Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::This was an absolutely disgraceful and completely POV-inspired block by SirFozzie. It appears to be his chosen role to act as Protector for the various defamatory and manipulative editors whose POV he loosely shares. I believe a general complaint against this admin is in order. Anyone interested in joining it? ] 16:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::This was an absolutely disgraceful and completely POV-inspired block by SirFozzie. It appears to be his chosen role to act as Protector for the various defamatory and manipulative editors whose POV he loosely shares. I believe a general complaint against this admin is in order. Anyone interested in joining it? ] 16:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Actually, if you reaaaaally want to know.. I brought this block up on IRC after I had made it, and the admins I consulted with said that the block should have been longer.. 24 hours for the civility and/or 3RR violation. Also, I notice once again, Gam is calling ] a sock and/or ONiH returned. ] 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Actually, if you reaaaaally want to know.. I brought this block up on IRC after I had made it, and the admins I consulted with said that the block should have been longer.. 24 hours for the civility and/or 3RR violation. Also, I notice once again, Gam is calling ] a sock and/or ONiH returned. ] 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::The latter sentence is a lie. Read what I wrote and don't you dare twist it again. Repeat that falsehood again and I will cease to assume that you simply don't read too well....]]<sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ)</small></font></sup> • 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::I agree that it might have been better if SirFozzie had recused himself (as the protector/mentor of Vintagekits) but I think we should give SirFozzie the benefit of the doubt and a chance to reply to my question (privately or publicly) as to whether he thinks he is making any progress in educating Vintagekits to at least examine an editor's work for a few seconds before he reaches for his revert button.
I agree that it might have been better if SirFozzie had recused himself (as the protector/mentor of Vintagekits) but I think we should give SirFozzie the benefit of the doubt and a chance to reply to my question (privately or publicly) as to whether he thinks he is making any progress in educating Vintagekits to at least examine an editor's work for a few seconds before he reaches for his revert button.
::::::I had less of a problem with 303 (now returned) since at least he often cogitated for a few minutes before inserting the current Provisional IRA point of view.
I had less of a problem with 303 (now returned) since at least he often cogitated for a few minutes before inserting the current Provisional IRA point of view.
::::::I think that the time may have come for Jimbo Wales to be alerted to the fact that WP is in danger of being seen as a Provisional IRA propaganda organ (due to a concerted effort by team edits and biased judgements by admins who fail to ensure that the majority viewpoint on political murders and other atrocities are referenced in our articles) rather than nitpick with individual editors/admins who cannot stop pushing a minority and politically motivated POV...]]<sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ)</small></font></sup> • 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that the time may have come for Jimbo Wales to be alerted to the fact that WP is in danger of being seen as a Provisional IRA propaganda organ (due to a concerted effort by team edits and biased judgements by admins who fail to ensure that the majority viewpoint on political murders and other atrocities are referenced in our articles) rather than nitpick with individual editors/admins who cannot stop pushing a minority and politically motivated POV...]]<sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ)</small></font></sup> • 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Not sure if the Jimbo Wales thing will work, but I totally agree about the campaign. Actually this seems to have intensified recently and I wonder if we are seeing something organised. My opinion is that two or three of the most unpleasant and persistent editors represent a team game. I actually don't have a strong anti-Republican POV, just want WP to be NPOV, so for example have tried to counter the worst edits on articles, only to be met with blizzards of agression from the users in question, something they were not reprimanded for; when I complained on WP:ANI, SirFozzie took it over and placed it in an Arbcom. I opposed this and requested other admins to look objectively at it. Of course, this takes time, so the editors doing all the attacking were able to make it look as though it was my fault; SirFozzie pointed to my "lack of clean hands" yet when I challenged him to cite an example, remained silent. I think we should kick up a big stink about this; the question is how best to do it? ] 16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:Not sure if the Jimbo Wales thing will work, but I totally agree about the campaign. Actually this seems to have intensified recently and I wonder if we are seeing something organised. My opinion is that two or three of the most unpleasant and persistent editors represent a team game. I actually don't have a strong anti-Republican POV, just want WP to be NPOV, so for example have tried to counter the worst edits on articles, only to be met with blizzards of agression from the users in question, something they were not reprimanded for; when I complained on WP:ANI, SirFozzie took it over and placed it in an Arbcom. I opposed this and requested other admins to look objectively at it. Of course, this takes time, so the editors doing all the attacking were able to make it look as though it was my fault; SirFozzie pointed to my "lack of clean hands" yet when I challenged him to cite an example, remained silent. I think we should kick up a big stink about this; the question is how best to do it? ] 16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::And I will bring up your numerous insinuations and attacks, that have already landed you infront of the ArbCom, Mark. I notice you haven't posted anything there.. ] 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::And I will bring up your numerous insinuations and attacks, that have already landed you infront of the ArbCom, Mark. I notice you haven't posted anything there.. ] 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Oh well, I guess when we've all given up under the sheer weight of the attacks, it will become known as Provisional Misplaced Pages. ] 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh well, I guess when we've all given up under the sheer weight of the attacks, it will become known as Provisional Misplaced Pages. ] 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Tribally, I am an Irish Republican. But not a mindless one that glamorises violence for its own sake, I hope. It's not just the hypocrisy and self-delusion I hate about the Provo's failed and wicked campaign of violence; it's the fact that they've set back the unity of peoples about 145 years.
