Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:55, 10 September 2008

Hello Mooretwin, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Alison 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Misplaced Pages Community Portal Follow Misplaced Pages etiquette Practice civility

June 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Irish Premier League, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Irish Premier League was changed by Mooretwin (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-06-25T14:28:19+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you recently tried to move a page by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Misplaced Pages has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at the cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Gail (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Irish Premiership

Hi there. As the others have pointed out, we already have a version of the above article at Irish Premier League. I've changed yours so it will direct to that page instead, so people will still find the right page by searching for "Irish Premiership". If you want to make changes to the article, though, you should edit the Irish Premier League one. Thanks, and welcome to Misplaced Pages - Alison 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No. No. No. The Irish Premier League has been superseded by the Irish Premiership. It no longer exists and so the Irish Premier League page is redundant. It should point to the Irish Premiership page.

You have reverted 2 Admins on this matter it is better to go to the talk page of either User talk:Alison or User talk:SirFozzie and bring your concerns up with them. Your edits might be seen as disruptive and you could eventually be blocked, Happy editing. BigDunc 15:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain something as a new user, you may not know about. Due to GFDL concerns, we can't do a cut and paste move, the license which everyone posts here. the GFDL requires that previous contributors be credited properly for their work. So, when a page changes name, instead of copying and pasting the text from the old article into a new page, we do what's known as a page move. Look at the top of the the page. It should say things like "edit this page" "new Section" "history", etcetera.

The section I'm discussing here is "move". When you click it, it will bring you to a page where you can enter a new name for the page. I just did this, and moved the page to Irish Premiership. That brings over all the history of the article, and keeps us compatible with the license (if we just copied and pasted it over with a redirect, then the previous editors would NOT appear in the history, and we'd be in violation of the license. Hope this explains where we're coming from on this.

Also, as an American, despite the fact I'm a footy fan, the only prior experience I have with the Irish Premiership is via Football Manager 2008. Could you double check the lead I've entered and see how it looks? Thank you. SirFozzie (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I tried to "move" but I couldn't see the move button on the top of the page, so I had to find another means of changing the title of the page. You seem to have rectified matters now, and your lead is accurate, and so I thank you, although I intend to add my "Trivia" section (perhaps not the best title) which is now lost.Mooretwin (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you have retained some historical and other information on the "Irish Football League" page. I see why you have done this, but I think it would be better to have this on the main "IFA Premiership" page. There is a proper continuity from IFL, to IPL to IFAP, after all.Mooretwin (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable articles

The article Fermanagh & Western Football Association has been speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Misplaced Pages. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you recently tried to move a page by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Misplaced Pages has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

C&P move

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Matthew_hk tc 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop. Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Matthew_hk tc 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making threats based on unspecified criticisms. I've no idea what you're talking about. I've posted on your talk page and you've ignored me. Please desist from this unreasonable behaviour. Mooretwin (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. BigDunc 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, somebody else - Pureditor - is changing my edits without entering into discussion. I will not accept someone's edits unless he or she engages in discussion. Any future edits that I make, I will explain properly in discussion. You will see that I have taken on boards others' comments in the discussion section. I think that is fair.Mooretwin (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Be careful. You'll find that an uninvolved admin will wade in and blindly block you regardless without properly looking at the detail. Once that happens appeals are a waste of time. Ranks close.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've posted on BigDunc's page that I am willing to engage in discussion with people, but will not accept unexplained reversions by people unwilling to discuss why they are doing it. I think that is fair.Mooretwin (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship

