User talk:Major Bonkers/Archive Aug 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Re: Check User 2 Note to self 3 Golden Talk Bubble of Wikipedian Construction 4 Allegations of sock/meat puppetry 5 Reply 6 "Irish" side and "British" side 7 Hello... 8 Ulster banner 9 Awake!!!!! British Cultural Imperialism Rampant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 9.1 More Irish Army articles threatened by BCIP 10 Gaimhreadhan: in memoriam 11 Doppelganger

[edit] Re: Check User

As I am new to wikipedia and as of yet not sure of it's rules and regulations I am asking you for an apology for accusing me of being a puppet. Is this the way people with Law Degrees carry out there buisness if you want I can supply you with my e mail address and you can "do a background check". I am sure this against wikipedia rules to make accussations like that and when I find out the rules and if you have breached any I will report you to the relevant people. --BigDunc 13:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear BigDunc; thank you for your message. (Love the User name, by the way! - I once came across a Scottish girl who had been christened 'Duncanna'.) You might like to review what I actually posted here and, more relevantly, here. You seem to have taken offense, I suppose, to this sentence in particular:

The User pages of Pappin76 and BigDunc are almost identical and I suspect both of being sockpuppets for that reason.

If you analyse that sentence, the first part is a statement of fact - the User pages are almost identical. The second part states the suspicion, not a conclusion (or as you put it, 'an accusation'), that I have as a result. I do not say that your User account, or that of Pappin76, is that of a sockpuppet, only that I suspect them of being sockpuppets. That suspicion was reasonably and honestly held. I am, of course, happy with both your assurance and that of the checkuser clerk that this is not so and that my suspicion was unfounded. To the extent that I have caused you any genuine distress, I apologise and hope that the experience will not put you off editing on Wikipedia.

As I dare say you have seen on Pappin76's Talk page, contentious Anglo-Irish articles have been plagued by certain editors trying to promote their own points of view and it is unfortunate that your User page was drafted in such a way as to give rise to suspicion in my mind. I adopt everything that sony-youth writes on that page.

My own belief is that the current version of the Great Irish Famine article is a mess that does no justice to the importance of the subject. It is also fairly easy to resolve: at its simplest, the article needs; (1) a neutral statement of the facts; (2) a section setting out the Irish-nationalist 'conspiracy' version; (3) a section setting out the British 'cock-up' version; and (4) a historiography section (plus references and bibliography).

If you are still unhappy with my response to your complaint, and I repeat that I apologise to you, I suggest that you contact an Admin to take the matter further. I would suggest SirFozzie and you would need to specify whether the complaint was related to an attack by me on you (WP:NPA) and/ or being rude towards you (WP:CIVIL) (or some other reason).

If I may give you a bit of advice, it is not to engage in posting rude edits yourself. Comments like these: [1] [2] [3], which just serve to rile other editors, are unhelpful, and not in the spirit of the policy WP:AGF. Frankly, most of us have got better things to do with our lives - and you seem to have your degree course to attend to - than take umbrage at inconsequential differences of opinion. I don't consider myself a particularly experienced editor, but I do believe that you get out of Wikipedia what you put into it. Accordingly, I'd encourage you to try to see other editors' points of view and not to waste your time on pointless arguments. Finally, as someone who describes himself as 'new to Wikipedia', you seem to have picked up some of the more advanced editing techniques, so well done to you. --Major Bonkers (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift reply and can you explain to me the rude comments that I have made I do not feel that they were rude in one I was accused of implying another editor was some sort of nazi and the other two were observations and I dont feel that I was being rude to anyone. As you can see from my user page I am currently doing a degree in Computer Science so editing pages are not to hard and also I have not edited many only very minor edits at the moment just observing the process of other editors. Will certainly have one of those nice pints of guinness. Also as I say on my user page I will cock up along the way im sure so I would appreciate if you or other editors would point me in the right direction.--BigDunc 14:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong to write 'rude', and I apologise; 'brusque' would have been a better word.

I'm convinced that half the misunderstandings that we have on Wikipedia come from (1) brief messages (a result of the God-awful QWERTY keyboard), which can come across as brusque, and (2) attempts at humour that are instead taken at face value. As you've discovered, the Anglo-Irish articles are a minefield: if you want to post there, particularly on the Talk pages rather than the Article pages, be aware that people are going to start taking an interest in you, and that if you start questioning other editors' motives, they're going to start doing the same to you. Standard advice: be aware that anyone can access your edits simply by clicking on the 'User contributions' button in the 'Toolbox" (left-hand margin), so (I suggest) you go out of your way to be polite; don't post when you're pissed or pissed-off; and do as you would be done by.

Personally, I think that much of the to-ing and fro-ing on the various Talk pages - including that on the Great Irish Famine article - is an almost complete waste of time, with most of it designed to annoy other editors rather than achieve anything useful. You'll notice that none of the Admins seem to participate, probably taking the view that they have better things to do - and it's hard to argue with that!

