User talk:Fluffy999

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

03:32 Sunday 15 June 2008

Contents

I will no longer be active on the project due to harassment of another user.

  • Note: if you leave a new message for me on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply somewhere else

If you are replying to an existing message, please remember to:

  • sign your comments, by placing ~~~~ at the end of the comments (see WP:SIG)
  • indent your comment by placing a colon before the start of the first line (add an extra colon if you are relying to a reply)


== Your renaming policy ==--Damac 20:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fluffy999,

Welcome to Wikipedia. Great to see someone else with interest in the history of the IRA. Might I ask you to try and consult with people who have also worked on articles on the history of the IRA (e.g. Sabotage Campaign) on any renaming suggestions. I disagree with the change from Sabotage Campaign to S-Plan. Many leading republicans (Ruairí Ó Brádaigh for one) refer to the campaign as the Sabotage Campaign. Indeed, the S-Plan and the Campaign are two different issues. The plan was the plan, the campaign the actual campaign. I understand you're new to Wikipedia but the principle here is that articles should use the names most commonly used for events. --Damac 08:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Yes I left a note on the discussion page for the article (isn't this where discussion belongs?)

I understand the problem of the S-Plan and the republican understanding of it as the Sabotage Campaign. What I tried to do in re-writing the article was show that at the time of the events and, (most importantly), to the people involved, the attacks in Britain were known as the S-Plan. I do think however, that militant republicanism's understanding of the S-Plan as the Sabotage Campaign falls within the history of militant republicanism, not facts of the time period.

IRA teams were following the S-Plan- a plan the IRA Army Council issued to them. The then IRA Chief of Staff asked for idea's on attacks in Britain to be formulated and this is what was circulated to IRA teams as the plan of attack. IRA volunteers were detained in Britain carrying the S-Plan. IRA referred to events in Britain as the "S-plan" in their contact with Abwehr during the period. These are the historical facts.

If you're saying the IRA Army Council distributed the S-Plan as 1 part of a wider strategy called "The Sabotage Campaign"- then its something to cite. I've only catalogued some of the attacks and most of that was from newspaper reports of the day. If you want to say that the IRA deviated from the S-Plan to the extend that it became only a piece of paper then thats fine- but when I compare Stephan's description of the S-Plan to the events 139-1940 I don't see any deviation.

Historians tend to paint the S-Plan as a complete disaster and you will see the author of the S-Plan agrees with them. However, I don't offer the reader this interpretation via the title, or any comment in the article, nor should I under wiki rules about impartiality. I've stuck to the facts. It IS noteworthy that republicanism regards the acts carried out via the S-Plan as the "Sabotage Campaign" but only in so much as the term is loaded with meaning for later generations of republicanism, not the people of the time who carried out the S-Plan.

So since the attacks made as part of the S-Plan have become known as the Sabotage Campaign by "many republicans" within the republican tradition- that use can/should be cited. However, I think I did manage to point out that in the article when I mentioned that it has been known as the Sabotage Campaign, and even the England Campaign in some circles and that the S-Plan attacks provide a context in which the 1970's PIRA campaign took place.

A search for "Sabotage Campaign" now redirects to S-Plan. I don't mind if you want to rename it back to Sabotage Campaign (IRA) and have searches for S-Plan redirect to it. Its enough that both "many republicans" as well as students of the period reading about the S-Plan in their history books can find the article.

Fluffy999 15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please back up your allegations with facts. What inaccuracies did you find from my hand in the Russell and O'Donovan articles?--Damac 20:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Reply to wrong post and belongs on your talk page but lets see;
  • Russell - King of Britain- check the entry for the King in question.
  • O'Donovan - entire U-boat edit, and lets not pretend you didn't. Ok?
Least we forget your rudimentary knowledge of S-Plan, which nearly led to another erronous edit on your part.
You have no business harrassing me for knowing more about topics than you. You have no business harrassing me for wanting to contribute my knowledge to wikipedia. Please stick to what you know- correcting spelling & formatting mistakes.

[edit] Damac's claims

Damac claims (here, in the Sean Russell talk and elsewhere) not to have used the phrase "King of Britain" in the Sean Russell article. That is easily discovered to be a lie- glance downwards to where he apologises for doing so. How he was able to remove the reference to that edit from the edit summary is a question for admins. Fluffy999 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove it from the edit summary. I repeat - I never typed the phrase "King of Britain" in the Russell article. That is another unfounded allegation of yours. It is impossible to do so on Wikipedia.--Damac 21:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Damac you are on record apologising for using the term, and admiting it was wrong (see your own apology on this page). Now you about face and deny you ever made it. How you expunged your edit from the edit summary I don't know yet, but I do know you made the "King of Britain" edit because I saw it and called you on it at the time. Fluffy999 21:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Our of interest, are you the copyright holder to the Russell and O'Donovan photographs? I fear that unless you can prove this, Wikipedia will delete the images. They're very strict about that. --Damac 07:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a little more "interest" in what you try to pass off on here as "confirmed fact" would be a good idea?
I would've left the O'Donovan article alone until I had a complete article finished, but the errors were so glaring it had to be changed immediately. People do actually turn at wikipedia looking factually correct information you know.
Thanks for correcting the absolutely HECTIC punctuation in the O'Donovan article I corrected. Be Bold- thats what its all about!! :) Fluffy999 08:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the "King of England" issue: minor edits like this do not require lenghty discussion in the talk page. "King of England" was wrong as the monarch concerned claimed to be king of a lot more. "King of Britain" I accept with hindsight is wrong and you were right in deleting it. The reference to "King" (note capital k) is adequate as it refers to the particular person mentioned a few sentences earlier in the article.
Replacing it with a quote from Stephan was just as incorrect. In fact, this only serves to confirm that you have plagiarised Enno Stephan. I now suspect that this applies to most of what you have posted to Wikipedia.
Your words
76 members of the US congress who were of Irish heritage protested his arrest and demanded an explanation from Roosevelt about the, "Russell case," failing which they would not participate in the congress reception for the King of England.
Enno Stephan quote:
Stephan explains what happens after Russell's detention: This incident immediately aroused enormous indignation among the ten million Irish-Americans. This culminated in a protest by the seventy-six American members of Congress who were of Irish descent, who demanded an explanation from Roosevelt about the 'Russell Case,' failing which they would not participate in the Congress reception for the King of England." (reference: Stephan, Enno: "Spies in Ireland.", page 41-42. Macdonald & Co., 1963)
In doing so, you are infringing on copyright law and endangering Wikipedia as a consequence. This also applies to the issue of photographs. While I think that it's great to see images of Russell and O'Donovan on Wikipedia, it is simply not permissable for users to scan images from copyrighted material and post them to Wikipedia.
In addition, the charge you've made about me "blundering" through articles is misplaced. While you have added some great material to a number of articles (which may be plagiarised), you have left other contributors with a considerable amount of work as you do not "wikify" the text throughout, use false date formats (Wikipedia does not used nd, rd, st etc.), and are sloppy when it comes to punctuation. --Damac 08:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


OK, first off. It's ridiculous to see someone who doesn't know their ass from their elbow on a least 2 histoical figures- Seamus O'Donovan & Sean Russell to be criticising someone who has actually read historical research on the two men. "Blunderer" is the name of the cap and it fits you well- it invokes the image of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about but pretends they do. While I was happy to paraphrase Stephan, the quote was introduced because I somehow knew you would find fault if I reverted your bogus edit. Now you find fault with the original- thanks for being so predictable.


Then to be attacked on allegations of "copyright infringement", and astonishingly, "plagiarism" by the same person. Persistant attacks motivated by a desire to divert attention from examples of his/her own ignorance.


