User:W. Frank/Temporary Zone

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your :questions.

We're so glad you're here! --Simonkoldyk 18:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your warm and helpful welcome!

As a non-native English speaker I'm always a bit worried that my contribution will be unintelligible.

Have I done anything wrong by creating a new article? W. Frank 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Be bold in updating pages! I've also answered this on Talk:Cabragh House. --ais523 10:01, 6 December 2006 (U T C)

PS: I'm originally from Dresden in Germany but was a foundling by the occupying British forces after the firestorm. I'm semi-retired now. W. Frank 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I noticed that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the oldest primary school in New Zealand and I don't feel qualified to write one. Instead I've e-mailed the current Principal of Nelson Central School and suggested he contribute one - was that a silly thing to do? W. Frank 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do I have two distinctly10:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)W. Frank different user pages?

The older (helpful) one is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:W_Frank and the newer (blank) one is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:W._Frank&redirect=no

?? W. Frank 10:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You are User:W. Frank; the other page is at User talk:W Frank (notice the . after the initial initial in your username). User talk:W Frank should be deleted because it corresponds to a non-existent user; if you find the information useful, you can copy it to this page first; to request its deletion, place {{db-nouser}} on the page (in this case; there is a different tag for each speedy deletion reason). --ais523 10:47, 6 December 2006 (U T C)

(edit conflict) The former (not this page but the other) seems to have been created by mistake, as there is no user account by that name, you can safely ignore it or if you like redirect it here. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, one and all!

I've marked the phantom for deletion now ( I hope, I'm so stupid I may have done it wrong again...) W. Frank 10:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nelson Central School

I put a {{prod}} message on Nelson Central School because the article doesn't yet contain any content. I realise that you are waiting for Dr Potaka to respond to your email, but the article could have been created when he replies. Having empty articles make Wikipedia look bad. The effect of the message I put on the article is to ensure that it is deleted if nothing happens for five days or so. You could also start the article with information from the Ministry of Education. See how other New Zealand school articles are formatted, for example Logan Park High School.-gadfium 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm very new to all this and there's a lot to learn. Thank you for your help. My motivation was that I did not like a dead (or red) internal link in my Cabragh House article...
W. Frank 12:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also regarding the Nelson Central School article, any commentary about the article should go onto the article's talk page rather than onto the article itself. This is a general Wikipedia convention (see WP:TPG).
--Lost tourist 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, as you see above, I'm brand new and (hopefully) learning about this wonderful animal every day.

I've also replied to you on your user page and also in the article's talk page.

Just this once, and hopefully just for a few hours (maximum 99) could you leave the article as it is until Dr Potaka or another editor shows up to start it?

Please forgive me for being a Newbie editor. When writing my article for Cabragh House, I noticed a missing link for Nelson Central School. I then e-mailed Dr Potaka, Principal of Nelson Central School, suggesting he create (or delegate members of his staff) to create the missing article.

Subsequently I have received e-mails from others in the Nelson region indicating that he may be temporarily indisposed for the next couple of days.

I suggest, therefore, that you leave the Nelson Central School page in the condition I have reverted it to just now and including the scheduled for deletion box. That way if he, or no other editor, shows up to correct and expand the article, it will be deleted automatically in 5 days and if volunteers (or Dr Potaka himself, since I assume he will also be a Newbie to Wikipedia) show up in the meantime they will have a skeleton on which to hang flesh.

Thank you for your tolerance, forbearance and understanding
W. Frank 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)! W. Frank 15:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When I suggested you see how other school articles were formatted, I didn't mean for you to copy the whole article into Nelson Central School. You ended up with a mess of information mostly about the other school. I've now changed the article into a bare-bones article about Nelson Central. It no longer needs the prod. Feel free to improve this article yourself, but don't revert it to the previous mess.-gadfium 19:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But I didn't, gadfium.

According to the edit history, that Revision as of 12:52, 7 December 2006 was made by 89.240.127.10

I may be stupid but I'm not so stupid as to spell it "Neslon Centraql Skool" as that anonymous editor did...

However, I do take your general point and I will go in and try and clean it up a bit later this afternoon. Thank you for your useful and pertinent comments.

W. Frank 15:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your change to Persian Walnut

I reverted your change to Persian Walnut because at the time the walnuts were distributed by merchant marines, who were also, like their civilian counterparts maritime merchants. If I am wrong about this, please explain on the talk page before reverting. Thank you. KP Botany 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. Are we talking here about Royal Marines (the military) who were doing a bit of trading, or the English Merchant Navy (also doing a bit of trading) or what exactly?W. Frank 20:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Diocese of Nelson

I reverted your change to the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia link. This is because the name of the diocese is exactly that - with the comma. This is because the Anglican church in NZ is made up of three threads or traditions - Tikanga Pakeha (broadly those of European origin), Tikanga Maori (broadly those of Maori origin) and Tikanga Pasifika (broadly those of Pacific Island origin). The "Aotearoa" part of the name refers to the five Hui Amorangi, the "New Zealand" to the seven Dioceses - both of these split up New Zealand, but differently. So you are right that Aotearoa is New Zealand, but not that the name should have a slash in it. Ringbark 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my inadvertent error - I mistakenly thought that this was an example of ignorant grammar rather than a considered ecclesiastical decision. God be with you! W. Frank 13:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your support on deleters

Thanks frank, it takes a lot to stand up in support for what you feel is worth speaking to. web 2.0 is a great development on line. Hope Fiji can work it out and not have UN intervention.

RoddyYoung 12:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you threatening me?

Vlad fedorov 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No.W. Frank 14:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

GRU article

Your comment on GRU page history is uncivil and personal attack. If you continue restoring obvious falsification that GRU was helping Saddam Hussein and would continue personal attack on me, I would report you on administrators noticeboard.Vlad fedorov 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree that my comments were an uncivil and personal attack.

This is what I wrote as a comment:

"=== Large scale deletions without consensus ===

At 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I placed a comment on the talk page of User_talk:Vlad_fedorov who has been conspicuous by

his absence from these pages [ie the talk pages of the GRU article]
his consecutive deletions, without any prior discussion, of material provided by other editors

This is the exact quote of what I wrote on his user page:

"Wikipedia as a community has rules to prevent edit wars.

One of these is the 3RR rule.

If you wish to delete large passages of another editor's work without providing any references, it is more polite to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page FIRST.

If you do not, your excisions may be regarded as vandalism.

Please proceed immediately to talk:GRU and discuss your point of view (POV) with fellow editors there before reverting this article again.

If you do not, you run the risk of being blocked from Wikipedia.

You may find that Wikipedia:Wikiquette provides some helpful guidance. Thank you for your anticipated compliance."