In Northern Ireland citizenship is a negative action. Everyone born in NI to at least one parent who was likewise is from birth an Irish and a British citizen, regardless of whether they use it or not. You can renounce one or other if you wish, but from birth you are both.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily - if one doesn't want to be regarded as a Southern Irish citizen, one is not necessarily regarded as one.Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Legally, what you wish to be regarded as is meaningless. I don't want to be regarded as an Irish citizen, but I am one under Irish law, likely the same with you (taken on assumption you were born in NI)Traditional unionist (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with TU on this, according to the GFA you have the right to be both or just one. BigDunc 12:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The GFA is just words, it doesn't mean anything. Irish law on the other hand has basically had this situation in place for 60 years.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Before 2001, under Southern Irish law, people from NI had to apply to become Southern citizens. Now, they may be regarded as such from birth, without the need to apply. There is, however, some room for manoeuvre in that it is not a wholesale assumption that everyone is a Southern citizen. The law is quite opaque and therefore it is accurate to say that people MAY BE regarded as citizens, rather than ARE regarded.Mooretwin (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where someone wouldn't be an Irish citizen? And this goes back much before 2001.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's little point in discussing this on my talk page. I will explain more fully on the main discussion page.Mooretwin (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually people even before 2001 weren't automatically Irish citizens. Another country cannot impose citizenship on citizens from another country. Automatically British yes, automatically irish no. Even the Irish government bodies agree on this one. Citizenship is extended to them for purposes that they can if they wish to be, but it's not an automatic citizenship. Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're correct - they had to apply before 2001 - but I think you're wrong to say that citizenship cannot be imposed on citizens from another country - what is your authority for this?

We had this discussion before Ben, I thought we concluded that indeed it was imposed extra territorialityTraditional unionist (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock

So I see you have been using a sock account, namely Special:Contributions/212.250.165.11. Did you use this to get around the 3rr rule? Either way you never declared that the accounts were connected so therefore an admin I'm sure will have to look into it.Pureditor 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, mate, I've no idea what a "sock" account is, nor what you're talking about.Mooretwin (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Constitution of Ireland. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ww2censor (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic Athletic Association

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Domer48_'fenian' 18:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that, thanks. That's why I abide by the policy.Mooretwin (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidently not, as you added your own opinions and commentary again in this edit.

Sorry, Anonymous One, but all of that is factual, and backed up by citations. The previous version of the article, in omitting such material, was POV.Mooretwin (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Gaelic Athletic Association . Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Domer48_'fenian' 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add commentary or my own personal analysis. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so on the relevant discussion page. Mooretwin (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Last waring to C&P move

• Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Irish First Division, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop. Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Please use Misplaced Pages:Requested Moves. Look at the move tag on the top page! Matthew_hk tc 05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the Irish football pages and then accusing ME of vandalism when I repair them. Mooretwin (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, this is not the time for boilerplate warnings. This editor is having problems with cut-and-paste pagemoves and doesn't understand the ramifications of doing this. We've had this on another article. What they have done is not in any way "blatant vandalism" and in this circumstance, can we please work with them to solve the problem? They're doing their best to be constructive here - Alison 16:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see what I've done wrong here. I "moved" the page as previously instructed. I didn't cut and paste. Mooretwin (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

IFA

I've filed a report for an administrator to take a look at.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And I've gone ahead and done the move/redirs, so everything should be just fine now :) - Alison 17:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these articles are still not right. I had rewritten both to update them, make them accurate and provide more information. What we have now is the old articles under the new names. We need the new articles under the new names. I can't find the updated version in the article history. Mooretwin (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin - I've just undeleted a whole boatload of your old edits to both those articles. Can you dig through your contributions, as you should now be able to find those edits you made, so you can re-merge them into the current article. Hope this works okay for you :) - Alison 23:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Alison - much appreciated. Mooretwin (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Since you got here, you've dealt with a lot of rules, weirdness and technical stuff. It's enough to put many people off, but you're still here and working harder than ever. The work you've done to-date on NI football has been excellent & I just wanted to know that ... well, it's appreciated :) Alison 22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Constitution of Ireland. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ww2censor (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You've already had a warning about 3rr. Please stop reverting and discuss changes that you are making on the talk page so that a consensus can be reached.Pureditor 12:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd do well to follow your own advice.Mooretwin (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually both of you need to immediately stop the edit-war as you're both at your 3RR limit. Next one gets blocked, so please bring this issue to the talk page - Alison 13:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to do so. Pureditor seems only prepared to do so once he has made the last edit! Mooretwin (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd noticed that. He's now blocked for a short period. Either way, you guys need to figure it out on the talk page. I'm seeing mostly agreement with your version, and DJ is now involved, so it looks like progress is being made. Can you guys wait until he's unblocked, though, before making any changes? - Alison 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Northern Ireland. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pureditor was undoing edits. I was restoring them! Jeez. Mooretwin (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Its the same thing. Be careful and engage in the discussion on the matter at IMOS. Cheers.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You were edit warring, pure and simple. Please try and engage such edits in a discussion rather than disruption to the article. I know you're aware of the 3RR rules so please try and play nice, and play safe. Canterbury Tail talk 12:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. If someone edits without discussing and then someone reverts to the original text, it is hardly just to chastise the person who reverted because they didn't engage in discussion. I mean, come on! Mooretwin (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're reverting clear vandalism any number of edits is fine, if you're reverting alterations to articles then it's an edit discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 12:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a lot wrong with 3RR and blocking policy. One day I'll get around to opening a discussion on that. Until it's changed though, rules is rules.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles

Thanks for reverting that vandalism! How were you able to get access to the history page? I could not even find it! Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland/ROI Questions at WIkipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)

This is a courtesy notice to say that the three original 'polls' (now called "Questions") at Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) (here), were amended during the voting process. This was due to initial confusion in their meaning. They are now unambiguous, and fully according to their original intent. You might like to check your contribution. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please re-edit

I had to do a revert to Newtownabbey to remove spurious information (read vandalism). Unfortunately two of your last edits to this article were affected, so if you wouldn't mind re-checking the article to replace your edits. Thanks.Hohenloh (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR breach on Gaelic Athletic Association

Hi, despite receiving a prior warning, please revert your recent edit as you have breached 3RR on Gaelic Athletic Association. In addition, despite several requests, you have not opened any discussions on the Talk page (take a look at WP:BRD). --HighKing (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not me who wants to change the article: it's you. So the onus is on you to start a discussion if you wish. And you also breached 3RR! All I have done is removed unverified claims from the article. I even modified it to take into account your own unverified claim. Mooretwin (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Making inaccurate claims doesn't help. I have not breached 3RR, but you have. That said, I don't really want anyone to get blocked over this. And although the GAA website does not appear to mention anything about a "Catholic" parish, it does use the term "parish" and defines it as "A parish for the purpose of this rule shall be, subject to County boundaries, the district under the jurisdiction of a Parish Prient or Administrator". So the Synod definition is also unreferenced. I'm inclined to agree with your reversions, given the reference to "Parish Priest". What other meaning could it have... OK? --HighKing (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So let's get this straight. First, you made three reversions in 24 hours, and so did I. But you DIDN'T breach 3RR, yet I did?? ... Right. Second, I removed an unverified claim about a "Synod definition", which you restored. Yet you agree that I was right to remove it! Third, the restored version was verified, you claimed it was not, yet now you acknowledge that it is ... What a preposterous exchange this has been! Mooretwin (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You made 4 reversions. At 13:28 you reverted the anon IP address, and at 16:04, 16:17, and 22:17, you reverted me, all within 24 hours.

