this might well be true.

You seem to have a knack of pushing your own POVs, reading your threads and talk page, and falsely allegating other users who correct you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brasileiro1969 (talk • contribs). ---

I'm not pushing any POV, I'm removing it from articles. WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL are fairly clear and prohibit these type of claims. If they are to be included then those policies would have to entered. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, Best is not my "local hero" and I don't have any frustrations about him. I'm doing this to comply with Wikipedia policies. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Relevant discussion at → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Greatest" claims

[edit] Correction to dates in History of role-playing games

I made a slight correction to the addition you made. The dates of the crime and trial were somewhat buried in the BBC story your cited, but I think I got them right now. — MediaMangler 14:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I saw your correction. Thanks for that. Truly bizarre. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SPAM

Please stop spamming my page. Thanks.

Pretty childish.

[edit] Vandalism

Stubacca, please stop vandalizing my user page. Thank you very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marlon.sahetapy (talk • contribs) 06:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I am not "spamming" or "vandalising" your page. I believe you are using several different accounts including User:Marlon.sahetapy, User:Le Professeur70 and possibly User:PanteraNegro as your editing patterns are the same. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Relevant discussion at → Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy

[edit] UDA

Can I get your opinion on a couple of matters on the talk page please? The two sections at the bottom. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 09:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johan Cruijff

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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. - Deathrocker 14:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't blank tags, you can archive them. The warning was just a heads up... reverting the Cruyff article 5 times in a couple of hours probably ain't a good idea. - Deathrocker 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I already admitted this at WP:AN/I. I believe (and others on AN/I and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football seem to be in agreement) I am trying to ensure two policies are followed, and hence ignoring the 3RR rule. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snow Patrol

Hi Stu. I don't know if you pay any attention to the NI WikiProject or the noticeboard but there have been accusations of biased edits to the Mark McClelland article, and possible conflict of interest edits. I seem to remember noting that you had some interest in Snow Patrol, and might be in a better position to monitor the article than I. I like Snow Patrol and lived in Bangor for half my life, but I don't know a whole heap of a lot about them! -- Mal 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mal, I rarely get the chance to check much on here these days. Easy to get sidetracked. I've edited the article and referenced it from pretty much the only sources I could find. I'm not that trustworthy of the NME reference, but have made it clear in the article that "The NME reported". I'll leave it up to someone else to decide if the neutrality tag can be removed. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice one. Cheers Stu. -- Mal 02:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Talk:List of electronic music artists and DJs Deletions

Concur. Several red wikilinks appeared tonight. Recommend all non-notable unsourced edits (red wikilinks be deleted. Ronbo76 03:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/u/User_talk%7EStubacca_Archive4_ae1a.html"