Within less than half an hour (and without any further discussion or comment) at 17:05, 8 April 2007 Vlad fedorov had expunged my comments using the following as his edit summary: "Personal offence removed"

I am posting my comments here [ie the talk pages of the GRU article] because I have a strong suspicion that any further help I offer on Vlad fedorov's user pages will also be expunged.W. Frank 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)"

Now I have emphasised some points that I believe are relevant to your deprecated behaviour with regards to GRU, your own talk pages and elsewhere:

Wikipedia's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have different views, perspectives, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopaedia.

Principles of Wikipedia etiquette

Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
Treat others as you would have them treat you – even if they are new. We were all new once...
Be polite, please!
- Keep in mind that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony isn't always obvious - text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection or body language. Be careful of the words you choose – what you intended might not be what others perceive, and what you read might not be what the author intended.
Work toward agreement.
Argue facts, not personalities.
Don't ignore questions.
- If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
Be civil.
Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if other editors are not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than they, not less. That way at least you're not spiralling down to open conflict and name-calling by your own accord; you're actively doing something about it: taking a hit and refraining from hitting back – everybody appreciates that (or at least they should).
- However, don't hesitate to let the other party know that you're not comfortable with their tone in a neutral way – otherwise they might think you're too dense to understand their "subtlety", and you'll involuntarily encourage them (e.g. "I know you've been sarcastic above, but I don't think that's helping us resolve the issue. However, I don't think your argument stands because...").
Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so.
Forgive and forget.
Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages.
Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
Help mediate disagreements between others.
If you're arguing, take a break. If you're mediating, recommend a break.
- Take it slow. If you're angry, take time out instead of posting or editing. Come back in a day or a week. You might find that someone else has made the desired change or comment for you. If no one is mediating, and you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.
- Walk away or find another Wikipedia article to distract yourself – there are 6,908,426 articles on Wikipedia! Take up a Wikiproject or WikiReader, or lend your much-needed services at pages needing attention and Cleanup. Or write a new article.
- Nominate yourself for a list of other articles to work on, provided by SuggestBot.
Remember what Wikipedia is not.
Review the list of faux pas.
Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
- Amend, edit, discuss.
Remind yourself that these are people you're dealing with. They are individuals with feelings and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to treat others with dignity.
Remember the Golden Rule: "treat others as you want them to treat you."

How to avoid abuse of talk pages

Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back. They're a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos, but most of all they're for forging agreements that are best for the articles they're attached to. If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why you think your way is better.
Don't label or personally attack people or their edits.
- Terms like "racist", "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner.
Always make clear what point you are addressing, especially in replies.
- In responding, make it clear what idea you are responding to. Quoting a post is O.K., but paraphrasing it or stating how you interpreted it is better.

Working towards a neutral point of view

When we correct violations of the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, we often make the mistake of using phrases like "foo points out that" or "xy explains". These phrases themselves can be seen as non-NPOV, as they imply a certain agreement by Wikipedia. The original author then often sees this as non-NPOV and deletes the changes, and eventually, an edit war results. It is better to use the following procedure:

Inquire politely on the article's talk page about aspects of the article you consider non-NPOV (unless they are really egregious), and suggest replacements.
If no reply comes, make the substitutions. (Use your watchlist to keep track of what you want to do.)
If a reply comes, try to agree about the wording to be used.

That way, when an agreement is reached, an edit war is very unlikely. The disadvantage is that the article stays in an unsatisfying state for a longer period of time, but an article that changes frequently doesn't create good impression with other Wikipedians or of the project as a whole.

A few things to bear in mind

Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV), instead of supporting one over another, even if you believe something strongly. Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use article talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy.
If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that the person hates you, that the person thinks you're stupid, that the person themself is stupid, or that the person is mean. When people post opinions without practical implications for the article, it's best to just leave them be. What you think is not necessarily right or necessarily wrong – a common example of this is religion. Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted your religion. Also, always remember that anything that is written on Wikipedia is kept permanently, even if it is not visible.
Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time – consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative.
Wikipedia invites you to be bold. Before initiating discussion, ask yourself: is this really necessary to discuss? Could I provide a summary with my edit and wait for others to quibble if they like?
You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.
If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopaedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around Wikipedia is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get along with someone, try to become more friendly. If that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them.
Though editing articles is acceptable (and, in fact, encouraged), editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable, as it can alter the intent or message of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts. Try to avoid editing another editor's comments unless absolutely necessary.

If you really continue to regard any of this as a personal attack (as opposed to an attack on your intolerable attempts at political censorship) then I think it would indeed be a very good idea to "report [me] on administrators noticeboard" - perhaps I should not have pointed you towards the WP articles referenced above.W. Frank 14:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have published the first text on case of Alexey Galkin so-called "confessions". The other texts would follow shortly. Especially on the allegation of hiding Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" and allegations of promoting the terrorism. I advise you, as you are not competent in Russian and couldn't study Russian sources which are usually not published by Western media, to stop your dispute. I would like to note that both of the articles I use in my text about Alexey Galkin are from Novaya Gazeta - which is anti-Putin newspaper. One of their journalists was Anna Politkovskaya. Both of the articles are supportive of Alexey Galkin. They contain not only the interview and transcript of "confession", but also comments of the newspaper journalists and conclusion of phsychologist who has studied the videotape of Galkin "confessions". Moreover, the transcript of Alexey Galkin press conference which was interrupted in two places by Abu Movsaev is telling enough about voluntarity of these confessions. If I would describe in such way all accounts of false allegations in this article, the article itself would be bigger and contain rather irrelevant information, than infromation on [GRU]]. Vlad fedorov 08:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that my user talk pages (or yours) are the place to discuss this. Please take this to talk:GRU and discuss your point of view (POV) with fellow editors there. W. Frank 14:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Warrenpoint Ambush

W.Frank, firstly howiya! secondly the terrorism category in the - the term terrorism is a divisive and largely POV term and is outlined as a term to be avoided by wiki. It is usually used where the target of an attack was specifically civilians. I know you didn't add the cat but you replaced it, however, it is an incorrect and POV category - unless you think the British Army targeted the civilian they killed because they thought he was a civilian and are happy to write into the article that the British Army are terrorists for killing the civilian then I would suggest that this category does not suit this article.

P.S. I am always happy to help in any way and I am always contactable on my talk page. regards --Vintagekits 15:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Good day to you, Sir! Thank you for your friendly offer of assistance and for your tone of voice. I try and steer clear of controversy since there seem to be so many more impolite editors on Wikipedia these days.

2) I do so agree with your point of view regarding less inflammatory wording in article text - however, in categorisations we need to be brief and pithy - a bit like a tabloid headline, in fact.

However, if you check the edit logs for the article Warrenpoint Ambush you will see that I did not restore, add or replace the Category:Terrorist incidents in the 1970s.

It was already there in the version by the previous editor user:One Night In Hackney. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warrenpoint_Ambush&oldid=121540790 if you doubt my veracity.

My general policy is to have as many helpful categorisations as possible since it helps readers explore the wonderful source of knowledge that is Wikipedia - especially children.

