Misplaced Pages

Official notification

As an uninvolved editor in good standing, I am informing you that "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to ... Irish nationalism, ... and British nationalism in relation to Ireland" is "notably connected to the Troubles". In order to comply with your topic ban do not edit such articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not agreeing to that - that is complete bullshit - this was never part of the agreement when I signed up to this and you cant add this onto the agreement AFTER the probation is over - you are pretty much just a sockpuppet for Rockpocket! --Vintagekits (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to edit articles within the topic ban, as determined by an uninvolved editor in good standing, then your editing privileges may be revoked. While the scope of the topic ban is wide, it leaves over 2 million other articles that you may edit without restriction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I wont be editing articles in relation to the topic ban - I never said I would but the Irish Civil War IS NOT within the topic ban. Also on what basis are you saying that the 12 month topic ban only started when the probation was over - that is complete bullshit and there is no eveidence for that the topic ban started in May 2008. I am really pissed off with you that you just came along and took Rockpockets side and every aspect of this issue - you've been completely unfair in this regard.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As per Giano, I agree that The Irish Civil War is not connected with The Troubles, and is not on the list of Troubles related articles. --HighKing (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am informing you that articles related to the Irish Civil War are within your topic ban. If you edit them after this notification then your editing privileges may be suspended. (To HighKing: this isn't a vote). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of all this - why dont you just ban me or do you have to wait for permission from Rockpocket. I dont agree with you what else are you going to say is within the topic ban because if we go on like this with you and seleted other editors retrospectively choose what is within and outside the ban the this is all going to turn to shit.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There are millions of article that are totally unrelated to topic ban. I've made over 80,000 edits to nearly 20,000 articles and I've managed to avoid editing any from which you are banned (so far as I recall). I'd be willing to abide by the same restrictions as you are under in order to show my good faith. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You are a really funny guy! Why dont you just jump back in Rockpockets pocket!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is, Vk, that no-one is doing this to "stir the shit". We are doing it because you have a terrible record of editing in articles related to Irish or British geo-political disputes (not just Britian V Ireland disputes, remember the problems on the Falklands and Gibraltar pages?). Time and time and time again, your edits to those sorts of articles led to terrible problems. Eventually the community said "enough is enough" and blocked you. Giano and I, with others, thrashed out a proposal that would allow you back under explicit conditions. Those conditions were put in place to allow you to edit as long as you could not get in Trouble. Those conditions which you agreed to, like it or not, permitted any editor in good standing to request you keep away from articles that could reasonably related to those that you had problems with before. There is no doubt in my mind that your presence on the Irish Civil war article is a danger area. This is why I requested you keep away. You don't get to argue with these requests. You accept them and move on. If you didn't like that you should have said so at the time. You didn't. So now you have two choices: Suck it up, or you can be reblocked and try to get unblocked under the conditions that you do agree with.

If you really believe that Giano, Will and myself are all part of the same plan to get you blocked by requesting you stay away from these articles then you can always open an RfC. I'm not sure I have ever interacted with Will before today, and Giano and I are hardly best buddies, so it would be quite the conspiracy. Nevertheless, I'll be happy to contribute. Rockpocket 22:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not even going to bother tackling you of your snivelling and pathetic points - I am too pissed off to do that at the moment. You dont give a toss about my "terrible record of editing in articles related to Irish or British geo-political disputes" - when is the last time I edited one of these articles in a distruptive manner - answer that and stop bullshitting.

What you are interested in is exercising your power on here. I am happy to abide by the terms that were originally set out and stop trying to make out that I am not (and you are really fucking pissing me off by repeatedly stating that I am not) happy to edit within the agreement but what I am not argeeing to is your attempt to extend the amount of articles that I cannot edit and the timeframe that I am banned from editing them. You have acted completely unfairly with regards this and I wont forget your bullshit here tonight.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope that isn't a threat, Vk. As we both know where that tends to lead. Any more from me and you are clearly just going to get more worked up. I'm out. Rockpocket 23:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agent Shitstirrer your mission is accomplished please return to base.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Rockpocket, please back off, and keep your comments to one place. The best place is WP:AE, where neutral administrators who have no previous history with Vintagekits are addressing the situation. You're not being helpful here.
• Vintagekits, take a deep breath please. The issue of what does and does not fall into the spectrum has a lot of grey areas, and I would urge you consider making a few inquiries of administrators who have no history of editing within this sphere when considering editing an article. A post on your talk page from an obviously uninvolved administrator will cover you far better than a poorly defined topic ban will. Risker (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Goes both ways, VK. I think you should stay off his page too, and tone down your rhetoric a couple of degrees. Do you have any ideas for nice easily described chunks of articles that should be covered in your topic ban? Certain categories? I'm trying to find ways to make it harder for you to mess up. Right now, some people might think you're editing a troubles page if you write about a boxer whose dad died during the Troubles, or a baronets page if you write about a town built on property once owned by a baronet. The more specific the limitations are, the better it will be for you and for anyone else trying to guide you. Risker (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:The-mountain-top.jpg)