Then to be labelled a danger to wikipedia by the same user. A user with a proven talent for cobbling together half baked information and lending it credibility via posting it on wikipedia as "fact" (see Seamus O'Donovan edit in particular). The information you posted as "fact" has no credibility, therefore, by connection, you have no credibility. Please learn this basic tenant of conducting & writing about historical research.


Really what this demonstrates to me, and others judging by your talk page, is that you dont give a damn for the "safety" of Wikipedia. Your 'work' no doubt INCREASES the volume of accusations that wikipedia is filled with inaccurate baloney. Luckily for wikipedia I was on hand to correct your statements in the Russell and O'Donovan articles before they got spidered, (not a word about the effort I made correcting your nonsense either- how strange). If I had time to devote to a childish flame war you might find me rifling through all your work to point out inaccuracies- no doubt there would be a lot.


Now you seek to label me 'the bad guy' for posting accurate facts. Please check with wikipedia. People of this sort are largely considered the bad guy:
  • posters of rubbish data,
  • posters engaged in persistant baiting of serious contributors,
  • posters making veiled threats, and
  • posters hounding serious contributors with wild (unfounded) accusations.
All because your can't compete on the level of factual knowledge. So sad, too bad.


In terms of my "poor punctuation", I will leave it to people of your ability to tidy up any of my mistakes there- Be Bold! Meanwhile I will concentrate on inserting researched, and qualified contributions for the benefit of users. If needs be I will happily make time to point out, (to those who fail to realise), that Encyclopedia's deal in fact. I'm of the view that mistakes in grammar/punctuation/spelling can therefore be forgiven or at least easily edited. Mistakes in facts and the fools who persistantly make them, can't.


Incidently, comments regarding your "King of Britain" invention belong on your own talk page- where I raised the problem. Please head on over there to address the issue in full- make sure to post what you were thinking at the time. If your edit was motivated by a lack of knowledge, intellectual laziness, or as I suspect- spite, please say so. Be proud of your motivation to post on wikipedia.

Fluffy999 19:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed by your tone. I have always acted in good faith and you should assume that anything I have written above has in good faith (see WP:AGF). Just to remind you, I welcomed you to Wikipedia and expressed satisfaction that someone was contributing on issues which I am also interested in.
In addition, I have refrained from making any personal attacks. Whatever issue you have with me, you have no right to refer to me as "who doesn't know their ass from their elbow", a "Blunderer" or a poster "of rubbish data". Your charge that I am "a user with a proven talent for cobbling together half baked information" is a bit cheap.
I've been on Wikpedia for over a year and have over 2,400 edits. You've been here less than a month and have clocked up 16 edits. And, while this may come as a surprise to you, you have made the odd factual error here and there too. These I've silently corrected (for example, referring to the "Treaty of 1922", or the "Irish Free State" after 1937, etc.) as I recognise them for what they are: the inevitable but unfortuntate errors made by normal people. I certainly would not have the arrogance to dismuss them as the expression of a "lack of knowledge [or] intellectual laziness".
The suggestion that I've threatened you in any way is simply baffling.
I am not that conceit to argue that I know everything but I hold a PhD in history and have my areas of expertise. I have a close interest in the history of the IRA and created most of the articles on the chiefs of staffs of that organisation, including Russell.
Be bold, yes. Be rude and arrogant - no, it's just not Wikipedia. --Damac 00:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Oh please do spare me your righteous indignation. You know fine well what im talking about and so it continues today with more baffling edits to the S-Plan article :)
Its you who have been going out of your way to slander me- happy to throw accusations around like confetti when it suits. It is your officiousness that caused me work putting a quote into the Russell article- work that didnt need to be done- then you removed it all. Arrogance is not the word. It is you chastizing me for typos and formatting errors because I made the huge mistake of correcting your work.
In all the cases of editing my contributions, you have added nothing worthwhile to the article. ZERO. I suspect you are not qualified to. THAT is the only qualification that matters- whether you know what you are talking about when you edit an article. In your case, for these articles, the answer is a definate, shout it from the rafters 'NO'.
I have asked you to concentrate on spelling mistakes and typos- this is what your talent lies. Leave the history to people who know what they're doing- ok? Persisting in generating work for people with better things to do? Now that really would be rude. So I really do not want to hear from you again or see you edit my work in articles. I realise you will anyway out of badness but please consider any further updates you make to this page- Ignored. I will contact you via your Talk Page when you make further inaccuracies and misleading statements in articles. Fluffy999 01:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debates with Damac

Hi, regarding the disputes here and on other talk pages, can I ask you to be a little more civil in these discussions. There is no need to take disagreements personally or to make personal attacks. Cheers, Jdorney 10:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be more civil. Your attacks on Damac are unwarranted and cross the line. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response to the same accusation levelled by Jdorney on Damacs Talk page.

Fluffy999 18:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If they used "King of England" that just shows their constitutional ignorance. Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia cannot replicate just ignorance. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King

I never used the term "King of Britain" in the Seán Russell article. For proof of this, please compare my edit with yours here. I'd also recomment you read Talk:Seán Russell--Damac 19:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anger?

Why are you getting so angry about this edit conflict with Damac? The issue is pretty minor - the changing of one word in the Sean Russell article. So why are you getting so worked up? Wikipedia can only work if people are civil to each other and discuss things rationally. You've contributed plenty of good material to articles already, but you seem to react disproportionately to any difference of opinion.

"Please note:

  • If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. "