Now, I wonder if we can continue to discuss this at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_9#Category:IRA_killings

Since I'm always reluctant to censor the Good Faith efforts of others, may I ask you to copy edit this dialogue there?

3) Sadly, in this era of assymetrical warfare the concept of civilian has rather lapsed. I was a foundling in the smoking ruins of a city that was "terrorised" by the American hero Winston S Churchill and his Terrorflieger. Do you not think the categorisation is correct since the Warrenpoint Ambush article records one of the greatest military defeats of the British Army in recent years?W. Frank 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This should make things clear

Why do I edit Irish Republicanism articles? Perhaps because they needed improving? I'll take selected examples from my user page.

Dessie O'Hare - Version before I edited it, WP:BLP disaster wouldn't you agree?

The latest version that you edited is much more encyclopaedic and multi-faceted; well done and you must be proud of all your hard work!

I'll look at the other articles when I have time - please be patient.

W. Frank 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Colombia Three - Version before I edited it, a lot of the information wasn't sourced by the one (!) reference provided, and it too had WP:BLP problems.
Northern Bank robbery - Version before I edited it, again major sourcing and WP:BLP problems.
Provisional Irish Republican Army - Version before I edited it, looks a lot better and has approx 30 more references.
Sinn Féin - Version before I started improving it, now has triple the number of references.
Chronology of Provisional IRA actions - Version before I edited it, had no references as opposed to the 74 (and growing) number it has at present.

So is it unreasonable for an editor with an interest in a certain subject area to concentrate on that subject area, considering the terrible state of those articles? Should the editor be branded as a "comrade" for improving the articles? I don't think so. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to make allowances for language confusion here. I don't regard the terms republican or comrade pejorative (of themselves and obviously it depends on the context)... {long passages moved/archived to "Green Zone"} ...

Large scale deletions of the text by Biophys

Hello W.Frank,

Please come back to GRU article where Biophys who published allegations of GRU participating in bombing of buildings in Moscow and rest of Russia and allegations of helping Saddam to hide his weapons now deletes the whole texts without discussion. Vlad fedorov 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

...{another passage moved/archived to "Green Zone"} ...

Newry mortar attack

Allow me to explain why IRA is used in that article, to prevent further confusion. Post-1972 the Official IRA was on ceasefire, and the only active group using the term IRA was the Provisionals, which remained the case until the Continuity IRA became active in 1996. Unless more than one IRA is being referred to in a particular article or there's a risk of confusion, the standard usage is the acronym IRA. PIRA is not an acronym generally used except by the British Armed Forces, the common name in British, Irish and American media is the IRA. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand. However, I think that a certain degree of precision is required in encyclopedia articles. US presidents may say they are making a state visit to England, but we both know that, if it is a state visit, they really mean the UK. However, you are by far the expert when it comes to these matters, so please feel free to revert my edit if you feel it muddies rather than clarifies the waters. Tschuess! W. Frank 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I thought it best to explain, should you be about to make any further changes of that nature. The media never (well, hardly ever) use the PIRA term, and even the PIRA article makes it clear it's more commonly known as the IRA. I think some clarification may be needed on the Fitzgerald part similar to your edit, but not in that exact form. At present the sentence starts with "Irish Prime Minister Garret FitzGerald", so it would make more sense to clarify that particular Irish rather than the latter one possibly? I'll change the PIRA parts back for now, but await further discussion tomorrow on that part. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope the edits I've made to the PIRA article now meet with your approval - I've clarified the reference to the Irish PM and inserted a fact template. I'm off to enjoy the good weather while it lasts now, I hope the sun shines on you too! W. Frank 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought that statement was sourced later in the article, but as it transpired it wasn't but it isn't really under dispute anyway and it's since been sources. The Newry page still needs slight tweaking I think, I'll take a look at it later. Sanitise, moi? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:IRA killings

Hi. I see you recreated this category. I have deleted it again; I left the talk page undeleted and suggest you take forward any argument for recreating the category there. Although the result of the AfD debate was keep, I think the debate has moved on a good way since then and can see no useful purpose now in retaining it. Please let me know if you disagree. --Guinnog 17:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

British Isles edit

Hi Frank. I removed "geographical" because it is likely to lead to conflict and was unnecessary - if the article begins with "The British Isles is a group of islands ..." why is it necessary to explain that the term is "geographical"? I added "... and its use is avoided in relations between the governments of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom" because this is true (if necessary I can add references?) and it is notable that an otherwise common term would be deliberately avoided in dialogue between the two sovereign states that occupy the region. This is why I believe that "geographical" is likely to lead to conflict. When describing the names of places, "geographical" and "political" terms are often contrasted with each other. "Geographical" can be read to imply that a term is a neutral, not to be confused with the world of politics. Opening a sentence that deals with political objections to a term by stating that the term is "geographical" thus implies a judgement on the validity of those objection. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think that one or two words in the lede emphasising that the "British Isles" is a geographical term rather than a political term or a statement of colonial possession is appropriate to dispel any confusion right from the start. The business about the naming dispute is dealt with in depth in a separate section and a separate article referenced within the British Isles article, so I think the emphasis is wrong. God bless! W. Frank 12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Wikipedia:Deletion policy Tyrenius 04:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've given up on the weather here in Glasgow ever improving, so I'm off to start my belated holiday. W. Frank ✉ 07:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

HPA

I was heartened by your extremely intelligent and factual remarks on the AfD for the Hereditary Peerage Association, which has become quite a talked-about body in London. The nominator is constantly AfDing anything to do with the old British establishment which he quite obviously loathes. Thank you again for your comments. A breath of fresh air. David Lauder 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think that he voted in support of the HPA for any other reason than to have a go at me then I am shocked.--Vintagekits 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Go and sit on your perch.W. Frank ✉

Bloody Friday (1972)

Please stop removing sourced statements and changing them with your preferred POV version. You have no consensus for these changes, and have refused to engage in discussion on the talk page. If you continue I will seek dispute resolution. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not giving editors a chance to either discuss or implement changes without reversion. This article is not your personal possession and I am quite happy to discuss changes with you - indeed that is my preference - however the consensus that you speak of is a recent status quo achieved through driving away other editors with a less vehement and single purpose point of view. None of the quoted references support your POV that the lede should summarise an illusionary targeting of military and ~~civilian~~ economic targets rather than the results of the bombings. Just actually read the BBC articles you are so fond of quoting. You are in grave dange of breaching Key Policies 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. W. Frank ✉ 18:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution here you come then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish neutrality during World War II

The article Irish neutrality during World War II has been nominated for deletion. Please add your opinion to the discussion on AfD. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning: Colombia Three

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 23:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an unhelpful comment; see: here.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Arb Com

You might be interested in this Arb Com case. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this, Major, but life isn't long enough; I've already been victimised by the provisional wing of the wikipedia administration and I don't want to be set upon by the FSB as well - these guys are professional you know, in every sense of the wordW. Frank ✉ 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham pub bombings and other articles

Please stop changing text against the consensus on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. Brixton Busters 10:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with above statement.--BigDunc 10:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's time wasting. --Domer48 20:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I see other editors have asked you to stop, and you have ignored this and are continuing to be disruptive. Please stop, thank you. Brixton Busters 08:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Other members of WP:IRA, whose line on this is well documented on various talk pages. There is a valid contrary view. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the most common usage of the abreviation for the Provos is IRA.--Vintagekits 14:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Precision and clarity trump ambiguity and common mistakes of speech. President George Bush may think he's taking his English poodle for a walk but our Encyclopaedia would probably introduce the stance that he was making a State visit to the United Kingdom. All rats are mammals but the reverse is not necessarily true and the various flavours of terrorist organisation need to be distinguished precisely (where the source of the stench is precisely known and adequately referenced by reliable sources).

WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. W. Frank ✉ 16:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what ambiguity there could ever be if after the first mention of Provisional Irish Republican Army there is the abrv (IRA) which would then follow for the remainder of the article. That is the current state of play. Unless you get references and a consensus to overturn that common usage then please do not edit war by changing it until you do. regards--Vintagekits 16:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to actually read WP:NOT#ADVOCATE yet? There are some subtle but basic points there. The Provisional Irish Republican Army is very intent on shoving home at every chance its particularly electorally attractive POV (for provisional SF) that it is the true inheritor to the IRA.

To lighten the tone a bit, this is what G pointed out to me:

"Sorry, Brixton, I'm confused. When you say they became the IRA instead of being the Provisional IRA - does that mean they became the Official IRA? Or is there a group out there calling itself "The IRA (accept no substitutes!)"? Do you mean the

IRA? Or the
IRA? Or the
IRA? Or the
IRA? Or the
IRA? Or the
IRA?
Irish Army? (And let's not even go near the Irish names and/or translations of all of the above).

Conclusion: Disambiguation and accuracy are good things. Moral: Always look on the bright side of life.

(stolen from another user with minor amendments).

Our readership is not just from Europe you know and you'd hate to see them leave our project more confused than they when they arrived to be informed. I really don't mind if you start in the lede with "Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA)" and then refer to "PIRA" throughout OR just use the full and distinguishing title throughout.

What we should not do is do something like: Provisional Irish Republican Army (HEROES) or Provisional Irish Republican Army (SCUM). Precision is always better.

Now, while you're here Vinny, I've done some radical copy editing to the article on Sir Henry Gore-Booth, 5th Baronet you started and that you might like to look at. I don't really want to be drawn into a long discussion here at this particular time - especially when the consensus described doesn't really exist yet. Please go and discuss on the relevant article's discussion pages if you really think you have a new point to make. W. Frank ✉ 16:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear as confused as Bastun. IRA has been used to refer to the Provos for a considerable amount of time, anyone wanting to change the acronym usage to (the incorrect) PIRA needs consensus to do so. Brixton Busters 16:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WF! Describing the IRA as "terrorists" is POV; the phrase cannot be used in Wiki articles for that very reason. Suggesting they are "rats" is offensive and breaching WP:NOT#ADVOCATE as well as probably a dozen more Wiki rules. Claiming that Freedom Fighters "stink" is partisan and abusive and provocative and the sort of thing that were it applied to "the other side" would have a decent Nationalist up to her neck in Arbcoms and RfCs. But of course Wiki is NEUTRAL and not censored and so forth...as certain Admins keep on telling me! Poor old VK below can't even express himself freely any more. (Sarah777 16:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

Text's a bit jumpy around here, innit?

W, "the consensus described doesn't really exist yet". Herman and Chomsky wrote the book called "manufacturing consent" - brilliant stuff I recall. And if they turned their fine minds to Wiki they'd not be too worried about the tiny resistance of Vinny and the boys. Is the Big Lies told by States that kill the tens of millions. Ain't it so? (btw, I agree with G's reasoning on the lineage of the Provos); but it's a bit of a Wiki-thingy to use the commonest term, whether it is the clearest or not. (Thankfully the Wiki "consensus" is utterly inconsistent in the application of this convention). The truth is totally irrelevent on Wiki; only verifiable lies count, apparently.

Indeed W....I was shocked myself to learn that! (Sarah777 17:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

Sarah: Because of what G told me, I will make one exception to my request not to post here this particular week. My Rufname is Frank. I have been called Frank for more than 60 years. Unfortunately "Frank" was already taken when I chose a user name.

And I do appreciate the very valid philosophical point you are trying to make. But here is neither the place nor the time to make it.

Have you see the good news about your (plural - lousy language English) arbcom?

There is a new proposed (and more appropriate and targeted) remedy for you. W. Frank ✉ 17:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies Frank - didn't know about the your request; picked up the sparring above on my watchlist and took an interest. No incivility intended. (Sarah777 17:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

Apology accepted, Sarah. (Only one needed - nothing wrong with your argument - just the wrong time and place). You'll always be welcome on my page and G's - just don't go near that "naughty cupboard". I'll probably not be editing on Wikipedia very much in the future (except to keep an eye on tending G's talk page). G introduce me to WP as a quiet, sedentary hobby for my retirement when I hurt my leg. Little did he know. W. Frank ✉ 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is no consensus to change to PIRA, please stop. Your claim that WP:NOT applies is incorrect, the overwhelming majority of sources use the correct term of IRA, so that is what we use also. Brixton Busters 14:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise is not allowed on our project. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favourite views.

No false "consensus" that can be achieved by team editing, bullying, harassment, Wikilawyering and driving away WP:NPOV editors by tedious and relentless repetition of your desire for ambiguity and imprecision will ever over-ride our policies and guidelines. You have a choice: either use the unambiguous Provisional Irish Republican Army throughout relevant atrocity articles OR mention the primary article once in the lede followed by the precise and unambiguous abbreviation of PIRA.

Now I've read all the specious arguments you've advanced in the cause of advancing political propaganda elsewhere and I doubt I'll ever be convinced that you should succeed in your consistent and concerted campaign of obfuscation, so please don't bother me again here on this particular topic - unless of course you wish to e-mail me with NEW information that trumps WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. W. Frank ✉ 14:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. There is a discussion going on elsewhere, you cannot ignore it as you see fit. I have no wish to communicate with you off-Wiki, due to the harassment perpetrated against me by your close associate I take my privacy very seriously. Brixton Busters 14:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What "harassment" and which "close associate" exactly? W. Frank ✉ 14:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also stop adding "terrorist" as you did in this edit. Please see WP:WTA and WP:NPOV. Brixton Busters 15:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Try and stop peddling political propaganda and really try and understand what writing articles from a neutral point of view means. It's not simply a list of "naughty words" - you've been editing long enough to know that by now.

