User talk:Vintagekits/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] I just noticed this

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/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive176#User:Vintagekits.27_sockpuppet_tag. Where have I done this? Please provide evidence. Logoistic 19:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop using my talk page as your own personal forum

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.--CJ King 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That wasnt my intention mate, sorry!--Vintagekits 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerard Mongtomery

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. WP:BLP is policy. Without verifiable references, we cannot keep your allegations. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for what, writing well referenced articles?? They are not my allegations they are the Daily Mails. --Vintagekits 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Repeating the same claim doesn't wash. No, for recreating libelous claims without evidence. User:Zoe|(talk) 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!--Vintagekits 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I am ignoring them because you haven't provided them. The links you provide are not reliable sources, and fail our policy at WP:BLP. Have you read BLP? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I cannot believe you deleted the other article without a prompt or even any debate! This is amazing!--Vintagekits 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."? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete the other articlres??--Vintagekits 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. User:Zoe|(talk) 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.--Vintagekits 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. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
So you only consider as source verifiable if its on the internet? That is not standard policy!--Vintagekits 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. User:Zoe|(talk) 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--Vintagekits 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a hard copy? Perhaps you can provide a scan of it. Tyrenius 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astrotrain

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 spamming! Either way, it should remain a voluntary practice, not an obligation. --Mais oui! 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.--Vintagekits 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 Wikipedia, 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. --Mais oui! 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin McGartland at AfD

Another editor has listed an article that you have been involved in editing, Martin McGartland, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin McGartland. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Eastmain 23:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

I warned you once about personal attacks. Don't make any more, or you will be blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Which personal attack?--Vintagekits 00:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
At WP:ANI. User:Zoe|(talk) 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.--Vintagekits 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. User:Zoe|(talk) 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.--Vintagekits 00:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Is that why you've just done the same thing to me Vintage??Weggie 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I proddy a couple of people who are glorified local councillors - Astrotrain has nominated over 20 just today!--Vintagekits 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.... Tyrenius 09:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For your information, I've requested that Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluegold be reopened. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you've rumbled me!--Vintagekits 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Why wouldnt they check? I wont them to (looking forward to see you groveling!!--Vintagekits 17:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's nobody going to see it where you left it. Try User talk:Jpgordon, but based on past "please disprove I'm a sockpuppet" attempts you've got two chances: fat and slim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
What reason could they have for not lookinh into the case?--Vintagekits 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, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin McGartland

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. Tyrenius 04:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

The sources you are using, particularly (but not limited to) Relatives for Justice and Republican News are not neutral or independant, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald Donaghy

Thanks for your advice. I think it's pretty obvious his name was Gerard, not Gerald; the BBC, 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. El chulito 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. After reading User:Stubacca's comments just above I must say that I agree with him.El chulito 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--Vintagekits 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bastin8

That felas a dope.He really was getting me wroked up.Althoguh he was probably taking the piss. Dermo69 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I hear ya a chara, just remember WP:CIVIL and dont get yourself banned! I am also having trouble with some editors with a similar viewpoint to Bastin--Vintagekits 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PUI

Your comments on WP:PUI were unwarranted. It is hardly useful for this project to attack users who try to ensure compliance with copyright law and Wikipedia policy. —xyzzyn 20:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For issues with the conduct of another user, try dispute resolution. However, I’m fairly certain that the PUI entries were justified. The images really don’t quite meet the requirements. —xyzzyn 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 Wikipedia 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 fair use e. g. when the poster itself is notable or if the poster is an important example of an art form.) —xyzzyn 21:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice mate, I appriciate it--Vintagekits 00:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 POV. But I can not see how it is a POV 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 Edit war. --Benjaminevans82 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Define terrorism. 2. Have you read wiki policy on the use of the term terrorism?--Vintagekits 21:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

About the same issue with regards the Shankill Road bombing and the Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings. 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 Wikipedia' own article on List of terrorist organisations, 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 civilian fish shop, a civilian hotel and two off-duty military units in England, which attacks caused respectively seven civilian deaths and dozens of civilian injuries. The UN depiction of terrorism, with my own emphasis on aspects which make the IRA a terrorist organisation, is below taken from the Definition of terrorism article:

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).