I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot, but you seem to have found your feet and good luck to you. (And by the way, I'm probably the last person to ask for helpful advice - I just pass on the benefits of my own experience.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to self

On 6 June 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wojtek (soldier bear), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Talk Bubble of Wikipedian Construction

		Thank you!
		For taking the time and effort to review my editing. Anynobody 04:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your taking the time to comment on my editing is greatly appreciated. I'm the sort of person who plans for/expects the worst but hopes for the best, even though it's not over your review helps prove that there is reason to still hope. Anynobody 23:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! Who designs these things?! Join me in a touch of the hard stuff! (And have some WP:TEA with Bishonen!) We've been at minor cross-purposes and I've added to my review to make it clearer. Good luck.--Major Bonkers (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually made this one. My attempts with Bishonen have stalled with the ball in her court and other editors interfering. I wish this situation was one where I could be satisfied to roll over and say "Ok you're right and I was wrong." whether she was or not, however her status as an admin says that she theoretically should be able to explain her actions better than repeatedly saying "I already told you...". If she were just another editor, I doubt this would have gone on as long as it has. Anynobody 00:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah-ha! (Removes foot from mouth.) Actually, the yellow and grey colour scheme looks better if you have a drink!--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't put a piece of footwear in your mouth, I prefer honest opinions (besides it confirms my theory that gold doesn't really go with anything besides silver very well for a wiki award.) Anynobody 00:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of sock/meat puppetry

(Previous correspondence copied from Kittybrewster's Talk page for clarity)

Hello Kittybrewster. In regards to the above comments, I thought I would offer you the opportunity to draw a line under this. The irony that this comment was tracked, I presume, by one of the people you hope to avoid, is not lost on me. Nevertheless, considering the history of sock and meatpuppetry on both side of the Irish/British divide, your comment is worrisome. Not because I have any reason to believe you have indulged in abusive sockpuppetry, but because admitting you use alternative accounts is probably sufficient justification for checkusers against you. What I propose is that you privately inform me (or any other admin of you choice) of what alternative accounts you use. This will remain completely private (unless they are used abusively) and then everyone can get on with their business. You are under no obligation to do this, of course, but doing so will simply and quickly bypass another round of tedious allegations about sockpuppets. It will also remove the temptation to use them in a manner that is outwith policy. Let me know your thoughts (I can be contacted by email). Rockpocket 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, as one of the editors labeled by One Night in Hackney as a meat-puppet and/ or member of a concert-party, I emphatically deny the allegation, both on my own account and because I do not believe that a wider conspiracy - even an informal one - ever existed. The allegation has never been put to me directly and I have never had the opportunity to respond to it. As far as I am aware, only one editor in this juvenile 'war' has been found to have used sockpuppets to push his POV and vote-stack, and he was (and is) an Irish nationalist editor. I am not sure on what evidence, therefore, this allegation is being constantly repeated: If you tell a large enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I have ever made an allegation about you, or indeed any other named editor except Vk, with regards to sock or meatpuppetry. What is without doubt, is that there were a number of single purpose accounts that appeared to !vote in a number of contentious AfDs on both sides of the aformentioned divide. The evidence that Vk was recruiting meatpuppets was overwhelming. Who was pulling the strings from the other side is not clear. I agree it is certainly not helpful or fair to go around accusing specific editors of this without proof, however someone else was abusing policy, so lets not pretend Vk was the sole perpetrator or that there is some smear campaign going on here. I think it is unlikely we will find out who was the other puppetmaster(s) on those occasions, however it would be constructive is we can stop that sort of thing happening again in future. That is the goal here. Rockpocket 18:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

*Point 1: Anyone stupid enough to !vote in an AfD from a single purpose account is simply inviting their contribution to be ignored by the closing Admin. and probably provoking a checkuser.

*Point 2: (repeated) As someone who participated in some of the controversial AfDs, I can only repeat that I saw no evidence of vote-rigging or concert-parties on the 'British' side: there was no-one pulling the strings. There were a number of editors who arrived independently at the same conclusion. QED please stop repeating the allegation. (And, by the way, I never suggested that you made a specific allegation against named editors, but you have made the general allegation.) The irony of it is that One Night in Hackney's own User page pointed out the work that he had done in improving certain of the IRA articles, and yet he seemed unable to appreciate that because some of them were so bad other editors wanted them deleted. As it happened, most of the valid ones were retained and cleaned up, and the ones that didn't pass muster were redirected (eg. Tony Gormley): in other words, the Wikipolicies worked (either despite or because of the demonstrable vote-stacking to retain these articles). Therefore, as an alternative explanation to your conspiracy theory: the articles in question were POV/ non-notable/ whatever, and the editors !voting for deletion were acting in good faith.

*Point 3: Domer48 has provided two diffs which allege abusive sockpuppetry. The David Lauder one has been categorically denied by the editor in question. It seems to me that Domer48 should either go for a checkuser or WP:AGF and let the matter drop. The Kittybrewster accounts arose as a consequence of the mass-hysteria earlier this year, and you should now presumably be in a position to set everyone's mind at rest as to whether these accounts have been used properly or not, and I invite you to do so.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding these comments:

Point 1. Very likely, but that doesn't stop the SPAs from appearing. Moreover, their appearance poisons the well and breeds accusations from both sides. Finally, there are so many protagonists from both camps, that finding the perpetrator is not trivial. Vk was caught only because of some good off-wiki detective work and others are not going to be as sloppy as he was.

Point 2. You "saw no evidence of vote-rigging or concert-parties on the 'British' side"? Really? Here are three SPA's that have the hallmarks of sock/meat puppets that voted in an Afd on the so-called 'British side':

• • 80.44.211.24 (talk · contribs)
  • 81.151.246.175 (talk · contribs)
  • Alastair Noble (talk · contribs)

These took me about 5 minutes to find in a single Afd. I'm sure I could find more. I have been doing this long enough to know a meat/sockpuppet when I see one, and accounts whose first edit/only edit in months are to controversial AfDs, are prime examples. A similar editing pattern was seen in the accounts that turned out to be Vk's meatpuppets. That evidence you did managed to notice, however. So, I wonder if you will not reconsider whether the "allegations" I am supposed to be making are based on a "conspiracy theory"? It is unfortunate a number of good faith editors feel under suspicion because of other editors poor behavior, but this is all the more reason we should be working together to root out this kind of abuse, and to ensure it doesn't continue.