I have my problems with certain users who deliberately distort or even make up info to suit their own pov, but Damac is not one of them. What he said about phots -asking if they were copyright, is perfectly legitimate and was on no way an attack on you. I really can't see why this is such a major problem. Jdorney 20:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am angry about it. It is important to me that wikipedia is accurate because more and more people turn to it for facts. There is a lot of nonsense spoken about IRA/German intelligence activity during ww2 yet the entire IRA/German intelligence history is bereft of details on wikipedia. I decided to do something about that.
I think Damac took a disliking to me when I correct some of his contributions. He then set out to bait and harass and rearrange contributions I had made on topics he had never gone near before. He even filled in erronous details on the Seamus O'Donovan article which I had to correct. The Seamus O'Donovan article is another article he had never been near until I brought it to his attention. To say his editing of articles I contribute to is mere coincidence is not credible- he has gone out of his way to try and "trump" me in his own weird little way. Adding more detail to an article, or correcting fact is fine- ive no problem with serious editors making valid contributions. Editing through rearrangment or stripping of context from articles in a childish attempt to "trump" serious contributors familiar with the period is a big problem.
I realised that Damac had never gone near this time period or the historical figures before because he had no understanding or real interest in them. That is why im angry, he would rather agitate to see a serious contributor who knows the period and what they're talking about kicked off wikipedia than stop. Fluffy999 20:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Further example- on checking another article I created Operation Lobster I I see the addition of 'in German' after the name. You might expect German intelligence to use the German language to describe their missions no?
He hasnt been logged in for his signature to appear, but its exactly the sort of redundant edit he makes in an effort to bait & harass. Please tell him to lay off. 82.16.127.11 20:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The lies, hyperbole and unfounded allegations pile up. You are overreacting and continue to overreact.
I repeat - I never used the term "King of Britain" in the Russell article. I used it once on the talk page inadvertently in response to your persistent demands to explain the change from King of England.
It is standard policy on Wikipedia to identify foreign language terms and titles when they appear.
I have an article published in an academic journal of the subject of Irish-German relations, which among other things deals in detail with the history of Frank Ryan's body in Dresden from his death to the repatriation of his remains in 1979. (By the way, Enno Stephan did not "discover" his grave in 1963, as you claim).
As regards the O'Donovan article. When I found it, it consisted of an unsourced photograph. I wrote the article from scrath and made one typo, writing 1940 instead of 1939.--Damac 21:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you do not stop making accusations of lies, deceit, baiting, harassment and bogus edits you will be blocked from editing this site. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Damac is on record apologising for using the term, and admiting it was wrong (see his apology on this page). Now he does an about face and denies ever making it.
As for the discovery of the O'Donovan article- you "discovered" it after I posted asking if anyone knew of his activities prior to the late 1930s.
Now you carry on applying your 'special attention' to articles i've contributed to with more nonsense about the Frank Ryan article. The claims that Stephan re-discovered the grave appear in Hull's book (which you clearly haven't read). Clearly cited in the further information section, not invented from thin air. Fluffy999 21:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Elizabeth Clissmann and Francis Stuart were at Ryan's funeral in 1944. They knew where he was buried and under what name. There was no discovery - Ryan was buried in a cemetery and not in an unmarked grave in the hills! Clissman and Stuart subsuquently returned to Ireland and under the aegis of the Irish-German Society, made a number of approaches to the GDR government to have his remains returned. Irish communists in turn learned from their East German counterparts where he was buried and campaigned to have Ryan returned - as a communist. It was this bickering that delayed the repatriation. I've read the East German files on the matter.--Damac 22:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Great, fine, no problem. Change the article. I have no problem should you introduce cited, backed up research. If Hull is wrong, say so, but back it up with credible sourced material proving your case- don't just blunder in, delete and overwrite valid material in context with insane phrase eg. "King of Britain".
It is startling however, how having seen the East German files on the matter, you neglected to enter that into the article beforehand. Instead, you only turned your attention to the article after I had worked on it. Can you explain your reasons for suddenly remembering this East German material now? Perhaps to take the heat away from your hack of edits from the edit summary? Fluffy999 22:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not particulary interested in Ryan on Wikpedia as I've already published elsewhere on the controversy over his remains. I mentioned that to counter your rant about me not having any knowledge about the historical period in question or the personalities involved.--Damac 22:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Well exactly the point i've been making, you show NO interest in articles until i've contributed to them. As soon as I do, youre all over them like a rash- rearranging, editing here and there, then spamming me with line after line of pointless drivel- all to no valid contribution. Its just a Harassment & Baiting campaign. Aided and abetted with hacks of the edit summary of articles to remove evidence of your contributions.
As for your PhD in History and knowledge of the period- where is the evidence of knowledge of the period? If you know so much why hadn't you actually updated or looked at the articles in all the time of your membership? I'm sorry, it doesn't fly Damac. Any serious knowledge of the period would be noted via your contributions, because a number of the articles on the period contain glaring inaccuracies.
What I have seen is very little knowledge, but a large amount of readiness to harass and distract a serious contributor. Your efforts not culminating in an attempt to have him removed because he knows more on the subject than you do! Please grow up, end your hacking and end your nonsense about qualifications- on here the only qualification worth having is being aware of the facts. Fluffy999 22:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reconstruction of events

I'm providing a chronology with references in order to show what has happened in this case.

  • 14:39, 27 April 2006 Damac

I change "King of England" to "British King" on the Seán Russell article

  • 20:37, 29 April 2006 Fluffy999

Fluffy complains on my talk page that I have changed King of England to King of Britain. That was the first time that "King of Britain" has been mentioned anywhere in this dispute. Please note: it was Fluffy.

  • 08:26, 30 April 2006 Damac

Fluffy having introduced the term "King of Britain" into the debate, I mistakingly referred to "King of Britain" and not "British King" on his talk page.

I think I'm owed a big apology. I made a legitimate edit in the first place (since confirmed by FearEireann). It was Fluffy's fustering that resulted in the term "King of Britain" entering the debate. I should have double-checked that my intitial edit was correct instead of having Fluffy put terms in my mouth.--Damac 22:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Damac you have changed the Edit summary somehow. Your denial of first making the edit, then ever having used the term, and now trying to make out that it was all a typo is laughable. How you are able to edit out your edit from the edit summary I don't know yet but thats something admins can probably speak to- i'm just the victim of this nutter's hate campaign. Fluffy999 22:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Fluffy999, you are making insane allegations. This is the first time I've ever encountered such an allegation on Wikipedia. There is no possible way I changed the edit history of the Russell article.
You've make a big mistake and if you apologise, I'll accept it. If not, and if you don't retract your allegations against me, I don't see how you can remain on Wikipedia. --Damac 22:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, no allegation is being made. Once I challenged you on the "King of Britain" phrase, you clearly apologise for editing the article to that state. You also admit that leaving the article in that state was wrong. Thats a fact displayed on up the page.
Please stick to the issue at hand- how did you remove your edit fom "King of England" to "King of Britain" from the edit summary page? Also, can you please explain what other edits you have made to edit summaries on the Seamus O'Donovan article? I notice that you name isnt appearing there in connection with all those erronous submarine details I fixed.
Your own hate & baiting campaign has brought you here Damac. Fluffy999 22:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Fluffy, I made three edits to the Seamus O'Donovan. No more and no less.
  • (cur) (last) 09:44, 29 April 2006 Damac m (correcting reference)
  • (cur) (last) 14:01, 28 April 2006 Damac (more data)
  • (cur) (last) 10:01, 28 April 2006 Damac m (Brief biography)
I've already gone into the King business in enough detail. They are the facts of the matter. Stop presenting this as some kind of a conspiracy. --Damac 22:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You made a series of edits yes, but you also have the ability of removing evidence of edits you have made. Apologising for edits that were removed by you from the edit summary for Sean Russell article proves this. If no edit was made, no apology would have been forthcoming- as if you would apologise for and state that something that never took place was wrong.
Please stick to the issue at hand- how did you remove your edit fom "King of England" to "King of Britain" from the edit summary page? And how did you do the same for the Seamus O'Donovan article?
I didn't. It's impossible. This has gone on to far. I'm reporting you for abuse of Wikipedia and harassment.--Damac 22:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blocked for personal abuse

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. You were repeatedly warned to stop making personal attack but have continued, and warned on article talk pages to stop or you would be blocked. You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours. If you continue making attacks when the block ends a longer one will be imposed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:PIRA-longwar.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:PIRA-longwar.gif. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Wilson conspiracy theories

Hi, in the above article, you claim that Ken Livingstone repeated allegations by Fred Holroyd of a plot against Harold Wilson. I haven't read Holroyd's book, but I have read secondhand accounts of his allegations (and the New Statesman articles by Duncan Campbell that broke the story) and I recall that they didn't relate to plots against Harold Wilson, but more towards Army collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries and sundry dirty tricks of that nature. Are you perhaps thinking of the entirely seperate Colin Wallace/Clockwork Orange allegations that came out at roughly the same time? I did pop a 'See Also' to Clockwork Orange already... --Aim Here 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was unfamiliar with the Colin Wallace allegations. I only came across Holroyd on the page for Holroyd I just included what was mentioned about Nairac (long speech), some of which I didnt photocopy. There was other stuff in his speech. The Nairac stuff quoted alludes to some of it, but I will post the other references below it:

"His complaint, which eventually led to his removal from the Army and an attempt to discredit him, which has been largely successful, was made when the MI6 operation was taken over by MI5 in 1975- 'by many of the same people who are dealt with in Peter Wright's book [Spycatcher], and many of the same people who are alleged to have ben practising treason against the elected Labour Government of the time'"

