User talk:Canterbury Tail/Historic Archive 9

Bet-at-home.com

Hi, you deleted the entry "Bet-at-home.com". Log:

• 14:17, 29 January 2009 Canterbury Tail (Talk | contribs) deleted "Bet-at-home.com" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising: full of copyrighted materials, blatant advertising and basically a corporate sales page)

Can you please explain in detail, why you deleted the page? There was no advertising on the new page whatsoever. Moreover, the facts stated in this article are official details about the company. I don't really see any difference in content between the bet-at-home.com article and other articles about betting companies (like BWin, e.g.). Can you tell me why you deleted the page? I somehow got the feeling that you don't even read the whole article. Sorry, but this deletion was far from justifiable. --JulianBAH (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The article made no claims to notability of the organisation, no reason it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. It also contained what can only be described as a company portfolio of information that would be of use to stock purchasers, and graphics that are obviously copyright infringement. Portions of text and complete graphics have been lifted from said website and pasted into Wikipedia, which is copyright infringement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place to promote a company, especially when it would appear you have a conflict of interest in said company (judging by your username.) Canterbury Tail talk 14:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the images and the copyright infringement: I have been granted the rights to upload this images and provide them in this article (they are not lifted). However, I marked them as "non-free". The information on the page are facts, no advertising. You stated (in the deletion log) that this is advertising. I guess one has to distinguish between information/facts and advertising. Company "promotion" would be something completely different. Don't really see your point in deleting this article, however. --JulianBAH (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not know that you have permission to post those graphics, and has no way of verifying that information either. You do realise that any information you put on Wikipedia in that way, including graphics, becomes free to all under the public licenses agreed upon uploading, if they are company information this may not be what was intended. As for advertising, that and promotion amount to the same thing. The article was written and displayed as one big promotion for the company, not as a neutral encyclopaedic entry. The financial data, growth, graphs etc are something you would find on a stock portfolio and company prospectus, not an encyclopadia article. Also there is still no claim to notability of the company, plus the conflict of interest to contend with. Please read WP:CORP, WP:MOS, WP:COI, WP:Notability, WP:VER and WP:Advert. Canterbury Tail talk 14:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I stated clearly (on the image edit pages) that this images are logos and not free for use (by using the Non-free logo tag). What was wrong about this? --JulianBAH (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are marked as not free for use, which means they will be deleted as they are not allowed on Wikipedia. Check the tags you've added to them. See WP:ICT. Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Then, please, tell me, why (for example) this logo hasn't been deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bwin.svg It's also marked "non-free" --JulianBAH (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been marked with a different non-free rational than the option you selected when you uploaded the images. A corporate logo can be allowed under a certain set of circumstances, which this one has been marked as. Of the images you uploaded, the logo can be marked with the same rational tags as that image to make it allowable for Wikipedia to use it, as a logo is considered different to other images, but the graphs, charts and tables you uploaded can't. Canterbury Tail talk 15:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You should check the references. The other two never will, nor admit that they did

Simple to find with Google Book Search. You can skip the last step! Wotapalaver (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problems, a reference is provided as is the point of references and abiding by Wikipedia's reference policies. If someone is telling fibs in references that's another issue, but it's not up to you to provide the details behind a reference to someone who wants to check it. Canterbury Tail talk 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa. You can help out and support reference over weaselly POV garbage. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way. I have personal experience that editors can tell fibs about references and it's perfectly fine. Admins have no problem with that. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I no, I've checked enough in my time. Canterbury Tail talk 18:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Censoring Moon Hoax Evidence

You know how many times I see the big news groups like CNN NBC etc. use youtube vids in their reports? Obviously the fact that the "Astronauts" are moving at the same speed as in any moon mission, the dropping of items at Earth's gravity is what is happening.

Pretending your right and it's speed up during the falling of the items, then the men are floating and moving WAAAY to slow to be on the moon...maybe they are on some mini astoid, which further's the evidence.

I suggest you make a counter claim, as is the format of this whole page. If not, take it to the talk page. Sfvace (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Republic part

Hi, Ben. Could you show me where on the page it prevents misinterpretation? [1] ~ R.T.G 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. Republic of Ireland isn't the official name of the state, it is Ireland. The only reason we tend to use Republic of Ireland on a page is when there is room for confusion between Ireland (state), Ireland (island) and we have ongoing items involving Northern Ireland as well. However since this is about the country/state of Ireland there is no reason not to use Ireland within the article. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you say "Here is a pie chart of religion in Ireland." would there be a possibility of confusing the exact information contained in the pie chart between "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (island)"? ~ R.T.G 19:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a possibility of confusion, that's why we don't need the word Republic, just Ireland will do fine. Canterbury Tail talk 23:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Hiya Ben. I'm curious about that IP.86.., as I'm guessing it's the same long winded IP from months ago. (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah definitely someone we've seen before. However I'm sorry, the core tenant of Wikipedia is verifiability, if it can't be verified it can't go in. Canterbury Tail talk 20:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My suspicion keeps pointing me toward Dunlavin Green. But, I'll leave things as is. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Guess who's returned to the talk-page? GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

He's back. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nav4All

I was starting out a new page and doing some research. The page was deleted with no warning. I was not advertising and I have no affiliation with the software. I would appreciate some warning before deletion in future as some other considerate administrators normally do.--█▄█▄█ █▄█▄█ █▄▄ 13:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If an article is created in the main namespace then it should be at least fully formed enough to avoid falling into the speedy deletion criteria. A short line about a piece of free JAVA software, with no claims of notability and no third party references, falls into the category and could be deleted by any administrator that comes across it. In order to avoid this happening you should create the articles in your own user namespace and only move it to the main area when it is created enough to stand on its own as an article, otherwise it does just look like someone promoting a piece of non-notable software. Canterbury Tail talk 13:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, Bias, and Abuse of Power

No where does it say it's ok for anyone to block me without warning... Did you also ban the user who started the edit war? Better yet, did you block the user and delete the entry where the user sourced an entry, on the same moon hoax page, using a YOUTUBE video as the source? No? No wonder people critisize wikipedia. Sfvace (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to check you facts. I never blocked you. Good day. Canterbury Tail talk 12:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy & Paste

There is no problem with copy and paste moving - it is allowed. And, 'moving' made no difference in the case of CLG Ógra Colmcille.--Theosony (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed the move you made on CLG Ogra Colmcille. The intention was good, but the execution was not correct unfortunately. If a page is at an incorrect title, as this one was, it need to go to another page. In this case the page should be moved, not copied and pasted. Copying and pasting the page, and redirecting to the new page means the article moves, but the history doesn't. Doing a move function, using the move button at the top of the page, will move the entire article history and all to the new location.

This would be normally how it is achieved. Now in this instance as a normal access level user, you wouldn't have been able to perform the move. When moving, the target page title needs to be non-existent as you cannot overwrite. In this case the new page CLG Ógra Colmcille did indeed exist (as a redirect.) In instances such as this you will need to ask an administrator to delete the target page (if it is non-controversial) in preparation for the move.

I've done the deletion and the move now, so everything is fine with the pages, just wanted to let you know the procedure for these things. Keep up the good editing. Canterbury Tail talk 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please keep discussion to one page for the sake of simplicity and tidiness. The fact of the matter is, what you did was practically unnecessary. Thanks for your time.--Theosony (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry? As for multiple pages, I typed the notice on your page before you posted to my talk page, but had a meeting in between doing it and saving it. I did what was needed to fix a cut and paste move which destroyed the page history as is procedure. Otherwise the page history does not contain the edits that were made to the article. Cut and paste moves are not procedure, and should never be performed. I performed no unnecessary procedure, as you claim it, but the necessary move procedure. See WP:MOVE and Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves. Canterbury Tail talk 22:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:MOVE to see why copy and paste moves are not allowed. Also please do not accuse other editors of performing unnecessary edits, especially when they are performing edits according to process and are actually trying to assist you at the time. Canterbury Tail talk 22:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy & paste moves are allowed.--Theosony (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please show me where they are allowed? They are only used when an article is being split into smaller articles, and should never be used for full article moves. I have pointed you to the appropriate Wikipedia policy pages. Canterbury Tail talk 22:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Hi! I saw your name sometimes and saw your recent edit too. Although the site does not look like a dictionary, it actually is a very good dictionary site. I always use the site or this as my favorite online E/J dictionaries. Put any English/Japanese word in the search window and press Enter. For examples:these are the result of bell, ベル, and 鐘. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, fair enough. I trust your edits. Canterbury Tail talk 12:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for trusting me. I've just restored Eijiro. BTW, I like your name. I mean the last part. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that

I didn't realize. I'll be more careful, in the future then. Apologies for making an upstanding member of the community like you have to clean up my mess ;_; It must have been a lot of trouble for you... 98.208.65.56 (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Brunei Music Society

The reference to our website was deleted on th basis of copying of content on the old site bmspresents.com. We are having trouble getting this site taken down (access was blocked to our members on the basis that viruses were being introduced to the server). As we could not update we have done a mild redisign of the site and hosted it elsewhere. but it seems some scrimony stll exists so the bms presents is not yet closed. Please note that on that site the copyright note says copyright to Brunei Music Society. This is of course repeated on our new site, bruneimusicsociety.org - fundamentally the same contents but with a new look and updated to current committee etc. We would like people to be able to check our details from Wikipedia and there was no link in the existing page. I doubt you have the time to check out the details of constitution, chairperson etc from the site but if i can send you anything else as verification, I will. The note about relasing the "article" is now on the index page of bruneimusicsociety.org. I can do nothing about BMS presents. 2boyces (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot copy information from a website and put it on Wikipedia. You say you represent the BMS, but we have no evidence of this, plus the information is copyrighted so you cannot put it up verbatim on Wikipedia. Also since you are representing the BMS, please read WP:ORG and WP:COI before starting an article on it to assure you adhere to Wikipedia policies. Canterbury Tail talk 14:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The question maybe how to get the verification to you. All societies in the Sultanate of Brunei must be registered with the Government, and records updated each year, so the Committee members are in a sense verifiable with the Ministry of Home Affairs, and my name has been forwarded to them, but Brunei Gov is not very web savvy yet. Of course as I am rsponsible for the website, I can put any names on the committee page I suppose. I think you are suggesting that the fastest solution is simply to paraphrase the material - but then can I point to the Current site - which is the point of making any change after all. 2boyces (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes paraphrase the information in your own words. The thing is that you have no way of proving to Wikipedia you are the copyright holder and are releasing the words freely. Plus there is the fact that if you do release them to Wikipedia, you do so under the free licenses and therefore can't claim copyright of them. It gets very complex. So basically reword stuff for Wikipedia, or they run the very real and proper risk of being removed for copyright infringement. Same with pictures. I'm not claiming you are not who you say you are, I'm sure you are, however Wikipedia has to be very careful with regards to copyright.

