This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kransky (talk | contribs) at 00:40, 16 November 2008 (3RR warning posted - this issue is now out of our hands.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:40, 16 November 2008 by Kransky (talk | contribs) (3RR warning posted - this issue is now out of our hands.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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.
Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Djegan 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add nonsense to Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Djegan 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Placenames
Misplaced Pages uses English language places names on the English language Misplaced Pages. If you wish to contribute in the Irish language, there is an Irish language Misplaced Pages at http://ga.wikipedia.org. Otherwise, do not change names in articles. --85.134.167.112 17:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see you have continued to do this - please stop. --85.134.167.112 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- re: what you placed on my user page (and not my talk page, where I might have seen it earlier) - Irrelevant - We use the English language place names for towns. In the case of Dun Laoghaire, this *IS* the English language place name. Please stop with your edits, which are tantamount to vandalism. There is a Irish Manual of Style which makes this very, very clear. --85.134.167.112 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure Dún Laoghaire is an English language place name? Very interesting. I'm curious to know how you come to that conclusion?
- Its the official placename of the town in both languages, very simply - unlike other apparently officially named but non-Gaelthact towns as Baegnalstown (English language official name is Muinebeg) or Newbridge (which is, erm, Newbridge in English). Also note such things as the entirely English language named "Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council". Your current contributions/changes to articles (placing "official name") seem OK, but the previous ones broke internal links, etc. Please sign your contributions on talk pages - you place ~~~~ --85.134.167.112 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hey! Irony....(Sarah777 01:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
- Irony of what? --85.134.167.112 20:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I guess you must be American, eh? (Sarah777 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
- No, Irish. Quite obviously I would have thought. --85.134.167.112 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi 85.134.167.112. To promote understanding, I will hazard a guess as to what Sarah777 found ironic: You asked me to sign my contributions on talk pages. Yet you use 85.134.167.112 to sign off. I don't know that that really counts as 'sign off', at least not in the spirit of things! 85.134.167.112 ain't exactly catchy. Thanks for you tips on Dún Laoghaire though. It was appreciated. Here's my sign off for you! Regards.: Redking7 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Its my IP address. I don't use a user account as I don't feel the need to do so. --85.134.167.112 19:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi 85.134.167.112. To promote understanding, I will hazard a guess as to what Sarah777 found ironic: You asked me to sign my contributions on talk pages. Yet you use 85.134.167.112 to sign off. I don't know that that really counts as 'sign off', at least not in the spirit of things! 85.134.167.112 ain't exactly catchy. Thanks for you tips on Dún Laoghaire though. It was appreciated. Here's my sign off for you! Regards.: Redking7 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, Irish. Quite obviously I would have thought. --85.134.167.112 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I guess you must be American, eh? (Sarah777 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
- Irony of what? --85.134.167.112 20:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hey! Irony....(Sarah777 01:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
Inis Mór
Redking, please see recent edit history of Inis Mór. As User:Djegan has pointed out the article title and the name in main space should be the same. You will have to move the articles to their new name. It would probably be best to open a discussion on the project page before any mass moves. I would also caution other users to stop reverting your changes till this matter is sorted out. (Sarah777 21:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC))
:Yes, I definitely got the wrong editor in this instance. Abject apologies.
Nope. There is a User:Red King as well as Redking7 here! Holy Confusion Batman!
(Sarah777 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
Copyright
Please bear in mind that the material you added to Official Languages Act 2003 is copyrighted, please see WP:COPYRIGHT. Please bear in mind that using copyrighted material is subject to limitations, and may result in removal of material, the repeated use of inappropriate material in an article may result in the article been locked and users prevented from editing the article until any outstanding issues are resolved. Djegan 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure what I added could constitute copyright material (a statement of facts in the public domain) but to address any concerns, I will try again. Thanks.
Alternative names for Northern Ireland
Note we already have an article that deals with the official name of Northern Ireland, its called Alternative names for Northern Ireland. We don't need ***another*** article on nomenclature. Djegan 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I will amend. Thanks.Redking7 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Redking7, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --Vintagekits 15:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to come along and help out over here! Choose one article and help improve that!!
The Irish Republicanism WikiProject is a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.