Point 3. I am not familiar with any specific accusations from Domer, so I can't comment, but in general one shouldn't accuse a specific editor of sockpuppetry without evidence strong enough to justify a checkuser. I would love to be able to set everyone's mind at rest over Kittybrewster's admitted alternate accounts, however he has as yet declined to reveal them to me. Perhaps you could encorage him to do so, enabling us all to move forward. Rockpocket 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your post; I was wondering if you were going to see my comments after Kittybrewster blanked his Talk page and if you were going to reply.

Again, I apologise for the fraught tone of that post, and it was not intended to be hostile towards you. Frankly, I found the whole saga of One Night in Hackney's sub-page incredibly frustrating: he refused to allow any response and I ended up getting a block over it. It struck me then as a gross breach of WP:AGF and it has curdled the atmosphere ever since.

My point in relation to your post is this: that when you write Nevertheless, considering the history of sock and meatpuppetry on both side of the Irish/British divide [...], I, and everyone else on One Night in Hackney's enemies list - some six of us - am getting tarred with his smears that we were collectively involved in rigging AfD votes. It's is all very well for you to state that you are not making allegations about named editors, but you are raising the suspicion, and acting on the basis, that those allegations were correct. You are giving them credence. The mud is sticking.

• Point 1: I deplore anyone vote-rigging, which is completely stupid.

• Point 2: Apologies - I should have used the term 'conclusive evidence', or 'proof', not simply 'evidence' (this is actually a lawyer's abbreviation); thus: I saw no conclusive evidence of vote-rigging or concert-parties on the 'British' side. There is no evidence who !voted from the accounts that you set out above. Two of them seem to be single purpose accounts and the other appears to be from a registered User. As we both agree, the accounts are so obviously suspicious that the votes they cast were worthless. Who used these accounts? It might even have been the 'Irish nationalist' side in an attempt to discredit the AfD vote, acting as straw puppets. I don't know, and neither do you: that's my point. If you have no proof you shouldn't make the claim.

• Point 3: The specific allegation from Domer48 is found here. I am afraid that I myself do not regard the evidence as conclusive - I see David Lauder was never sanctioned for the alleged sock-puppetry, so I suppose that it's up to you if you either want to go for a checkuser and/ or issue a reminder about WP:ICA (or, indeed, not take it any further).

I'm sorry to be a boor about this issue, but I found it, and I still find it, extremely aggravating to have this smear hanging over me. I've posted at length in an attempt to try to persuade you either to stop repeating this slur or, if you are not going to do that, to provide some hard evidence to support it.

My own feeling is that the rubbish posted on the Irish Famine's Talk page, and associated threads, is a prime candidate to be added to the lamest edit wars essay. I hope that recent events might allow everyone to move on and, by the way, I think that you behaved very well in that final flourish this morning. An object lesson in not editing while drunk. It's up to you whether you post a reply to this - I don't feel it's necessary - but I should be grateful if you would at least read it and take it on board. Thank you for your time. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am going to comment in response, mainly because I see where you are coming from now and would like to acknowledge that. You are right that I was unaware of conclusive evidence, and it was incorrect of me to imply I was. I also agree that I had no idea who was behind the SPA and what their ultimate motivation was, it was simply common sense and experience that told me it was likely an established editor with a pro-British POV. Expressing my opinion as established fact was a mistake. I should make clear that my use of the term "British side" was meant to indicate the direction of the !vote of the SPAs, not implicate any individuals (certainly not you, who first came to my attention just a few days ago). However, I understand why - with respect to ONiH's accusations - you feel my comments may reflect personally on you in the eyes of others. That really wasn't my intention and I apologize for that.

In light of the links provided by Domer below, I feel my initial take on the subject is somewhat vindicated. That thread does seem to suggest David Lauder was IP 81.* as found by check user, though I would have to ask Morven how conclusive "fairly conclusive" is. I don't know why further action wasn't taken (perhaps Morven considered a warning to be sufficient) but just because Lauder wasn't sanctioned does not mean the evidence was not conclusive. I was not aware of this when I made my original points though, so I'm not about to claim retrospective justification.

That all said, I really don't see much point in further stoking this fire. I'm not interested in punishing for past deeds. I am all for forgetting past transgressions if it means we can start afresh, acknowledge our mistakes and, most importantly ensure they are not repeated. I have indicated as much to Kittybrewster also. However, I'm sure you can understand the concern of others when some editors admit to editing from alternate accounts, I really think some sort of private oversight of these would be the best solution. Then we can all move forward confident that sock and/or meatpuppetry is a thing of the past irrespective of who did and who did not indulge in it previously. I think we are both on the same page with respect to moving forward, which is surely the important thing. Rockpocket 04:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the evidence does appear fairly conclusive [4] that you voted twice in that AFD, David Lauder. I would counsel you not to do so again. In fact, I'd recommend that everyone involved be on their best behaviour. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:22, 27 April 2007(UTC)

David, please note that Matthew Brown (User:Morven), who commented above, is a member of the arbitration committee and has checkuser access, meaning he can examine the server logs to determine which IPs you have edited from while logged in to your account. Unless he wishes to clarify that he was speaking as an ordinary editor and looking only at the comments in this thread, I believe it is safe to assume that the "evidence" to which he refers is the checkuser report of your recent contributions. I don't care whether you admit what you have been caught doing, or just go away quietly. However, people are watching, and if you do this again you are likely to be blocked for disruption. Thatcher131 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was the result of a checkuser showing it to be very likely indeed that the IP edits and David Lauder (talk · contribs) edits before and after the IP edits were from the same person. I would note that there has been much in the way of dubious behavior during this AFD from other users as well. I'd encourage all users to keep behaviour civil and avoid sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, encouraging your friends to come vote, harassing other contributors, etc etc. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, --Domer48 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to all contributors.--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hi, I posted a reply to your comment on my talk page, better to keep the discussion in one place.--padraig 12:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Irish" side and "British" side

Hi. I saw this on another user's talk page, from you:

"Regarding POV: it seems to me to be a really simple problem to solve. Firstly, citations. Secondly, on contentious articles like the Potato Famine, we can have separate sections: an 'Irish' view (conspiracy) and a 'British' view (cock-up)."