"It [Miami showband massacre] took place in the midst of the ceasefire that had been negotiated by the then Labor Government and the IRA. 'The right hon member for morley and leeds, south (Mr.Rees) pushed it through and sustained it, although there was a considerable opposition from within the security services and within many political parties. The Labour Government did everything possible to make the ceasefire work, but it was not wholly accepted within the appartus of MI5- our operatives who alledegly were working on behalf of the British State in Northern Ireland."'

then later in the speech Livingstone says:

We saw in last Sunday's edition of The Observer that another intelligence officer, Colin Wallace, 'who was closely linked with Fred Holroyd in a campaign to expose what was going on', has been dismissed as irrelevant by the British Government. We see now that The Observer, using forensic tests, has been able to demonstrate that the notes that he wrote were not written in the past couple of years by somebody who is embittered and is trying to cash in on what has started to come out."

then later:

"'Wallace and Holroyd are making these quite specific allegations'"

That is all I have on it now, BUT I will check Holroyds book next week and see exactly what he alledges, then update on your talk page. Hows that? Fluffy999 20:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine, though although with what you've written, Ken only mentions the Clockwork Orange/Spycatcher people in passing wrt Holroyd, and doesn't actually state Holroyd was involved in that particular conspiracy. Ken did tend to lump the two together probably because he had to put it all in a fairly short speech, but I still think the allegations were seperate. (I do recall the Paul Foot book on Wallace took pains to point out that the allegations were different.)
The 'campaign to expose what was going on' that links them probably relates to the correspondence between the two when Wallace was in jail and Holroyd was trying to clear himself of the allegations of mental illness. The forensic evidence tests by the Observer relate to Wallace's Clockwork Orange notes, not Holroyd. I'd already taken the liberty of changing the conspiracy article, and nothing you've written so far convinces me to change it back, but feel free to pick out something that will... --Aim Here 21:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Happy to have helped. I will consult Holroyd's book and if anything relating to the article turns up I will take 'the liberty' of changing it back. Cheers Fluffy999 21:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Found something already- Livingstone claiming Holyroyd & Wallace were both in Clockwork Orange here in an Independent article from 21 May 1999.

"My allegations were that a small group of MI5 and MI6 officers conspired to wreck the cease-fire negotiated between the Labour government and the IRA in February 1975"

"In the years that followed, I submitted more than 300 questions about the "dirty" war in Ireland and after years of denial, 'the government was forced to admit that the intelligence services had engaged in a covert black propaganda campaign, code-named Clockwork Orange'."

"Colin Wallace, a former Army intelligence officer who had been one of my two key sources of information, was found to have been framed for manslaughter and was eventually compensated. 'My second source', Captain Fred Holroyd, who worked for MI6, was discredited by being committed to a psychiatric hospital and has never received the compensation that is his due."

"The spymaster Peter Wright, of Spycatcher fame, 'makes no mention in his book of the extensive work he undertook in Ireland, yet he was the central figure among the group of MI5 officers trying to bring down the Labour government'. I believe that the most likely scenario is that Wright and others directed the murder of Green and the Miami Showband killings in order to deny the minority Labour government the popularity that would have followed from its concluding a peace deal with the IRA."

This facet of the alledged conspiracy against Wilson isn't currently reflected in the article nor to be fair in the Holroyd article. Like I said, I will revert next week once I have the book from Holroyd- then I will be able to quote direct from it and add further details to Holroyds allegations of a conspiracy against Wilson. Thanks Fluffy999 22:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I had to order the book, should be with me shortly. Thanks for your patience. Fluffy999 21:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Successfully surviving a WikiStalker Barnstar

Would you mind identifying the stalker?--Damac 17:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:SoldierPosterElectionBelfast1973.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SoldierPosterElectionBelfast1973.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:UVFmural2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:UVFmural2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basil Brooke

Hi, no I didn't introduce the quote, or mis quote, it seems, but I did insert the picture, complete with the wrong quote. If I was thinking I would have remembered that its was Craig. Well spotted. Jdorney 18:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I didnt think it was you, having enjoyed your edits previously, but im new so wasnt sure. Thanks Fluffy999 18:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:1974PIRAAttackBritishParlia.gif

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1974PIRAAttackBritishParlia.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. Renata 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello that is ok to delete this image, I was unable to establish the copyright holder. Am unsure how to delete the image myself, can you help? Thanks Fluffy999 14:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of uploaded photo files

Fluffy, might I suggest that you

  • use lowercase characters when naming uploaded media files
  • provide detailed information (again, not using capital letters throughout) on what the images contain. The page of the relevant piece of media, and not the article you intend on displaying it, should contain a description of the image as it might be used by other users in other articles. --Damac 12:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Reverted your changes. Thanks for the suggestions. Fluffy999 12:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Fluffy, please don't see this as harassment - it's not - but please consider Wikipedia styles and standards when uploading and naming images to Wikipedia.
The general policy on Wikipedia is to capitalise the first letter of an article/media file and leave the rest in lower case.
Wikipedia:Uploading_images also requests contributors to "Please name your files descriptively to avoid confusion". Wikimedia Commons is more specific: "If this is a non-descriptive name—e. g. a name like “DSC123456.jpg” from a digital camera—you can change it using the “Destination filename” field. Cryptic names for images render them a lot harder to find and use, so please choose proper filenames for Wikimedia Commons." Thus, names such as:
  • Image:EIRE-NAZIHELMETS.gif
  • Image:FREE-STATERS-BOMBARD.gif
  • Image:NI-SAOIRSE-GO-SAOIRSE-NA-MBAN.jpg
etc. are not really suitable. Check out Wikipedia:Uploading_images
This is your second warning about this issue. I think you should heed it or else you'll have some editors down on your back once they pick up on it (and they usually do without being told as they monitor what's uploaded).--Damac 14:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning about capitalisation? I dont understand what wikirule ive broken Damac. I thought you were just on my case again (per usual). Can you direct me to the rule? Thanks Fluffy999 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I just do not get why you are always on my case, scrutinizing every last move and detail as if im the only person editing on wikipedia. There are like 1 million articles out there, an entire rule set to edit, a billion articles to create, but you spend your day hovering over my contributions page. why are you always picking on me? Fluffy999 14:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not picking on you. If you take a look at my contributions page, you'll see that my interests on Wikipedia are wide and varied. I don't have a habit of checking out your contribs page but as many of the pages that you edit are on my watchlist, I can easily see what additions you've made and check them out. Of course I have an interest in pages or articles that I've either started or made some significant contributions to, such as Istanbul Pogrom for example. In most cases, I'll go in to my articles of interest, make edits and that's it. It's only in a minority of cases that people take offence. Moreover, in over a year of Wikipedia I've only been accused of stalking by one person - yourself.
I'm highlighting the issue of photos as it is serious. As I said, check out Wikipedia:Uploading_images. Here you'll see everything you need to know, especially the clause that you must "Always state the source of the image", i.e. you must always state where you got the image from and not just it's copyright status. Take a look at images recently uploaded to Wikipedia to see that normal sentence case is standard - Special:Log/upload.--Damac 15:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Damac now be fair, this isnt just one or two articles were talking about, this is an entire series of articles i've been involved with. Articles you had zero interest in before I started work on them, articles which were empty or unstarted until I created them. Spelling mistakes and typos- fine, even factual errors- fine. No problems so long as its cited. But as those errors dry up you begin to find new faults: image tagging, source descriptions, capitalisation. So what happens if all those terrible problems are reigned in Damac? What will you find fault in next?

Let me play it your way for a minute. You would like detail on the source for PIRA publicity stills? Please do catch yourself. Have you challenged anyone else about citing sources in images for paramilitary groups lately? Didnt think so.