Why do you think PIRA was and is a proscribed organisation North and South of the border? It's not for breaching planning regulations but because of the considered views of at least two governments that unlawfully blowing civilians to bits, and kneecapping teenagers in furtherance of an irredentist political campaign was a "terrorist campaign" W. Frank ✉ 15:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also stop using your talk page as a political soapbox. Wikipedia guidelines and policy are clear on the use of the term "terrorist", please leave your personal opinions out of articles. Brixton Busters 15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, BB, where are the "guidelines and policy" clear on the use of the word "terrorist" in such context? Over the years, I've never heard of, say, RTÉ, toning it down to that level and I'm curious as I don't believe that WP:NPOV covers that given that it's pretty factual and verifiable - Alison ☺ 16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you've not addressed any of the points I've made, BB.

And it's rather unsymmetrical to accuse me of soapboxing since

You started this campaign here instead of using the article's discussion page
You seem to concentrate on advancing the political ambitions of PIRA and its political wing by introducing political propaganda in articles almost exclusively related to PIRA and its stated political objectives. I know WP does get a bit Alice in Wonderland sometimes, but yours is the minority political POV pushing not mine.

Now this is the last time I ask you to stop using my user talk page as a vehicle for either harassment or political propaganda. Any more of it and I will follow the precedent you have set on your own user talk page. W. Frank ✉ 16:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Alison, please see the WP:TERRORIST shortcut to the relevant section of WP:WTA. The way in which the word was added was a breach of that guideline and of WP:NPOV. Brixton Busters 16:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, but WP:TERRORIST is a guideline not policy. Given the extensive use of the term by the wider media over the years and the proliferation of cites, its use in context is not over the top, nor is it set in stone - Alison ☺ 16:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me Alison. I obviously have no objection against a qualfied use of it as recommended, for example "what X, Y and Z described as a terrorist campaign". Brixton Busters 16:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have not misunderstood you. Read what I said again. "Recommended" is just that; a recommendation. The use of the term in direct cites, for example. We're all aware of that. However, the totality of my comment still stands, irrespective of your objections or otherwise - Alison ☺ 16:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of terrorist in the context that W Frank is trying to use it on articles on POV, using the term in a direct quote that is referenced is not. I would regard the actions of the British army in Northern Ireland as in Bloody Sunday as terrorist, but it would be POV for me to insert that in that article.--padraig 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find references to support the idea that the paratrooper's intended to create fear or "terror", their actions were perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately targeted or utterly disregarded the safety of non-combatants. Unfortunately for your propaganda campaign, many definitions only include only acts of unlawful violence. In the absence of any international or non-british tribunal ruling that their actions were unlawful you must then fall back on Sarah's position that this is too much an establishment stance which brings us neatly full circle to (was it John's excellent?) truism that WP is inherently biassed (except in PIRA articles it seems) towards an "establishment" viewpoint.

How many hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the Saville Inquiry? I doubt that you and I would be able to second guess that enquiry.

If you can find good sources for your POV you could always do what the Bloody Sunday article does and have a "perspectives and analyses" subsection. You'll also note that there is a list of victims there (with excellent details) and the exact units of the British Army have been specified. All good encyclopaedic stuff - unlike the obfuscation the team editors continually seek to introduce into the articles cataloguing PIRA activities.

However, as I've said before, this is neither the time nor the place for these sorts of discussion. W. Frank talk ✉ 20:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronoun

I feel sure you must have read it already, but to be sure, may I refer you to Lar's post on Gaimhreadhan's talk page.[1] You will find the proper form to use with addressing other users, whose gender has not been made specific. You have not followed this in your post on AN. [2] To fail to follow this specific guidance, in light of your admitted grudge against me, might be perceived as ongoing harassment, which could of course result in a preventative measure to stop its continuation. Tyrenius 16:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That referenced discussion is as clear as mud.

What pronoun do you prefer?

(in alphabetical order:) he/ it/ she/ they ?

Can you actually block yourself for harassment?

Please e-mail me if you genuinely wish to resolve your issues.

Unless you choose to finally clarify your pronoun preference, any further post here by you on this topic will be taken as further harassment and bullying W. Frank ✉ 17:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You fall below your normal high standards of comprehension. Let me help by quoting Lar's post: absent a specific request to use "it", "it" should be avoided because of the connotation. But if Tyrenius makes no specification of preference, then use your choice... "he/she", "they", only use "Tyrenius" and never a pronoun, or even just "he" always. All of those are acceptable.

So here is the acceptable list:

he/she [used as a combination with the slash included]
they
Tyrenius
he

This is not acceptable:

it

Regarding the other matter of your ongoing complaint, I had hoped that you would reply at User_talk:Tyrenius#Space_for_answer_from_User:W._Frank. If you find you are able to, then a post there might be a step in the right direction.

Tyrenius 17:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I realise that you are upset, but please try and indent properly. Do you realise I'm upset and you are really not helping yourself, me and our project by not e-mailing?

Now part of your post is finally helpful. You've made clear that "it" is not an acceptable pronoun. :::Please now also show your claimed humanity by admitting that you are human and, consequently, fallible.

I'll try and remember to use that complicated combination of "he/she [used as a combination with the slash included]" but please don't pounce if I slip up on the odd occasion.

I'll wait for that e-mail, since I already replied on your talk page here more than 12 hours ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=prev&oldid=150714403 W. Frank ✉ 17:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My indenting was fine. I posted without indent, you posted with indent, I posted without indent (then you can post with indent). This makes the sequence easy to follow and takes less space vertically. I am not personally upset, but I object to editing privilege being misused to fulfil a personal campaign. If you wish to email me, my email is enabled and you are free to do so. I have nothing to say at the moment which can't be said here. Otherwise your post is farcical regarding pronouns: I'll try and remember.... You never used to have a problem using "he" and you don't seem to have the issue with any other non-gender-declared editor, so it's obviously personal. You continue snide personal attacks with "claimed humanity" and "admitting that you are human". I have never claimed not to be fallible - that's your invention. You've been warned about all this enough; I think you need a bit of time away from this dialogue to reflect on how to phrase things without them containing pejorative content. Tyrenius 18:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Talk_page#Formatting

I'll still wait for that e-mail, since I already replied on your talk page here more than 12 hours ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=prev&oldid=150714403 but I really genuinely don't believe you have an interest in resolving this other than by getting me banned or blocked. And since, it's you that say the proof lies in these mystic emails I don't see how we are going to sort this out.

You are correct that I "need a bit of time away from this dialogue to reflect on how to phrase things without them containing pejorative content."

Finally, and this is the last time I tell you this: Don't bully or harass me. Not this week (unless by e-mail). Not this page (unless you explain by e-mail) why you are so desperate (at long last) to "communicate".