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia as a whole. Thankyou--Jackyd101 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are very close to breaking WP:CIVIL--Vintagekits 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyway we have been through this all before--Vintagekits 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. Tim! 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 Wikipedia 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.--Jackyd101 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.--Vintagekits 12:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Jdorney 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Irish Christian Brothers?? Slainte. El chulito 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!--Vintagekits 03:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew you were educated by the ICB anyway given your Fenianism. El chulito 03:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Irish War

This is the correct terminology, the other (Irish War of Independence) 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 User:Demiurge) then you have lost the right to squeal about WP:CIVIL.

Slainte. El chulito 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, Tan War and Anglo-Irish War are both redirects to the correct page which is Irish War of Independence, 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.--Vintagekits 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. El chulito 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?
...in the mean time both can be used but should not be substituted for each other. -proof please El chulito 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I will have to relook at the issue of the redirects and make appropriate corrections. Thanks for the update.El chulito 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. El chulito 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.--Vintagekits 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. El chulito 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paddy Quinn (Irish republican)

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?

El chulito 06:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. 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.--Vintagekits 06:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Óglach is the Irish version of Volunteer which was his title within the PIRA that is why it has been added.
  3. Have you got a link to state that he is a Catholic?
  4. Have you got a link to state that your ascertion about his mother and his health? I have no problem with you adding it, and I am sure it probably happened as he was on hunger strike for over a month, but the issues is that you must add references to back the statement up.--Vintagekits 15:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. That was not a part of his name at birth in any language, and the issue of Volunteer is unsettled; your continuing to use it (in a foreign language) shows your continuing disregard for all Wikipedia rules and regulations that you don't personally like or agree with

.El chulito 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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).

I do not understand you aggressive attitude, you are very close to breaking WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA--Vintagekits 13:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My attitude is due to the fact that you are a wanna-be censor/revisionist.

[edit] Tom Begley

The claim that he was fervently anti-sectarian is POV and unsubstantiated (unsubstantiatable) El chulito 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

The following was retrieved from your discussion page: Firstly the article did not state he was "fervently anti-sectarian" is state he believed in non sectarian republicanism - a. can you explain what you consider is POV about that and b. it is reference in Tirghrá within his biography.--Vintagekits 14:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It is POV to project or imply an outlook or political vision ("non sectarian republicanism") to another person for which there is no objective substantiation, only another one of your boilerplate pro-IRA news outlets (in this case Tirghrá), which is what you rely on most of the time.El chulito 14:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
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.

El chulito 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia. There is a clear universality that it was unfortunate that the bomb could not be defused, except by die-hard PIRA 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.

El chulito 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You did make those changes, please check you edit, I would not send you a messege about it if you hadnt, regards.--Vintagekits 14:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. User:Zoe|(talk) 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?--Vintagekits 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 WP:BLP. However, if you can verify with reliable sources then it is legitimate. Tyrenius 13:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .--Couter-revolutionary

I see you thought I was a sock-puppet! Ha! The problem with Sir Walter Palmer's article was that I created it as "Walter Palmer" and Kittybrewster moved it to "Sir Walter...", therefore the article, as it stands was created by him, whereas de facto it was I who established it.--Couter-revolutionary 14:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is fine, it was just that you said you started the page but there was no mention of you in the history. regards--Vintagekits 14:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diarmuid O'Neill

  • I have no evidence that he was ever legally named "Dermot".
  • I have seen no evidence he was shot in his bed, only that he was dragged down the stairs.
  • The use of the word Volunteer as far as I know is still being mediated, if otherwise, please provide me with a link to any conclusion supporting your claims. El chulito 14:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph MacManus

  • For your edification - for categorizing purposes all people whose surnames start with Mc or Mac must be categorized as Mac... (see the instruction left on Martin McGuinness' edit page from a Wikipedia editor as an example if you wish); it goes as follows:

Please use Macguiness, ie with an 'a' and a lowercase 'g', to assist category sorting

El chulito 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

  • When dealing with the issue of nicknames "Joe", "Tom", it is a matter of personal preference how to do so, e.g.
Joseph Thomas Murphy, also known as Joe Murphy

or

Joseph Thomas "Tom" Murphy

or

Joseph Thomas ("Tom") Murphy

There are no rules prohibiting any of the above and all are correct grammatically.El chulito 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling at AN/I

In order to help your case, please consider running your post through spell check. You do, as you already suspect, have some troubling errors. for one: Accusation, not acquisation. second, barrage of, not barge on. Please fix these as to make your posting more readable, and consider constructing longer posts of a serious nature like this in Word or another text editor with spell check first. I note this in order to help you, not to pick on you. ThuranX 20:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

your right, thanks!--Vintagekits 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You're!User:Vintagekits
Lol!!!--Vintagekits 21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned

You are banned from leaving any sort of message for me whatsoever. Not only do you write as though you are an illiterate, you have nothing I am interested in hearing. I am going to recommend to the Administrators that you be blocked again for a lengthy period of time, and I am also going to recommend that all 8 IRA terrorists killed at Loughall be redirected to Loughgall as they do not merit their own pages, which are almost identical, anyway.