Then you would like descriptive tagging for images. Challenged anyone else on that lately? didnt think so. You demand "better" descriptions and even "warn" me with "an admin" if I refuse to comply. Arent there wikirules about threats Damac? You seem to think Eire-Nazihelmets for an image of Eire troops wearing nazi helmets (for example) is below standard or not descriptive enough. I do. Prove me wrong.

Its not enough that I scrupiously keep footnote after footnote while everyone else doesnt, as a result of a previous run in with you. Its not enough I follow your bullshit rules about putting Göring (Goering in English) while you never challenge anyone else on it. Not enough that you go out of your way to publicly chastise me and try to bait me into comment wars. It will never be enough for you Damac. Wikistalker.

I will make a complaint, see where that gets me. Fluffy999 15:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fluffy. Sorry I couldn't reply earlier. I've been offline for a couple of days moving house. Re your issue with Damac. Calling someone a "wikistalker" is very serious. Real stalkers on Wikipedia cause havoc. (I've been the victim of one! Another user has had their phone number posted on WP, another been accused of paedophilia by a wikistalker, etc) I don't think Damac is a Wikistalker. It is natural on WP for users, if they see an error being made, to check that person's other edits to see if they are making that mistake elsewhere and drawing attention to it. Damac is a good guy. He had I have had heated arguments in the past but I don't think he is the sort of guy to stalk anyone. On this image issue here, for example, he is correct. Users are not meant to capitalise names, whether of articles or of images. (BTW gifs are a problem on WP. There is some legal issue over gifs; I forget the detail — something about the gifs themselves, not content — but I know WP prefers any other format rather than gifs. If you can, convert the files to jpgs.) His advice on naming seems on the face of it constructive, not abusive or threatening. Göring, for example, is used on WP under Manual of Style rules.
I understand that you are upset with Damac. I do think you are misreading his intentions. The fact that he is offering you a got of advice is indicative, in my opinion, of the fact that he sees you as a capable contributor who through inexperience here is making mistakes of the sort that many newbies make. Newbies who aren't taken seriously get their edits reverted. Receiving advice usually indicates a desire to help you achieve your full potential, not harrassment. I think you are a valuable addition to WP and I would hate for you to be stressed by thinking that people are being unfair to you.
You can always start a Request for Comment against Damac. I don't think that is necessary but it is there as an option for you. Congratulations on your work so far and please continue to contribute. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I did notice that skyring got banned for wikistalking, that was about 2 weeks ago after I looked up the rules ie.

following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor...The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful..Threatening another person is considered harassment..

There is his threat. There is evidence of disruption which harms the project- 2 clearcut instances, there is his special attention. I am going to seek arbitration because this person is not going to stop focusing on me like this. Fluffy999 10:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
By all means do if you feel that strongly. I know from having been at the receiving end of stalkers what it feels like. Having come across them, however, I don't believe that is Damac's motivation. He does not seem the type of Wikipedian to harrass people in the way that, say, Skyring, DW or others did. As you are clearly upset about it, I'll ask him to limit his contacts with you. Will that help? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I really just want a quiet life Jtdirl. Just to do the articles and get the facts out there. Thats all i've been doing so im confused why im receiving this attention. Maybe if I was making a mess, causing trouble, or being a vandal I would expect it but im not, im just making some articles to the best ability and thats it. Fluffy999 06:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you are doing some fine editing. It is great to see another talented contributor to the Irish pages. When I came here first the Irish pages were appalling. Since then a host of top class contributors from Ireland have joined and the pages have gone from dire to some of the best on WP. Don't worry about catching the occasional flak. It happens to us all. Few people when they start get the whole process correct from day 1. Sometimes crossed wires occur, or experienced users can intervene in a well meaning manner that can seem too heavy handed and offend the recipient of the advice. Don't take it too seriously. We've all been there. I've asked Damac to give you some space. Please don't presume that he was trying to stalk you or anything. He doesn't do that. There is no reason why you both shouldn't be able to work closely together. He and I used to be at loggerheads — we each misinterpreted the other. But we get on fine now, even if we still disagree on certain edits. Just keep up the (very) good work and you'll earn a solid reputation for it. When new editors come on we all are suspicious: they may be a vandal, or they may be someone who doesn't know what they are doing. So we all browse each other's work constantly at the start. I glanced at your edits at the start, as did many others. Now, when I see you doing an edit I just presume (going on what I have observed) that it is competent, well structured and well done, and don't look at it to check it, but to read it for information. (Good work on Eoin O'Duffy, BTW.) You'll find yourself doing that as new Irish contributors join: checking to make sure it is up to scratch. Once you know that they are doing a good job you'll let them at it. That is all Damac was doing with you. Enjoy the writing and welcome aboard. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:RUC-FALLS-ROAD.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:RUC-FALLS-ROAD.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Sorry dont think its PUI. Wasnt given any indication why it should be considered PUI. The explanation of "it doesnt meet #5" is slighty Uncivil considering I rebutted every single point. Fluffy999 06:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. The reason that a fair use image cannot be used for this article is that a free alternative is available. Any Wikipedia licing near that location can photograph it themselves and release it under a free license. The JPStalk to me 16:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Ryan

No worries. I really am gone now, though - just tying up a few loose ends today.

If I can make a suggestion, do try and take it easy with Damac. You are both very good contributors, and it's a shame that you don't seem to be getting on. I agree with FearEireann that Damac is not maliciously motivated, though he may have got a bit angry from time to time. He is one of the best contributors on modern Irish history, though, and I have always found him pleasant and honourable. Palmiro | Talk 07:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re; Devin

Thanks for your comments, Fluffy. Always nice to be apprecieated! Fergananim 19:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

NP. Always good to see someone fighting the good fight for common sense, decency, and sense of perspective. Keep it up. Fluffy999 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aidan Work

Hi. I saw that you left a note on User talk:Aidan Work asking for his assistance & opinions. However, he was banned from Wikipedia some time ago (and also declared his intention to leave), so he won't be able to get back to you. Good luck, and I hope you find someone else to help out with the Paisley articles. FreplySpang 01:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats a shame, I think he knew a lot about Paisley. Thanks for your message and Good Luck to you :) Fluffy999 01:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horned image on The Emergency

Hi, I don't think that image is German as the country names are not in German, but it could be American or Canadian, which would explain the England label. Either way, I think your original interpretation was wrong. It looks like it shows possible consequences of the fall of Norway (which is coloured black, like Germany), and the danger that Germany could control the sea round Britain. I think the presence of Ireland is just incidental, though it does show why it and its harbours were important. In any case, if I was you I would neutralise the caption to something like 'A still from a wartime newsreel...', unless the telly programme you saw adds something mor certain. MAG1 21:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't think of it like that. Feel free to change it. Ive been looking through some issues of the German newsreel for anything related but there arent many graphics of the Dads Army arrows type. Didnt actually see the programme, prefer books myself. This is the show here :) Fluffy999 22:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello I changed it along the lines you suggested, thanks for your help :) Fluffy999 14:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:VICTORY JIG 1940.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:VICTORY JIG 1940.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. feydey 15:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish People

Include Ian Paisley??? LOL. Nice, peaceful non shouty types only! Arniep 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, hes definately Irish: "I would never repudiate the fact that I am an Irishman." My alltime favourite paisleyism. If not him, then some hot women please. Fluffy999 23:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Hume-trimble-NOBEL-PEACE-PRIZE.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hume-trimble-NOBEL-PEACE-PRIZE.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I honestly do think its fair use but considering I just went through a bunch of bull over a SELF MADE image with an admin yesterday, I will pass up on writing a 3 page essay on the {Fair use in|Article} rational. It didnt really illustrate a point anyway. Fluffy999 08:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crete