In addition since you are so heavily involved with the organisation you must be very careful in the creation of the page under the guidelines of WP:ORG and WP:COI as you have a conflict of interest, and must be very careful to put the article as a neutral encyclopaedic article, and not in anyway promoting or advertising the organisation. This isn't to say that you can't put an article up on the organisation, assuming it is referenced and meets the WP:Notability guidelines, just you need to be sure it meets with the standards and policies. Good luck and happy editing. Any problems, just ask. Canterbury Tail talk 16:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mysticshade

The Greylightnings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account is also him, see the history of Dublin and the edits to my talk page. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know, he's been posting the copyrighted images on Commons under that name. Canterbury Tail talk 15:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem to be blocked on here as yet though.. ;) O Fenian (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Has now. Canterbury Tail talk 15:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:GreyPoint - looks like it. There are edits to the same articles (immediately following Mysticshade...), edits to fiddle with image locations (it was edits like these that first made me think Mysticshade and User:Nimbley6 might be related. Is there an open WP:SPI report for Mysticshade or an earlier sock? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Likely according to a checkuser on Commons, well likely for the account that uploaded an image GreyPoint added here five minutes later.. O Fenian (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Errr, yeah , very duck-like edits here. Actually, to be fair, his obsession with updating GDP figures is the one place where he is quoting the sources, but as I said on ANI, GreyPoint has hit almost all of the right buttons, bar uploading images on Wikipedia. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(Editing to add) There is a second account that has only two edits, but is a probable, based on the GDP edit pattern. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Canterbury Tail. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a viewpoint

In assessing new article for the WikiProject Ireland, I noticed the text dumps on Human trafficking in Israel and Human trafficking in Ireland and saw that these were straight cut and pastes from the source with not even one iota of a rewrite. I was going to speedy the Irish article but decided a prod would be better, but the creating editor Calliopejen1 has removed the prod claiming that "cut and paste has always been an acceptable way to start an article". He has also tried to justify his actions to another editor by writing: "I do that because that's what I feel is most productive for me to do". I have asked for some guideline or policy that says this is ok, especially when the other similar articles I have looked at have not had any substantial editing done since they were created with a cut and paste text dump. Even though the source for the Human Trafficing articles is in the public domain, I don't think this is a proper encyclopaedic method of creating articles and unless these human trafficing articles are rewritten they should be deleted en masse. What is you view and advise on how to proceed? TIA ww2censor (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

They are direct text dumps from a copyrighted source (even says copyright at the bottom of the pages they are lifted from.) They need deleted as we cannot accept them. I'm sure the topic is notable, but the text is all lifted from a copyrighted source.

A copy and paste would be acceptable if the source was public domain, that wouldn't be an issue, however it is off a page with a copyright notice, and no proof (although indicated) of original source. Since the page has a copyright on it we can't assume it is actually from the US Department of State. If it was it would be acceptable and not a copyright violation, so would be okay (though not ideal), however the pages give every indication they are copyrighted works, and no indication that they are not. Canterbury Tail talk 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the US state department link that was on the Irish article is to this PD page, so deleting may be premature as this is clearly PD. While it may have been ok to do text dumps of Encyclopaedia Brittanica and other PD sources in 2002, in 2008 this seems like a very bad, un-encyclopaedic way to do things. Many of these pages are never even copyedited nor are any substantial changes made so that such dumps just seem made by convenience as stated by the creating editor here. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the source I found, if that's the case then maybe I should undelete it. I agree it's not ideal, and in fact I do find myself wondering if it is encyclopaedic or not. Wikipedia is not a repository of US State department archives. However there is nothing explicitly against doing so, even if it's not a great solution. Canterbury Tail talk 16:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that this sort of article creation is a problem and there should be some policy or guidelines. Where would we discuss it? ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, probably at Village Pump somewhere. Canterbury Tail talk 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

There is a an edit war going on at Wikipedia:Public domain image resources concerning the placement of an entry being moved by 2 anonIP users. Both seem to be from changing IPs within same their own IP blocks. Because of this I cannot say either have actually broken the 3RR rule as such. Most recently Special:Contributions/217.132.45.73 and Special:Contributions/89.216.66.36 but the page history clearly shows the pattern. Hope you can assist. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really much to do. They're not exactly vandalising, though it is disruptive editing. Put it on the Admin noticeboard and see if anyone wants to do anything about it. I'm not entirely sure about it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. Thanks anyway. ww2censor (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

City of Derry Airport

It appears that the airports web site page with the operational data is somewhat out of date. Notice that is indicates there are two runways and the disclaimer at the bottom says "The above information is not for flight planning purposes. Full operational and technical information about the City of Derry Airport can be found in our entry in the UK AIP and NOTAMs." If you go to NATS AIS and look at the text or the aerodrome chart it is clear that there is only one runway 08/26 which is 1,967 m (6,453 ft). Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Canterbury Tail talk 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise that you and Canterbury Tail were the same person. I saw the signature before but never hovered over it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh problems. I have no issues with you correcting me, it's not a concern at all. Just when anon's come along and change data like that it's a concern to me which was why I reverted. Canterbury Tail talk 12:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are 3 runways at the airport. Two serviceable and one non serviceable. The main operational runway designated 08/26 is indeed 6,453ft long and is used by all commercial aircraft. The shorter runway designated 02/20 is 3,955ft long and is very occasionally used by small private aircraft when the wind direction suits its orientation. It is however more often used by helicopters when approaching from the south and when air taxiing to and fro from the flight school! http://www.fallingrain.com/icao/EGAE.html --78.33.101.58 (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I humbly suggest that the article is updated accordingly! --78.33.101.58 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"Plans have recently been announced in the Derry Journal that Derry City Council, who own and operate the airport are tendering for a development plan which could see a Hotel, Aircraft Painting Hangers, Freight Buildings and Office Accommodation built in the next 10 years." Speculation! Furthermore stating that the Journal has speculated about the announcement of flights to Edinburgh and Manchester is not speculation, it is the reporting of a fact, the fact that someone has speculated. That is not the same as speculation itself. Were I to have written that flights might be announced that would be speculation but when I link to a newspaper article that is not speculation regardless of the content of the newspaper article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.201.41 (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all pie in the sky and was talked about prior to the credit crunch taking effect. There are no genuine long term plans to expand the airport and anyone who believes the contrary is deluded. There will be further route cuts in the near future if things go on the way they have been for very much longer. The Council cannot sustain a loss-making operation indefinitely and the likes of Ryanair will not tolerate unreasonable rate hikes. The rate payers will also not tolerate having to sustain a white elephant!--78.33.101.58 (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Derry's Walls

There is an on going dispute on the Derry article about whether Derry's walls are the most complete in The British Isles/Ireland. While Derry's are the most complete in Ireland, I believe Conwy in Wales is the most complete in Britain and verifiably so to the point where they are a UNESCO world heritage site but the dispute has grinded into an editing war. Perhaps you could take a look and weigh in on one side or other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.186.78 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian has reverted the Derry article three times in a row. Could you ban him please as they would seek to do to me if I did the same........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.190.81 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath! --78.33.101.58 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Geoff Harden

Hi Ben, I spotted the edits you made to the Geoff Harden article, including the change of category.... I understand if this is regular practice on Wikipedia, but Geoff was known far more as a journalist in Northern Ireland, with less recognition in England. Is there perhaps another category that I could apply here? Because otherwise it seems as if both British and Northern Irish categories should be applied -- especially since he spent the larger portion of his life over here. Thanks, Fattonyni (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The category British Journalists should cover it okay. Sometimes country cats are for nationality, sometimes for just born there, they can be confusing sometimes. Canterbury Tail talk 12:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough then -- I guess the article still has the Northern Irish people cat so that should cover the nationality side of things. Cheers, Fattonyni (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

However if you wish to change it back, I'll not stop you if you think it's appropriate. Canterbury Tail talk 13:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Insurance Institute of Canada

Hi, cab you please explain why you deleted this posting? Based on the post rules I have reviewed, I can't figure out why it would be deleted for the copyright reason you said. --Errybi (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a direct copy and paste from another source. This means it was a copyright violation. Canterbury Tail talk 14:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am the original author of this material which appears on Lucis Trust website - http://www.lucistrust.org/en/forums/problems_of_humanity/capital_labour_employment/bank_for_international_ideas_for_sustainable_economic_development -

if any one reads the article they can see my name at the top Leonard S. Johnson Posted on: Thursday 11 September 2008 12:00:39 pm and verify my identity.

--Bankleonard (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC) --Bankleonard (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We only have your word for that unfortunately, and currently no way to prove you are who you say you are. Anyway, if you are then you have a conflict of interest in posting the materials, so you should read the linked section before posting the material. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Characters of Watchmen

Hi! You said the page was "(rv inaccurate uses of pronouns, edits against MOS and changes that are not accurate. Plus this is about the comic series, not the movie) (undo)" - AFAIK it is about all versions of Watchmen - The comic details are first as it is the primary version, but you have the film and the unproduced scripts by Hamm and Hayter as well. There are sources that cover the scripts and the events that happen in them, so I cited the sources in regards to major changes in the scripts. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The main edits I reverted were incorrect use of pronouns (using The when characters aren't known by the title The), changing names to the movie version, plus making edits against the MOS. Canterbury Tail talk 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

UWO libraries

I just wanted to say, thanks for your assistance on this and for your willingness to work with the new user. I don't know if a case can be made for the inclusion of any or all of these libraries, but you're absolutely correct that notability has to be asserted and proved with reliable sources, and the user in question apparently needed to have that explained. As I said to him/her, "We only want notable topics, but we want all of them we can get" -- so I hope Wikipedia gets something useful out of this exercise. Together, I think we can help the new user to make that happen if it deserves to happen. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC).

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{notability}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 03:08 4 April 2009 (UTC).