Eh, no. Those pushing the 'conspiracy'/'genocide' viewpoint do not represent the "Irish side" - or at least the majority viewpoint in Ireland. Which is basically that there was a famine, exacerbated by a lack of help from Britain and the forced export of other food crops. I've seen a dearth of references to the conspiracy/genocide theories. Simply, the article needs to be factual NPOV, and not pander to the fantasies of some extremely anti-British people. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for yours. I don't want to get involved in a detailed discussion about certain articles; what I'm trying to do is try and spread a little peace and goodwill and try and damp down the opportunities for conflict. No-one's bitten yet, so I suspect that my initiative is as hopeless as SirFozzie's CEM. Fair enough, I really didn't expect to succeed. What you saw and picked up on was a loose discussion based on a general approach to editing controversial articles.

It's all very well saying that the conspiracy view of the Potato Famine is not generally accepted: the place for that debate is here (at the moment) and the article's Talk page thereafter. However, we seem to have a group of 'Irish nationalist' editors (for want of a better term) who seem to want to add the conspiracy theory to the article (and, NB, Padraig points out that he is not interested in and has not edited the Famine article - and nor have I). I am trying to feel a way to a solution that we can all be happy with. If only a single editor wanted to add his view, we could dismiss him as a lone POV-pusher; with a group of editors we have to seek consensus.

My own point of view, for what it's worth, is that the conspiracy theory is entirely without merit, and I have a realistically low opinion of politicians' ability to achieve sensible results: one only has to look at the supply problems of the Crimean War (1853 – 1856) to realise the general hopelessness of what they could conceivably have achieved in contemporaneous Ireland. However, I have to recognise that the conspiracy theory is believed (to whatever extent) by Irish nationalists and that that theory is propounded in a well-known academic journal and abroad. I don't agree with it - in fact, I think it's absurd - but if a significant group of people, including other editors, believe it, it should have a place in the article. By the same token, of course, those editors should allow others to edit on the IRA articles which are, as far as I am concerned, horribly POV. Swings and roundabouts.

I suspect, Bastun, that you, and I, and Padraig are sick to the back teeth of the current 'war', which has run for the last six months and achieved nothing of any significance or worth (except piss us all off). If the price of peace is to allow, at least initially, separate sections in an article it is, alas, a price worth paying. We have to accept that while we are rational and sensible people, there is a group of foaming-at-the-mouthers who chose their whiskey on the basis of whether it's Protestant or Catholic.--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a newspaper, not an academic journal :-) One which, in fairness, I don't think anyone from either "side" would regard as neutral. And I recognise its a viewpoint - just not one that's backed by multiple WP:RS. I'll look into your proposal later when I've a bit more time - agreed something needs to be done to force an outbreak of peace. As to whiskey - bugger national pride, I'll go for one without the 'e' almost every time - mine's a Lagavulin, a Laphroaig or a Bowmore, if you're asking ;-) Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for yours. I've had my own ding-dongs about An Phoblacht in the past. Anyway, I have invented my own version of the Cricket test: whenever someone new pops up on an Irish article's Talk page, we ask which brand of whisk(e)y he drinks. Depending on the response, we can then peg him:

• Bushmills: Unionist POV-pusher;
• Jameson: Nationalist POV-pusher (and/ or porn enthusiast);
• Jack Daniel's or similar: American Admin who will shortly be handing out multiple blocks;
• Scotch: a poor soul trying to do his best by both 'sides';
• Doesn't drink whisk(e)y: a weirdo to be avoided at all costs and shunned by both 'sides'. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That test fails for me, I would choose Jack Daniels from that list, and I am neither an American or a Admin.--padraig 10:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Easily explained: you're the exception that proves the rule (and you should consider moving to America and becoming an Admin).--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Any chance that you could ask User:Astrotrain to refrain from inserting POV into articles such as Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations, he constantly does this which leads to edit wars, and refuses to engage in discussions on talkpages, he has been blocked in the past for this.--padraig 19:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've got John involved. I think that you probably both need to compromise. If you want me to try to help in mediating, I'll do what I can, but it'd involve give and take on both sides.--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked John to get involved because you seem to have been offline at the time, the main problem with Astrotrain is that he totally ignores discussions on talk page, if you check his contributions he is seldom online, but when he does he targets certain templates and articles and reinserts the Ulster Banner despite knowing that it is not acceptable usage in that context, such as the the template above. He has been blocked 6 times since February this year for doing this, and making personal attacks against me. If there is to be any hope of bringing an end to the edit warring and constant disputes then things like this need to be sorted. If you are prepared to try to mediate with him I wish you luck.--padraig 09:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - I was a bit knackered last night and was offline when you posted - you wouldn't believe the bureaucracy involved in getting a birth certificate and applying for a passport nowadays, and all at different offices. Anyway, John seems to have sorted out the most recent edits, so I presume that everything is back in order (?). I've left a post on Astrotrain's Talk page, so we'll see if he bites. You should be aware that I previously commented on his RfC.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You've done you're research; I was in Bushmills last week and they certainly are very patriotic! --Counter-revolutionary 12:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but do they produce a drinkable whiskey? ;-Þ --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I fail your test; I am, apparently, the party to be shunned by both sides!--Counter-revolutionary 13:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps my test is a bit crap. I'll have to get Kittybrewster to do it!--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi MB- as you may know that editor removed flags without consensus and deleted sourced material from a variety of articles on the flags- with the help of the now blocked Vintagekits and his numerous sockpuppets. There was never any consensus to remove flags from Northern Ireland. Look at his contributions and you will see how he reverts any editor on the issue if it does not suit his republican POV. Astrotrain 20:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain is edit warring again on List of British flags.--padraig 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Will have a look after lunch - real life is getting in the way (getting a passport nowadays - unbelievable).--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion into a separate section, below. ✄ ☟ --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello...