:::::::I rest my case. ] 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I really think we should not allow these Green Nazis to twist WP's policies and weaknesses into allowing them free reign to corrupt our articles and twist referenced facts. But how? Now 303 is back in harness it will be an uphill struggle since he has at least 4 admins in his pocket and is a clever and cunning strategist ...]]<sup><font color="brown"><small>(kiwiexile at DMOZ)</small></font></sup> • 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::It's difficult not to get blunt when confronted with such devious and concerted manipulation of the system. Well done - happy to admit I'm outclassed. Used to enjoy courteous editing discussions on WP but now it's just a big ratpack of POVist factions superintended by POVist admins such as yourself. Good luck with it - all you will achieve in the long run is the systematic discrediting of WP. ] 17:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Oh well, I guess when we've all given up under the sheer weight of the attacks, it will become known as Provisional Misplaced Pages. ] 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::I rest my case. ] 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::It's difficult not to get blunt when confronted with such devious and concerted manipulation of the system. Well done - happy to admit I'm outclassed. Used to enjoy courteous editing discussions on WP but now it's just a big ratpack of POVist factions superintended by POVist admins such as yourself. Good luck with it - all you will achieve in the long run is the systematic discrediting of WP. ] 17:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:16, 16 July 2007
Monday
6
January
03:53 UTC
Welcome to Gaimhreadhan's user talk page
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Misplaced Pages, as you did in Bed and Breakfast. Misplaced Pages is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Mwanner | Talk14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that we have already reached a modus vivendi over on your own talk page at Talk, Sir.
If I am wrong,it is rather academic since my request for page protection has now been acceded to (albeit with your version of Bed and breakfastwithout any external links whatsoever) since you serially reverted my edits (as did I yours and in ignorance of 3RR) after I made my request for temporary protection of only three external links (wry grin).
Nevertheless I do not wish your implied slur on my character to stand unchallenged on my talk page.
I will, therefore, rebut your allegations again here with a paraphrasing of what I wrote (rather more intemperately) there:
Removing external links
Please do not simply delete appropriate external links in Misplaced Pages, as has been done in Bed and Breakfast.
Please first discuss in the Discussion page of Bed and Breakfast why you think the specific links you personally have scheduled for removal (especially if you intend to delete all and any external links) do not conform to particular guidelines.
If you are a seasoned and valued contributor to Misplaced Pages you should know that it is better to reach a consensus before deleting material willy nilly.
For the avoidance of doubt I wish to clarify again that the two links I have added (one to DMOZ and one to privatestay.com) do not turn the Misplaced Pages Bed and Breakfast article into a mere directory of links and nor do I intend them for for advertising or self promotion and I find it offensive that some
contributors persistently ignore my clarifications in this respect.
I believe that there is a policy that one should assume good faith.
The two links I added are NOT inappropriate links and are NOT links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which I am affiliated, or links that exist only to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guidelines and for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate.