K, thanks for the heads up. Canterbury Tail talk 11:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega

My image Car and Driver Vega GT -0 was deleted. It is my non-free scan of an image (magazine photo-car and driver) taken 33 years ago of a vehicle that won a race. It is not replacable with another image because there is only one ever published of that specific car. I need the image in the article as the subsection is about that particular car that won the Car and Driver Showroom Stock Challenge III in 1974. i listed a full rational why it should be in the article. in the deleted file it says other images are avaialable. the image is not replacable. what do i have to do to keep this in the article? please help. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

I am sure you will review this user's talk page and associated logs but he has consistently uploaded many of the same images, sometimes under different names, and most have been deleted. The article is now down to one non-free image and that should be enough to comply with WP:NFC minimal usage criteria. He just does not seem to understand the limited use of non-free images, has been blocked for upload abuse and has been removing deletion tags on obviously commercial photograph for which he has failed to provide any source info. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was aware of the users history before deleting the image. Images of the Vega are available, and it is not necessary to have one of a particular car that won a particular race. If that was the only available image of this car make ever, then a case can certainly be made, but the image isn't necessary for the article and therefore the rationale doesn't apply. Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega

The photo that was deleted 72 Vega Kammback is not a magazine scan as is stated in deleted file. The magazine photo is the 73 Vega GT showroon stock #0 black and white photo which is a non-free image and was deleted after a long try to keep it. I will try to get permission from car and driver to keep that one. the 72 vega kammback is a scan I made on my Cannon 310 printer of my photograph taken in 1973 of my grandfathers first Vega. I listed ALL this information in the file. In the discussion on these photos it was determined that they are mine if you check. I resorted to scans of my old photos, and I have plenty of them, as well as newer digital photos.

Go to Chevrolet Vega Please look at the two images of the green Vega wagon in 1970-1977. the licence plate is the same in the 1973 deleted photo (on top), taken by me as lower one, (with me in photo), taken a year later, in 1974. I think this proves it's my photo and not just a scan. I would like the top deleted image to stay.. it is mine, taken by me as stated in the file.. the car was my grandfathers- as stated in file. Stifle is tagged five of my free images. some are 30+ year old photos and recent digital photos, not scans from magazines or the web. Also please help with other tags on my free images. These are my cars past and present..I can prove it. I'm a bit upset this image was deleted because I'm still into these cars after 30 years because my Grandfather had two of them and I was very close to him. His other Vega he had in 75 is also marked for deletion..the blue 74 GT. I took this photo in Bklyn in front of my fathers house.(by the way..I have photos of the 74 GT in front of the same house (my grandfathers house) as the deleted green wagon to also prove these are my photos taken by me. The photos are sentimental...you could say. I have enough photographs on this car to use my own..I've collected everthing on this car for almost 40 years including old photos of Vegas I've owned and current digital photos of the two Vegas I currently own. Both on Cars domain.com and both are in this article. One of my own car's images is marked for deletion! The 71 blue Vega Panel. Go to Chevrolet Vega select Millioth Vega blog external link. In the blog you will see text mentioning my name and links to the 71 blue Vega panel on cars domain.com Two of those images (which I took) are in this article as well, and one is up for deletion! My name is listed as owner in blog and Cars domain..please try to remove these tags on my free-images. I'm getting worn down. also, please check the discussion on 71 Vega panel express.jpg A determination was made on these free images. Thanks (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

It is difficult to find a consensus when an IP hopping edit warring block evading editor will not accept the use of British Isles. O Fenian (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but you still need to abide by the rules unless the edits were pure vandalism. They are edit disputes, not vandalism, so... Canterbury Tail talk 11:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good unblock Ben and you should be commended for it, as you are aware it is very hard to deal with IP's as most times they don't even respond to messages left on their page. BigDunc^Talk 12:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it is, the problem here is this is still a content and edit dispute, not blatant vandalism removal. If he's careful, then it's fine, but even if people are in the right the rules still apply and I will apply them to both sides (which is why I've blocked everything under the IP as well to see who falls out of the woodwork, as those IPs are not new editors.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

But is the addition of unsourced OR and controversial at that not a form of vandalism? BigDunc^Talk 14:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material is added to Wikipedia every minute of every day. As is controversial material. Doesn't automatically make it vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 17:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two different disputes being referred to. My comments refer to the first one, specifically this editor who will continue to remove British Isles to the point of tedium, as they have done just again. O Fenian (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I must congratulate the IP for tidying up the article; the inclusion of the term "British Isles" is clearly in breach of WP:NPOV, provocative, disruptive and calculated to give offence. It is also totally unnessesary. If I were awarding prizes for "vandalism" they'd go to those who insist on inserting (or restoring) unessesary political pov to the article. Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

But I cannot congratulate you, Ben, on yet again protecting the wrong version! This time of the Derry article. I haven't been paying as much attention to this article as I should have, but I'll make amends in future. When is the protection expired? (Or maybe you'd remove the unnessary POV yourself?) Sarah777 (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, as you know a protected version is not an advocation of the version, but just the version it was on when it was protected. Protection does not mean the version is the supported version, just what it happened to be at the time it was locked. I shall not edit any perceived POV one way or another, unless the community comes to some consensus, with references on the item, or see what happens when the protection expires. Canterbury Tail talk 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:78.33.101.58

User talk:78.33.101.58 is requesting an unblock. They have unequivocally stated that they have no intention of continued edit warring on the article in question, and seem to have a full grasp of the WP:3RR policy. I believe that, based on their statements, they can be trusted to be unblocked at this time. What think you? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for handling that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

'Free Derry' Talk Page content now being deleted?

Can you please give me some advice on this as I understood the talk page was for exactly that, TALKING!--78.33.101.58 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish names

The IP editor that was removing Irish names now has an account, Cruthinforlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). What do you suggest? O Fenian (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Warn him to stop it, and point them towards WP:IMOS. I believe that has something to say on the matter. Plus Irish does have a legal standing, and most of the names in NI come from Anglicised Irish names. Canterbury Tail talk 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Could I offer some comment to this. I have warned O Fenian about his continual reverts. He/she has again broken the 3RR rule and continues to do so unabated. This individual follows my edits around like a TROLL and are becoming a nuisance.--78.33.101.58 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

With reference to the Irish place names. The village of Eglinton has been wrongly assigned such an Irish/Gaelic name when this is incorrect. The name Eglinton has NO Irish equivalent and was NOT derived from Ireland. The name is of pure Norman extract with absolutely no Irish connection prior to the village being named by the 3rd Earl of Eglinton.--78.33.101.58 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR WARNING - O Fenian

I have had to issue another warning to O Fenian in the following terms!

Warning

You have repeatedly reverted genuine edits of factual verifiable information without discussion. If you wish to challange such information you must pursue WIKIPEDIA POLICY on such reverts.

You are guilty of breaking the 3RR rule..ie,3 reverts within a 24 hour period and can be blocked. i will be making a report on your unacceptable conduct which btw amounts to TROLLING. --78.33.101.58 (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The "factual verifiable information" being the completely unsourced, and in the case of the latter, also not written in an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia..

• The Hope of Eglinton Orange Lodge was formed in the village on 6th May 1906. In 1910 the Lodge moved to the Willsboro Schoolhouse at nearby Campsie which was and remains the home of the local Masonic Lodge. In 1935 the Orange Lodge moved to a purpose built Orange Hall near the middle of Eglinton village where it remains today. The presence of the Orange Hall evidences a long and traditional protestant heritage within the village and surrounding area which continues to this day
• Throughout all these changes Eglinton has managed to maintain the appearance of a village albeit an ever expanding one!

..added to the Eglinton, County Londonderry article. This editor has been told several times about adding unsourced content, yet persists. I am not even approaching 3RR on any article, and neither do I intend to approach it. O Fenian (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hope of Eglinton Orange Hall history is an important andreal part of the village and its history despite O Fenian and others attempting to deny its presence.

http://citygrandlodge.com/764_history.html --78.33.101.58 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually O Fenian's edits to Eglinton are not in violation of the 3RR policy. He was reverting vandalism by yourself. Constant removal of the Irish names, a recognised language in Northern Ireland, from articles is vandalism. Please read WP:IMOS. Canterbury Tail talk 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, O Fenian is guilty of the 3RR rule break by constantly removing all references to the existence of the Orange Hall and Lodge in Eglinton. I suppose this entity isn't verified too? --78.33.101.58 (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, I did not vandalize any pages. The use of an inappropriate Irish term for Eglinton is contrary to WIKIPEDIA policy. There is no Irish name for Eglinton, it is like saying that there is an Irish word for 'computer' or 'website'. Eglinton is a proper name and a wholly Norman name, it has no derived equivalent in Irish or Gaelic, to create one is simply nonsense. --78.33.101.58 (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thirdly, you have not responded to my complaint concerning the user O Fenian constantly TROLLING my edits. It is very obvious.

Actually O Fenian's edit history is actually linked to many of the pages you edit, and in fact they probably have a lot of them on their watchlist. Same reason you're edits have become familiar to myself as well. And it's not trolling of someone's edits to look at a disruptive editor and see what other edits they have made to see if they are appropriate for Wikipedia. Oh, and remember one thing, Wikipedia is a NEUTRAL encyclopaedia, not a republican voicebox, and not a unionist bastion, but a neutral encyclopaedia and we want to keep it that way. It is also not a soapbox, sounding board, forum or place to push ones individual opinions. Canterbury Tail talk 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You will also find that I reinstated one of the IPs edits that another editor had reverted.

Can you do something about this persistent addition of unsourced content please? This editor has been warned countless times about this already. O Fenian (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the official name in Irish. O Fenian (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland does not acknowledge names attached to its towns and villages by a foreign government, Doire or Derry being the classic example. There is no alternative name for Eglinton and to create one is simply fiction. Maybe the 3rd Earl of Eglinton should have been known as Lord An Mhaith? If the Irish want to call British towns and villages something other than their proper given names then that is a matter for them. Such sentimental rubbish is certainly not material for inclusion within an encylopedia. Who calls Eglinton by the name An Mhaith anyway, certainly no-one in Northern Ireland! --78.33.101.58 (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, which is why it recognises them itself. Irish is a recognised language in Northern Ireland, and the consensus of Wikipedia editors is to include it in the article. If you don't like that then you may start a conversation in the relevant place (WP:IMOS) to have it changed, commenting on other user's talk pages and making personal attacks against other editors isn't the way to achieve it if you think it is a reasonable goal. Canterbury Tail talk 12:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me and yes, Irish is unfortunately at this point a recognised minority language in Northern Ireland. God knows why because I have never ever heard anyone use it in general conversation. It is simply a hobby for some people with romantic illusions! --78.33.101.58 (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Eglinton Orange Hall

So are you going to reinstate the verified actual fact that Eglinton has an Orange Hall or maybe this is wishful thinking too?