A few days ago, whilst reading your user page I took a sudden urge for Patum Peperium, so off I went to Waitrose to get some. After sometime perusing their shelves it became apparent they only stock Poacher's Relish. Why upon Earth that is I'll never know. --Counter-revolutionary 13:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Very strange - that's generally where I stock up on my supplies. Fortnum's will have it!--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ulster banner

This section of my Talk page is to try to achieve a consensus as to what, for Wikipedia purposes, is the 'official' flag of Northern Ireland.

I should state at the outset that I have no authority to impose a solution, and I am just trying to act as an honest broker. I am not an Admin and cannot do anything about edit-warring, although I think it's unproductive. If you disagree with the conclusions that I come to, you're entirely within your rights to ignore them completely: however, I hope that we can all agree some sort of sensible resolution - which will probably leave both sides with less than they want - and, by showing a bit of mutual good faith, move on to more worthwhile pursuits.

As I understand the argument, Padraig states that the Ulster banner has been superceded. In this discussion he quotes from a written answer from Hansard and the same link also appears in both the footnote to the Ulster banner in the List of British flags article and in his sandbox. In particular, that text states:

“

(f) The union flag is the only official flag that represents Northern Ireland. The Flags (NI) Order 2000 empowered the Secretary of State to make the Flags Regulations (NI) 2000, which governs when and where the union flag can be flown from government buildings in Northern Ireland on specified days. The legislation does not define the form, shape or design of the union flag. Flag flying from non-governmental buildings is unregulated.

”

Ironically enough, looking at the positions adopted by Northern Ireland political parties at the time of the debate over this issue in 2000, the discussion solely concerned the Union flag and Irish tricolour (see here), with no discussion involving the Ulster banner at all.

As I understand the argument of Astrotrain, the Ulster banner represents the province of Northern Ireland in the same way that the respective national flags of England, Wales, and Scotland represent only those specific countries, whilst the Union flag represents England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland as a whole. Each individual nation, therefore, has both its own specific regional flag and the general Union flag. That the Union flag represents the 'official flag' of Northern Ireland does not invalidate the specific, regional Ulster banner.

As a first step, therefore, is this definition of the argument broadly correct? As I have probably misinterpreted the argument, please put me right and add any other relevant links.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Northern Ireland article and all the other flag articles in question always used the UB as the flag of Northern Ireland, as this is the only flag in existence that is used to represent that specific area of the UK. It is used by official sporting organisations representing NI, local authorities and unionists. Many other international bodies will use the UB when attributing a flag to represent the region. Many flag bodies such as flags.net list the flag in Northern Ireland section. Thus it can be considered the defacto flag of Northern Ireland.

It is not used by the British Government, who fly the Union Jack from 6 specified buildings in the area on specified flag days (such as Prince Edward's birthday or the Queen's wedding anniversary).

Hope this helps! Astrotrain 14:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that was very helpful. In that same spirit of helpfulness and endeavour to reach consensus, would you concede that there is currently no de jure flag for Northern Ireland (in much the same way as there is, currently, no de jure flag for England - "merely" the de facto Cross of Saint George), Astrotrain?...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 15:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No one (including me) has ever tried to say "The Ulster Banner is the official flag of Northern Ireland"- and I have never seen that displayed anywhere in Wikipedia currently or previously. It should be described as the "unofficial flag" or the "de-facto flag" and used where flags are necessary or desired for Northern Ireland. Use of the UB is not POV as it used by many international bodies (and surley Wikipedia is an international body?). Astrotrain 15:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Ulster Banner is as accurate as any, although I think I'm indifferent between it and the Union. --Counter-revolutionary 15:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So we do have a consensus, at least, that there is currently no de jure flag for Northern Ireland?...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 18:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Union.--Counter-revolutionary 18:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Do we have a consensus, at least, that there is currently no de jure flag for Northern Ireland, other than the Union flag?...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 23:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No more than there is for England, Scotland or Wales. --John 23:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The Union is the correct flag. --Counter-revolutionary 07:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Major: Would it be too sneaky or impertinent to ask you to change the first sentence of this section to read: "This section of my Talk page is to try to achieve a consensus as to what, for Wikipedia purposes, is the 'official' flag of Northern Ireland"? (since there are 3 of the ancient counties of Ulster still in my State)...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 09:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter what he calls the province? Correct me if I'm wrong but Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, where it is known officially as Ulster. When people say "Northern Ireland" I thought it was a geographical reference, sort of the same way some refer to the West Coast, or the Gaza Strip (I always assumed the Irish had their own name for the area in Gaelic.) In the first case, the West Coast is made up of three states called California, Oregon, and Washington (the wiki article is wrong, Nevada and Arizona aren't counted as parts of it and neither are Alaska and Hawaii). Each state has it's own flag, and the West Coast has none. Anynobody 05:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is officially Northern Ireland; hence the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --Counter-revolutionary 08:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the schoolboy error, Gaimhreadhan. I'm still vaguely waiting for Padraig to comment here; I'm a bit worried that he might think it's a stitch-up (it isn't).--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Been very busy, there is no dispute that the Union Flag is the only official flag, as for Astrotrains point, there is a major difference between the English and Scottish flags and the Ulster Banner, the first two have history that stretches back before any parliament used them, they also form part of the Union Flag, the Ulster Banner was purely an governmental banner that the Northern Ireland Government was allowed to commission to represent itself as a government but not Northern Ireland, this ceased to exist when the Act under which that government and it banner existed was abolished by the passing of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. I haven't mentioned the Welsh flag simply because I don't know its history. I will add more later if necessary.--padraig 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ulster Banner is clearly not just a "government banner" given its widespread use in NI and internationally. It was not aboloshed by the 1973 Act and there is no reference to that flag in the Act. Please respect consensus and avoid being uncivil in this matter. Astrotrain 11:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this consensus you keep claiming, I think you need to start providing sources for your claims as without them they are WP:OR, the Act didn't mention the flag because it dissolved the Parliament and all its offices, and as the flag was banner of the government or privy council it cease to exist when that body was abolished.--padraig 11:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Flags cannot be "abolished"- and clearly the flag is still used as the defacto national flag Astrotrain 11:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The office that was given the right to have the banner to represent itself was Abolished, therefore its flag cease to officialy exist, its use after that is un-official as all the sources tell you, so it dosen't have any de facto status, because it was never a civic flag to begin with.--padraig 11:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yu have no source for that so its WP:OR. Astrotrain 11:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopdeia Britannica says: According to British tradition, a coat of arms or flag is granted to the government of a territory, not to the people residing there. Therefore, when the government of Northern Ireland was disbanded in March 1972, its arms and flag officially disappeared; however, the flag continues to be used by groups (such as sports teams) representing the territory in an unofficial manner.--padraig 11:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No one has said that the flag is official. If I remember correctly you deleted the link to the Britannica Astrotrain 11:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the third time you have accused me of deleting links or sources, and I have repeatly ask you to show where this happened, and you failed to do so, do you think if you repeat a lie often enough it will become true, so either provide proof of that allegation or retract that comment.--padraig 11:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Look through the history of List of British flags. Astrotrain 11:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You made the allegation now either provide evidence or retract that allegation.--padraig 11:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain, has posted this message on my talkpage:

I think it best not to continue posting on Major Bonker's talk page on that issue- please use Talk:Northern Ireland where users are discussing this in a civil manner. Please respect the developed consensus. Thanks Astrotrain 11:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke, there is no consensus on that page.--padraig 11:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a consensus of all but Padraig ... Pharrar 10:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick comment on the de jure status:

• Scotland: de jure flag is St Andrews Cross (de jure since 1385)
• Wales: de jure flag is The Red Dragon (de jure since 1959)
• England: no de jure flag, St. Georges Cross registered emblem of England since 1277, use established through custom

--sony-youth^pléigh 10:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Let's all calm down a bit and review where we are. These 'who said what' and demands for retractions are getting us nowhere.

• Both sides agree that the Ulster banner is not the de jure flag of Northern Ireland.
• The question that then arises is whether it can be described as the de facto flag. It seems to me that both sides are now slightly missing this point. Padraig refers back to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 - I just pause at this moment to say that it's unfortunate that there is not a complete text of this Act online - but this is a reference back to the de jure argument, which Astrotrain has already conceded. I think that you both probably agree that the situation is most likely this: (1) that the Ulster banner was not prohibited or revoked in some way by the operation of the Act (as, for example, the swastika is in Germany today); (2) however, the government that the flag represented was abolished and, therefore, the banner is in a sort of limbo, representing an abolished government; a bit like the Flags of the Confederate States of America.
  The question that I identify is this: to what extent is it fair to say that the Ulster banner is still representative of a national or regional flag? It is clearly still used to some extent. Am I right to say that a significant minority object to its use?
  Question: without researching the issue, I dare say that the Confederate flags issue is likely to cause just as much excitement as the Ulster banner issue. Should we be looking there for an acceptable compromise?--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 (and related legisation), which provided that both the Northern Ireland Parliament (then standing prorogued) and the office of Governor should both ceased to exist - the trappings of the 'mini state' were dismantled. ^[1]

The Ulster banner was one of the trappings of the Government of Northern Ireland, in that it was granted the right to have a banner to represent the government, therefore with the abolition of the Parliament the Banner ceased to exist with it.--padraig 11:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that we all agree that the Ulster banner cannot represent the government of Northern Ireland, because that government has been abolished and flags represent the government: you are repeating the de jure argument. The argument that Astrotrain is advancing is that, notwithstanding the abolition of the government, by custom and usage (since 1953) the Ulster banner remains, nonetheless, the de facto flag. If that is the case, then the peculiar - but not, apparently, unique - situation arises whereby the Ulster banner does not exist de jure but does exist de facto. (At least until something else comes along, and with the caveat that an apparently significant minority wants nothing to do with it.) As I say above:
The question that I identify is this: to what extent is it fair to say that the Ulster banner is still representative of a national or regional flag? It is clearly still used to some extent. Am I right to say that a significant minority object to its use?--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Many Unionists in Northern Ireland also view the Ulster banner as only representing Loyalist extremists, and they prefer to identify with the Union Flag, even the debate on the 2000 flag act reflects that in that not one of the Unionist parties proposed its readoption, and argued for the use of the Union flag as representing Northern Ireland. its claimed by some that its use in sport gives it de facto status, but this report dosen't reflect that outside of the Commonwealth Games, as in the Olympic's or World event the sports complete for either the Ireland/UK or GB & Ireland on an also 50/50 split with football being the only exception. In the same report out of 15 sports when ask which flag they used to represent then in international event only about three used the UB occasionaly but also used other flags.--padraig

Suggested compromise: It seems to me that there are reasonable grounds for saying that the Ulster banner is representative of Northern Ireland: there are valid arguments for both positions, which I have characterised as the de jure and the de facto arguments. I suggest, therefore:

• That the Ulster banner is, for Wikipedia purposes, the 'official' flag of Northern Ireland.