If you feel a particular link should be deleted from the article, then please discuss that specific
link (rather than links in general) on the article's Discussion page rather than spoiling other's efforts unilaterally. See the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you.
Gaimhreadhan00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with a link to any genuine SI independence movement. I do question whether the link you have readded represents such. The image of a woman's bouncing breasts on the website makes it clear that this is someone's idea of a joke. The other images fail to dispel that impression. I think the whole page, if not a prank, is an advertisement for a book publisher. Please actually look at the website before readding.-gadfium01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Your advice to look at a site before you jump to conclusions is appropriate, Gadfium, and one I always try to practice (especially in my professional life).
This is a multiple page site that has had a lot of effort expended on it. The jokes may not be to your taste or mine but it is NOT a pornographic or joke site.
If you actually read the text you will see that the bouncing breasts draw attention to the news item that women in Nelson (in the South Island) have the biggest breasts - not the clincher in a political argument, I agree, but please also look at the economic and health arguments for independence this site advances befoer you condemn it as being without merit - there are at least 4 separate pages you need to thoroughly read...
Yes, I did read that. I don't consider it authoritative. I also don't consider the website as evidence that a modern South Island independence movement exists. I think this is someone with a strange sense of humour and too much time on their hands. I'll suggest that more people consider the matter by asking at the Misplaced Pages:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board.-gadfium05:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not just insert the same links into a different article when there is clear consensus against them in the South Island Independence article. This is disruptive behaviour. If you think you have any case, please continue to discuss it at the talk page of that article. I also suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.-gadfium18:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Gadfium, as an administrator yourself, you should know that the talk pages of separate articles are not linked.
I do not necessarily concede that a consensus was reached. A vote does not necessarily imply a consensus. (I think we're just beginning to realise that here in Ireland after a long and bloody millenium...)
Even if a consensus had been reached, that consensus was not necessarily binding on a different article's contents. Please play fair and according to the rules....Gaimhreadhan • 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can you explain why you used the comment added "and member of the Security Council of the United Nations" on your recent edit on United Kingdom? Your edit appears to be wholly unrelated to the comment. Superficially it appears to be a case of vandalism with a bluffed a countrycomment line to attempt to mask this. Do you have any comments on this? Thanks. MarkThomas14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
G'Day, Mark.
Appearances can be deceptive. I added "and member of the Security Council of the United Nations" because it is a factually correct and relevant statement. Why do you think it is not appropriate in the starting paragraph of the United Kingdom article?
I take the strongest possible exception to your allegation of vandalism. Please withdraw it.
I think you may be really referring to my excision of the incorrect categorisation of the UK as a single country. As its very title makes clear, the United Kingdom is a Union of countries (UK is a state composed of separate countries - NOT a single country with a unitary culture, banknotes or stamps and the previous reference (No 10's site) offered no support whatever for the contrary viewpoint!)Gaimhreadhan15:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Sir, I believe it was. Some of my reasoning is expounded here and on the article's talk page. If you have a problem with the idea that the UK is (paradoxically or not) a country made up of distinct and ancient countries and a nation made up of distinct and ancient nations, then I would prefer that discussion takes place on that talk page rather than my talk page. Thanks for your anticipated co-operation in this matter...Gaimhreadhan • 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair comment, actually, reviewing the edits, I apologise as I think I was getting a bit confused in the thick of it as to what edit you actually made! MarkThomas18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Imperial `peace keeping' (grin)
LOL! Was that a blue UN NPOV helmet Gaimhreadhan or a green one? :-) Anyway, you miss-spelled archipeligos. I think! Does it have an "e" in the end when it's plural? MarkThomas17:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's basically UN standard issue light blue (the irish Quartermasters haven't got any other colour left apart from the navy blue ones they got gifted by Securicor for escorting the money trucks) but with a kind of weird green (fungus growth) striped effect due to the number of years since I was last in uniform (wry smile).