You banned User:Logica and User:Logoistic from your discussion page; you are banned forever from mine.

New identity 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Logica and User:Logoistic are both the same person, he is not banned from discussing topics with me. When he was a newbie he would leave numberous warnings on my page without knowing what they meant. Infact there are messege on my talk page from him, see here, here, here, here, here and here. You are being massively uncivil and breaching many policies, please stop.--Vintagekits 23:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
"Without knowing what they meant": I know exactly what they meant, and still stand by them! I'm assuming good faith in letting past issues I have with Vintagekits go (more understandable given his block), but that doesn't mean policy breaking past or present will be tolerated. Logoistic 18:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, do not contact me on my talk/discussion page -- you are creating a stressful situation for me. If I have a problem with you I will have to go through an Administrator; I see that the threat of being blocked is the only thing you respect.New identity 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book

Don't have that Andy McNab book. Can probably get a hold of it, for a look though. What is it in it that you are looking for? Jdorney 00:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, what's the name of that book. I'll see what I can do. Jdorney 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: McCormack and Davison

Due to an altogether separate conflict, I wouldn't add this to Zoe's plate right now or expect any responses from her. If you think there is geniunely a lot more to say about this men that is really worth including in Wikipedia, then you can create new articles on them. Please be mindful of sticking to reliable sources and citing what you include in the article. Once a fully sourced article is created, you could try to get the history undeleted at WP:DRV; however, the BLP concerns about those versions may prevent that from happening. It is of course up to you to establish the notability of the men should that be challenged at AFD. Best of luck, Christopher Parham (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you need to contact anyone for re. the above? The objection was to lack of valid references. If these exist then there is no objection under WP:BLP to the article. You may want to make a note of the changed ref. of the conversation on AN/I, in case you need to cite it. If you do start the article again, you'll need to explain change circumstances in edit summary/talk page.[1]. Tyrenius 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

Re. your request I have left a note for New identity that personal attacks must stop. Regardless of any other problems, that is not acceptable. Feel free to notify me with diffs if there is a recurrence, but I trust not. Re. the other issues, I'm afraid someone else will have to deal with those. However, please have a look at WP:DR. It can be a very good idea to back off if things get stressful. Wiki will still be here in a year. We're writing for the long term, not just next week. Also if there is a sound point, you can rely on the fact that someone else will also turn up to make it. It's not all down to you. Tyrenius 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PS build up your case in an article with cast iron verifiable references. Tyrenius 03:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland

you clearly have an interest in topics such as this. I draw your attention to it. Kittybrewster 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing member to Volunteer

That was about the only time that you could have done that within the rules! Logoistic 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Regular" Irish Army

Vintage, "regular" implies that there is an "irregular". I worry that people will think the Irish Army is linked with the PIRA. Logoistic 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is a historical term, the IRA were called the "irregulars", seriously.--Vintagekits 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

If you have a message for User:Astrotrain could you please leave it on his Talk Page. My Talk Page contained a message from him to me - only. It is not a debating page. David Lauder 09:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not debating, he made a claim about me there which was false so I cleared the issue up there so anyone who saw it could see the actual facts and know that it was false.--Vintagekits 10:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have moved your message to his talk page and told him you left it on mine. David Lauder 10:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem, as long as you have seen that he fabricates.--Vintagekits 10:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments here. Tyrenius 16:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] At least get this checked out to clear your name

Vintage, User:Our Day Will Come at first appears to be a sockpuppet of yourself, judging by their edit history. However, this seems too obvious - you would have realised people would have caught onto you right away if you did that. So I'm going to put in a case for checkuser - I'll post the link when I do so - to confirm this. Logoistic 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I did say all that on the DO'N AfD page. I am 1. happy for him to be checked and 2. Think he should be reinstated until there is proof he is a sock.--Vintagekits 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's the link[2]. Don't be stupid about him being reinstated. It was clearly aimed at making you look as if you had a sock. Logoistic 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It was tongue in cheek--Vintagekits 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think about maybe trying to get a checkuser on recent users who may have had disagreements with you (not me, although you can try it if you want to be sure!). Logoistic 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure some of them are socks - proving it is a different matter! I think we actually have a decent relationship these days, based on mutual opposition.--Vintagekits 20:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well you know what they say! Logoistic 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Christmas shoppers"