• However, when the Ulster banner is used, it should be tagged, either in the accompanying text or by way of a footnote, with a brief explanation of its position. It seems to me to be desirable that this wording is agreed between the parties so as to avoid future conflict. I attach my draft, below, which is based on what currently appears on the (locked) List of British flags article:

“

The Ulster banner represented the Parliament of Northern Ireland between 1953 - 1972, when it was abolished by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 [2]. Currently the Union flag officially represents Northern Ireland [3] However, the flag continues to be used by certain sports teams and local governments as representative of Northern Ireland. See also: Flag of Northern Ireland.

”

The only remaining issue is that the Encyclopedia Britannica citation should be properly referenced: I cannot see from which article the quotation comes from (or, indeed, whether it is a quotation at all or a paraphrase).--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it represents facts, not what editors want, it can't use an unofficial flag for a state as the 'official flag' that is misleading, and against WP:OR and WP:POV.--padraig 10:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

To a certain extent I agree with you. However, the article in question is called 'List of British flags'; not the 'List of official flags'. It seems fairly clear that the flag is used (although I doubt we'll see Gerry Adams waving it down the Shankill Road anytime soon) and, equally, that its use is seen by some as confrontational and divisive - that's why the link to Flag of Northern Ireland is included in the proposed explanatory text. Incidentally, an even weaker case is made for the ridiculous Flag of Derbyshire which is also included in the List of British flags.
As I say, I'm not an Admin, all I'm trying to do is broker a compromise. If you read the proposed explanatory text fully, including the references, the non-official status of the Ulster banner is made quite clear.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In the List of British Flags the Ulster Banner is in the Historical flags section where it belongs as a former government flag of Northern Ireland, the Flags at the top of the Article are Current National Flags which the Ulster Banner is not therefore its not included. Wikipedia can only present facts, if a minority of editors believe that is incorrect then they must prove otherwise, but as in this case the British Government and the Executive Government of Northern Ireland both don't recognise this flag they will have a hard job proving that.--10:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we in danger of getting too specific? As a broad compromise, would this be acceptable?--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but encyclopedia's by nature are meant to be specific, relying on facts, not what some editors would like thing to be, Fact Northern Ireland has no current national Flag, Fact the Union Union flag is the only Official Flag in Northern Ireland, Fact Northern Ireland dosen't or never had a civic flag, Fact Northern Ireland dosen't have a de facto flag this is proven by fact that the Executive of Northern Ireland dosent use any flag to represent its self or Northern Irland Abroad.--padraig 12:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

British, by definition currently includes Scotland, and I have it on the personal authority of none other than Lyon (when directly queried on this point by me on the judicial record) that the St Andrew saltire, at least, is the real armorial possession of the whole Scots nation - irrespective of geovernement since he believed it outdates any lineal regime....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that both the Scottish and England flags have status through historical usage, not sure on the Welsh one as I know nothing on Welsh history, but I fail to see what that has to do with the UB, it came about because a Act of Parliament granted the right to the Northern Ireland government to have an government banner, the Act that granted that right was superceded by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 which abolished the Parliament, Government and all trappings enjoyed by both, that included their Banner which was only in use for 19yrs, its 34yrs since its been abolished.--padraig 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I am slightly disappointed. It strikes me that there are a large number of flags which have become divorced from their original government (or meaning) but continue to be flown. For example; the Confederate flag (which I think is probably the closest analogy to the present situation) and (less helpfully) the swastika and the red flag. In each case, an identity is being proclaimed and a group of people is coming together under a common identity/ a common flag. Again, in each case, the fact that the flag actually represents no continuing government does not make the symbolism represented by the flag any less valid.
Just to reiterate the point, I am not sure that the Ulster banner was abolished (as you write); its government, which it represented, was abolished, leaving the flag itself in a kind of limbo.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No argument from this side of the dyke. Remember the original primaeval purpose of a banner: rally round the flag Bhoys, and poke the other lot in the goolies eye. This will go on until the last man's standing...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone on WP arguing that the Confederate Flag be used in the infobox as the the flag of the South, because unless there is then there is no comparison or the Swastika for Germany for that matter. So your saying that although the flag has no current usage or recognition by either the British Government or the Northern Ireland Assembly or its government that we should ignore that and just use it anyway to please a small number of editors who happen to like it. Sorry WP dosent work that way, it has been proven this flag is not recognised and hasn't been for 34 years, its historical just like your confederate flag, we have to follow the policy of WP such as WP:OR and WP:POV.--padraig 16:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think, to put the position at its most crude level, there are two facts: (1) the Ulster banner is not the 'official' flag of Northern Ireland, and/ but (2) plenty of people use it/ believe that it is the 'official' flag. Both facts need to be referenced when the flag is used on Wikipedia (as they are in the fuller articles on the Ulster banner and the Flag of Northern Ireland) - at least that's my suggestion. As to the Confederate flag appearing in infoboxes, I think I'll have to pass that one over to our American correspondent: it certainly appears on the roof of The General Lee (for what that's worth!). And thank you Gaimhreadhan: it's rather unfortunate that one of the few gaelic words to have entered the English language is 'slogan'.--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

But the problem is some editors want to use the Ulster Banner in WP as if it was official to represent Northern Ireland today, were they try to add it to every template on the wiki for NI counties and cities etc, which is totally wrong, I have used the Ulster Banner myself on the articles for the elections and government to the Parliament of Northern Ireland 1922-72, but to use it for articles about NI today is totally wrong unless its in a historical context.--padraig 18:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a very valid point, Padraig. That usage is flagcruft.

Please see my latest response to your earlier comments on my talk page.