I think you can have either spelling for the plural but the usage I've deployed is more usual in my neck of the woods (not too many Greeks in South Armagh and County Louth...Gaimhreadhan • 17:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If I was in the UN, I would demand pale purple. :-) I have to admit, you are more knowledgeable on Britain's overseas "posessions" than I am - never even heard of "BIOT" - sounds like a yoghurt. All goes to increase my respect for the nationalist and republican traditions. MarkThomas17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I used to be quite creative in my use of jurisdictions for some law suits. Scotland still has an extant law of promise (which neither of the Irish, nor any of the other British jurisdictions still have) which I've used to successfully sue such entities as HMG and BP when they pleaded `no contract' due to `lack of consideration'.
BIOT is an acronym for British Indian Ocean Territories. You might know the largest atoll, Diego Garcia.
How are you today Gaimhreadhan? I have been following your contributions of late, because I enjoy them. You make Misplaced Pages a more entertaining place. MarkThomas11:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That's very kind and thoughtful of you to enquire, Sir. I'm quite lucky in that the oncology centre now has wireless access. However, it's a two edged sword 'cos the web can get quite addictive and it's not ideal in bed with your legs outstretched - I tend to get lower back pain.
I dont like the name of your new Category - its sounds unsuited and POV - have another other suggestions - maybe IRA Operations.--Vintagekits18:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is short and factual. We already have a categories for incidents where no loss of human life occurred such as Category:Provisional IRA actions Category:Provisional IRA actions
I am not impressed by your behaviour over the past few hours - we can all carry on like this and canvas a group but we do not - please read - WP:CANVAS--Vintagekits19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it necessary for you to publicly contact people. In your case you presumably have each others 'phone numbers, addresses and e-mail addresses already. Do you categorically deny that you have been in private contact with 303?
On a more constructive note, I've now read the article WP:CANVAS and I am satisfied that my three posts to three separate editors that I suspect would be interested in your agenda are neither deprecated, banned or even fall under the category you claim....Gaimhreadhan • 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not in my opinion a correct comment by Vintagekits. It's part of Misplaced Pages to draw things to editor's attention that they may be interested in - at no time did Gaimhreadhan try to incite any of those he contacted to a particular action. I believe he was just asking for interest. I also think you need to provide proof if you are going to allege concerted action in the way that you are doing, do you have any? If not, you are in breach of WP policies yourself. MarkThomas20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention, "the guys from the British Isles article" is silly, paranoid and offensive. I edit hundreds of articles and they are by no means limited to Britain-related material. I take an anti-POV line generally, which may I suspect by why I and others that you are thinking of have come to your notice - I have spent some time and effort countering a particularly strong Irish nationalist POV-pushing in Britain-related articles recently and whenever one does that on Misplaced Pages it disturbs editors who thought they controlled an article with their own POV. Could that, coupled with your frankly rather bullying attitude, be the problem here? MarkThomas20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If you think that that is the case then I think you need to read carefully the provisions of WP:CANVAS - if you think I am wrong I am happy to let admin sort it out!--Vintagekits20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine, when you do perhaps you could point out (as I will if you do) the relevant section of WP:CANVAS that covers the recent edits:
Scale Message Audience
Accepted1 Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan
None of that was broken by Gaimhreadhan. I suggest a deep breath, a chill pill and a good night's sleep. :-) MarkThomas20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Its the audience section of those three that he fails on and will be blocked for! Havent you thought that its because your edits show a anti "Irish nationalist POV" that he contacted you and with this edit - you've just proved it!--Vintagekits 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC
I have proved no such thing - because someone says they are de-POVing, to you that's proof of canvassing? Flippin heck, if you generate a block from this flimware it would be worth announcing WP has collapsed. However, I think you would be better off having a good rest from WP for a bit to calm down! Good luck with it all anyway. MarkThomas20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I see you just deleted my comments from your talk page plus an entirely separate but similar one from a completely different editor who had a very similar complaint to my own. It does seem like for someone who is so knowledgeable about the rules, you have quite a habit of rubbing other editors up the wrong way. Could it be that they object to something that you are doing? MarkThomas20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
1. Please indent correctly, 2. Stick to the subject at hand 3. I added a test2 tag to the other editors talk page for this edit which is unsourced POV nonsense and rightly shold be highlighted as such. 4. The audience was partisan and therefore a breach of WP:CANVAS--Vintagekits21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think anybody who doesn't precisely follow your (extreme) POV is "partisan" eh Vintagekits? Witness your recent edits. This is obviously a completely futile "discussion", little more than name-calling and ranting, I can only ask anybody passing by to check all edits by Vintagekits for POV and revert where needed. Thanks. MarkThomas21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
PLEASE INDENT PROPERLY, I am sick of correcting your formatting! This discussion is not about my percieved POV - its is about Gaimhreadhan's canvassing and the possibly POV of those he canvassed - you have proved your POV now all I have to do is show the same for the other two! slainte!--Vintagekits21:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I said, good luck with that. If you do file any sort of complaint, I will consider what action to take - your whole attitude to other editors and the project in general brings to mind lots of potential abuses and complaints. MarkThomas21:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Gaimhreadhan
See what you three "hand grenade" messege have dont - now do you see why canvassing is banned! It stirs up trouble and just causes more problems. I hope you are happy with your handy work!--Vintagekits21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a page for dialogue. If you're not willing to answer a direct question I see little point in you posting here, I doubt you'll educate me if you don't directly address my questions:
In your case you presumably have each others 'phone numbers, addresses and e-mail addresses already. Do you categorically deny that you have been in private contact with 303?