There are plenty of references. There only need to be one British person there, and it will be a British affair according to the contributors. By the way, I am miuch closer to this than you might think. Many New Zealanders and Australians gave their lives in Crete, and later in the desert and Italy. The British needed them then, but after the fighting was over, they were grouped as being "Commonwealth". The same happened later with the South African and Indian troops. I will try to chip away at the article, by changing Commonwealth to New Zealand and Australian. Even the article already says this already. Wallie 15:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK good stuff, look forward to reading it. I only mentioned on the talk page that it was a good/great article because it confirmed what I wanted to know about the operation with regard to Plan Kathleen. Thanks Fluffy999 15:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I can't speedy images that are used in articles. And having made your statement of their status, it's up to the Wikipedia community as to whether they keep them. But that said, is there anything I can help with? If you want to email me about the other user, my address is sannse@tiscali.co.uk -- sannse (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello I refuse to vouch for those images now as I would prefer they are gone from wikipedia. This is because one user is making my editing on wikipedia a complete misery. I have tried reason with him and to get an advocate and want to take this to arbitration but no one is answering. An admin has already told him to give me "a wide berth" but he is back again with all this stuff about images. The images are fine, some are incorrectly tagged- a result of my inexperience, not malicious intent. He will do/say anything to get at me- this is going back weeks now. Who do I have to talk to to get this to stop? Fluffy999 16:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, as the images are being listed as copyvios, they will be deleted anyway unless you chose the fix the tags and so on. So That's not a problem. As I said, I won't delete images that are in articles. Have you tried asking for mediation? Perhaps that would help. Or, you don't need an advocate to take this to arbitration. You can just edit the arbitration page yourself. -- sannse (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well one or two are, lets not get carried away here. Wrongly listed I might add. It is possible to fix the tags- my inexperience lead to them being tagged incorrectly, but since their listing as copyvios in the first place is the result of a malicious user doing it out of badness its sort of moot. Once the stalker is dealt with then I will reup the images with correct tags as I now know what they should be.
Yes I requested advocacy last week. That appears to have been ignored so I requested advocacy again this week. Since my posting above someone has taken an interest, so thanks for your help. Fluffy999 16:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Green Book

Hi, I did a small bit of copyediting to the Green Book article. Well done btw. I have a question though, are you sure thatthe 1956 edition had no mention of the second Dail, the IRA being the legitimate inheritors of the Irish Republic etc? From all I've heard this was something religiously instilled (almost literally) into IRA volunteers in the 50s and early 60s. Joe Cahill for instance is very explicit about this when talking to Peter Taylor in Provos -i.e. the rightto take life came from the IRA's status as the army of a legitimate government. Seems bizaare now I know, but it seems strange that it was not part oftheir indoctrination in 1956? Jdorney 17:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your nice comments and your clearer edits :) Im still learning the ropes on all that. Yes I am 110% sure it does not appear in the book- at least the book I have. Yes it is suprising. Only thing I could come up with by way of explanation was that it was within living memory, but looing at it now and considering the ravishes of WW2 on the org, then that may not make a lot of sense. Regarding the 2nd Dail mentality youre absolutely right about it being one of those central issues a lot of people dont get.
When writing it I tried to make it clear that the book appears to just be a part of induction- like the brochure they give you when you start a job. Looking at the text it wouldnt really prepare a troop of boyscouts for battle but thats what its supposed to be concentrated on. Must be just a broad overview. As you know there are a lot of seminars for the technical stuff, so maybe back then they also did a lot of seminars for the history/political indoctrination? You can buy a copy of the book released. Fluffy999 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks! I was really in a hurry so I wrote a terrible article. Keaze

My pleasure, always great to see more Croatian articles :) Fluffy999 18:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me again!

I need help. I'm not sure, but when Croatia enteres EU svinjokolja could get "cancelled" or at least moved to the butchers. I have no idea how to write something like that since svinjokolja can't get cancelled. Keaze

Hello, dont understand- what makes you think the article will get cancelled? Fluffy999 11:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah you mean that on entry to the EU there will be legislation governing the treatment of animals and food hygiene so it will be made illegal to butcher livestock like that? OK I will add something, but if you can find a link that says that then you need to add it. Fluffy999 15:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i didn't answer your question since my computer is crashed (I use my mom's and she's not too happy about it). Keaze

[edit] Image Licence

Hi,

You removed a GDFL-self tag from this image, which you had previously uploaded Image:2 BRITISH ATTACKS 1919 1921.jpg. Whats the problem with it?

Seabhcán 13:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, problem is that the copyright status I identified is now changed to "unknown" as a result of me being wikistalked by 1 user. The stalker has made a point of challenging the copyright status on a number of images I have uploaded. If any images I put out there remain uploaded he is expected to keep on doing this in an effort to harass me. He has subjected me to a stalking campaign for the last 4-6 weeks, he has ignored advice from a sysop to leave me alone.
While that treatment continues I can no longer vouch for the status of any image I have uploaded. I do not want the bother nor is it right I be made to suffer for publishing on here. Fluffy999 13:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats a shame. Where did you get the image? And who is the user? Seabhcán 13:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The user is Damac, im sick of him persecuting me. They will not take it to arbitration as its too soon, but this has been going on ever since I came on to wikipedia Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Incidents#Possible_Wikistalker.... Fluffy999 13:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Where did you get the image? Seabhcán 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Check the footnote. Fluffy999 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you scan the image from that book? Seabhcán 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, im sort of busy writing articles here, the long and short of it is that due to the harassment directed against me I am no longer going to vouch for the copyright status of the image. Since I uploaded the image that means the current tag is correct. So long as I am persecuted the image will remain tagged like that. Thanks. Fluffy999 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Its a simple question, Fluffy. How exactly did the image get from the book to wikipedia? Seabhcán 14:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL, I realise its a simple question but then if I answer it sort of makes a nonsense of saying "I can no longer vouch for its copyright status" doesnt it?
I refuse to vouch for the copyright status of all the images I have uploaded until the persecution stops. Its a simple concept. Fluffy999 14:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
In that case I believe the 'persecution' may be justified. These images will have to be deleted. Seabhcán 14:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats fine. I will update on your talk page when this is campaign is brought to an end via arbitration. Thanks. Fluffy999 14:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guess who?

I don't really understand "with all butchery moving to controlled, inspected facilities". Svinjokolja should be moved to butcheries since it's usually done in courtyards. Oh, and about that citation... my dad told me about it and I think I even saw it on the news. Nevertheless, I decided to search the internet for some confirmation. I saw this on [1]:

U svjetlu novih zakonski odredbi i europskih normi, prema kojima se kolinje iz dvorišta treba preseliti u klaonice, predsjednik udruge Nezavisni hrvatski seljaci Vladimir Novotny predlaže da se kolinje proglasi narodnim i kulturnim običajem te da ga se učini dijelom turističke ponude Hrvatske.

I don't really think that you're Croat so here's translation (more or less):

In the light of new laws and european norms, by which kolinje should be moved to butcheries, president of Independent Croatian villagers Vladimir Novotny suggest that kolinje should be made demotic and cultral custom and part of croatian tourism.

On the same site the text says there is a possibility for svinjokolja to get completely prohibbited (moved to butcheries).