On the matter of the edits, you appear to be ignoring what I actually said and appear to not fully grasp the importance of references rather than opinion and interpretation. You restored an unreferenced claim. Both claims are unreferenced. I challenged your restoration and asked you to take it to Talk (as per WP:BRD and you started an edit war by ignoring the request and reverting. You then breached WP:3RR, ignoring several other requests to take it to Talk (where this conversation *should* be happening). This isn't about right and wrong - WP doesn't care about right/wrong or truth - it cares about verifiable information. And had you followed WP:BRD that's what I would have asked - same thing I'm asking for now - please provide a reference for the phrase "Roman Catholic". If you feel you want to move this discussion to the GAA page, feel free - it's probably best there anyway.. --HighKing (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't restore an unreferenced claim. The claim was referenced. Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reference for "Roman Catholic" that I missed. Apologies - can you please point it out? --HighKing (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't start an edit war. I merely removed unverified claims. Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion is normally considered an edit war, especially when requested to start a discussion. --HighKing (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm content with the article. If you want to change it, start a discussion. Why would I start a discussion about not making any changes? Mooretwin (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a reference is all. The discussion is normally required when challenged, not for every edit. I'll remove the Roman Catholic reference for now, until a reference can be found, OK? --HighKing (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on - you RESTORED an unreferenced statement, and now you're claiming that all you did was ask for a reference?? The Roman Catholic reference stays as it is verified in the note. Mooretwin (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the reference? --HighKing (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course I did: it was me who put it there some time ago.Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you explain your claim that "I asked for a reference is all", when you restored unreferenced text? Mooretwin (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Moved discussion to Talk GAA Page --HighKing (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. Please revert your latest revert to avoid being reported for a 3RR breach. I made the change to remove the reference to Roman Catholic as I believed we had agreed it. If not, I will also revert my edit until agreement is reached. Fair? --HighKing (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Northern Ireland

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not me who wants to change the article! The onus to discuss must be on the person wishing to change the article. Completely unjust to threaten the person reverting to the settled version. Mooretwin (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No you're involved in an editing war, the rule still applies to you. You're not reverting vandalism, you're having an editing dispute. Canterbury Tail talk 19:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

All I have been doing is attempting to stop OTHERS from editing agreed text without seeking consensus first. That is within the spirit of Misplaced Pages. It is unjust that I am punished for this, while those ignoring Misplaced Pages policy are able to succeed in making controversial edits while I am banned. You don't need haughtily to tell me discuss controversial changes first - THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN ASKING OTHERS TO DO. Mooretwin (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your at it again.Ovlem (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

USC

Thanks for the time you took on the USC page. Did you find the synthesis ok or do you think I need to go back and do more work? The Thunderer (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a good, readable piece of work. Mooretwin (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel it needs more information as to the type of weaponry used and actual operations they were engaged in but I was concerned about observations from other editors that it might be POV. The Thunderer (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of Ireland

Hi, Looking at the ROI talk page it is 100% agreed on to use the pipelinking of ROI to show Ireland and to display the correct name of the country except say when discussing NI and the state in the same sentence. Your edits regarding the Irish flag and Olympic Councils are against this as there is no ambiguity in those circumstances. Could you please accept the status quo and refrain from these incorrect edits? ThanksIP213.202.189.10 (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's agreed. It was just put forward as a suggestion - by me. The Thunderer (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Thunderer's right. There is no such agreement as you suggest. Where "Ireland" is used, especially as it relates to NI, there needs to be disambiguation - this is accepted - "Republic of Ireland" is the obvious disambiguator. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added further comments on the talk page. I'm starting to think that my suggestion may have been a poisoned chalice, but we'll see. The Thunderer (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR Block