Do you deny that you have co-ordinated your agenda outside the visible pages of WP?
I categorically state that I do not contact him outside of wikipedia! now can you defend your canvassing and are you proud of the distruption you have casued!--Vintagekits21:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
On the basis of your clear and unequivocal denial:
I unreservedly apologise for the assumption that you were in communication.
I believe that my three messages to three separate editors of North east atlantic archipelago articles were within both the spirit and rules of WP. If I am in error in this then I will genuinely be grateful if you can show me exactly how I have misunderstood the canvassing article.
You have a point of view that I will categorise as wanting to hide from obvious categorisation IRA killings (if the article being categorised does not bear the name of an individual). I conceded that your narrow grammatical reasoning was technically correct and, therefore, created a wider category that was not limited to articles with only a victims name in which to place the articles you had "un-categorised". Your response was to organise for the new category's deletion. Since I'm limited by the hospital by when I can post, I thought (and still think) it appropriate to alert others to your agenda (since they may or may not agree with it) and otherwise you succeed in your agenda by dint of secrecy. This may all be academic for you but not for the relatives of the deceased...Gaimhreadhan • 22:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I was not trying to hide anything and resent that acqusation! They were categorised incorrectly and were already categorised in the IRA actions category so no "hiding" there either. As for your canvassing - the selection of the people you left the messege was obvious and only took me seconds to work out and admin will take even less - if you can explain how and you selected these people I would like to hear it.--Vintagekits22:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Better late than never:
"It always surprises me how eager many Republicans try to justify the terrorism of the Provisional IRA by saying they were soldiers in a war. Look at Northern Ireland today, its still part of the United Kingdom, the Provisional IRA has disbanded, Ian Paisley is the First Minister, the Irish Republic has given up its claim to the North and has named the Provisional IRA as an illegal organisation. If the troubles was a war, then the Republicans definitely lost. These people, who so many of you want to give the honour of POW, were murderers, criminals and thugs. These are the people who in 1983 killed six people shopping in Harrods, how were shoppers preventing a united Ireland? I can not imagine the thought process that goes through even the most ardent Republican’s mind to make these terrorists soldiers and prisoners of war. Open your eyes and see what they did, do you really want to give them such respect?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.155.76.139 (talk • contribs).