You may find this relevant.[3] I will back up any removal of unsubstantiated material. Tyrenius 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 02:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt expectin that! --Vintagekits 09:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block-Log on User:Kittybrewster

Have you heard about the block-log to User:kittybrewster from User:Mr. Darcy because, apparently, a personal attack towards you by reffering to you in an unnapropiate way? --TomasBat (Talk) 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kelly g.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kelly g.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

It would help your case greatly if you made citations in the recommended way. Compare "Notes and references" in Martin McGartland (apart from a couple I didn't do) with Charles Breslin. In the former it is easy for an editor (or a reader) to see the quality of the references to BBC, Hansard etc, as they are visible. In the latter article only a title is visible with no indication of the source. You can either do the cites by hand, as I have done, or you might find it easier to use the appropriate template on Wikipedia:Citation templates. See also WP:CITE. Tyrenius 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

cheers, will do.--Vintagekits 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ONH

Thanks for making the references nice & clear. I haven't gotten the hang of that yet! I wonder; do you think that Óglaigh na hÉireann (2006) would be a fair compromise between length and specificity for the CIRA splinter group? I'd also appreciate your input at Template talk:IRAs, if you have the time. Erin Go Bragh 02:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference deletion

Replied here. Tyrenius 04:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I.R.A. WikiProject?

Hi all, I'm rather new to the Wiki (just joined up a few days ago), but the whole WikiProject concept seems like an effective tool for gathering a group of people together to work on a specific subject. I'm primarily interested in contributing to areas related to Irish nationalism, and the Irish Republican Army, and I've noticed a few of you have quite a lot of involvement in the same area. So, I wonder if anyone would be interested in forming a WikiProject focusing on Irish Nationalism? Wikipeda:WikiProject Irish Republican Army seems like a good title to me! WP:WPIRA would be a great shortcut! I'm posting this up on many different pages, so I would especially appreciate it if, if you're interested, you would join me at User talk:Johnathan Swift#WikiProject IRA. Erin Go Bragh 06:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you explain this?

Vintage, why did you change "member" to "Volunteer" here? Logoistic 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the history and you will find out. You are going to have to dig deeper if you are search for things to try and "get me in trouble" for.--Vintagekits 23:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm giving you the opportunity to explain what appears to be a blatant change from "member" to "Volunteer". If "getting you into trouble" means upholding mediation, then that's definantly true. Logoistic 23:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I have told you the answer.--Vintagekits 23:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If you have a legitimate reason to do this, please highlight it in your edit summary. You can't expect people to wade through the history of edits, Vintage. Logoistic 23:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful to provide a fuller answer. Tyrenius 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes it is hard to be really helpful to people who you feel are harassing you. Weggie made an edit earlier in mediation believing mediation was closed, however, as you can see mediation is still ongoing. Here is the edit Weggie made.--Vintagekits 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so (1) why didn't you mention this in your edit summary, and (2) why didn't you indicate this right away as I asked. You realise this is a contentious issue, and it doesn't help when you make legitimate reverts that go back so far that it looks like blatent mediation-breaking. Please be more helpful in future. Logoistic 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Because you have accused me for this before without looking at the edit history.--Vintagekits 23:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stressed

I know what you mean!!!!! Logoistic 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You shouldnt have started this tonight with one day to go. Just to get him to reconsider PLEASE self revert at tell him that because you take this SO serious you are prepared to do this. This is not admitting you are wrong this is a jesture - whatever the real word will be there in 48 hours--Vintagekits 00:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will. But I still stand by the point, and will expect him to look at it. The case should never have been closed. If anything, Shyam should have responded to my initial posting about you creating that article. Logoistic 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

The mediator has made his position clear. If the differing parties agree to co-operate with me, I will look at the issue afresh. Tyrenius 01:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I do, but presumably you'll need to message all of the other involved parties? Logoistic 01:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I would rather sack wiki off altogether rather than go through this again. Shyam is reconsidering opening the case again, so lets see if he does, this is not a relaxing experience. T, can you please have a word with him and ask him to open it as there is only one day left of the cabal after 3 months of arguing.--Vintagekits 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I would assume that we would keep what we've already got there. I am seeing it as a transfer from one mediator to another rather than competely reopening it. It would be pointless to disregard all the progress that's been made on it. Logoistic 13:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just out of interest...