You know the 3RR rules, and you have continued edit warring and reverting. As a result I am blocking you again for 48 hours for continued disruptive editing, edit warring and breach of the three revert rule. Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail talk 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous injustice, yet again. The edit-warriors are rewarded and the person restoring the consensus version is punished. This is ludicrous. If justice is to be served, in the event of a dispute, the settled version of the article must remain until consensus is reached. On this article, those seeking change without consensus have been allowed to change the page. It is disgraceful that you accuse me of "disruptive" editing, when all I have attempted to do is to revert article to its settled version and direct those who disagree with it on to the Talk page. Mooretwin (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I count 6 warnings on this page solely for 3RR breaches. Just because you disagree with a version doesn't mean you can keep reverting it to the version you like. People can edit articles on Misplaced Pages, it is the point, but now those articles have been locked down due to edit warring over them. It is not okay to continuously revert to a version you prefer when other editors change it, that is disruptive editing. Reverting vandalism is one thing, but these are not vandalism they are content disputes. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR rule is unjust because the person seeking in good faith to maintain the status quo (until such time as consensus for change is reached) is treated as equally guilty/disruptive as the person seeking to impose his or her disputed edits. Of course people can edit articles, and most of the time these edits are accepted as they result in improvement, but when disputes arise as a result of someone seeking to impose a change which is not agreed upon, then the principle should be that the article is reverted to its pre-dispute status until the dispute is resolved. This seems so obviously sensible and just that I can't believe it is not an accepted principle. Mooretwin (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I also see that an anonymous editor (IP213.202.189.10) doesn't appear to have been blocked for breaching 3RR. If you edit anonymously, does this mean that you can breach Wiki rules with impunity? Mooretwin (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Too many times well meaning editors are punished for edit warring when all they're doing is restoring the concensus point in an article against determined opposition by tag teamers. This defeats the purpose of the guidelines and frustrates earnest contributors. I don't think Mooretwin can be blamed here and respectfully suggest he be unblocked. The Thunderer (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to ask for an unblock using the unblock template detailed in the block notice above. Another Admin will at that point review it and if they feel the block was unjust then it will be lifted. I believe there is an aspect of edit warring going on here, though yes there are others involved as well. However I will of course stand by any decision by another admin. Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I too have been tag teamed on other Irish articles. It's a method employed to get non-consenus material past the observant. The fact remains that this editor defended the consensus whilst taking part in a discussion on said concensus. It would be a simple matter to check if the tag team were involved in that discussion too but the outcome would be the same whether or not they were. If they were then they should know not to change consensus material while it's under discussion. If they weren't then Mooretwin should have invited them to discuss the options, which I note he did. Either way Mooretwin shouldn't be blocked for defending policy, in effect defending the article from vandalism. The Thunderer (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that just because something has existed for a while means it's consensus or status quo, that's not always the case. Canterbury Tail talk 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not falling into any trap. The concensus for Republic of Ireland is just that - Republic of Ireland. Discussion has been underway for some time to change it to Ireland but no new concensus has been agreed here. Therefore this editor has been defending concensus and has been blocked for it.The Thunderer (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Thunderer. This highlights a weakness - as I have noted above - in the 3RR policy, which potentially punishes good-faith editors along with (or, in this case, instead of) the disruptive editors. Mooretwin (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have drawn Canterbury Tail's attention to the ongoing discussion. In the meantime I suggest you make an official request to be unblocked. Be sure to detail the concensus discussion and point out how you were tag teamed. No reasonable admin will let you remain blocked once the facts are known. Just be patient for a while though. The Thunderer (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I hope you don't mind but I've changed your wording in the notice slightly to refclect the fact that you were upholding concensus on naming convention. The Thunderer (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, although it appears to have been in vain. Mooretwin (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an injustice and will be recognised as such by somebody, eventually. The Thunderer (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Put the unblock request in again and ask for somebody familiar with Irish issues to review it mate. The Thunderer (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to appeal being blocked for contravening 3RR in the History of Ireland article. The conduct for which I am being punished involved reverting edits which were disputed and had not been discussed, and advising editors to take their requests for change to the Talk page. These reverts were against current naming conventions at Republic of Ireland and in light of the ongoing discussions on concensus it is unjust that I have been punished for upholding convention, while a tag-team of other editors, who were unwilling to engage in discussion, has not been. Mooretwin (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, but the purpose of the 3RR rule is to stop edit warring. The circumstance you describe is not one of the rare exceptions to the 3RR rule. --jpgordon 14:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mooretwin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to a review of the decision in respect of my appeal against being blocked for contravening 3RR in the History of Ireland article. I would like somebody familiar with the Irish issues to deal with this appeal. The conduct for which I am being punished involved reverting edits which were disputed and had not been discussed, and advising editors to take their requests for change to the Talk page. These reverts were against current naming conventions and community concensus at Republic of Ireland and in light of the exceptions at WP:3RR it is unjust that I have been punished for upholding convention, while a tag-team of other editors, who were unwilling to engage in discussion, has not been.