"The Hope of Eglinton Loyal Orange LodgeOrange Lodge was formed in the village on 6th May 1906. In 1910 the Lodge moved to the Willsboro Schoolhouse at nearby Campsie which was and remains the home of the local Masonic Lodge. In 1935 the Orange Lodge moved to a purpose built Orange Hall near the middle of Eglinton village where it remains today." --78.33.101.58 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I await your advisement with interest.--78.33.101.58 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not reinstating it, as I never removed it. I'm not 100% convinced it is of great encyclopaedic interest to the article, but I wouldn't remove it. Others may, and that is a content dispute. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake but I have had to revert it anyway just as you commented. --78.33.101.58 (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're famous

I just stumbled upon this: http://nofuninpublic.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/get-a-life-ben-w-bell/

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, though, because I don't this that tosser is a fan. Keep up the good work, though! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.93.29 (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's even sadder to specifically notice it and make a blog post about it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Stick to you're gun's mate. I wouldn't let some idiot blogger annoy you.Brisbane Lions Fan #1! 12:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanelionsfan1 (talk • contribs)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello, Canterbury Tail. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jevansen (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

British Isles edit warring

Ben, you might check out the edit warring here and specifically warn Midnight Blue who is in clear breach of 3RR. (I don't really believe in reporting people to the authorities but you might slap him on thew wrist or whatever is necessary to make him stop. He also seems to have some new tag-team editors appearing as soon as the earlier ones get reported for 3RR. Sarah777 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you don't! That's why you have done, is it? Incidentally, this user is not an "authority" as you put it. He might have admin rights, but that's it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

M'Blue; there is a formal reporting procedure for 3RR which results in an automatic block in clear cases of 3RR. I don't use it but prefer to get some Admin (such as Ben) to head off the need for blocks at the pass, so to speak. Less patient Admins would just block straight away. I have some personal experience in this matter:) Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Warning"

Thank you for your "warning" on my talk page; I'm ignoring it. Why don't you just move along and warn all the other editors engaged in the current activities at British Isles instead of just me? Then go and find something useful to do. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignore it if you so choose, it's up to you. But you're the one who violated the 3 revert rule. And other people are doing things isn't a excuse. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Samurai article

I can not understand your action? What is the problem? The intern link to the article Traditional Kendo is a serious article. If the article kendo is permit to link to the article samurai the article of Traditional Kendo is permitted too. Please read the article of Traditional Kendo before further action--PublicLibrarian (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you keep reverting other people's edits on the article, something that isn't allowed on Wikipedia as per the three revert rule. Also that See also on the Samurai article needs parring down, too many irrelevant links there, including Kendo. Canterbury Tail talk 18:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it permitted to have a link to the article kendo under 'see also' when the link to the article Traditional Kendo is not permitted?--PublicLibrarian (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Kendo appears to be a content fork of the Kendo article also. And please top going around changing references to Kendo to point to Traditional Kendo. Canterbury Tail talk 18:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice or scrutiny requested

Hello. Looking over recent changes I came across these edits: [2] and [3]. They looked a bit on the dubious side, but I don't know enough about the subject to revert without discussion. I found your name on the Northern Ireland Project page, so that's why I'm consulting you. Feel free to reply, revert or contact the user that put the edits in (or ignore if I'm making a lot of noise for nothing) at your discretion. Thanks. Tiderolls 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No problems. I've reverted the edits, if for no reason other than they are actually advertising a magazine and newsletter for sale. Canterbury Tail talk 15:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Tiderolls 15:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable people from Fukuoka

Hi. I reverted your edit on Fukuoka. You mentioned "Japanese names, the "last name", family name, comes first in their names". In English articles, this rule is only applied for those who lived in 19th century or before. (e.g. Dan Takuma, Yumeno Kyusaku, etc.). Everything else is written first-last basis, for example

• Ai Kawashima - Her last name is Kawashima, not Ai.

--Belle Equipe (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, if that's the Japanese MOS, which I now realise it is. Canterbury Tail talk 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry

Weve previously discussed this in the county aspect, and you stating that there never was a county doire. But a bit of information that ive come across states that when the counties merged the county was named after the biggest city within the county that being at this time "londonderry" but the London prefix was added in 1613 when the city was granted a Royal Charter by King James I to reflect the association with the City of London and in particular The Honourable The Irish Society which had been granted lands in and around the city. clearly showing that there was a preface in history of derry, also noting that this was the same year that the county was formed, if it was not for the royal charter the county would indeed be called derry alone or something else completly different. Weeman com (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most likely very true, no denying that. Yet the county is called County Londonderry, and before County Coleraine, never County Derry. Canterbury Tail talk 01:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Weemans comment is akin to saying that the USA should be called GB2 or the USB on the basis that it would have been so if the Americans hadn't removed the British from the continent. The fact is that the Royal Charter made the difference and the name was changed. You cannot rewrite history although some pro-Republican editors on Wikipedia try to do so. --The Maiden City (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose the name Londonderry be revisited following the Irish Governments move on the name [4]

They haven't moved on the name, they're just allowing people from the city to choose how it appears on the passport, it doesn't signal any governmental shift. Anyway what the Irish government thinks is irrelevant anyway, the city isn't in that country, it's in the UK. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Derry is in this country of Ireland, even if it is not in the state of Ireland. Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That comes down to semantics and point of view, and is a much more complex topic no matter the side of the fence you are on. Canterbury Tail talk 21:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Darren Hayes

Your comment "We don't state when people are straight", which is a completely straw man argument, is not support for removing the content in question. The reason we don't state that people are straight is that, because GLBT people are a minority group, the general population presumes people are heterosexual until otherwise information is given. The consensus on Wikipedia is that when a public figure discloses that they are of an alternative sexual preference, and the information can be sourced, that information is Encylopedia-worthy and should be included in an article. Do not change this article in this fashion again. CouplandForever (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You seemed to have missed the rest of the argument, and latched onto only one comment in the edits. And also, don't presume to speak for the general public, you don't know they assume someone to be gay, straight, bisexual or anything else without some evidence one way or another. Can you please point me towards this consensus in the Wikiprojects or MOSs, just so I am aware of it for future use. However you should assume good faith in other editors, and not use strong phrases like "Do not change this article in this fashion again" as it seems to imply ownership on the article, which I'm sure is not the case. Canterbury Tail talk 00:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Splase

I am not using it for advertising purposes. I just want to create a wiki about my webpage. I had only just begun writing a minute before it was deleted so I am not sure how you thought it was going to be advertising. Is it possible that you could bring back up what I was typing? Thesplase (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"The Splase is here to provide you with fast service of free email, free forums, and many more goodies. We currently provide many services and will add many more services in time." That's blatant advertising for your webpage and product. Canterbury Tail talk 10:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

P.M.

To my knowledge the proper way to write pm is in what's called "small capitals". Wikipedia probably has its own style, and I guess CBS does use small caps too, if looked at carefully. Anyway, I'll check it out later when I have time on hand, but it looks a little 'not right', I thought. I'll defer to you on this, if you say so. Here's an interesting page http://www.stage-door.org/stampact/punc.html purple (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you're saying, and to some extend I agree with you, but that is the way it is used officially in Canada and the Wikipedia suggested usage. To my mind initialisms and acronyms should always be in capital letters, but there we go. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Hi, I noticed that you have recently warned Mr Taz for unconstructive editing and the 3RR rule. The reason I am writing is that he persists in reverting and changing a number of entries on British Day in favour of his apparent belief that a so-called "Foundation Day" for the UK exists and that it is a candidate for the proposed 'British Day' (see most recent edits here). He does not seem to understand - or wish to comprehend - that the {{citation needed}} tag for the date of the signing of the Act of Union refers to a need to show that it is considered as a possible candidate for 'British Day', not that the event itself took place. His most recent edits give a wikipedia self-reference to the Act of Union as a reference, removing the 'cn' tag (yet again!) and reinstating this completely unsupported "Foundation Day (UK)" (this is part of a wider pattern which would be tedious to list in detail; over 70 crazy and/or POV-supporting redirects in about a month, all now speedily deleted, thankfully, etc etc...). This is really getting ridiculous. I see other editors have raised questions with him, given warnings etc, but he just ignores them and carries on. Now I'm in danger of breaking the 3RR rule myself in order to stop this. I'm hoping you might have a look at this. I don't want to go into a dispute resolving process as I don't think there is a dispute as such; this is about adhering to wikipedia policy, not to mention common sense, and I don't want it to become personal. If you'd rather stay clear I quite understand, but the support of a fellow-editor in this affair would be welcome, to say the least. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to mention this edit and this edit also, both of which change the link of Foreign relations of the European Union to two different links of External relations of the European Union and Internal relations of the European Union. The two latter links are both redirects created by Mr Taz to Foreign relations of the European Union, so in terms of pointlessness it is unbelievable. O Fenian (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That is about par for the course, unfortunately. "Circular redirects" to an often misleading redirect are typical of the 70 or so I had speedily deleted. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion started at admins' noticeboard. Your input would be appreciated. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Decision alignment

An article that you have been involved in editing, Decision alignment, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decision alignment. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrib Gas MedCab

Hi, thought you might be interested to know that MedCab has opened on some of the issues I brought up on the AFD noticeboard. GainLine ^♠_♥ 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

BI

Edit warring againat British Isles page, could it be protected for a few of days? purple (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

follow-up question RE deleted articles

Hi again. I did respond to your post on my own talk page, but I don't know when you'll see it, and I just want to emphasize that I'm really anxious that you please return to me the original text that you deleted. I promise promise promise that I'm not trying to circumvent your copyright concerns -- I just want to invest some time trying to find an UNAMBIGUOUSLY non-infringing way to present the content, or (with your permission) to present it on my user space. At the very least, I plan to present it on my personal webpage. And I would prefer not to repeat the agony of all the hours I invested into reformatting the OCR and converting cases and chapter headings into Wikipedia hyperlinks. Thanks. Agradman (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunlavin Green

This user has already been warned - and blocked - for personal attacks, including those that you saw and warned them about. I can understand why you wouldn't know that, since they removed the warnings and block notice from their Talk page. Such is life. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to this one, which happened after your block on the 11th May, and subsequent to his blanking that portion of the talk page. At least by my reading of the logs. I think it's a separate offence to the ones you blocked him for. Canterbury Tail talk 15:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I do recall seeing that diff now. Thanks for your contributions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fasach Nua

Hi, I see you warned this user over a 3rr violation. They have just reverted the article again, despite an attempt on my part to offer a solution to the disagreement. Would report it at the admin board, but seeing as you already seem to be aware of the edit warring I don't want to have to learn how to show diffs! Stu.W UK (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Canterbury Tail talk 00:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: don't delete "Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co."