Now you may take the week away in finding references for this assertion of yours that you "have never claimed not to be fallible ". A few diffs where you admit a) you were wrong and b) you're sorry, would do the trick and then, not that my opinion of you is important, I would have reason to reassess you. W. Frank ✉ 20:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi W. Frank. Can I suggest you let this matter drop; it is not for Tyrenius to prove anything to us, and it is totally for you to address people on the project as they wish to be addressed. Nobody is bullying you or harassing you; if you have a problem with an administrative action of Tyrenius's then please take it to an RfC. Otherwise I suggest it would be a good time to move on from any annoyance over something from months ago. There are more useful things we could all be doing. Best wishes, and I hope you can take my advice as it is intended. --John 05:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you are trying to be helpful, John, but you seem a little confused about the issues here. I have not asked Tyrenius to prove anything. he/she has asked me to use a particularly tortuous pronoun combination and I will endeavour to do this. If I ever slip up it will not be because I have misused editing privilege "to fulfil a personal campaign". I am a specific male with a specific identity that I have proved to administrators. I am human. I am male. I make mistakes. I try and recognise when I make mistakes and then do what I was brought up to do naturally to defuse a difficult situation that I cause by my mistakes. Admission and apology.

I do not know or care why he/she is so sensitive on this pronoun issue and I certainly can not comprehend why he/she should be posting on my talk page at this difficult time. I have asked her/him to go away and have a good think about her/his unhelpful attitude to sock puppet allegations and her/his admin decisions in general and I hope he/she does. I still have not had a copy of the e-mail he/she constantly refers to and neither have I had any e-mail from her/him at any time whatsoever.

He/she really is being logically inconsistent and, speaking plainly, should now either put up or shut up.

Wikipedia is just too Byzantine.

It seems to have a "sanction system" where only two verdicts are possible regarding "sockpuppetry": Guilty or Probably Guilty ("checkuser is not for fishing"). I would have preferred to reach an exculpatory verdict, but accept that the present administration can not adequately address common sense issues of justice and fairness.

So be it.

At least Alison and Gadfium know the truth W. Frank ✉ 10:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You have the option of using "he" if you wish for non-gender-specified users, so I suggest you do that if you wish to avoid mistakes to which you state you are prone. There is no need to make life difficult for yourself (or others). Tyrenius 17:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness! - Alison ☺ 19:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As Frank pointed out, I can state with 100% certainty that both User:W. Frank and User:Gaimhreadhan are both very real people and both very separate individuals. I recently spoke with Frank for over an hour on the phone and can attest to his being who he says. I verified his address and identity and can understand why he is being so insistent over this and why he feels he (and G.) need to be exonerated here - Alison ☺ 19:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I now have documented evidence which proves the identity of W. Frank beyond any doubt - Alison ☺ 20:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir Henry Gore-Booth, 5th Baronet

(New section started by Vintagekits moved from beneath "Condolences" section

I have made some changes to the above. Can you copyedit it again to see if its OK. regards--Vintagekits 17:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not this coming week, and possibly longer, Vinny. If you really don't know why, read this page above and below or go back through the history of my recent edit summaries. User:Kittybrewster is very good at this sort of thing and will probably help you out. All I did was a simple copyedit - and not a very good one at that - if you're desperate, e-mail me. W. Frank ✉ 19:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am just looking for you to put it into proper English, dont worry about the technical terms - I'll sort that.--Vintagekits 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

floruit

The fl. designation is used when birth and death dates are not known. Its use in User:Gaimhreadhan's page isn't appropriate. Rklawton 14:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the useage and I respectfully disagree that it is inappropriate. If you have any queries, please address them to one of these administrators: User:Alison or User:Fred Bauder W. Frank ✉ 14:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 12 hours for violation of the Three Revert Rule. Revert warring is not the way to resolve an editing disagreement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On which article please?

Where were you notified? (a diff would be helpful, please).

Improvements in spelling and removing breaches of policy are not usually counted if there has been no prior warning and the reverts are not simple reverts and have been discussed on the article's talk page.

W. Frank talk ✉ 20:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[3] You were reported at 3RR and appear to have reverted on Gerry Adams 4 times in the last 24 hours. You have been around long enough not to need a warning. I can also see that this is a difficult time for you and am prepared to release the block if you confirm that you will not edit the article for the remaining period of the block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to push off to bed. If you wish to be unblocked on the terms I have offered please use the {{unblock}} template and hopefully some passing admin will release the block. Good night. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've got another 30 minutes, so message me if you do. I'm not monitoring block requests. Rklawton 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! You seem to be a very fair admin! I think it best I sit out my block but consideration might be given to other team editors on that particular article. W. Frank talk ✉

[Edit conflicts]]

Thanks for your quick response.

Thanks also for realising the preventative nature of a block

Although I had finished editing for the day, I think that attention might be given now to these users (who keep introducing spelling mistakes and ambiguity) in their spasm reversions:

ie: User:Brixton Busters and User:Domer48 since 3RR can be invoked for the spirit and not just the technicality of making 4 edits to the same article in 24 hours (I don't think I ever made a simple revert).

Please note, in particular, how long those 2 users cogitate before they use simple reverts (rather than correcting spelling and MoS mistakes, etc).

(cur) (last) 19:53, 14 August 2007 BigDunc (Talk | contribs) (30,988 bytes) (see discussion) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:50, 14 August 2007 Aatomic1 (Talk | contribs) (30,963 bytes) (A Supergrass (informer) should not be involved with Gerry Adams) (undo)
(cur) (last) 18:55, 14 August 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (30,988 bytes) (As with every other article you try this, see discussion) (undo)
(cur) (last) 18:07, 14 August 2007 W. Frank (Talk | contribs) (30,963 bytes) (correct imprecise, ambiguous language as per Talk:Gerry Adams and WP:NOT#ADVOCATE, etc) (undo)
(cur) (last) 17:59, 14 August 2007 Brixton Busters (Talk | contribs) (30,988 bytes) (No consensus to change to PIRA. Also SF has always been committed to democratic politics) (undo)
(cur) (last) 17:44, 14 August 2007 W. Frank (Talk | contribs) (30,968 bytes) (correct imprecise, ambiguous language as per Talk:Gerry Adams and WP:NOT#ADVOCATE, etc) (undo)
(cur) (last) 16:38, 14 August 2007 Brixton Busters (Talk | contribs) m (30,971 bytes) (→Alleged IRA Membership) (undo)
(cur) (last) 16:38, 14 August 2007 Brixton Busters (Talk | contribs) m (30,971 bytes) (→Alleged IRA Membership) (undo)
(cur) (last) 16:36, 14 August 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (30,972 bytes) (As you are aware, see discussion) (undo)
(cur) (last) 16:22, 14 August 2007 W. Frank (Talk | contribs) (30,968 bytes) (fixed spelling mistakes introduced by User:Brixton Busters and adopted more NPOV and less politically prejudiced language) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:46, 14 August 2007 Brixton Busters (Talk | contribs) (30,972 bytes) (Per WP:NPOV, WP:WTA and Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:45, 14 August 2007 Conypiece (Talk | contribs) (30,956 bytes) (This has all been discussed on the talk page. Gerry Adams cannot talk on behalf of the Irish Republican Movement'. W.Frank is entirely right in his edits.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:43, 14 August 2007 Padraig (Talk | contribs) (30,972 bytes) (see discussion in talkpage, this article has nothing to do with the CIRA or RIRA) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:38, 14 August 2007 W. Frank (Talk | contribs) (30,956 bytes) (Real and Continuity IRA's have not yet renounced violence so reduce ambiguity and other MoS and policy stuff) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:32, 14 August 2007 Padraig (Talk | contribs) (30,972 bytes) (Undid revision 151185812 by W. Frank (talk) there is no such organisation as the provisional movement) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:26, 14 August 2007 W. Frank (Talk | contribs) (30,949 bytes) (correct imprecise, ambiguous language as per Talk:Gerry Adams and WP:NOT#ADVOCATE, etc) (undo)