Sockpuppetry block
You have been blocked from editing for violating Misplaced Pages policy by abusive sockpuppetry. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Sockpuppetry is confirmed by your editing patterns and a signature substitution. You have used the sock account User:W. Frank abusively by arguing with both accounts on the same page. This block is for 2 weeks. Tyrenius02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked for the time being to allow you to participate in the discussion re sockpuppetry. You are cautioned per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL not to make derogatory references to other editors, e.g. regarding any supposed affiliation with the IRA, such as "terrorist spin doctors or their apologists". If you continue to do so, this will also lead to a block. This is your final warning regarding this. Tyrenius21:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This is Gaimhreadhan. Not Frank or anyone else. I understood I was blocked on 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC) for two weeks and I have not edited during the duration of that block period. Am I to understand that you are now increasing that block to a further period. If you don't wish me to edit full stop, then simply say so. (Usually blocks are preventative rather than punitive and I fail to understand at all what my perceived delinquency is)....Gaimhreadhan • 01:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If you look three paragraphs above, it clearly states you were unblocked, so you could freely debate the sockpuppetry situation, but you have chosen not to do this. If you look two paragraphs above, you will see a link to evidence that you and W.Frank are the same person. You have not addressed this, and unless you do, I will act on that evidence. Tyrenius22:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Misplaced Pages policy by running an abusive sockpuppet. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. You have failed to make any response to my warning and request immediately above and have merely carried on editing. I am reinstating the original block of 2 weeks. Tyrenius18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I have now sat out TWO (2) consecutive blocks of 14 days (totalling 28 days) because you believed (wrongly and without adequate evidence) that I was the same person as a bald, retired German six inches shorter than me.
I note that you have not apologised to me for your mistakes and abuse of power and continue to act as "Lord Protector" of a minority (but strenuously vocal and harmonised) point of view with regard to the history of Ireland.
I also note that my "prophecies" as regards deleting categories prior to the conclusion of discussions have also come to pass.
I now intend to prove wrong your notion that the blocks were either a necessary precaution or a deserved punishment ...Gaimhreadhan • 12:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The map of the Chagos you restored is not clearer and not more detailed. Did you bother to check with geographical Sites? In a nation like the Chagos made up of Submerged reefs, superficial reefs and dry land (very little of the latter), it is of the utmost importance to illuustrate the difference between the three. A map with only black outlines (most of them geographically inaccurate) like the one you restored, can never be clear enough. With my map I have tried to illustrate the particular geographical condition of the Chagos archipelago.
Please check the image in high resolution.
Besides the map you restored doesn't even have the Owen Bank and has a question mark instead.
You could have checked well before removing my highly accurate map. We are supposed to improve the quality, not bring it down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohonu (talk • contribs) 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
I did closely examine both maps before I reverted your change. I agree that `your' map would be the better one to have if you were the master of a Super Tanker with a draught exceeding 60 feet. Unfortunately, because of the detail, when presented as a thumbnail as you edited it, none of the captions or names were visible at all. For the lede I think the map with clear captions and without a dark blue background is better. However the article's talk page is really the place to be discussing this - not here.
I have now added 'your' map to the right of the long history section, changed the caption and enlarged it to the minimum size necessary to read anything.
Thanks also for providing the Maldivian mariner reference - I have now also corrected the syntax so it displays better in the footnotes...
One wee quibble: you tend to mark you edits as minor; if you feel strongly enough about them to come here to my talk page rather than discussing them on the article's talk page, I suggest you do not mark them as minor.
Thanks for your useful contributions in improving our article!
PS: You do realise that, because Owen Bank is dropping to the sea floor and sea levels are rising, many cartographic charts no longer show Owen as a bank at all because of it's extreme depth - hence the question mark?
...Gaimhreadhan • 10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Michael Collins (Irish leader)
You're welcome. Often I find with any article I've been editing for quite some time that it can be difficult to see the small problems that are staring you in the face. It's an article I think definitely needs further improvement, to push it over the line to GA or eventually FA class. Bearing that in mind it needs work on sourcing, given your obvious interest in the subject are there any particular books you can recommend? Ideally one that's quite neutral rather than gushing with praise for Collins, although I'm not limiting myself to just one book. Thanks. One Night In Hackney30315:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's rare that M inspired neutrality. I do have family documents which I could use. However, given the sensitivity of some of the material, our family have been reluctant to release them to outsiders. However, recent deaths may mean that the consensus and opposition within the family may have changed. If you can provide me with your bona fides, I could make a decision on whether to argue for their limited availability for research purposes. ...Gaimhreadhan • 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Privately held documents are no use for the article sadly, they need to be in the public domain. Regarding the edit, the earlier version wasn't particularly clear and seemed like redundant duplication, now I see it wasn't. One Night In Hackney30316:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing foul and defamatory comments from a User_talk page
Now that I've calmed down, may I ask a question?