Hi, as the author of "Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co." I just want to throw in some reasons in favor of nondeletion. "Arma virumque cano" is quite correct that the article is poorly written -- however, it is quite notable. I know its topic must seem silly and childish. However, I'd like to refer you to what I wrote on the talk page of a very similar case, Talk:Ash_v._Childs_Dining_Hall_Co. .

• I hyperlinked to Haverly v. United States as another example of a case that is exceedingly mundane-seeming. However, the commentary at the bottom of the article shows that such a mundane-seeming narrative is actually the vessel for a highly complex and profound question of tax law.
• Chysky v. Drake Bros. is part of the 1930s progression of cases that is called the "products liability" synthesis and led to a transformation in how people are liable.

Clearly, the true weakness in the article is my failure to articulate these grounds for notability. If I may have a few days, I will do so. Agradman (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

With regards to deleting the article, you need to make a case on the relevant articles for deletion page, linked at the top of the article. Click there and you can make your case on the discussion page. Canterbury Tail talk 00:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Toronto

Hi there i have made those climate changes beacuse the Climate data was Incorrect according to Enviroment Canada, The Station that you got the climate info from needed to still go though quality checks, that means the Temperature was not accurate.

From: -40c

I was wondering is The Annex have a weather station there. Is it ok if i get the Data from Downsview Airport.

From: -40c —Preceding unsigned comment added by -40c (talk • contribs) 22:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Best place to get a consensus as to where would be good to get weather data from would be on the Talk:Toronto page. That way others will be able to add their thoughts on the matter, and not just myself. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 11:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Centre William Rappard

You deleted the entry "Centre William Rappard". The copyright holder (WTO) encourages the free distribution of these texts and images. Please explain why you think it violates any copyright. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamerica (talk • contribs) 10:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Furthermore, if needed an official letter from the WTO may be produced authorising the publication of texts/photos. --Lamerica (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to let you know for future reference that the copyright tag was the right thing to do. It does, however, generate a templated advisory that it would be helpful to place on the contributor's talk page, since it would tell this user how to send such a letter. The licensing of WTO is incompatible with Wikipedia, since it requires that WTO be informed when material is reused and restricted non-commercial licensing. GFDL does neither. I've reblanked the text and explained why to the contributor. Appreciate you keeping an eye out for copyright issues on Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. I wasn't sure. Canterbury Tail talk 12:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unbroke

lol did you watch that stupid show? I only saw the end and I was like what the hell is this and my brother's like i don't know i'm watching I Walk the Line (movie). The part with the Jonas Brothers is already on YouTube with several uploads. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=un-broke&aq=f Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't live in the country that it was broadcast in. Canterbury Tail talk 10:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Daire/Dhoire

I reverted the edit on the County Londonderry twice because I believe that User:Tomtwenty is vandalising the page. Two other users have already reverted this edit, User:Mabuska and User:Tameamseo. Mabuska has also left a notice on Tomtwenty's talk page about the situation, something which the user has ignored.

I am also fluent in the Irish language and I know that "Dhoire" means "of Derry".--FF3000 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this seems more like an edit dispute than vandalism. Just be careful with the reverts, I don't want people blocked over such a silly little thing. If you can reference it it will put an end to it, and then further changes will indeed be vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 20:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

About "Dhoire", the "h" is used if you use a word before it e.g. Aerfort Dhoire, which translates to "Derry Airport", or Cathair Dhoire, which translates to "Derry City". It is known as the séimhiú, and is an important feature in the Irish language. However, when the word is used on its' own i.e. if you wanted to say simply "Derry", then "Doire", without the "h" is used. Basically you could say that "Dhoire" means "of Derry". Regards, FF3000 (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, can you find a better reference that explains all this, and shows the correct name source? A good reference is worth it's weight and will finish all this under the grounds of verifiability. Canterbury Tail talk 21:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Have already tried, with no success. However I think the current reference is relatively OK as it proves what is shown on the page.--FF3000 (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

my application

Sorry, you give me generous comment. some Admin think I need more time. So I should have more time. I will get good user. Thank you. You seem to read Japanese and some Chinese character. Please read these links as reference[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]--Bukubku (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RoI page protection

The page protection on the RoI article is against WP:NPOV! You are preventing our readers from knowing that the RoI is not the name of the State. Now do you support our policies or not? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the Arbcom decision to not move the page until a decision has been made in the case. And the article as it stands does not prevent readers from knowing it's not the name of the state. Canterbury Tail talk 18:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You support the Arbcom decision, what decision? No page was moved! The information on the article is about the Irish State, not the RoI. The removal of the information does prevent readers from knowing it's not the name of the state, and about the history of RoI. You support misleading our readers, based on your actions and comments. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No pages were moved CT. PS: I agree with protecting the Republic of Ireland & Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No pages where moved, but the content was moved and pages redirected. It's a technicality. As for the information, it's all there in the first paragraph "The name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island."Canterbury Tail talk 19:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Per WP:ANI#Blocked, the full protection may no longer be necessary.  Sandstein  21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If it where only Domer then I'd agree, but there where other editors that jumped in with both feet and pulled it along as well. Canterbury Tail talk 21:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher

Hi Ben are these type of comments going to be permitted to carry on, on an already hostile talk page they are extremly unhelpful and only entrench views insted of trying to somehow find a solution/consensus, thanks. BigDunc^Talk 09:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No they are not permitted. It's not a vicious personal attack, but I've warned him against it and will block if there are any more. Everyone involved, feel free to contact me if you think anyone is getting out of hand as I don't have the time to continuously monitor all these conversations. Canterbury Tail talk 10:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Music in the House

User:MusicintheHouse appears to be following me and reverting edits in disruptive fashion. Are you an admin? If so, you appear to be a "neutral" one as regards Ireland, hence I seek your advice on what to do about this disruption. He has been edit-warring at:

• IFA Premiership
• IFA Championship
• Scouting Ireland
• Irish nationality law - including false accusations that I have been engaging in vandalism.
• He also made a false accusation against me on my talk page.

I have conceded his edits in the former two, and stopped reverting on the others, as I do not wish to continue in edit wars. Nonetheless, it does not appear right that the person most determined to carry on an edit war should win. Mooretwin (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not been following you. The pages are on my watchlist. Removing citation needed tags is vandalism. I have posted on all the talk pages in question with little response from yourself.MITH 11:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not remove citation needed tags, that can be construed as vandalism. Only remove them if it is already referenced or you can add a new reference. Also note the consensus to refer to Ireland on the WP:IMOS and by standard convention is Ireland when there is no fear of ambiguity between the Irelands. Canterbury Tail talk 11:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So your solution is for the edit wars to continue, since (a) the statement a Irish nationality law is already referenced, as I noted in my edit summary, and (b) there is a fear of ambiguity at Scouting Ireland.

Did you even look at the articles? What about the false accusation on my talk page - is that acceptable? Mooretwin (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no reference around that point that references the statement that it extends to Northern Ireland. A request has been made for the reference, and it isn't referenced. It should be referenced there.

With the Scouting in Ireland, I don't think there's an ambiguity there as it's mentioned separately, but that's all down to personal opinion. I'm not getting involved in that so sort it out between yourselves.

As for false accusations, I must say I see no edit by yourself on that article that would result in a vandalism warning. An article you have not edited for almost a month. Maybe MITH made a mistake there, care to explain? Canterbury Tail talk 12:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"I see no reference around that point" - there is no need for a reference in the lede, if it is already referenced in the main article. As I noted in my edit summary: "It's already referenced under "acquisition of citizenship". Despite this, MITH continued to edit war and to make accusations. Mooretwin (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A reference should probably be used the first time something is mentioned. No point a reference being used the second or third time something is mentioned. Also a user has requested a reference to this point, so even if referenced later it is good form to insert the reference at the asked for point as well. Canterbury Tail talk 12:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, if unusual, interpretation. Most other editors appear to have the understanding that the lede summarises the article and there is no need to repeat references in the lede when they are referenced in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, your interpretation of IMOS is wrong. It does not say that "the consensus to refer to Ireland by standard convention is Ireland when there is no fear of ambiguity between the Irelands", and never has. Mooretwin (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was, in fact it was changed only about 8 months ago to use the consensus version found in the article and talk page. It used to be Ireland was the linking form. Canterbury Tail talk 13:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. The piping disguise at IMOS was only in relation to articles about towns in the Republic of Ireland. It had no universal application. Mooretwin (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

However consensus was that was how it was used. Anyway, there's nothing in these edits back and forth between yourself and MITH that needs Admin intervention. It's all low level editing disputes. Just try not to get into editing wars people, be civil, assume good faith and don't break any revert rules. Canterbury Tail talk 13:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of such a consensus. On the contrary, there were loads of edit wars in relation to it, with ROI-phobes attempting to cite IMOS to support their edits. Re admin intervention, things seem to have calmed down - in part as a result of my highlighting the edit-warring here. MitH has taken his issues to the Talk page and resolutions have been achieved in at least some of the articles. Mooretwin (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

i:::::Yes sorry that was the wrong article is was meant to be Irish nationality law.MITH 12:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Derry/Chester

Firstly, sorry if I hurt your feelings in any way (Never mind me when I get like that), but the three references attached to the Chester claim actually say nothing about Chester claiming that they have the most complete walls in the British Isles. They only mention Britain, and Derry isn't in Britain. Therefore, Chester doesn't belong on the article, as there's no evidence of a claim that they have the most complete walls in the British Isles, or the United Kingdom for that matter. FF3000 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in the past you contributed with your opinion in the discussion regarding the "Derry Walls". I've presented a fresh argument with examples and references on why the text should be changed (to drop all the claims would probably be best). I propose to make the changes later today, unless a sensible argument is put forward. You opinion on this would be appreciated. --HighKing (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Canterbury, I've edited Derry to introduce what I think is a good reference to support the point that the walls are the best preserved in the British Isles. The reference is, I believe, of excellent quality and removes the doubt about completeness; we are now taking about state of preservation. Of course, there is still a problem with British Isles terminology, but the point here is that the reference is verifiable, and until someone comes up with a reference to state that the walls are not the best preserved then I believe the current version is indesputable. LevenBoy (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added my piece. Canterbury Tail talk 12:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and I believe you are in agreement with me. Be aware that LevenBoy has begun the edit war. No doubt you'll need to take action as his edits are out of order. --HighKing (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Any chance you'd consider locking the Derry article for a couple of days to ensure that discussion are held on the Talk page to reach consensus, rather than the protracted edit-warring and dicussions using edit summaries? Or even a wee warning that the next person that edits without agreement would put themselves at risk of being blocked? Anything's better than what we have at the moment. --HighKing (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it. I've already given out two 3RR warnings this morning on it. Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The above statement from User:HighKing is a bit rich. Five minutes before making it he had done exactly what he's complaining about by reverting the latest edit at Derry, without any discussion. Furthermore, he simply will not answer my queries on the Talk page about why he objects to the reference I'm using. LevenBoy (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just another inaccurate personal attack (3rd today). I did already answer your queries, ages ago. You're making yourself look stupid now. And I reverted the edit trying to insert the very reference that's under discussion, because that it blatent gaming the system and just rude. Stop trying to hijack the article by editting, and get agreement first. Just because you conceded the original reference was poor, you're now trying to insert a new reference into the article without agreement. What gets me is that if you were an Irish editor putting in a similarly contested link, you'd probably be blocked within 10 minutes. Level editing field me arse... --HighKing (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on admins at ROI talk page

