Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:50, 15 July 2007

Welcome!

Hi Brixton Busters! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Vintagekits 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to improve articles over here

The Irish Republicanism WikiProject is a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics. (For more information on WikiProjects, please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects).

--Vintagekits 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Corporals_killings

I assume, from your edits, that you have edited on WP before under another name. However, should this not be the case, I would respectfully point out that the lede in a WP article should normally encapsulate the article. In the above article the subsequent passages make clear that the killings of these corporals resulted in successful murder prosecutions. Since WP strives to use a neutral point of view - NOT bowdlerised language or mealy mouthed euphemisms - I have reverted your change of murder to "killing".

It may be reprehensible, but folks would also take you more seriously if you responded on these, your talk pages, and completed some details on your user page rather than keeping it blank...Gaimhreadhan • 10:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Murder is not neutral. Also I don't appreciate your tone. Brixton Busters 10:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly don't you like about my tone, 303?...Gaimhreadhan • 10:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Brixton Busters really a new editor?

(Thread moved here from another user talk page so the subject of speculation can respond if he wishes to...):

I do not like your tone, manner or attitude to relatively new users, as you did here, , should you continue in such an argumentative and unwelcoming way I will report you to admin. Misplaced Pages should be welcoming to new editors. --Domer48 11:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this is indeed a new editor and not just 303 abusing the right to vanish? :Personally, I'm glad 303 is back since he's always been a hard working and productive editor, but he hardly needs your (unnecessary?) protection since it's obvious that he's an accomplished Wikipedian from day one...Gaimhreadhan • 22:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And what evidence do you have not to AGF? There are 3,000,000 people who have contributed to wikipedia. If indeed 303 has returned, on what basis do you make an accusation of abusing a right to vanish? He left in good standing and would therefore not be evading a ban or block. Keep your speculations to yourself, please. Tyrenius 23:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you banned me for two consecutive periods of 14 days after speculating that I was a sock puppet of a retired German I think I'll ignore your advice, Tyrenius. Just look at the text, spelling mistakes and context of User:Brixton Busters (first?) edits and tell me again that I should assume that this is a genuine new editor.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Gaimhreadhan's tone in the referenced diff, he was respectful and discursive. Frankly, Domer48, you are continuing with the same insulting behaviour you use elsewhere. I am just composing my responses to the Arbcom you are disrespectfully ignoring by bulk-editing the Great Irish Famine article, and I will also be drawing to their attention this disgraceful and harassing comment you just made. MarkThomas 12:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to move this thread to User talk:Brixton Busters where that (brand new?) editor can then comment on whether they have recently edited on WP using a different user name. If the references to 303 are summarily removed again, I will take it as a strong confirmation that my assumptions (made on the basis of textual and contextual analysis) are correct.

I don't see anything wrong with letting bygones be bygones; what would be wrong is giving an experienced and knowledgeable editor (now using a different user name) the same latitude and licence we would give a newbie.

I think it would be very helpful at this early stage for User:Brixton Busters to confirm or deny that he previously edited WP using different user names - it's entirely a matter for him whether he chooses to reveal those identities or not....Gaimhreadhan • 12:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is completely inappropriate behaviour. I feel we should apologise to User:Brixton Busters , for this seemingly irrational behaviour for an experienced editor who knows, they can request that a check user be undertaken. Provided they can produce the diffs to support such an accusation. --Domer48 13:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusation is an inappropriate word to use. I'd be amazed if User:Brixton Busters denies that he previously edited WP using different user names.

Just take a good long hard look at the evident quality and insider knowledge evident in BB's very first (?!?) five edits on Misplaced Pages:

However, if BB (and not you or any other members of the team) does so assert, then I will say no more and, as I've previously stated, if BB does instead confirm the obvious, it's entirely a matter for him whether he chooses to reveal those previous identities BB has edited under or not.

Now why don't we all pause to allow the subject of this discussion to speak for himself?...Gaimhreadhan • 18:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What team I am supposed to be a part of? Your accusations have gone from the unusual to the down right irrational. You are ranting and raving, and I consider it appropriate you take a break. Your behaviour is remarkably similar to another user? But I would not make such an accusation. I will though point out you behaviour to admin. This is a new users talk page, and until considered otherwise should be treated as such. --Domer48 19:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I would waste some time. Let's look at his fourth edit in particular. ONIH actively REMOVED Catholics categories from many Irish Republican articles as their religion isn't relevant to their notability - examples . Looks like your theory is coming unstuck? Took your advice, and it went no were. --Domer48 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC) If I was this editor and this was my talk page I would be very bemused by all this. Apologies are in order, and I would like to extend mine. Consider it a baptism of fire, and as bad as it looks don’t let that fool ye, it really is worse when you get active, ha ha Take care, Regards --Domer48 22:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaimhreadhan has moved the following out of context comment by Vintagekit's Mentor, SirFozzie, from his talk page to this page where it can be seen in context:

I recommend that you drop this. You have been asked somewhat nicely twice by Admins to either take it to WP:SSP if you had any further suspicions. Now I am giving you pretty much a final warning. Accusing a new editor of being a sockpuppet breaks WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. There is methods to deal with sockpuppetry on WP. Use them. I also notice several comments aimed at trolling other users and soapboaxing. You are on the edge. Take care not to step over. SirFozzie 15:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I have not made and am not making any accusations of sockpuppetry. (Please don't confuse Domer48's wrongful and hysterical misunderstanding of my actual words with what I actually wrote.) Allegations of Sockpuppetry are WP's equivalent of a Witch hunt - and I refuse to participate in such silly nonsense.

My understanding is that neither Tyrenius nor yourself are acting as admins here unless you specifically state that you are so acting. If that is the case I will, of course, follow your advice - even though it seems perverse.

2. Had you not addressed specific remarks to me, I would have stayed silent - as you both should have done.

3. This is what I have already stated: "I think it would be very helpful at this early stage for User:Brixton Busters to confirm or deny that he previously edited WP using different user names" (to his current "new" user name of Brixton Busters) " - it's entirely a matter for him whether he chooses to reveal those identities or not...."

and

4. "However, if" Brixton Buster "(and not you or any other members of the team) does so assert," (ie that he, BrixtonBuster, is a genuine new editor and has not previously edited on WP using other and different user name) "then I will say no more and, as I've previously stated, if BB does instead confirm the obvious," (ie that BB is not a brand new editor) "it's entirely a matter for him whether he chooses to reveal those previous identities BB has edited under or not."

and

5. "Now why don't we all pause to allow the subject of this discussion to speak for himself?"...Gaimhreadhan • 19:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Hi. I see you have been edit warring on Tom Williams (Irish Republican). Please be aware that the policy WP:3RR exists to prevent this kind of destructive conflict, and that it emphatically does not entitle you to make 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Please take any future conflicts to talk and discuss civilly towards a consensus. Thanks. --John 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)