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: 2008 UEFA Cup Final riots

Hello there! It's a semi-protection rather than full protection, but I was torn. There does seem to be an awful lot of IP-jacking of the article which is often very damaging or libelous. The reason for the protection is a standard one, which doesn't allow for deviation. I can revoke it if you're comfortable with watching it, as I do? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Template Substitution

Hi there. When you add a welcome template to a users talk page please remember to substitute it. If you need more details, help or wish to reply to this message please contact me on my talk page. Thanks ·Add§hore· /_Cont 14:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Addshore. How do I do this?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table is a page with a bunch of different welcome messages; in the left column is the template code, and it has the "subst" feature built into it. It's a handy link; as you see, there are some different messages for different situations. Risker (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

List of super middleweight boxing champions

Hiya VK. Do ya know the WBA champions since 2007 (when Calzaghe gave up the title)? I know the current champ is Kessler; but there's confusion in between. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Mundine.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I aint got the exact dates for the reigns, but it appears Calzaghe-Kessler-Mundine-Kessler; that about right? GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not far off actually its Mikkel Kessler - Joe Calzaghe - Anthony Mundine - Mikkel Kessler. The confusion is because the WBA messed around between super and regular titles. All very confusing tbh.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember the good 'ole days; when there was one champion per weight class. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really - even I am still to young for that. I think they had three champions at the WBA at once (talk about milking the sanctioning fees) - they had an interim, a regular and a super champion - jokers!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, sooo Kessler has been the super WBA super middleweight champion since October 14, 2006?. PS- the nav boxes are confusing looking at respective boxers articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not 100% sure tbh - Calzage was the super, Mundine was the regular. Not sure if Kessler got the super then after Calzage vacated. Head is spinning.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I know whatcha mean. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Had a second thought about this - I would strip Mundine out and have Kessler from the date he won the title back. There is a time gap of a week or month or so after Calzaghe gave the title up.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you handle those changes, my head is still spinning. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Domer48

Anyone email you what this is all about? Mail me. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Its pureply surious Sarah, a alleged incinuation and non outing. Fuckin jokers are just tryin to silence and box in anyone that doesnt have a Anglo POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Miguel Cotto vs. Antonio Margarito II

Hello Vintagekits, this is The K.O. King. I just wanted to tell ypu that Cotto and Margarito are scheduled to have a rematch in February of 2009. I was wondering if this should be added to the Cotto and Margarito pages, and if so where? Also, Iwould like to ask who do you think would win between these two in a rematch? The K.O. King (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:UDR political poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:UDR political poster.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban

For the information of VintageKits and everyone else concerned:

Vintage Kits is topic banned from the following:

• Anything that related substantially to Baronets, Baronets by name, a group of them, or the actions thereof;
• The Troubles, article and subpages thereof, participating organizations or individuals in The Troubles, anything within the category of The Troubles in Northern Ireland.
• Articles focusing on the current state or history of Irish-British relations
• Articles concerning major conflicts where Ireland and Britain were participants.
• Articles concerning British imperialism
• Outside editors may notify Vintagekits that specific articles are under the topic ban.
• Outside editors may also duly notify Vintagekits that specific articles are not covered by the topic ban.
• This topic ban expires May 1 00:00 UTC.

This topic ban does NOT include:

• Articles concerning terrorism, terrorists, nationalism, nationalists, freedom fighters, or geopolitics in general.
• Boxing articles.

Specific Notifications:

• ETA - NOT covered by topic ban (Notified by Risker)
• Irish Civil War - Covered by Topic Ban (Notified by Will Beback)

These terms are substantially the same as found during the May 2008 unblock, with the footnote ""The Troubles" includes articles related to any Irish/British geo-political dispute, and to all articles about Baronet" expanded into something more specific and sensible. These terms were also discussed here.