Is it permissible to
a) remove comments from my talk page
b) ask specific users not to post on my talk page?
Don't give up fighting for your health! Each day brings us closer to a cure! To answer your questions: a) yes, although it's looked down upon unless it is obvious vandalism (try archiving them, see WP:ARCHIVE) and b) yes, again, but they don't have to respect it (but you can remove their posts per a). Personally I discourage both a) and b) but have seen users do it for many times (up to and including to myself :>).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply which I will take as authoritative since you are an admin I respect.
I'm already 22 months past my "sell-by-date" so nobody doubts my fighting spirit. I'm determined to have my birthday party with the wife and kids. I've got to go now 'cos the nurse wants her station back, but I'll try and e-mail you a proper thanks when I get out of here - that should be on 1 June 2007 at the latest. God bless! ...Gaimhreadhan • 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Star Alliance Members
I am really happy with your proposal. I feel it is definantly the right move for the article. Also, thank you for the note on my wall, I really appriciated your comment. Thanks for your work on the article, keep it up :) Greenboxed00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you not agree that my change (2 characters) was covered by this policy:
"When a long comment has formatting errors, rendering it difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible." ?
If that does not cover my edit (made for the sake of clarity) do you not think that these do not cover the situtation:
"(WP:TPG)is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." or
"Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Misplaced Pages talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large."
Definitely not when this was the user's comment at the top of their talk page. It wasn't a long comment in the middle of a discussion thread with other users. However, you post here was wrongly formatted. It should have gone under the existing post, which is now below it, or at the very least have been indented 4 colons so it is indented further than the existing post which is now below it (that post was indented 3 colons, but should actually have only been indented 2). Tyrenius02:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. I note that you have allowed the PIRA povs to strike-out and through and interleave MY user comments and votes as those belonging to a puppet without a whimper...
I've no problem with following rules - just so long as they are clear, transparent and enforced on all, Tyrenius.
However, presumably both you and I can both claim benefit of WP:IAR and plead "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore them" (forced smile).
PS:There's no requirement to play nice but it still rankles that you have still not apologised for your consecutive 28 day block, Tyrenius. Do you ever admit when you're just plain wrong?...Gaimhreadhan • 00:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
These have all been archived now, so I'm not sure further discussion there will prove productive, however, if you have further evidence that may shed light on the situation, please feel free to start a new thread at WP:AN/I. Rockpocket02:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
My concern in all this is to facilitate a better on-line encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with having a clear, consistent and pronounced world view - it may provide the motivation to beaver away and provide good and multiple sources for articles. The difficulty comes when particularly partisan editors do not even pay lip-service to attempting to achieve a representative balance of the various (competing) viewpoints; that type of conduct leads to subverting WP into a propaganda tool.
I need to know what the current state of play is with Vintagekits before I decide on further action/inaction. Is he currently on parole or subject to a one-revert policy? ...Gaimhreadhan • 03:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
He is currently on a week block. If you have evidence to clear up any uncertainty one way or the other about this issue, please provide it.Tyrenius04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I am personally certain to criminal standards of proof. However, I see he now has a mentor, so I'll step back and see if there is any improvement in his attitude that assists in producing a better encyclopedia ...Gaimhreadhan • 00:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
However, it seems that Brixton Busters does not wish to confirm or deny that he is really a new editor, since he uses 303's old trick of just deleting comments he has no answer to that are left on his talk page:
I do not wish to start WP's equivalent of a Witch Hunt (by alleging socketpuppetry) but please would someone inform me what is the correct forum/mechanism for airing my belief that Brixton Busters is not really a new editor (entitled to a certain degree of latitude and a greater degree of assuming good faith) but has, instead, recently edited on English Misplaced Pages using a user account not called "Brixton Busters"?
Sure users may have a right to vanish - but do they have a right to then re-appear and continue their old biassed editing agenda while their mates attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes by alleging that the re-appeared editor is a "new editor"?
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. . Edit Summaries like "replaced stuff lost by Vintagekits sloppy and careless edits (again) . Why don't you actually read and cogitate on other editors work rather than just spasm your revert reflex, Vinnie?" is not acceptable, and please note I warned you earlier on civility to other users. SirFozzie21:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I assume that, as Vintagekit's Mentor, you will advise him to be less sloppy and careless in his edits and cease dismissing others edits out of hand by spasm reverting?