Decline reason:

solid block. Clearly 3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I will respect your request to have an editor familiar with Irish issues review the block, but my own review of your edits and the block itself confirms that you do appear to have violated the 3RR policy. Your intentions were good, no question there - unfortunately, they do not factor into the block. The 3RR policy takes the view that the edit war itself - two or more editors going back and forth on an article - is more disruptive than temporarily having the article posted as the "wrong" version. In this context, unfortunately, it resulted in your block. As for the content, it matters not one bit what the subject is; you could have been editing Shoe for all it matters. Edit-warring is edit-warring, so far as the policy is concerned. Best, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And thus the policy is an unjust one. It seems that tag-teams and anonymous editors can succeed - by edit-war of attrition - in getting their own way, while bona fide editors are punished. Mooretwin (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's still a problem when you revert-war to enforce consensus edits. Let the others who also support you make some! If necessary, ask for intervention at WP:RFP or WP:ANI, and if there are certain users engaged in nationalistic POV-pushing, it may be worth starting an WP:RFC or even a WP:RFAR about them. Many other nationalistic edit-warring issues have ended in discretionary sanctions, and the banning or blocking of problematic editors. That's what to do in light of this kind of behavior. Having consensus is not an exception to the WP:3RR. The kind of behavior I'm suggesting is what separates article owning from consensus building. Mangojuice 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but this is a case of community consensus and as such is a clearly defined exception at WP:3RR. Mooretwin should be advised and unblocked IMHO.The Thunderer (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Read WP:3RR#Exceptions. And even in those exceptional cases, repeated reverting is still not a good solution to the problem, compared to blocking and/or page protection. Mangojuice 17:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have done and note 'Reverting in order to conform with community consensus on geographic names which fall within the scope of the Gdansk Vote. This is an issue of community consensus as described. Perhaps Mooretwin was over enthusiatic and failed in the respect that he didn't seek administrator intervention but it can be seen he was trying his best. May I respectfully suggest an admonishment, some instruction on bringing in admins in future and a lifting of the block? The Thunderer (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the Gdansk vote? It refers specifically and only to the naming of Gdansk/Danzig. Mangojuice 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the wording "falls within the scope of" is intended as a guideline for similar disputes. It's maybe taking Mooretwin a little longer than others to grasp the concept of third party intervention. This could be an ideal opportunity to educate him and show some sort of understanding of this very complex issue. I've fallen victim to similar gaming in the past and know just how it feels which is why I'm trying so hard to assist here. The Thunderer (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You just want an exception so badly you are trying to jam one in where it doesn't fit. No, the scope of the Gdansk vote is very clearly delineated at Talk:Gdansk/Vote: the naming of Gdansk/Danzig in articles that refer to it. Mangojuice

I honestly took it to mean that "within the scope" meant that it applied to other articles where there was a naming convention and community consensus. I'm appealing on behalf of this poster and doing my best to get him free from chokey is all. The Thunderer (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lifeline