I'm very disappointed that you have gone right back to revert warring on this article as soon as your block expired. I deliberately chose a very short block to give you pause to think. I also offered you a chance to be unblocked and you continue to disrupt. I would like to avoid a cycle of escalating blocks that might end with your being ejected from the project. If you are determined to continue to be disruptive please let me know and I'll save everyone the pain and indefinitely block you now. I would far rather you continued your history of good faith editing but this needs you to stick to the rules. To avoid the need for another block, I have fully protected the article for 48 hours to give everyone concerned a chance to discuss this dispute and reach a conclusion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be obliged if you could avoid going round changing all the IRA references to PIRA ones. Its causing a lot of disruption and I'd personally prefer to see a discussion of the use rather then an ongoing low level edit war that staggers on from one article to another. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Some go to PIRA, some to OIRA, some to RIRA some to CIRA it depends on which terrorist organisation was involved exactly - just the 3 letters "IRA" do not distinguish the various flavours.

All Roman Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Roman Catholics

Do you have a policy that says we should obscure and render ambiguous our included sources?

I'm afraid you'll have to do a fair amount of reading of the edit histories of the various articles to realise what is going on.

You could start reading this talk page above and then you'd realise that precision and a lack of ambiguity are good things for our project. Thank you for devoting a bit of time and research into this topic.

This may encapsulate things for you: team editing to make provisional SF seem more electorally attractive W. Frank talk ✉ 22:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you check my talk page you will see that I have already had that pointed out to me. Please check your e-mail you have a message. I have no intention of researching the correct version because my concern as an admin is the disruption to the articles not the actual content (as long as it isn't libellous). I have been forced to fully protect two articles today because of edit warring over changes that you instigated. This can be avoided by reaching consensus on the talk page over disputed changes not by partaking in a revert war. I'm well aware that Irish Republican articles have a chequered history but right now the disputes are being instigated by your edits. This needs to stop. Out of respect I have given you a lot of space to work this out but this clearly isn't working. I'm going to be reviewing everyone's editing tomorrow and will be issuing blocks to anyone who instigates any further disruption without first using talk pages to reach consensus. I'm sorry but I simply can't accept any more edit warring and I'm not prepared to lock down any more articles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So you think it more important to have a stable biassed propaganda article rather than one that, for at least some of the day, is encyclopaedic and written from a neutral point of view?

Can you tell me specifically what is wrong with the articles after I have edited them?

If you can't, then you are really making a value judgement from ignorance that the article was better before I edited. You are entitled to make a value judgement but only if you do spend the time to examine the edit histories and talk pages of each individual article to see why I remove ambiguity and imprecision as I do. Wikipedia is going to look pretty silly when media attention is focussed on just how biassed our "Irish Republican articles" are. W. Frank talk ✉ 23:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the admins role in editing disputes. If I were editing the article I would be concerned about sourcing and the correct information. As an admin my role is limited to ensuring that editing of articles is able to proceed without disruption. Irrespective of the merits of your edits, the effect of changing IRA to PIRA or adding lists of victims is to create an edit war. This is disruptive and must now stop. Article talk pages are the place to reach consensus on controversial changes and you also have the option of seeking a third opinion; mediation or dispute resolution. None of these options work well in the context of a high energy edit war. There are many options available to you to resolve this concern but editing disruptively is no longer one of them. I am deadly serious about this, if you disrupt any Irish Republican related articles today like you did yesterday or the day before I am going to block you for disruption. This has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of your edits but everything to do with the disruptive effect of them. Please stop now. I do not wish to block you but I will if you continue. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Omagh bombing

Please do not add content that has been deleted per process. See the discussion on Talk:Omagh bombing. Thank you. Brixton Busters 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding this new section in an appropriate place. That was sensitive.

However, it will rarely be necessary for you to post here at all about any of my edits, since I add to my watchlist the discussion pages of any articles I edit and review the discussions before editing.

You are in error in your assertion.

It was not content (the details of victims) in our article on the Omagh bombing that was deleted by process. It was a separate article that was only created (and then deleted) by the efforts of your team.

Looking at that AFD, I'm actually wondering how the decision to delete was arrived at. Two deletes, one saying "not sure if this shouldn't be in the main article", the other delete agreeing; three keeps; and two merges. The result should surely have been 'no consensus' or 'merge'?

The list of victims was preserved as a subpage of my Talk page, which is permitted. There is no policy against linking to a talk (sub)page that I'm aware of, though I'm open to correction on that.

If you read that AFD, you will see that the consensus (not vote) was clearly not to delete - it was to merge into the main article, with improvements.

Since Omagh Bombing/names has now been deleted, I have added the names to ensure truly encyclopaedic coverage in the article

Deleted articles can't be recreated as articles - this is not the case here.

Although the sub-article was deleted, on WP:NOT grounds, it seems even that perverse decision may have been on misinterpreted grounds - see ongoing discussion here.

Note that the closing admin in the AfD stated "The result of the debate was Delete - no prejudice against recreation at a later date in a more encyclopaedic form." Note also that the actual !vote was 2 deletes, 2 merges and 3 keeps. Given that, your assertion above is obviously incorrect. So - is your team going to be reasonable, especially given the ongoing discussion on such short lists inclusion in relevant articles? W. Frank talk ✉ 19:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that AfD discussions are not votes. It's not a case where the majority always wins. The closing admin will review the arguments made. Hence "per above" comments are generally a waste of time. Consider this: if an article violates WP:NOT, for example, the article will be deleted regardless of the number of "keep" votes. Rklawton 19:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right about separate articles and what WP is not and AfD's, Robert. But that is entirely a non sequitur here. The content that Brixton Buster's team keeps deleting is not a separate article and is appropriate to give context to the article. It is also short.

Finally, may I ask you again to return to that article's talk pages to centralise the discussion - it really isn't appropriate to have content discussions here rather than there. Goodnight. W. Frank talk ✉ 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to copy and paste other people's comments and present them as your own arguments, you may want to check that what they have said is correct. In my dealings with you to date you have repeatedly ignored discussions on talk pages, therefore I reserve the right to post here to direct you towards a talk page if you continue to edit in this manner. Brixton Busters 21:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Again I disagree. It is your opinions that are the minority viewpoint. The vast majority of both our readers and editors are in favour of unbiased articles and opposed to terrorism and diminishing the effects and consequences of PIRA "actions".