I also saw an interesting poll here: [2]. "What do you think about prohibition of svinjokolja?". Ne, kolinje je naš narodni običaj means "No, kolinje is our demotic custom, Kolinje treba preseliti u klaonice means "Kolinje should be moved to butcheries" and "Yes, that's a right thing to do, enough with the slauthering in houses". Keaze

Heh well spotted, I am not Croat :) OK by "controlled inspected facilities" I meant slaughterhouses, like large factories or larescale butcheries as you said. Of course small scale butcheries can also do it. So the slaughter of the animal would move from hole/courtyards to buildings where the meat would be prepared then people buy it in markets ie. local people would no longer be involved in the slaughter process.
Those links look fine to show that some people think Svinjokolja is under threat and that it is also considered a traditional aspet of Croatian cultural expression. Use them- you can add them in as footnotes by using the ref> method already showing in the code of the page. It might be best to cite the results of the poll incase it disappears or gets replaced. It is best always to cite details such as those then you have no worry about people disputing it at a later date. Fluffy999 16:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I just misunderstood. Just a question: if you're not from Croatia then where are you from?

The Republic of Ireland. Pleased to meet you. :) Fluffy999 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That explains the flag picture. Nice to meet you, too. I always wanted to meet someone outside Croatia! :) Keaze

 :) Welcome aboard, can you make some more Croatian articles? I can help if you need it. Fluffy999 21:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Help me with Mister Mačak. Keaze

Hello, sorry but I am no longer editing on wikipedia. Its a pity would like to help you but its not possible. Fluffy999 15:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enjoy a WikiBreak

You have contributed a lot. Its unfortunate how things have turned out. Perhaps you have contributed too much? I suggest that you take a break for the summer months. In future, some of your contributions will be valued. However, life is too short for this type of fighting. Possibly, in a few months time, you will contribute once more. I wish you well ClemMcGann 11:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I actually googled "I left wikipedia". Try it and count the hits :) I'm not the only one that has encountered this. Its plain to me that its impossible to contribute articles on wikipedia, I will place them elsewhere.
I'm not going to db-author the articles I wrote for wikipedia, so they will stay on here for the benefit of people. My "fighting" only entered into it when I fought to stay on here to contribute. I realise this was a complete waste of time. Fluffy999 15:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The whole nine yards....

I have recorded all of the dispute, discussion and solutions between you and User: Damac here User:Xchrisblackx/My views --Mahogany 14:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Irish Wikipedians....

I have spoke with Damac, But you need to stop threatining Damac it will only cause problems Fluffy and what's the deal with you leaving? Please reply on my talk page not on your history of dispute, --Mahogany 15:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mate I have not threatened him. He just will not let this lie evidenced in the vandalism on 2 separate occasions. Its fair to point that out, and I did do it in a restrained, polite manner. I am no longer contributing articles to wikipedia- he has what he wanted. Fluffy999 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't really mean "threaten" per say I meant that you were saying you will get him blocked but next time he removes your name use this (b/c that will be vandalism)**Don't forget I'm just trying to help**

====Regarding edits made during [[{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTDAY}}]] [[{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}]] ([[UTC]])==== {{subst:test1}} ''If this is an [[IP address]], and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any [[Wikipedia:vandalism|unconstructive]] edits.'' ~~~~ --Mahogany 15:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the help but I just posted back to avoid his confusion, I understand what is going on with the edits. Im not in the habit of using wikirules to harass but the edits were uncalled for, lets be clear on that. Fluffy999 15:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw your "is this really over" comment on your talk. It is for me, although I fully anticipate that next of it will be an attempt to get all the articles I authored removed from wikipedia. Just a heads up. Fluffy999 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So do you still want me to check in with you from time to time? --Mahogany 17:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats very decent of you. If something happens I will post on your talk (realise you are meant to be on a break right now). Thanks Fluffy999 17:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving

Its a shame you're deciding to leave wikipedia. You are a good contributor, but you and Damac seem to take leave of your senses whenever you encounter one another. I could never understand this vendetta that has developed between you.

I've been "fighting" with Devin79 over the PIRA page for months now and many times I've been tempted to give up. The problem is that if I do then he will be able to add his garbage to the article without anyone stopping him, something I don't want to see happening. Instead I'm not leaving until after HE is banned.

I would suggest that you also stick around unless you want to see the articles you've created being similarly messed around with.

Jdorney 07:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles ive created have already have been messed around with Jdorney. All this started directly after the S-Plan article was changed by me. An entirely innocent change. Since then Damac has gone out of his way to "encounter" me. Ive asked him numerous times to divert his attention to some of the 1 million other articles on wikipedia. Now hes taken to banding about names like "rabbit666" :) Devin79 is similarly obsessed, but hes actually very predictable- always making the same changes. A revert cures that. Dont get upset over it and save yourself the stress of seeking advocacy and arbitration- complete waste of time. Fluffy999 13:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:1974election.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1974election.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. 09:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damac's accusiation....

This is really the last day I can delay my Wikibreak. Yes Damac is talking about you, I've asked him to change the heading and he's only trying to make a point that you said you'd be leaving but you haven't. --Mahogany 12:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK see you later. Apologies for holding you back. Its charitable of you to describe his actions in that way but it slightly ignores all the preceeding actions hes been engaged in. Out of context any action can be presented as entirely innocent. I had not realised this was your first attempt at advocacy, unless I misunderstood the comments on your talk. In retrospect it was a mistake to take up your offer as the problem is now worse, not better. Fluffy999 13:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This is my third time as an advocate just the first that has gone this far so I'm not that new, the problem was getting better but I fear yes as you say it is slowly getting worse. --Mahogany 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well what do you think am I helping the problem at all and do you see me experienced enough? --Mahogany 13:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Im not sure, what am I meant to do about this guy? All I want is him to stop focusing on me like this. That is all I have wanted from day one. Why is it so hard for someone with some authority within this wikipedia hierarchy to tell him to stop what he is doing? Fluffy999 13:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Ignore Fluffy....

It would be appreciated from this moment forward that you no longer contact Fluffy in any way. I think this would go for the best I'll also speak with Fluffy too, but I feel that if I could just get you to do this all problems would pretty well be solved. --Mahogany 13:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, no problem. I will not "contact Fluffy in any way". That does not mean I will allow serious allegations made against me here or elsewhere go unanswered. For every attack or allegation made against me, I will respond. Neither will I will remove certain articles from my watchlist. Nor will I stop checking out who is behind anonymous editing. --Damac 13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That is reasonable and fair --Mahogany 13:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you no longer accuse Damac or talk about him he will not "contact" you anymore is that satisfactory? --Mahogany 13:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really, I dont believe he has a right to go out of his way to harass me as hes outlined above. Its exactly that type of harassment I have been complaining about. He is outlining that he fully intends to keep this campaign up. Unacceptable. Fluffy999 15:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Also I suggest you remove the text at the top of your page that says "I'll be leaving the project due to the harassment from another user..." --Mahogany 13:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I can do that Fluffy999 15:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Damac has requested I relay this message to you:

One more thing, Mahogony. I’ll be more than willing to confine this whole affair to my talk page archive and in my own mind if my accuser apologises to me for
  • having insulted me and challenged/derided my academic and intellectual ability (idiot, blunderer, etc.);
  • alleging that I am an IRA/RSF supporter;
  • alleging and maintaining that I manipulated edit summaries and "deliberately" placed errors in articles.
This is not a tall order. This will not result in any gloating on my part. He doesn't have to apologise openly either - it can be done through an intermediary.
If such an apology is not forthcoming, my undertaking not to contact my accuser stands nevertheless.--Damac 13:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not turning against you I'm just suggesting you do apologize for calling him blunderer ect. --Mahogany 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Sure no problem on condition I receive an apology for;

  • the harassment and stalking campaign (ongoing),
  • all the idle threats, insults, half baked historical "fact" from Republican Sinn Fein websites thrust in my face as "proof", etc.
  • vandalism of my talk page and articles Ive authored,
  • neverending insult to the intelligence and knowledge as author of the articles in question (those that can do),

PLUS

  • stop inspecting my contributions and applying different standards of scrutiny to my work than to anyone elses including his own.
  • an end to his obsession with me & a promise not bother any other serious contributors like me with nonsense like this again.

