User talk:Damnbutter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Damnbutter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Victor 12:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Arklow

Nice article. This is way outside my field, so I don't know if this is a reasonable suggestion: you might like to have a look at Battle of New Ross (1798) to see the infobox at the side. It might be worth replicating. Interestingly, someone claims that it stopped the rebellion getting outside Wexford, which this article contradicts? --Red King 16:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Defenders and United Irishmen

Hows it going? Well done on all your work on 1798 stuff. Two things I wanted to bring up with our "1798 specialist" ;). First, the United Irishmen. I feel its really bad at the moment and could be improved a lot by a discussion of their politics, structure and how they evolved from constitutional radicals to revolutionaries. Second thing, I've created a page on the Defenders at Defenders (Ireland), maybe you'd be able to havea go at expanding it? Cheers Jdorney 12:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing, while I'm at it. I've created a page on 18th century Ireland atIreland 1691-1801. If you feel there's anything more that should go in, please go ahead.

Hi Jdorney, Thanks for the geeup much appreciated. I would't have too much background in the organisation, history etc. of the United Irishmen to add. At the moment I've diverted onto the Nore/Spithead mutinies 1797 and then want to finish off on the 1798 battles and sequel. I have some source material of interest on the Defenders but it's largely related to the Defender movement in particular counties so it'll take a while to scope. All the best --Damnbutter 17:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you're having a go at improving the United Irishmen article. Good man. Jdorney 11:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constituencies in Ireland

Hi, I removed your insertion of "during the time of British occupation in Ireland" from the edits you made to a number of the Irish constituencies represented in the UK parliament. "British occupation" is an unloaded term - British rule is more appropriate. I would suggest that you talk to those contributors already working on historic Irish constituencies (i.e. myself, User:BrownHairedGirl, or User:Gary J before categorising these constituencies further.--Damac 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish UK parliament constituencies are clogging up the Category - History of Ireland 1801-1922, [[1]] I would suggest you could help out there (See talkpage). I was not aware I had to get clearance before making an edit. If you feel the need to soften "British occupation" to "British rule" then matter of consistency you should also apply this principle to all ex-colonies in history and not just to the period of British occupation of Ireland.

--Damnbutter 16:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Sands

I would like to see a reference for the song you added to the Bobby Sands article. Seeing your list of edits, I have no doubt of your knowledge in this area, and I am not suggesting this is not relevant, I would just like to see more information in the article in relation to this song. Thanks. ---Charles 17:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. Looking at the article again, I see that you placed a reference, which I have now read, and I see the relevance and importance of the song. Thanks for the contribution. ---Charles 17:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Carles,

no problem, the details are down in the article. The references are fairly oblique as any obvious sympathetic references would probably have ended their career, especially in "Britain".

--Damnbutter 09:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Image is 200 years old so whats the problem? --Damnbutter 09:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonial era? - Imperial Flags in Irish flags page

While many Wikipedians may feel that Northern Ireland has some similarities to a colony, they try to avoid putting that view into articles as though it was undisputed fact. You will have more pleasure contributing here if you try to maintain and improve the neutral point of view of articles. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Look in your own glasshouse before throwing accusations around. What exactly is an english royal standard doing on the Irish flags page. Try some objectivity yourself before lecturing me.

--Damnbutter 16:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Check the facts before throwing accusations of a lack of objectivity and vandalism at me for calling English royal flags relics of the colonial era. Last time I looked the article was "List of IRISH flags" not "List of Republic of Ireland flags " or "List of N. Ireland flags" by no stretch of the imagination can some of those obscure flags be called Irish - try to be realistic if you can't be objective. How many "union flags" do you want on the Irish flags page before you're happy?--Damnbutter 16:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Remember that you don't know my nationality nor my political sympathies. I did not accuse you of vandalism, and I am disappointed that someone did, instead of assuming good faith. It is clear that you are acting in good faith, and I know you have made some good contributions on Irish history. However, in this case, I personally think you are taking that list in the wrong direction; though I haven't edited the list since Monday, I will revert your changes and try to persuade you to let them stand. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pike (weapon)

There are a few pages you need to review in order to properly understand how to contribute constuctively to Wikipedia.

You've been accused by several other users of a POV bias, which is therefore something you should consider paying attention to, instead of simply insisting that the accusation is "ignorant." Read this: [[2]]

Toward that end, don't delete an entire general statement because in your opinion it inaccurately reflects the one small group that you are interested in. That edit, made out of a POV bias, thereby makes the entire provision less clear and informative.