I do not ignore discussions; I ignore fallacious arguments in discussions that do not observe the five pillars of our Encyclopaedia's policy.

I ask you again to return to that article's talk pages to centralise the discussion - it really isn't appropriate to have content discussions here rather than there.

You keep losing the rational argument and keep resorting to bullying other independent editors on their talk pages. That is inappropriate behaviour but all part of a pattern of team editing to make provisional SF seem more electorally attractive

Goodnight W. Frank talk ✉ 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Provisional

You continually add the term "Provisional" to republican articles with concensus to do so or without proving that it is common usage. Can you please prove that it has these two before doing it again, as I am sure you have noticed it is disrupting wiki to no end.--Vintagekits 13:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion in the section above together with [4]]

If you prefer our encyclopaedia to be ambiguous where the various flavours of irish terrorist groups are concerned, you need to declare an interest in Provisional IRA politics and then argue for policy changes in regards to our unbiased editing policies and manual of style.

Please also exercise a little more sensitivity and read all my talk page before you post here again. If you don't, I reserve the right to remove your post after I have read it. Thank you for your future consideration. W. Frank talk ✉ 14:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read your talk page - again I would suggest you work tyo policy and concensus rather then what you consider to be "ambiguous" or not - if we all did that then there would be chaos around here. As for COI - I havent a clue what you are on about. If you have something to hide, then by all means delete my polite messeges.--Vintagekits 14:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

77 Kilobytes in 6 minutes?! I congratulate you on your speed reading and comprehension skills. I'll stop here, because I know you always prefer to have the last word. W. Frank talk ✉ 14:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything on your talk page is not germane. As you are aware, there is a discussion on the IRA's talk page, and the agreement does not include the repeated inline inclusion of "Provisional" after the first use. Please stop making changes against consensus. Brixton Busters 14:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you settle this on the Irish Manual of Style? censorship and underhand tactics can come back in your face on Wikipedia W. Frank talk ✉ 18:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army where it has been for well over a week. You simply want to move venues because you don't like the current agreement despite not taking part in the discussion. There was no censorship, no underhanded tactics, you know where the discussion is and refuse to take part, and I will not have you attempt to move it to my talk page. Brixton Busters 18:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand:

Brixton Busters decides the venue (no suggestion of "home team advantage, of course), Brixton Busters decides when a "consensus" has been reached, Brixton Busters decides exactly what that "consensus" was and Brixton Busters decides on which articles it is binding.

Thanks for explaining things so lucidly. W. Frank talk ✉ 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see who started the centralised discussion on that page. The editor you are a self-admitted meatpuppet to started the discussion, so it's a bit late to say "unfair" when the venue was chosen by one of "your side". Brixton Busters 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a diff to the edit where I say I am a "self-admitted meatpuppet" of anyone. W. Frank talk ✉ 18:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gladly. Brixton Busters 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV result

Hi, The DRV result was not factually incorrect; there were no sources in the deleted text. I'm glad you have sources now -- nothing in the world prevents one from adding the sourced information that you now possess to the article, as I attempted to indicate in my closing remarks. You don't need a DRV for that purpose. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response.

The sources have been available for many months and it was the wikilawyering of the "team editors" that saw the list hived off to a separate (unsustainable) article with the relevant sources removed.

Would you be so kind as to make an appropriate remark to the effect that "nothing in the world prevents one from adding the sourced information that you now possess to the article" on the article discussion page at Omagh bombing to forestall more edit warring?

Thanks again! (copied to your user talk page. Please reply there.) W. Frank talk ✉ 15:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your modification of my essay

You are welcome to have your own version to it, but I would appreciate it if you would link back to the source. :) --Alexia Death the Grey 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Done!

Thanks for your cordial and prompt reply, Alexia! W. Frank talk ✉ 17:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 21:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Reuters

There is a very good summary of the Reuters position at http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/06/13/when-does-reuters-use-the-word-terrorist-or-terrorism/. Frank84.13.10.123 13:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead and use it

I have no problem at all with your quoting my comments, and I'm flattered you saw them fit to use. No need to even ask of course, but I appreciate the courtesy. If the quote is exact, you might want to put quote marks around it. I took a look at the essay as well. I don't have an opinion on 3RR but what you wrote was thought provoking. I think trying to make our rules fit flawed human nature is always a good, general strategy. Noroton 12:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and generous response. I changed the pronouns a bit and added some links so it isn't an exact quote, hence the lack of quotation marks. Again, (as noted at the top) the Urquelle for the essay was Alexia Death, but I've changed her third "rule". I'm from a generation that thinks there is far too much emphasis put on personal intellectual creativity. I'm also a slow typist - so I prefer to rejig and copyedit others' good work. Enjoy your day - it's belting down here - bloody bank holidays Frank!84.13.10.123 12:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of threatening emails sent by User:Vintagekits to yourself

Hi Frank. On User:Vintagekits talk page you alleged that you have received email threats from the above editor. At this point, and as a number of editors have questioned this, I am asking you to either publish these emails with full headers for others to appraise, send them directly to the Arbitration Committee for review, or to publically retract these comments. As they stand, they are unfounded allegations. Thanks - Alison ☺ 08:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that long commentary has now been removed from Vintagekits' talk page, where it is inappropriate at this time. Please take this to ArbCom and please respond to some of the questions being put to you. - Alison ☺ 16:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[Editconflict]

It was a necessary question.

I have responded on Vk's talk page.

My attitude remains exactly what it was. If and when I take threats of violence seriously I will inform the police. I understood that you indefinitely blocked VK because he

a) deliberately revealed another editor's confidential personal information on-wiki (twice) without that editor's explicit permission

and

b) the nature of that revelation and the context in which it was made constituted an "I know where you live" type of threat

and not because of continuing abuse, edit warring, disruption and e-mailed threats of violence.

Is my understanding wrong?

Other than general improvements that can be made to Wikipedia's mechanisms [5] I do not presently intend commenting on the "ArbCom" case since, especially after the change in title, it is not clear (if it ever was) what exactly the ArbCom is about. I have seen nothing to believe an indefinite block on Vintagekits is still not appropriate on grounds of simple utility and I am increasingly suspicious as to exactly why you seek to debate the matter with Vintagekits and others or question my bona fides - especially as regards to the Citizendium.

I think it was inappropriate for you to excise the simple YES or NO question I posed on VK's own talk page. If he denies sending me e-mails then why would it be necessary to reveal the contents of his and other's e-mails? Answer by phoning me (reverse the charges) or e-mailing me, please. Further comments here will be deleted until and unless you have either responded privately or explained why you can not.

W. Frank talk ✉ 17:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)