Canterbury, since your message i have avoided making any comment that could be considered a personal attack but others dont seem to. Could you please take a look at the comments on Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Abuse_of_Process where theres attacks on Admins for their action in trying to resolve the recent dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And while you are at it you might consider why no Admin blocked BritishW for calling an Irish editor a liar; even though that Irish editor was himself blocked for that exact offense? Sarah777 (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not just once. BigDunc^Talk 19:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I was given a warning on my talk page for my actions and i have not made any comments which could be considered a personal attack since and i had even apologised for saying he was lying or a liar (Before the warning placed on my talk page). However Sarah is making offensive attacks on an admin and i notice that whilst you complained about my actions to Canterbury, you didnt seem to have a problem with Sarahs comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

St Davids

I agree with your edit to the above, this is one of the cases where BI is the appropriate term. However I don't agree with your edit summary. At the moment there is no process in place to agree any principles as to inclusion or inclusion. I think that means that we have to make the decision in context. If there is something I don't know about tell me. --Snowded ^TALK 10:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, as I can't find it currently, but I thought we had a community consensus on this pending a final decision from WP:BISLES (which actually appears to be completely dead.)Canterbury Tail talk 12:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there was a general feeling that it needed to be resolved bur not a specific agreement. Given that there hasn't been any activity in six months I think it may be dead, but the issue continues accross multiple pages. Net consequence is the two words now have totemistic power. Any removal is seen as an Irish conspiracy, every insertion as a imperialistic/unionist plot. Given that the ArbCom action or the naming of the Irish state has also stalled its a bit depressing all round. One way round this (thnking aloud here) would be a group to be set up to mediate discussions on an article by article base as the issue is raised, hopefully to reduce temperature. If I think about current disputes its pretty obvious that BI is a valid term in respect of the Derry walls debate (on the same principle as we settled Loch Neigh and the River Shannon), while on British Empire none of the primary sources use it. Temperatures have been raised in both cases. If when those debates started there was a click in process that mediated a solution and built in the process a series of cases that might work. A common law rather than a statute law basis. Such an approach might also reduce admin time on escalating blocks etc. Just an idea .... --Snowded ^TALK 14:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good idea actually. If we can get a group of editors or admins who are willing to adjudicate on each instance, that the community can agree upon to accept their consensus, then it could help. I only tend to step into these conversations now when the going gets heated and is starting to get out of hand. Unfortunately due to the nature, sometimes blocks and protection are becoming needed far too often. Canterbury Tail talk 14:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well a few admins who know the pages and the editors, then a couple of us who are inclined to one side (I tend not to like BI) but are not in the extremist camps. I think anyone in the group would have to agree not to edit on the issue itself, ie stay clean. At least they can mediate the process and ask questions. I think the initiative (or some variant) might be best coming from some of the admins who are deeply involved in this - the Arbcom ruling on Northern Ireland etc. Not sure how to move it forward though. --Snowded ^TALK 15:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If I get the time in the near future I may suggest it, with due credit to the originator of the suggestion. Or you can put it on one of the talk pages and see what people think of the idea. Personally I don't care one way or the other on its usage other than about the fact that it is obviously used, and the evidence supports that it even used in Ireland despite some editors claims to the contrary. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My gut feel is that it is better coming from the admin community, with something mostly worked out. I've no especial interest in taking credit for the ideal I'd just like to prevent the polarised debates. It is certainly a valid term, but is also been inserted or maintained where there is no need for it, or it gives the wrong message. Getting the balance there is what I think matters. I'm doing my best to pull the British Empire debate back to a content debate rather than the normal antagonisms, but I'm seen as a protagonist by one side there so I may not be the best person to propose it anyway at the moment! With you, tell me if you need anything. --Snowded ^TALK 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever considered being an admin? I've thought about it before, and I've reviewed your edits many times in the past and think you'd be good as you are a good moderating voice in the community. I've consulted some other editors on yourself and have consensus that it would be a good move. What do you think? I'm willing to put you forward, but only if you think it's something you'd be interested in taking up. Canterbury Tail talk 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm flattered but I can imagine some opposition, while I've never been blocked I did get a 3 month topic ban on Ayn Rand (although others got six months and a year) although I am happy to say I learnt something about what is or is not edit warring from that experience. I do patrol a lot of articles and that interests me more than content creation per se (part of my day job is conflict resolution). I think about half of my edits are clearing up vandalism. If you think its got a chance of success then yes I am interested and appreciate you thinking of it. --Snowded ^TALK 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I prefer the Northern Ireland approach to where BI should & shouldn't be used. PS: I've always felt Snowy, was Administrator material. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Derry

Thanks Canterbury. I've won my bet. The bet being that very soon after the next time the wrong version appeared at Derry the article would be locked. And low and behold it was (effectively) locked by you. You know the score here. You know about HighKing. You know about his record going back to 2007. You were a prime mover in trying to reason with him then; to no avail. He's still at it. I recall he was described as "tireless" in his mission to remove "British Isles" from Wikipedia. That remains the case, but his tactics have changed. Rather than mass removals he now goes for aggressive, tireless intransigence on selected articles. He won't change. Others will come and go, but he won't - not until he's banned from having anything to do with British Isles. I shudder to think how much time is wasted in fighting this war of attrition in which he is a field marshal. MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Be civil and assume good faith. Everyone needs to stop taking cheap shots at everyone else. Whatever the motivations, whatever the political leanings this is a neutral encyclopaedia where we all need to work together, not against one another. I also view most of this post as a personal attack against HighKing and am warning you appropriately. Canterbury Tail talk 00:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Make that 4 WP:AGF policy breaches. But lets look at the facts. There are many editors who use the term "British Isles" with no thought as to what the term actually means or whether it is used correctly. There are article that use the term in a lazy way, and when we look for references - lo and behold it's clear that the references don't back up the statement. So I come along and point this out, and look for references. And all I get in return is a bollicking from editors like you that insist on holding onto the term at all costs. You're right about one thing though - a whole lot of time has been wasted while I ask for references, patiently wait to see if any are produced and examine the references, and then get subjected to torrents of abuse while editors perform character assassinations willy-nilly because they find that they are wrong. You account was set up exclusively to edit war on this topic, while for me it's not even my main area of interest. Says more about you and your attitude I'm afraid. BTW, shortly I will start losing patience with your never-ending breaches of WP:AGF and I expect there's enough examples of your petty unrelenting name-calling for an admin to have words....but then again, you're not Irish so I guess I don't know if you've actually crossed a line yet or not. --HighKing (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction is a great idea. It would've been sad, to see those guys getting themselves blocked over British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to tell you, LevenBoy and GoodDay have started a vote on the Derry page. In this case I don't think a vote is needed. Please stop this lunacy. FF3000 (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey wait a sec. I didn't start anything, I just jumped on the bandwagon. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Little Norway Park

Thanks for the edits. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No probs. Canterbury Tail talk 18:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:217.78.8.102 did it again on Cara Dillon’s article

I thought you would like to know this. It seems like we have a persistent bugger who seems very adamant about keeping the “London” part of County Londonderry off Cara Dillon’s article. As a fan of this singer, I’m all about putting what’s correct and official. Upon further investigation, I find that I agree with you and Dudesleeper. Nevertheless, this user does not seem like he has any regards to the notices and warnings you gave him whatsoever, and still continues to reverted the information about Dillon’s county of origin back its unofficial name. I already revert it back to its official name, but it’s only a matter of time as to when this user is going to reverted back. You already gave him a warning, he did not comply. I think it’s about time you implement a block on this user. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the user in the past. As for official, well County Londonderry is the official name of the county, and there has never been a County Derry in the history of Ireland. Also it is the agreed upon term as per WP:IMOS. Yes, looks like they need another block. Canterbury Tail talk 11:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you help please?

As you know I attempted to edit the Omagh Bombing page to reflect the correct status of the Real IRA ie terrorists. I have already included the link to the Federal Registry in the USA which made the designation so what more can I do? Your guidance for a relatively new editor would be most welcome. --De Unionist (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You can discuss it on the talk page, there is already a discussion ongoing about whether it is valid to be included or not. Canterbury Tail talk 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help... --De Unionist (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite being told on several occasions how WP:TERRORIST works De Unionist has made this edit, ignoring that the lead already covers who designates them terrorists. Perhaps you can explain where others have failed? O Fenian (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nuala Holloway

CT; this woman has her own page and seems well referenced but there is an edit-war raging at Moate as the section about her keeps being removed. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

According to that editors own edits she's from Mount Temple, so completely irrelevant to the Moate article anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 11:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed Ms. Holloway from the Mount Temple, County Westmeath page as this was added at a later date, having originally being added to the Moate page. According to all sources, Ms. Holloway was born, raised and educated in Moate. This can also be found on Ms. Holloway's own website. Ms. Holloway may have boardered on the small townland (which has now expanded into a village) known as Mount Temple but is nationally documented in print media as being from Moate. Her removal by others prior to now from the Moate page were obviously done for reasons of malice as can be clearly seen in the immature and sometimes slanderous comments to her section and which are being added to her own page. (2008already)

I actually created the Mount Temple page. It was some IP called 159.134.168.239 who added a statement that Nuala Holloway was from that village. Sarah777 (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable people

CT; I have spent two years changing "famous people" or "notable people" (or any other variant) to simply "People" whenever I came across them in section headings in Irish Town and Village articles. Are you telling me that "people" should read "notable people" according to IMOS? If so we need a bot on the job. Sarah777 (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, it just seems to be the convention. Oh and this Nuala person, she shouldn't have a section in the town, just a person link at the bottom. No one else elsewhere gets a section in the town unless they've done something for the town, no reason this one should be any different. Canterbury Tail talk 01:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"People, people who need.. people". GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

James Bond

The above article is being re-assessed as part of the GA Sweeps project The re-assessment has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass; otherwise it will fail. See Talk:James Bond for things needing to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mistake

Hi, I realise you just deleted Lewis pnm as F10 when the page wasn't even a file. To be fair, I did mark it as f10, but this was a typo (I used "F" instead of "G") because I meant to mark it as an attack (G10). I can't say I'm not disappointed. Don't forget always check the history, or at least the title, don't just delete it as what it's marked as - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did check the history to see what the file was, but didn't notice the template letter. My bad. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, don't let it get to you :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your point..re terrorist?