VK's entitled to continue to try and sanitise the crimes of the Provisional IRA by bowdlerising the facts - what he's not entitled to do is to keep reverting edits made in good faith without discussion on the relevant article's talk pages.
I will assume the reference to living person's biographies in the warning was just because it's a template - unless, of course, you specify otherwise. ...Gaimhreadhan • 21:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This was an absolutely disgraceful and completely POV-inspired block by SirFozzie. It appears to be his chosen role to act as Protector for the various defamatory and manipulative editors whose POV he loosely shares. I believe a general complaint against this admin is in order. Anyone interested in joining it? MarkThomas16:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you reaaaaally want to know.. I brought this block up on IRC after I had made it, and the admins I consulted with said that the block should have been longer.. 24 hours for the civility and/or 3RR violation. Also, I notice once again, Gam is calling User:Brixton Busters a sock and/or ONiH returned. SirFozzie17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The latter sentence is a lie. Read what I wrote and don't you dare twist it again. Repeat that falsehood again and I will cease to assume that you simply don't read too well....Gaimhreadhan • 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it might have been better if SirFozzie had recused himself (as the protector/mentor of Vintagekits) but I think we should give SirFozzie the benefit of the doubt and a chance to reply to my question (privately or publicly) as to whether he thinks he is making any progress in educating Vintagekits to at least examine an editor's work for a few seconds before he reaches for his revert button.
I had less of a problem with 303 (now returned) since at least he often cogitated for a few minutes before inserting the current Provisional IRA point of view.
I think that the time may have come for Jimbo Wales to be alerted to the fact that WP is in danger of being seen as a Provisional IRA propaganda organ (due to a concerted effort by team edits and biased judgements by admins who fail to ensure that the majority viewpoint on political murders and other atrocities are referenced in our articles) rather than nitpick with individual editors/admins who cannot stop pushing a minority and politically motivated POV...Gaimhreadhan • 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if the Jimbo Wales thing will work, but I totally agree about the campaign. Actually this seems to have intensified recently and I wonder if we are seeing something organised. My opinion is that two or three of the most unpleasant and persistent editors represent a team game. I actually don't have a strong anti-Republican POV, just want WP to be NPOV, so for example have tried to counter the worst edits on articles, only to be met with blizzards of agression from the users in question, something they were not reprimanded for; when I complained on WP:ANI, SirFozzie took it over and placed it in an Arbcom. I opposed this and requested other admins to look objectively at it. Of course, this takes time, so the editors doing all the attacking were able to make it look as though it was my fault; SirFozzie pointed to my "lack of clean hands" yet when I challenged him to cite an example, remained silent. I think we should kick up a big stink about this; the question is how best to do it? MarkThomas16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And I will bring up your numerous insinuations and attacks, that have already landed you infront of the ArbCom, Mark. I notice you haven't posted anything there.. SirFozzie17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, I guess when we've all given up under the sheer weight of the attacks, it will become known as Provisional Misplaced Pages. MarkThomas17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Tribally, I am an Irish Republican. But not a mindless one that glamorises violence for its own sake, I hope. It's not just the hypocrisy and self-delusion I hate about the Provo's failed and wicked campaign of violence; it's the fact that they've set back the unity of peoples about 145 years.
I really think we should not allow these Green Nazis to twist WP's policies and weaknesses into allowing them free reign to corrupt our articles and twist referenced facts. But how? Now 303 is back in harness it will be an uphill struggle since he has at least 4 admins in his pocket and is a clever and cunning strategist ...Gaimhreadhan • 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, I guess when we've all given up under the sheer weight of the attacks, it will become known as Provisional Misplaced Pages. MarkThomas17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It's difficult not to get blunt when confronted with such devious and concerted manipulation of the system. Well done - happy to admit I'm outclassed. Used to enjoy courteous editing discussions on WP but now it's just a big ratpack of POVist factions superintended by POVist admins such as yourself. Good luck with it - all you will achieve in the long run is the systematic discrediting of WP. MarkThomas17:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