(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects). |
--Vintagekits 15:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Republic of Ireland Act 1948
I confess that I've only just now seen that Republic of Ireland Act 1948 was not signed by the President until April 1949, which makes you right about the decription "Republic of" coming into effect in 1949. What confused me is that there is a UK Ireland Act 1949, which is what I thought you were referring to. If you would prefer to revert again, I won't complain. --Red King (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Moving pages
Please do not move pages without first seeking consensus, especially where the move might be controversial. Please also see here. Bastun 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Warning
Wholesales delition of text will only lead to tears. Please stop deleting material from Eire. Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies, I looked through the changes, and you did a good job, with difficult material. Sorry for being presumptious. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Why are you using a name similiar to Red King's? GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I too have been confused by this. May not be deliberate, but a little close to "impersonation" for comfort. (And if this RK, and this is a DG account, it shouldn't be used for editing.) Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Four Green Fields
Please consider creating another (separate) article for My Four Green Fields (the art work). Per convention it's not normally appropriate to include two disparate topics under one title. Consider creating a DAB page, and linking both back if necessary. Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK. I'm going to split so. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit-warring
Please stop edit-warring on the article The Troubles.
This edit misleadingly used the edit summary "disambig", when there was no disambiguation involved. Another editor who reverted your edit commented on the issue at Talk:the Troubles; please discuss the issue there rather than repeatedly reinserting a disputed edit.
May I draw your attention to Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? That's not bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert ... it's discuss an edit as soon as it's contested.
Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have reported your violation of the 3-revert rule. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Redking7_reported_by_User:BrownHairedGirl_.28Result:_.29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, please be advised that articles on this topic are subject to a general restriction (see The Troubles section of Misplaced Pages:General sanctions) according to which editors who engage in edit warring may be placed on probation at the discretion of any uninvolved adminstrator. CIreland (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).Redking7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would be grateful if some one could take the time to look at the edits I made and determine if I deserved to be blocked. I don't think I did. I edited the page. Some of the edits were reverted (without discussion). I reverted again. A discussion opened. I participated immediately and gave the reason for my edit, then reverted again. Some hours later, my edits had been reverted again. Instead of 'reverting', I made some changes which I though were a fair compromise so to speak. I then set out my reasons for the compromise on the discussion page. I though I'd acted fairly and reasonably, particularly in finding a compromise. Do I deserve to be "blocked" for this behaviour? I know it takes a few minutes to look at things properly and I am grateful for whoever takes the time to do that. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are no longer blocked, please don't use this template. Maybe a request on WP:ANI or using the helpme template would be more apt. — Golbez (talk) 22:36, 13 April 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.
WP:PARENT
You may want to review WP:PARENT - going to a different location because you don't like the reply on the first isn't looked well upon. WLU (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Userpage
Per your request, I deleted your userpage which a different user had created. Your userpage could be fully protected to prevent anyone editing it, but that seems to be uncommon. For someone else to edit your userpage by the addition of unwanted content is vandalism and they can be blocked if they persist. Your username now appears in red as it did previously. Edison (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Redundant categories
Why? Why do you keep adding Category:Western Sahara to Sahrawi nationality law? That article is in three categories which are themselves subcategories of Category:Western Sahara, and the parent category of a country is supposed to remain virtually depopulated. See also Misplaced Pages:Categorization and subcategories. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Suspected it was some POV point but I accept your explanation. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring
Please read WP:BRD and cease edit warring.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on One-China policy. 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. Green caterpillar (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Flag of Ireland
Having read over [http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.--Domer48'fenian' 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages
I find it interesting to see many of the comments made coming from a political stance. In my opinion, articles such as Flag of the Republic of Ireland can never be written or named from a purely encyclopedic perspective. Its unfortunate, but when the policy is to let anyone edit, which is a good thing in many respects, this will always happen. Articles with political overtones will never be stable, an editor could, if it lasts that long, spend his or her whole life arguing over the contents. I decided to join Misplaced Pages for the enjoyment of editing articles I have an interest in. As a new editor I have as yet to do so, but I don't think, other than looking in and making a comment or two, I will concentrate on these type of articles, I'm not sure how long I would want to remain an editor on wiki if I did. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
New requested move at Flag of Ireland
You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Republic of China
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Diplomatic_missions_of_Ireland&diff=249909297&oldid=249834461 No, that was introducing an inaccuracy. Taiwan refers to the island (its use as a stand-in for "ROC" is strictly colloquial) - Republic of China refers to the government. Plus Taipei, NOT Taiwan is used by governments with no formal recognition of the ROC. Why? Because if "Taiwan" is used then that implies that Taiwan is not a part of China, and we know the PRC doesn't like that. That is why Chinese Taipei is used at the olympics. That is why Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office is used to refer to de facto ROC embassies and consulates. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Dáil Courts
Excellent recent edit by you to this article. Would welcome your views on its Talk Page on the whole question of the paragraph dealing with 'efficacy'. I think much of it should go. My view is that it over-simplifies the complex relationship between the institutions of the Irish Republic and the nascent institutions of the new Irish Free State. The courts were deliberately suppressed, not because of an inherent failing, but because of the janus-faced attitude of the new State towards them and the overriding necessity of indisputably controlling the 'new' judiciary. RashersTierney (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
November 2008
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Neutrality. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 21:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)