Mooretwin, you may be about to be given a break. Be very careful how you read what's put to you and be damned courteous about it. I've done my best for you, if you foul up again there won't be a second chance.The Thunderer (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Mooretwin (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I think there's more to discuss here. Mooretwin, I'd like for you to read our guide to appealing blocks if you have a chance. One of the things we look for in an unblock request is an assurance that, if you are unblocked, you will not go back to editing in the manner that got you blocked in the first place. I appreciate that you were attempting to enforce consensus, and that you were acting in good faith, but I'm concerned that you had multiple warnings and did not heed them. Whether you disagree with the 3RR policy or not, you (and all editors) are still bound by it. So, I guess my question would boil down to this: If unblocked, what are your intentions? How do you plan to proceed, both in general and specifically on the articles under dispute? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept that I broke 3RR - my gripe is really that the four reverts which I made were reasonable, whereas the edits I was changing were unreasonable. It's correct that I have been warned several times before - generally for the exact same situation - reverting articles pending consensus for change. Consequently, I continue to perceive the 3RR as unfair - that will not change - but I will certainly endeavour to be more patient in future: leaving an edit to which I object for a couple of days will not be the end of the world! I think, to date, I have also demonstrated my willingness to seek consensus by participating in numerous discussions on Talk pages, and I will continue to do this. I hope, however, that you recognise my honesty when I tell you that I will continue to strive for clarity in terminology, and if I end up breaking 3RR again, I will take my punishment like a man. Likewise, if you feel you cannot overturn my block, I will accept your decision and sit out my suspension. Mooretwin (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and I've pinged the blocking admin asking them to review. In the meantime, I've seen a lot of editors who are blocked for 3RR, and one proposal that works well to avoid future problems is called a 1RR restriction. Basically, you'd agree to limit yourself to a One-Revert-Rule for the articles where the dispute occured - in this case, I'd place it on Irish articles and related topics. Once you've reverted, you would agree to seek consensus (or outside opinions) right then, rather than reverting twice more. Is that something that would work for you, if only as a way to prevent future blocks? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In some circumstances I would unblock you, but the fact is I blocked you for 3RR on the exact same thing just a few days ago. This isn't the first time, and you've been 3RR warned on similar topics on many occassions, it's not something new to you. It seems to me nothing changed between then and now. I feel this block isn't just as a punishment, but a time to think and come back a stronger editor. There are many editors on Misplaced Pages for who a 3RR block has made them come back stronger and trouble free who have made great contributions afterwards. If another admin wishes to unblock you then I won't say anything against it, but I'm afraid I cannot bring myself to given these circumstances. Don't take this as personal, and don't take it as I'm singling you out for anything or disagree with the edits, but they were causing article disruption and a great deal of edit warring was going on whether you were the cause or not. Canterbury Tail talk 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mooretwin (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Ovlem (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe use

Too busy in real life to drag out sources for you, but I was lectured at length by an 'old school' geography master when I dared to use an apostrophe for Shaws Bridge. The apostrophe aparently has only slipped into usage in todays 'lazy' apostrophe usage culture. Also you moved Pegasus mistakenly using the apostrophe, the emphasis is Pegasus Ladies not 'Ladies' Hockey Club'. Leave a reply and I will respond in greater deatil when I return in a couple of months time. Cheers and good luck.Weejack48 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's referred to as a "Grocer's Apostrophe"? The Thunderer (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No. A "grocer's apostrophe" is a grammatically-incorrect apostrophe, e.g. "apple's 50p each". This case is a quirk which ostensibly - in grammatical terms - should have an apostrophe, but it has obviously either been lost over time, or is a name whose form precedes the introduction of apostrophes. I guess like Andersonstown originally would have been Anderson's Town. Mooretwin (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I never thought of the alternative interpretation of Pegasus Ladies Hockey Club. It makes sense, I think, although it does seems odd - if they were Pegasus Women rather than Pegasus Ladies, would they really call the club "Pegasus Women Hockey Club", I wonder! Grateful for any further info. Mooretwin (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is that an apostrophe in this case means "of the". So if it's a lady only hockey club then it's a ladies hockey club. If you were going to use an apostrophe it would be ladies' (of the ladies). Good to see you out of chokey btw.The Thunderer (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Of the" would still attract an apostrophe. As I suggested - you would never have Pegasus Women Hockey Club. If Wee Jack is correct there is no apostrophe because it is Pegasus Ladies Hockey Club rather than Pegasus Ladies' Hockey Club.Mooretwin (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

SF

Apologies for revert, I completely misread the 'compare versions' and thought that you were denying the historical reality rather than asserting it. As you may have noticed, I reinstated your edit. --Red King (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Mooretwin (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ThatsGrand sockpuppetry case

I don't know if you know about this case against ThatsGrand. As you feature in it quite a lot (and I compiled it on my talk page, which I doubt you have watchlisted), it occurred to me that I should perhaps inform you as a courtesy notice. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt Mooretwin (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Better still, you might be interested in this checkuser case, which I just completed. I know you guys are waiting on the results - Alison 09:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

3 RR Warning

You appear to be involved in an edit war on the Sinn Fein article. If you are not familiar read WP:3RR thanks. BigDunc 07:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)