Note to admins (and for that matter, everyone else) on enforcement: please use your best judgment, restraint, and caution. The goal of any sanction is to prevent disruption to the wiki, which includes allowing editors to be as productive, helpful, and pleased as possible. Also remember the adage about cooks stirring the pot.

This should be uncontroversial, but as always, objections and comments are welcome.

Oh, and any outside editor who intends to use Vintagekits and this topic ban as a way to further their own goals, issues, disputes, and so on is kindly asked to shut up. Now, lets all get on with our lives.--Tznkai (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just made some modifications to clear up matters and again, try to get at the heart of the matter. Note the hyphen means Ireland and Brittan together, not separately. --Tznkai (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Gołota

Because he is Pole, Andrzej Gołota, not Andrew Golota. pjahr (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ETA

While I've obviously made my opinion clear that I don't think you should be getting involved in such discussions, its equally clear that opinion is not shared by anyone else that commented. Such is life. Irrespective of that, I also think you're entirely correct in your interpretation of how we should write neutral leads. Hence my comment.

Oh, and thanks for reverting the abuse from my talk page this evening. Rockpocket 01:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Creating large numbers of unsourced stubs

You are getting the information for all these boxer stubs from somewhere and probably from a single source. Wouldn't it be efficient and easy to start each with that source listed as an inline citation? All you would need is to get up a good citation format for the source, a references section and {{Reflist}} below, and cut and paste the lot into each (possibly requiring a page number or some such tailoring for each) to vastly improve these stubs. I say vastly because I think that unsourced one line stubs are actually harmful. The form of a stub sets the playing field for subsequent additions. When a person comes upon a stub, they take their cue from the content present. A sourced stub may lead to all later additions being sourced and the converse is true.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Chill out - they are works in progress and will be expanded further in the next 24 hours. I'm off to take photos of the boxers now.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it despite the manner of answer.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As you are so interested I hope you will feel free to improve the articles yourself my friend!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The dig is transparent. I am interested in improving the encyclopedia overall by keeping down unsourced content, and you've dispelled my worries about these particular articles. The creator of content is normally the one well situated to improve it, with access to and knowledge of sources. I have my own areas of interest and when I do post article they are fully written and sourced.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that I have dispelled your worries - I can continue with my saturday safe in the knowleddge of that now! Anyway, keep up the good work - I look forward to reading such well sourced pieces. Its rare that I source any articles that I write so it should be an education for me.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Shall I now reply in kind? No, let's shortcircuit this. I came with a valid concern. You replied uncivily, followed by backhanded bonhomie. We both have useful things to do and a sarcastic pissing contest is not that. I won't be replying further.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Boxers

I assume you're familar with the notability rules on boxers, could you give me a hand with Michael Faulk?--Tznkai (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the guy. What is it that you need?--Vintagekits (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just need to know if he's notable.--Tznkai (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, I thought you wanted me to get stuck into the article. I would say that until he had fought his cancelled last month then yesterday but as he has fought in no major international tournament and has fought as a pro yet then no. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Tznkai (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Connors

If by hoax, you mean this guy doesn't exist, flag it with a maintaince tag (should be one called dubious or similar), and AfD it. If you mean real guy, but almost totally false aggrandizing or libelous info, I'd recommend stubbing it, and then put a note on the article talk page. Point any admins who complain my way. Either way if there are further problems with the article, let me know, or if I'm too slow, use WP:AN --Tznkai (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, tag it for deletion, will probably qualify for {{prod}}--Tznkai (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Flagicons

You wouldn't consider them "emphasize nationality without good reason" (see the entire section at MOS:FLAG)? I'm guessing that's the reasoning behind removing/not adding them. --aktsu  09:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll just copy this to my talkpage, then we can keep it there in case others want to chip in. --aktsu  09:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Vintagekits, while looking through various things I spotted this edit and this edit. Alison gave you the WP:Rollback several months ago, but not for that reason. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't know or forgot about the rules regarding rollback. But please read Misplaced Pages:ROLLBACK#When_not_to_use_Rollback, and remember that administrators are obligated to remove the rollback right when it is not being used properly. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I thought rollback was just a quick way to do an undo. I didnt know rollback was just for vandalism. Its "undo" in future. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WBA Heavyweight Title

Hiya Vk. IMO, that title has become an embarrassment to Heavyweight Boxing. They had as champion, twice John (the hugger) Ruiz, then Roy (went back to light heavyweight & never was the same boxer) Jones & now twice Nikolai (slow motion) Valuev, who might loose the title to former 4-time champ Evander (I don't know when to quit) Holyfield. Yikes. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I especially enjoyed working with you on Michael Gomez. (Any word on the book or movie release?)