Where do you stand? Logoistic 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Did it before -
Economic Left/Right: -2.16
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.00

[edit] Refs

In case there's anything useful here - a template I've just devised! To post to another user:

{{subst:Refstart}}

It signs automatically.

Tyrenius 11:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


Using references (citations)

I noticed you've been editing and not using references (refs). These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add information, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where the it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started.

[edit] Simple referencing

The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section. This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:

==Notes and references==
<references/>

The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):

<ref>             </ref>

Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference.

[edit] Test it out

Copy the following text, open the edit box for this page, paste it at the bottom (inserting your own text) and save the page:

==Reference test==
This is the text which you are going to reference.<ref> Substitute your own text in this space </ref>
==Notes and references==
<references/>

(End of text to copy and paste.)

[edit] Information to include

You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For a book it might look like this:

<ref> Smith, Timothy: "A Guide to Planets", page 29. Solar Publishing, 2001 </ref>

An online newspaper source would be:

<ref> Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]]. Retrieved on [[2005-10-27]]. </ref>

Note the square brackets around the URL. The format is [URL Title] with a space between the URL and the Title. If you do this the URL is hidden and the Title shows as the link. Use a double apostrophe for the article title, and two single quote marks for the name of the paper (to generate italics).

The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site (useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead). Wikilinks, with double square brackets, function inside the ref tags. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings.

[edit] Citation templates

You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference

[edit] Using the same reference twice or more

The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:

<ref name=fred> DETAILS OF REF </ref>

The second time you use the same reference in the article, you only need to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:

<ref name=fred/>

You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them.

[edit] Example

You can see refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.

[edit] Next step

When you become familiar with the process, the next step is to have one section "Footnotes", with links embedded in the text, and another "References", which lists all of your references alphabetically with full details, e.g. for a book:

Lincoln, Abraham; Grant, U. S.; & Davis, Jefferson (1861). Resolving Family Differences Peacefully (3rd ed.). Gettysburg: Printing Press. ISBN 0-12-345678-9.

If you're ready to go into it further, these pages have detailed information:

I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know.

Tyrenius 11:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of things.

Hi, got your note. One, you must start using edit summaries. Your failure to use them is unacceptable, and frankly it makes it look like you're trying to sneak stuff into articles. Two, I'm not going to start a wide revert war on all the articles where you and Stubacca are editing. You might consider reverting him once, and only once, on each article, with a descriptive edit summary (not just "rv"), and an accompanying note on each talk page that either explains the problem or points to one central discussion (perhaps Talk:Diarmud O'Neill?]]). I want to be clear that I'm not saying that your sources all meet WP:RS, but that reverts are not the way to determine this. Talk it out with him and other users, using WP:RS as the basis for the discussion and not your respective POVs. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Mr.Darcy, I will try to be more clear with the edit summaries also. cheers--Vintagekits 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not inserting any POV into any article. I'm not sure how you're alleging that? Stu ’Bout ye! 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse MrDarcy's statement. Vintagekits, if you want any intervention then you have got to play by the rules scrupulously. You have done very well in your communication on user talk pages, but not as yet in edit summaries and article talk pages. Please read thoroughly my posts on User talk:Stubacca. If I feel my advice is not being regarded, I'm outta here. Tyrenius 17:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, my edit summaries have not been up to stratch, possibly a case of trying to do too much at one time rather than misleading other. SInce he has said it I have tried to put a summary in all edits and will keep it up. cheers--Vintagekits 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I strongly recommend doing one thing well rather than 20 not well. Edit summaries weren't the only thing to take note of by the way. Tyrenius 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If you go to your preference settings you can use an option which will remind you if you haven't left a summary. Tyrenius 11:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that in at least one spot, you used a Xanga page as a source - please note that blogs of any sort fail WP:RS and can't be used as sources. | Mr. Darcy talk 12:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Xanga isn't the only blog being used. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I endorse MrDarcy and have no objection to Stubacca or any other editor removing sources which are blogs which do not follow policy. A blog which would follow policy is, for example, a blog on an official newspaper site (e.g. The Guardian) which was written by a staff journalist or regular columnist for the paper. This would be valid, but subsequent posts to the same blog by members of the public would not be. It should be explained clearly and helpfully in the edit summary (and if necessary on the article talk page) exactly why the source was removed. Tyrenius 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would go along with that.--Vintagekits 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/n/User_talk%7EVintagekits_Archive_2_0a69.html"