Lets be clear on what is happening here. By the way, im happy to have the entire thing recorded here on this talk page- its important people are aware of why im no longer creating new articles. Fluffy999 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

He's already said if you apologize he'll stop contacting you so let's strike that out and how about I relay this message and we'll go from there. --Mahogany 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
OK then I will clarify what i meant, because he has stated it wont end. Fluffy999 15:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Understandable, maybe you outta just go ahead and apologize b/c one of you has to be the person to step up and acknowledge yes you dealed with this problem wrong or this will continue forever --Mahogany 15:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thats the point. Regardless of what is said or done he will continue persecuting me until someone tells him to curb his behaviour. He was advised to stop before, I asked him to stop numerous times, you have advised him to stop. He has refused on all occasions. Someone with some binding authority on his behaviour needs to be involved to make him end this. Fluffy999 17:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello I left word on his page for him to take it to the "next level of dispute" as he was making that threat for the third time. Its the only way to get this sorted out, you are busy in real life and i'm not sure you have the authority or control within the wikipedia structure to make him stop anyway. Largely my complaints against him - remain unadressed in any coherent manner. Hopefully someone more senior will be able to see back from this point, through all his most recent crap, to the problems I originaly raised concerning his behaviour. Fluffy999 19:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:39560643_frenchpeaslarge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:39560643_frenchpeaslarge.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. 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:EIRE-AIRCORPS.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:EIRE-AIRCORPS.gif. 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. 07:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit something else for a while

I suggest you just take a short break and let the situation cool off. If after a short break, you return and are abused again, it's pretty good evidence that you ARE being wikistalked and something can be done. Unfortunately there is ZERO possibility to effectively stop all harassment through wikipedia process. However, I have had pretty good luck with this sort of thing, and if, after a break, this bad behaviour continues, let me know and I promise to help you two at least come to some sort of cease-fire agreement. Most people won't continue to be unreasonable if they actually realise that they are being in fact unreasonable. Because that would mean they are just a jerk instead of a diligent editor, diligent editors, as we all know are welcome here, jerks aren't. Let me know if you are continuing to be bothered by an unreasonable jerk, and I will help you and they find the path back to "2 diligent editors who simply disagree with each other but don't let that interfere with the goal of producing an accurate stable edit to every article they work on" Pedant 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let me know if there's any help I could offer you in future. Glad to see you are back, hope you stay. User:Pedant 02:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Great edits!

I just noticed your noticed the edits that you have done in the Abwehr article which I totally rewrote a few months back. Great job! Hope to read all of your contributions. RashBold Talk to me 18:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish History

You seem like you have a lot a knowledge with respect Irish history so maybe you would like to comment on the historic basis of this term here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DownDaRoad (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Volunteer shambles

Fluffy, thank you for your supportive messege with regards this issue. If you would like to add your comments you can add them here here. Slan--Vintagekits 20:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject IRA

[edit] WikiProject IRA

Hi Tiocfaidh, I thought you might be interested in have a look at WikiProject Irish Republican Army. We've got a few interested users, though collaboration has yet to come. Anyway, have a look! If you're interested, go ahead and slap your name on the Participants list! Hope to see you there! Erin Go Braghtalk 10:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Participants in World War II#Ireland

The above article thumbnails the impact off WWII on most countries - not just belligerents. Given your interest/ expertise in Irish history, you may like to review it. Two points in particular. There's a "citation needed" tag on the possible IRA role in the Belfast Blitz - can you tie this down, either way? Also, there's a mention of military internees (K lines?) and a "blind eye" turned towad allied escapees - I had thought that the Irish government were strictly correct on this (allowing both sides leave on promise of return) and at least one escapee (an American serving with the RAF) was returned by British authorities who didn't want to risk the status quo; do you have any reliable info? Folks at 137 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Operational Planning

    • Holland — single-thrust attack to be launched from Venlo area, with Antwerp as objective.
    • Liège-Aachen — two-pronged attack driving from Luxembourg and turning to Aachen
    • Luxembourg — two-pronged attack launched from central Luxembourg and Metz to seize Longwy.
    • Lorraine — another double envelopment, launched from Metz and Baccarat to converge on Nancy.
    • Alsace — envelopment to be executed in two thrusts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Bulge#Details

Fuerza Aereas Republicanas (FARE)

[edit] Codeword Page=

Howdy Fluffy. Congratulations on a great user name.

I am the Self-Appointed World's Leading Authority on Codewords. I appointed myself when I published the best (and only) book on the subject. I hope you are overawed.

Not that you should be of course. While a list of hundreds of codenames may not be too useful, I simply like it. I hope there is a 12-step program for people like me. In any case, I simply like the long list format and hope you can see the beauty in it.

Of course, a long list with mistakes is no good at all. May I very modestly propose you make corrections, left, right and center. It certainly needs it. Those of you who are experts in one area are a great help in this sort of thing. Paul, in Saudi 15:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Book? Oh, the long out-of-print Codeword Dictionary from Motorbooks. Paul, in Saudi 03:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Socialist Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War‎;

excellent work a chara.--Vintagekits 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scots, Attacotti and Deisi

Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers. Fergananim 14:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Vol. Sean Mcilvenná Republican Flute Band

An editor has nominated Vol. Sean Mcilvenná Republican Flute Band, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vol. Sean Mcilvenná Republican Flute Band and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've listed a second one too, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Éire Nua Republican Flute Band. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SCW and prison ships

Hi Fluffy,

On the Spanish Civil War thing first; we have a number of issues here. Firstly, I agree that we should merge Connolly Column and Irish Socialist Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War. However, I think that the Connolly Column article should be the title kept, for two reasons, first, it is a recognised, used term, coined, I think by Michael O'Riordan in his book about the episode. You're quite right that it was never an official title, and that Irish volunteers on the Spanish Republican side actually fought in various different units, but the other title is a complete neoligism and, in my opinion, a little bit awkward sounding. In addition, it's a bit inexact, in that not all of the men who went to Spain would have called themselves 'socialists'. They were a mixture of socialists, communists, republicans etc and collectively would probably have called their cause in Spain 'anti-fascist' more than anything else. Secondly, again, I agree that the defeat (or should that be the failure?) of left republicanism in the 1930s is a significant moment in republican history. BUT, I would argue strongly that this should be discussed fully in Irish Republican Army (1922-1969) and not in an article about Irish invovlment in the Spanish Civil War.

On the prison ship subject, this looks an unnecessarily combative debate to me. It seems prefectly straightforward that the prison ships are part of republican history in the same way as Long Kesh is. But just argue your case and don't make it into a pissing contest. I get annoyed myself at times that the people at the Irish Republicanism project seem to feel ownership of articles that other people have written, however that's the nature of wikipedia. I find that most people are reasonable enough once engaged in discussion about the content issues, as opposed to clash of personality issues.

Regards, Jdorney 11:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Advice

I have an overview of Republican activity in spanish civil war and 6 counties during 1930s & 40s, where should it appear? Details from Northern Campaign are expanded on in it (that article didnt just detail the campaign when I originally wrote it.) Fluffy999 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War seems like it would be a good spot. I'm hardly ever on, so if you'd like to continue this conversation I would much appreciate it if you would reply on my talk page. Solidarity, Erin Go Braghtalk 07:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Brian nelson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brian nelson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)