Charlie Zelenoff

It says so in the infobox. --User:AlbertHerring 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure - no worries. --User:AlbertHerring 21:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lists of people from Northern Ireland

I saw your comments there and agree that the article as it stands is untenable, for various reasons. I flagged it as unreferenced a month ago, and as no improvement has been forthcoming I would now support changing it to a redirect to Irish people I think. If this is likely to be controversial (and few things connected with NI are not), I wonder if it is worth raising at the Irish noticeboard first? --John (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to post it on the Irish and NI project news pages. Feel free to do so yourself if you wish - I have also nominated the Category of a similar name. regards --Vintagekits (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have redirected it as there was no verifiability there, nor was any in prospect. Aside from that there was the anachronism problem you brought up. I would rather have a redirect to a factual article than an unreferenced bucket of crap, although as with everything others may have different views. --John (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories:Fooian-born_football

Cheers for your support on this issue. Nice to know I’m not on my own. I am not sure if there if there is an appeals procedure to get the decision reversed or re-voted on. However I was on the verge of posting a request for opinions at the WikiFootball page but before I got the chance the categories were deleted. Since you have expressed similar concerns to mine I will do this now anyway. Perhaps someone there will know what / or if anything can be done. Djln --Djln (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I for one find it very interesting to see what forgiegn born nationals have played for various teams etc - there is an appeals process but I dont know how to do it.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

You've been mentioned on my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And in relation to that matter, my official position is that your topic ban does NOT cover the discussion you're engaged in.--Tznkai (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine. I brought the issue up as I was unsure, and I felt given the topic that someone would raise it at some point, so just wanted some clarification and confirmation before that happened. Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Charlie and The Bhoys

I notice you redirected this, then changed your mind. The article has been around for a long time, but on the face of it, it doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BAND. Do you happen to know anything about them, and if so is it worth keeping, or should I {{prod}} it? Rockpocket 01:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well known band in Celtic FC and republican circles. Played to 50,000 in Seville 2003. Not sure they fulfill the criteria but should i=be a redirect - but wasnt sure I should do it cos of the topic - feel free to redo it.--Vintagekits (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well let me see if I can find any reliable sources, otherwise I will redo the redirect. Rockpocket 02:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Manchester Martyrs.jpg

File:Manchester Martyrs.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Manchester Martyrs Mural.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Countries of the UK

Hello Vintagekits, I notice your argument over the term countries of the UK. I wonder why you actually care about the term. As someone who is a Scottish nationalist I take your opinion of my country as a little bit of an insult. Sure, we would be more of a country if we were indepedent, as I beleve we should be, but nevertheless, I live in a country called Scotland. All this constituent rubbish actually takes away from my countries heritage. I actually know where your coming from as I'm part Irish, but please don't try and take away the fact that Scotland, my country, is actually a country. Yours, Titch Tucker (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I long for the day when Scotland is a country and breaks away from under the skirt of its master. If you want Scotland to be a country in its own right then I suggest to vote for and support a party promote Scottish independence. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IBO world champions

Before you ask, Caribbean ordered another laydown of point of views (if this is the term) about the flags (nationalities) of the boxers, at WP:BOXING, under discussions. Please participate! Regards, claudevsq (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Román Martínez

Martínez is sort of a tuned-down and less-chiny version of Yuriorkis Gamboa, he usually begins a bit slowly. But once he is hit, he disregards defense and pursues his opponent around the ring, engaging on the offensive. Most of his knockouts come from acumulation of damage, but he has decent one-punch power. His boxing and defense have improved during the last year, because has received some training from Iván Calderón. I'm not sure if he will beat Cook in his home turf, but if we see the Román Martínez that fought Daniel Jiménez, Nicky is in for one hell of a fight. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

List of welterweight boxing champions

Hiya Vk. Would you happen to know, what's the problem with that article? It goes haywire, everytime one tries to properly add Santos & Margarito to the WBO section. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

'Tis alright now. Resolute has fixed the problem. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year - Late Reply

Hows i' goin? Sorry my reply was so late