Another one you should read concerns good etiquette:

[[3]]

You have stated in an edit of pike (weapon) that a statement I contributed to the article was "an ignorant generalization" and you have stated on this page that someone needs to "try to be realistic if you can't be objective." Wiki policy is to assume good faith, be civil and polite, and argue the facts, not the personality.Larry Dunn 01:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Thank you for the patronising though hypocritical lecture - I have left aside the fact that other disputes I may have had are none of your business as you are making serious, allegations based on ill-founded assumptions to try and justify your inaccuracies and "win" this dispute. I'm perfectly aware of Wikipedia guidelines, there are a few things I can point out to you.

[[4]] - It is bad manners to scavenge through someones user page to find ammo with which to back up spurious allegations. My nationality has nothing to do with anything - I never brought up yours -easy though it would have been. This edit in question has also got nothing to do with previous edit conflicts on different articles.

[Revert Vandalism] You have repeatedly deleted my edits without good cause -initially without bothering to give any reason, it was me who had the manners to summarise my changes. Your change descriptions were at best off-topic, at worst sneaky pro-Irish POV allegation.

[Sources] To repeat for the 4th time - the 1798 rebels in Ireland were not all "desperate peasant rebels" they came from urban, rural, upper, middle and lower class backrounds and used whatever weapons they could -pikes were not used solely by "desperate peasants" if that's what you think. This is "ignorant" as it displays a complete lack of knowledge of the socio-economic background of the 1798 rebels - a "generalisation" because it is merely a good soundbite which you have not bothered to reference because outside of Ladybird books or something you will not find one.

[[5]] - My edit is not Irish POV bias - against all facts you insist on your soundbite - you are only displaying your total lack of knowledge (ignorance) of this era. On a couple of occasions I have been accused of POV by a number hypocritical "contributors" -again none of your business and irrelevant to this matter - but all without the slightest shred of evidence -check the facts. Still it's a useful accusation to throw at someone to muddy the waters when you havn't a leg to stand on. It also shows incredible hypocrisy as you had the effrontry to accuse me of ignoring "etiquette"

Proprietorship - Just to remind you - you do not own any article no matter how much edits/contributions made i.e; If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. --Damnbutter 13:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


You seem to misunderstand that Wikipedia is a community -- your behavior is very much my business, and the business of all wikipedians. And by the way, looking at your talk page is hardly "mining for negative comments."
I see from your hysterical response that you are determined to continue to use a hostile tone with those who question your edits. Suit yourself; we can only make suggestions to our fellow users about their behavior -- the better users are those who listen to input.
On the topic of "ignorance" (besides "hypocritical," your favorite slander of your fellow wikipedians who question your edits), you seem not to realize that the reference to desperate rebels does not apply exclusively, or even primarily, to the Irish. The vast majority of the rebels who used pikes after 1700, even in Ireland, were peasants who did not have access to guns. The Irish represent one small niche of that.
Your insertion of a great deal of information on the Irish usage distorts the history of the end period of pike usage. Toward that end, perhaps the specific references to the Irish usage should be deleted, or cut down significantly. For the time being I have indeed sourced the existing language, per Wiki policy because it has been challenged, but on second thought it might be better to take it out altogether. You can then insert it in whatever pages you like that pertain specifically to the Irish conflicts in which pikes were used.
As for being prepared to be edited mercilessly, that pertains every bit as much to you as it does to me, and every other wikipedian. Try to follow your own advice. Larry Dunn 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

You were not “just looking” at my talkpage or edit history – you were attempting undermine my edit because of my nationality and previous edit conflicts. On that score –you do not speak for “all wikipedians” either – so stop playing to some imaginary gallery.

Again you miss the point; sweeping generalizations unsupported by proper references are inaccurate and distort history – wikipedia is not a forum for soundbites and you do it’s credibility no favours by standing over them e.g “The vast majority of the rebels who used pikes after 1700, even in Ireland, were peasants who did not have access to guns” - Who exactly are you referring to? If you make unfounded generalised sweeping statements without any evidence you can expect to be queried. Even a cursory examination of records of the time show that the Irish 1798 rebels came from all social classes.

Re your statement that I inserted “a great deal of information on the Irish usage” – this is untrue – I only added the reference to the 1798 rebellion – again check the facts before you generalize. As for your belief that the Irish usage of the pike references should be reduced, the thought springs to mind that it is you suffering from some anti-Irish POV. You cannot delete content because you do not like it – who are you to say what “distorts” what. I’ll ignore your gracious permission to insert the offending content elsewhere – find your own messenger boy. --Damnbutter 18:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)