What exactly is your point? Is it not correct to label a former terrorist such when it is obviously correct according to the available sources. Is it not good enough that the High Court in Gibraltar amongst others have stated so? Just exactly when is a terrorist a terrorist according to your warped logic or are you being politically correct for the sake of pandering to the minority as I have observed others state?

As a relatively new user I fail to see your logic. WP:Terrorist clearly states that the term terrorist can be used where there is unequivocal support for such which by the way is the case here. McGuinness was a terrorist and further more, a terrorist leader and the commander of the PIRA in Londonderry for many years; this is verifiable fact. It is therefore quite correct for this information to be attributed to McGuinness...if editors don't like the term then that is a matter for them. Martin McGuinness was a terrorist. --De Unionist (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr Bell. You state that the term 'terrorist' is a very pejorative word. This I must agree with and an individual labelled with such a term is a similarly distasteful individual for all the right reasons. The facts speak for themself in this:-

1. Martin McGuinness by his own declaration was a former member and proud of it of the PIRA. "I am a member of Oglaigh na Eireann (IRA) and very, very proud of it Martin McGuinness, 1973" [12].

2. The REAL IRA are a terrorist organisation.

3. The PIRA were a terrorist organisation at the time of the failed bombing in Gibraltar.

If I may ask Mr Bell, what further verification does one require? --De Unionist (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is ashame that confirmed terrorists are not described as such because some people may be offended or upset. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Curious that a new editor knows a name you used to edit under. BigDunc^Talk 13:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Was just thinking that myself. Especially since it's not my real name. So I must ask De Unionist, have you edited Wikipedia before, and if so under what name? Canterbury Tail talk 13:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I also point out the two editors who continually deride my legitimate edits in favour of their own point of view contrary to WP:POV. Their continued automaton reversions are suspect to say the least when one reviews the logs of such activities. --De Unionist (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

De Unionist

This editor continus to disrupt the project with the insertion of terrorist into articles your note and blocks appear to have failed with this user and it is getting to the stage were I dont assume good faith, IMO it is a possible sock. BigDunc^Talk 12:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I do apologise for embarrassing you.

Sorry, I didn't know that I couldn't make a comment on your talk page about terrorists. --De Unionist (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not embarrassed about anything. Just keeping Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We need to be verifiable about these things, not just original research and dot connecting, but proper references. Canterbury Tail talk 13:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Again I am sorry but will catch up on this on my return to good olde Ireland! --De Unionist (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin McGuinness....a former Terrorist. Directly attributable and specific and verifiable link.

Hi Ben, if I may call you that?

Here is the verifiable, attributable and specific links as per the guidelines in WP:Terrorist. I am seeking your POV on this before I create any more negative comments from certain noticeably anti-British editors.

The Bloody Sunday Enquiry. Statements by Martin McGuinness KM3-1, KM3-2 [13] and external verifications [14] [15] --De Unionist (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think they are suitable. News stories where the derivement of him being a terrorist is original research. We need some kind of direct government or authority that says "Martin McGuinness is/was a terrorist." A news report saying it just isn't sufficient in this instance. Him being in the IRA isn't in doubt, but that doesn't automatically make him a terrorist, that's original research and conjecture. Canterbury Tail talk 12:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This editor is obviously from The Maiden City with their infatuation with McGuinness. BigDunc^Talk 12:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What is he on about?

Ben, are you saying that a Statement given to the High Court by Martin McGuinness himself during the Bloody Sunday Enquiry stating that he was a member of the PIRA and later a local Commander in Londonderry is inadequate? Now lets be real! --De Unionist (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A member of a Terrorist Organisation...ergo...a 'terrorist'. --De Unionist (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)See WP:SYNTHESIS BigDunc^Talk 12:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A member of a political organisation isn't automatically a politician. A member of an army that commits atrocities isn't automatically a war criminal. No reason that a member of a terrorist organisation should be automatically considered a terrorist. Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Now come on Ben, you are stretching that one just a little bit? Anyone who joins a terrorist organisation knows full well that they are designated a terrorist irrespective of what personal actions they take. This is not the same as saying a member of the Man Utd fan club has to be a professional footballer. And in the case of McGuinness, he was not only a member of a terrorist organisation but latterly a senior member and indeed a 'Commander of the Derry Brigade' if I may quote him. As a Commander, such an individual not only has personal involvement with terrorism but will have issued orders to others inciting them to terrorism...this is a far greater crime. There is no reason why the article on Martin McGuinness cannot attribute his terrorist past to him. --De Unionist (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets look at the flip side. Can anyone provide evidence that Martin McGuinness was NOT a former terrorist? --De Unionist (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We must have clear direction on this issue as there are many other in the pipeline

Gerry Kelly - Former Terrorist [[16]]

In March 1973 Kelly bombed the Old Bailey and Scotland Yard following which killed 1 person injured 250 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was tried at the Old Bailey and received two life sentences plus twenty years. Kelly and the others, in a republican tradition, immediately commenced a hunger-strike to commit suicide. After 205 days, during which time Kelly was violently force-fed 170 times, the British government conceded to his demand and he was transferred to Long Kesh in April, 1975. On escaping from the Maze in 1983 he also kindly shot a prison warder in the head. As an unrepentant murderer and terrorist we can understand him jumping to the defence of a comrade of similar ilk, but to insinuate we are behaving like terrorists? It seems that Gerry has not come to terms with the depths of his black crimes. [17]

Upon his escape from the Maze, Gerry Kelly and his good friend, the monster Brendan 'Bik' McFarlane (a sectarian murderer who shot dead in Belfast innocent Protestant civilians) eluded capture and went to Europe. When they were finally arrested in Amsterdam 1986, after a tip-off, their flat in Amsterdam contained cash in several currencies, maps and fake passports, and the keys to a container holding ammunition, rifles and bomb-making material. 14 rifles, 100,000 rounds, and about a ton of nitro-benzine, were also recovered by the authorities. They were extradited and sent back to the Maze. [18] --De Unionist (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if they have been designated a terrorist by virtue of joining the IRA then you should be able to provide evidence of that designation by an official authority. As for proving he isn't a terrorist, that isn't how this works. Burden of proof in the western world, and most legal systems is you have to prove guilt, not innocence. This is a living person we're talking about, you need to be extremely careful over what is put on Wikipedia. So, this all leads to the fact that if you want that in then you need to have a really good source and direct attributation. No he was in the IRA ergo a terrorist, that's original research.

As for the article not attributing his past, I do believe it's already mentioned in there. Canterbury Tail talk 13:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, this isn't the place for this discussion, it should take place on the appropriate talk pages for everyone to be involved, not on a users talk space. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered my point above to the effect that he is a self-declared terrorist on at least two occasions publicly? --De Unionist (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the point where he said "I am a terrorist", can you point that out to me. Otherwise the rest of the above comments stand. Canterbury Tail talk 14:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be facetious, does a murderer go out and advertise that he is a murderer? He stated that he joined the PIRA in 1971 later to become Chief Of Staff. If that doesn't credit the label 'terrorist' then Wikipedia is some waste of space. --De Unionist (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You stated above that he is a self-declared terrorist, all we're asking for is this self-declaration that he is a terrorist. Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

NPA

Hi, have you seen this? I notice you've left warnings on the user's talk page and have not been afraid of confronting the clique in the past. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You reacted so quickly to that one I thought I'd ask you to look at this one too: [19]. I don't think he's a sock, but he's stalking around the same sort of articles. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

How much longer must editors put up with comments and no assumption of good faith by De Unionist again his remarks are very unhelpful here. BigDunc^Talk 14:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Some editors really have a low sense of humour threshold. Maybe the moon is made of cheese? --De Unionist (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW Ben, can you advise me how to make a complaint about these thinly veiled and disguised attacks that I have suffered by certain editors ever since I joined Wikipedia. --De Unionist (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What attacks? Can you show me these attacks? If there are attacks I'll look into it. Otherwise you can always leave a message on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard if you think there are genuine attacks against yourself. Canterbury Tail talk 14:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I will record each and every one including the snipe above. --De Unionist (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There may be a slight breakdown of assuming good faith in the comment above, but I don't view that as an attack. Canterbury Tail talk 15:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry here is the link I meant to add. BigDunc^Talk 15:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That was NOT a comment, it was an observation which is quite evident from the majority of the edits. --De Unionist (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, discuss the article, and the merits of the various things, but don't discuss each other. De Unionist, there are people here who have their own points of view, this is known, but they are still able to edit Wikipedia and abide by consensus. Please read WP:AGF, WP:Bio and assume good faith on other users. Continually commenting on other editors and making assumptions on their personal viewpoints (which aren't stated) isn't helpful. I've lost track of the number of days where I've been accused of being a Republican supporter and a Unionist bigot all on the same day by various people, most of whom no longer edit. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it is not a place to push a particular point of view, it is a neutral encyclopaedia with policies and guidelines for how it should be built and how the community runs. Remember, verifiability is the keystone to the project, and commenting on perceived viewpoints of other editors don't help. Canterbury Tail talk 15:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree but will the others who are continually sniping at me? --De Unionist (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They are not continually sniping at you, they are trying to get you to see consensus and discuss your edits in a rational manner in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However if you can show me a deliberately sniping or attack I will gladly warn other users. Canterbury Tail talk 15:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on CT they are following me now to articles canvassing for support here. BigDunc^Talk 16:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not convinced they are following you around, they obviously have an interest in this area and it would be a logical progression to look to see how it's handled elsewhere. And that article is a logical starting point. Canterbury Tail talk 17:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on they said they looked at your contributions back to 2006 are you saying they haven't looked at mine. They mentioned Al-Qaeda didn't show up on that article but an article I have been editing. BigDunc^Talk 17:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, points to each side, but I'm not accusing them of Wikistalking at this point. Lets just see what happens. Canterbury Tail talk 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem I am not accusing them either but just wanted you to be aware for future reference so to speak, thanks for your time. BigDunc^Talk 17:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lmao @ the on going debate on the talk page at the 9/11 attacks, i wont make a comment there incase i get accused of stalking but its very sad that such a debate is even taking place. I can understannd in the case of Irish terrorists but people trying to hide the fact that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by terrorists? My god, political correctness will bring an end to western civilization. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with political correctness. It's simple, really - if they can get WP:TERROR applied to September 11, it stops anyone else trying to change the likes of "The Omagh bombing was a paramilitary attack..." to "The Omagh bombing was a terrorist attack...", citing precedent on other articles. Bastun^nutsaB 14:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the use of the phrase "terrorist" (as if it meant something non-POV) in the 9/11 article is a good example of sheer weight of numbers (in this case Americans) pushing Nationalist views in manifest breach of WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I be so bold(before I get accused of stalking again) to point out that there is a difference between pointing editors to a discussion and canvassing which actively attempts to influence opinion. --De Unionist (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrorists present and former designated as 'Terrorists'

