User talk:Billthekid77

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Recent edit to Liam Neeson

Hello. Thank you for your recent edit to Liam Neeson. Your edit included one or more links to the page Irish, which is a disambiguation page. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to Liam Neeson to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and report the error to help us improve this feature.) --Russ (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit to George Bernard Shaw

Hello. Thank you for your recent edit to George_Bernard_Shaw. Your edit included one or more links to the page Irish, which is a disambiguation page. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to George_Bernard_Shaw to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and report the error to help us improve this feature.) --Russ (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Blithekid, you have linked George Bernard Shaw to the article about the Irish people. What is to be gained by this, except distraction? Why would anyone seeking particulars concerning Shaw want to read generalities about his homeland? Unless you have a cogent reason not to, I hope you will undo your edit.Wugo 22:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles (terminology)

Hi. I reverted your edits to the British Isles (terminology) article as the point you made in the introduction is summarised there already and dealt with in full in the body of the article. Thanks. Rockpocket 08:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for the British Isles article, there is a large section discussing the Irish perspective and a note directly above the intro. Rockpocket 08:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Please be warned that Wikipedia has a rule called the 'three revert rule' (see its full description here). This states that you cannot revert - remove someone else's edit from a page, or change back to your own - more than three times within 24 hours. You have come very close to doing this on British Isles. Please also be warned that if you break this rule, it almost always results in a ban from editing Wikipedia.
All articles have talk pages on which changes can be discussed. You are encouraged to use these, instead of reverting. The talk page for British Isles can be found at Talk:British Isles. --Robdurbar 09:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Further to your recent reverts to the article, which is clearly against consensus and innappropriate for a lead, I note that a new editor Frankdeano (talk ยท contribs) appeared and began exclusively working co-operatively with you in reverting to your preferred version. This occurred soon after you were informed of the WP:3RR rule. While I have no evidence other than that co-incidence that Frankdeano is a sock puppet account, please be aware that it is forbidden in WP:SOCK to use sockpuppets to circumvent WP:3RR. It is entirely possible to determine whether Frankdeano is a sock puppet and, in this scenario, both accounts could be blocked for reverting. If you are editing using both accounts, I would advise you strongly to cease using them on the same disputed articles. Please also consider how to incorporate your content according to policy and also that consensus may sometimes form against you. Thanks. Rockpocket 04:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Irish to Irish

Please be aware that ltering articles to remove mentions of Northern Ireland, as you did to the Liam Neeson article, can be construed as vandalism. Ben W Bell talk 09:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Ben.. the same could be said for you by moving Irish to Nothern Irish Billythekid77 04/11/2006 (GMT -4.00)

[edit] Your edits

Hi Bill, could I ask you please not to restore this material to British Isles again? It is particularly inappropriate for the lead section, but if it's to be added anywhere else, it will have to be written differently. Wikipedia doesn't take a point of view, and that means we don't write the article on the British Isles from the point of view of the Irish government, but rather, we reflect all majority and significant-minority points of view neutrally, without drawing undue attention to any of them, as your edit does. Please try to hash out compromise wording on the talk page rather than restoring it. I realize feelings can run high in these areas, but I hope we can count on your cooperation. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok SlimVirgin, I will look for some help and suggestions on the talk page on this..I feel it's fundamental to have the Irish Government's position put forward in a clear way. The fact of the matter is that the Republic of Ireland is a huge part of the so called "British Isles" and if the Irish Government, which democratically represents the Irish people, doesn't recognise the term "British Isles" surely this should be respected and highlighted with more clarity. The introductory note that currently leads the article is too weak, and doesn't refer to the Irish Government's position. Thanks Billthekid77 06/11/2006 23:49 (-4:00 GMT)

[edit] Paul Gascoigne

If you can find sources for your negative material about Paul Gascoigne, then by all means put it back in the article, together with the sources. Otherwise, please read WP:BLP. Viewfinder 07:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

Stop adding biased political statements. The term is used in Ireland, including by members of parliament and government. TharkunColl 08:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding your "reference" to Bono

Please stop putting in the "reference" that Bono cannot use the sir title. Why?

  1. Did you notice the big blue bright letters that say "KBE"? - if someone clicks on it and reads the article, they will know "Knights and Dames Grand Cross and Knights and Dames Commander who are not subjects of the Queen (i.e. not citizens of the United Kingdom or another country ruled by the Queen) are not entitled to the prefix "Sir" or "Dame", but may still use the post-nominal abbreviations."
  2. The intro paragraph, even with your awkard footnote, is not the place to explain this. If you feel compelled to add it in, the recognition section would be the place to do it.
  3. We aren't using sir in the rest of the article, so explaing this is unnecessary.

Chupper 13:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)