I anticipate doing a bit of an Autumn Clean tomorrow....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 18:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It is the unofficial flag of Northern Ireland today- and it still represents Northern Ireland. The athletes from the Northern Ireland Commonwealth Games team carry the flag at the opening ceremony for example. Wikipedia is not an official government body. Astrotrain 18:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain, nobody is denying that its used in the Commonwealth games, but explain how that relates to you trying to add it to every template relating to Northern Ireland such Template:Northern Ireland cities, how do you justify that usage. Wikipedia is not a government body nor is it a bible of wishful thinking, its an Encyclopedia it is suppose to present facts so that people reading it can find facts about things.--padraig 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The flag represents Northern Ireland and is used as such in templates and infoboxes in line with Wikipedia practice. If you don't like the flag for personal reasons or find it offensive, that is tough I'm afriad. Most of us are fed up having to argue with you and you don't seem able to compromise or even attempt to find a workable arrangement. Astrotrain 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it used to represent Towns and cities, maybe between 1922-72 it would make sense but not today, this is also nothing to do with what you or I like or don't like, I have suggested a compromise use the Ulster Banner in it proper context, in relation to sports for the commonwealth, in relation to history between 1992-72, or politics during that period. But you want to use in every single template and article.--padraig 19:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awake!!!!! British Cultural Imperialism Rampant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't wish to be accused of canvassing in a partisan environment but have you noticed this recent outrageous example of British Cultural Imperialist PoVism?

[edit] More Irish Army articles threatened by BCIP

May I draw everyone's attention to this outrageous POV pushing: [5]

How can we proud Irish Men and Women counter this vicious slur that one of our armies can not
afford/ operate competently/ our own web site/ achieve final and lasting victory over our everlasting enemies and former colonial oppressors/ are associated in any way what ever with our neighbours?

Who will join me in starting an article on Provisional Irish Religious Armies, (PIRA) forthwith!!!!!!?????!!!!!

Admins really need to get a grip on this outrageous POV pushing of external links!

909 Charleston Chomper Dangling 50 Veteran Kiwi concerned from Omeath—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaimhreadhan (talk • contribs)

er, quite so!--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks! Stop using other accounts to peddle your POV [6]. Have you every edit WP befoer usng a nother count? Are you sooty or BIGears? You all seem to push the same sort of POV.it llosk very sispishus to me !GHIRLfromFreeDerry 13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I haven't taken part in this discussion, but I think there is a clear consensus now. It's time to get on with it and block this obvious WP:SOCKpuppet. Scholar and a Gentleman 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm astonished and disgusted delighted that this elite paramilitary organisation, well known for its atrocities heroic actions in crowded almost empty (and anyway, the police deliberately failed to clear the pubs, cinemas, and shopping arcades, and funded by hush-money and protection rackets free enterprise initiatives and sausage sizzles, has any will have pride of place on Wikipedia. We must list it for deletion feature article status immediately - common decency demands nothing less!--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC) [Edit conflict]

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the party line so I've made some minor corrections.

Please try and sing from the same hymns sheet in future or I will have to repost you to an administrator.

May I invite you to this entirely neutral and unbiasst project for where you can be de-POV'ed:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Irish_Republicanism/Template:WPIR}

This article does not need deleting it just needs more balanced language and correct categorisation and terminology. Stop pushing your minority PoV. I now see that you are correctly named! Any more personal attacks and I shall report you! 909 Charleston Chomper Dangling 50 Veteran Kiwi concerned from Omeath

There's not a problem posting on one user's page, nor on project pages, which is the ideal place to post in order to involve interested editors. NB projects are not advocate groups: they are there to improve relevant articles according to wiki standards. Try not to dramatise things though. Titanomachy 12:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop farting wiv my pists CHUNT! See WP:TheInmatesRunThisAsylim! Eny more WP:NPA and ill tell SirFizzy! Last Warning! 909 Charleston Chomper Dangling 50 Veteran Kiwi concerned from Omeath12:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither of yous have provided any sources on any of the article and templates you are edit warring on, yous have been asked numerous times to provide sources, also the way both you and astrotrain seem to been working together in these edit wars its starting to look like one of yous may be a sockpuppet.--promises 12:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Many apologies (grovel, grovel). What I meant to say was: what an outstanding article - we must promote it to Featured Article status immediately! Anyone who stands in our way must be a bigot/ racist/ POV-pusher. Seriously though, it's time that this childish sectarian hatred must cease ^[4], and I hope that you will join me in this laudable aim. I shall gratefully submit myself to re-education; in time I hope to be like Gilbert & Sullivan's 'Ruler of the Queen's Navee': I never thought of thinking for myself at all!--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's better. Don't try and meddle with consensus again...off to take my medicine...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Gaimhreadhan: in memoriam

The penultimate edit that Gaimhreadhan made was on your user talk page here: User_talk:Major_Bonkers#Awake.21.21.21.21.21_British_Cultural_Imperialism_Rampant.21.21.21.21.21.21.21.21.21.21.21.21.21.21.21

May I copy the entire section to be the top section of G's naughty cupboard?

Reply by e-mail if you prefer. W. Frank ✉  20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear W. Frank, please be my guest. I am very sorry to hear of Gaimhreadhan's death, and please accept my condolences. I should like to write a brief note to you shortly - unfortunately, I am unlikely to find both time and a computer before the weekend. Yours,--Major Bonkers (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind permission, Major. I shall leave my condolence section up until the weekend to allow you and others a chance to contribute  W. Frank ✉  05:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doppelganger

I note from your archive page, that I am alleged to be your sock-puppet. You will be reassured to hear that I am not! --MJB 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Very pleased to hear it! Good luck in your editing. --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm very relieved to hear this too. The last thing we need is sock-puppets with split personalities! W. Frank talk ✉  17:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that's actually happened before: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highfructosecornsyrup Anynobody 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Frank, those of us who work in insurance don't have much personality to begin with. (Splitting the meagre amount that I have would probably turn me into an accountant.) --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One really couldn't make this up if "whom" tried: no comment necessary and WP:IRA  W. Frank talk ✉  15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)