I wonder have you seen the parallel debate ongoing at [20] --De Unionist (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus there is to the effect that WP:RS is all important in this discussion. You cannot have one policy for Al-Qaeda and another for the PIRA...or can you? --De Unionist (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you need a reliable source that says they are a terrorist, something that hasn't been provided. Canterbury Tail talk 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I must complain in the strongest terms that this editor user:BigDunc has deleted my edit here [21] in order to prevent a proper parallel discussion being developed contrary to his own WP:NPOV. This is wholly unacceptable behaviour and contrary to the free spirit of Wikipedia. --De Unionist (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

His canvassing is not helpful and according to the talk page guidelines provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article. BigDunc^Talk 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would call his reverts 'disruptive editing' WP:DE, this is not canvassing but an attempt to improve the quality of the discussion about two articles which relate to the same subject ie terrorist naming policy. --De Unionist (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am exercising WP:GF in this matter, is he? --De Unionist (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith on each others behalf. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

De Unionist again

Despite knowing the problems the use of the word "terrorist" entails, he made these edits to the Norman Stronge article, including the phrasing "a dozen heavily armed terrorists", "a ruthless serial killer" and "the terrorists bombed the heavy front doors". Given this user's history it is obvious that he/she knew these edits would be contentious and provocative, and I believe firm action may be needed. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

They have also inserted a userbox that is inflammatory or divisive which was removed per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia (2nd nomination). BigDunc^Talk 12:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the post by O Fenian it appears the editor doesn't take a blind bit of notice of what you are saying. BigDunc^Talk 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wouldn't you know, the two disruprors!

So, none of these edits are true then...seems we have all been misled? Silly old me for believing the official reports.--De Unionist (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Something about this discussion stinks - not sure if its feet or just the socks!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The truth stinks usually where Ireland is concerned. Unfortunately, censorship and the inadequacy of Admins to counter it has become the norm. Have a nice day. --De Unionist (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no censorship going on on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a bastion of republican sympathies or siding with any particular side. Wikipedia is neutral. Unfortunately a lot of people don't see that, they just see that because their particular viewpoint isn't upheld it means Wikipedia sides with the other side. If you want to see how pro-Republican Wikipedia is, have a look at the Republic of Ireland article, the British Isles, County Londonderry etc. Basically it isn't. What is happening here is that Wikipedia isn't siding with your viewpoint, and as a result you are seeing it as having the opposing viewpoint which isn't the case. Again I'll reiterate, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia, based on verifiable facts and a neutral informative standpoint. We are not here to make readers think what we want them to think, to push an agenda, to censor or to point fingers. If you have difficulty with the guidelines and policies and wish to continue pushing your viewpoint then maybe Wikipedia is not the place for you. Canterbury Tail talk 12:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice bit of canvassing. BigDunc^Talk 09:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

More here too. O Fenian (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

De Unionist has been blocked for 2 weeks for 3RR violation, canvasing, disruptive editing and POV pushing. This is not a condemnation (or support) of his viewpoint, but more his editing methods and failure to comply with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. As everyone who reads this page here knows, I don't support one side or another in the NI conflict and happily block those from either side of the divide who are disruptive, engage in person attacks and violate policies. Canterbury Tail talk 12:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Also note I don't consider everyone elses conduct to have been exemplary in this either. Nothing block worthy, but a whole lot of lack of good faith assumption. Tit for tat edit warring is not the way to resolve these things, and non of you have clear records with this kind of edit from the other side. This isn't a warning, just a friendly reminder to assume good faith in editing and try not to push an agenda or viewpoint. Canterbury Tail talk 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon! I've never heard the like of it - In all my days editing I have yet to receive so much as a warning let alone a block for any infraction.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this a serious comment? Cause looking at your block log says otherwise.Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yer getting me mixed up son! I've no blocks on my log.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. :) Canterbury Tail talk 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take that as an apology for this attempted besmirchification of my good name! I thank you and good night!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, I lost count anyway. Once I get to 10 I run out of fingers and can't go any further. Canterbury Tail talk 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if you used toes that would be of no use!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So very very true. Canterbury Tail talk 18:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Vega Colony

Hello, you just weighed in at an AfD that I created. Just to let you know, I was adding another article onto it as you were commenting, so you might want to look over the other to see if your rationale applies there as well. Thanks, ThemFromSpace 19:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, incredibly honest of you. But my points still stand, expunge them both, shouldn't be here. Canterbury Tail talk 19:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reporting disgraceful language.

Maybe you can have a word as my warning didnt have the desired effect. [22]

Stalking

Maybe yet again you can have a word with BigDunc to stop messing with my User Page. My use of the former NI flag is nothing to do with hin NOW! --De Unionist (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User:70.171.239.21

Wowsers, is this IP for real? Anyways, I guess he's allowed to vandalize his own Userpage, so I'll leave him alone. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess what! De Unionist again.

This time its canvassing. Over the past few days he has canvassed LevenBoy and British Watcher on tow different issues. Creating hassle, causing drama and stirring up shizzle!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Shizzle? -Sarah777 (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dodge1884 Ban

You banned my account recently for some disgraceful posts that were made from it. I deeply apologise that this happened but unfortunately I had left my broweser open and my account logged into Firefox and my teenage brother decided to be the idiot troll he is; I sincerely apoligise for these and will be far more careful so as to log out in future when not using my account. I have severaly scolded him for both his spamming of this site and his sectarian views he thinks are "cool". I deeply apoligise to you for the deeply offensive bigoted remark he made on your page. I have contributed quite alot to Wikipedia and have some ideas for some articles I am currently keeping an eye to. I hope you can rescind my ban so I can continue to contribute and help make Wikipedia the excellent information tool it is.

Thanks, Dodge1884 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.153.128 (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to log into your account and apply for an unblock using the {{unblock|REASON}} template on your talk page. Someone will then review the block and your request. Canterbury Tail talk 02:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Dodge1884

Hello Canterbury Tail. Dodge1884 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  18:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'd usually say WP:GOTHACKED, but this sounds plausible from the contributions. Your call.  Sandstein  18:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I often find people go funny and try and cover it up afterwards, and the personal attacks against multiple users where quite bad. If you think that based on the previous edits they'll be okay, which obviously you do as you came to me rather than denying outright, then that's fine with me. If it happens again though, gone with no possibility of parole as it wasn't just minor attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 19:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacked Again!

I am being attacked again by one of the two I previously complained about. I am not going to react to this aggression or dignify it with a response for obvious reasons. Apparently, this editor has an obsession with everything anti-Unionist and with me referring to you as Ben or Mr Bell. I don't even know if that is your real name but that is what you registered at day one according to the records and what other editors refer to you as. If that is a problem for you please let me know and by the way thank you for the change of block. I agree with you reasons and will endeavour to try harder even though I am being antagonised almost daily by two offenders.

The time stamp difference seems to be the result of edit conflicts and is a random event. Other edits eg by Evertype [23] and Wingspeed and Oakshade [24] are similar examples. I am not going to scour the project simply because an editor with paranoid delusions seems fit to attack me. --De Unionist (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should have a look at O Fenian's language when he called Blaggards a 'filthy liar' [25] --De Unionist (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No I did not. What I said was "filthy lie", which is true based on what he said and the edit he was talking about. I wouldn't bother with this sockpuppets rantings much more CT, I'm sure his time here is yet again coming to a close. O Fenian (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hello Canterbury Tail,

You are right. Although i think it is very suscipious if anybody is always editing just the same topic while her/his account is already almost a year old. When editing just the same topic, it is a small case. And checkuser is almost never used for such a small case.

But it is O.K, i will no longer delete those edits under sockpuppet accusations.--Nmate (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If proven then feel free, and feel free to report, but thinking everyone who edits those articles is a sockpuppet isn't assuming good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 20:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All right.--Nmate (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I misread

Hi, when I responded to you today on my talk page it was during work and thus done in a hurry. I misread what you said and thought you were asking me to increase the block length. I said "I do not object however if another admin wishes to increase the duration", I meant "another" to mean other than me. I can see how it could seem like I meant "another" as meaning other than you, that is not what I meant.

Now that I have properly interpreted your message(I hope), I have no objection whatsoever to any adjustment you see suitable for VK's block. I have since disabled e-mail and added another day to the block. Chillum 03:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand it in that way. I'm not sure what to do with his block. I may undo his email block so he can respond to my question to him. Thanks for taking the time to consider this. Canterbury Tail talk 11:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI

But a block of yours is being discussed on ANI here. lifebaka++ 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I was about to say the same thing - I am, however, going to suggest that in any event that the talkpage should be reopened fairly soon so that VK can make any sort of representation they deem appropriate (and also in keeping with what I suggested in my part of the above discussion). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was just coming back to reduce the block length, and open the communications back up so he can put forward his views. Canterbury Tail talk 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this, on Vintagekits' talk page you mentioned that you had no tolerance for abusive or uncivil users. You might want to review Wikipedia:Civility warnings, an essay I put together earlier this year on theory and practice of good civility warnings. Zero tolerance on incivility can become an incivility of its own, which is not good for the administrator community interaction with the community of editors as a whole. I think your comment exaggerated for the sake of argument and wasn't literal, but I thought I'd follow up on that aspect of it.

Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. I meant little tolerance but you point is still well taken. Canterbury Tail talk 11:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rossport Solidarity Camp

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rossport Solidarity Camp, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rossport Solidarity Camp. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. GainLine ♠ _♥ 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Samurai Article, and removal of Afro-Samurai inclusion

Hello, Canterbury Tail. I noticed you removed my addition of Afro-Samurai on the Samurai page. Why was that? --Joel Lindley (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I made a knee jerk reaction thinking it was one of many vandalism edits to an oft vandalised article. Sorry about that, I'll put it back. Oh I see you beat me to it. Canterbury Tail talk 00:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles Tours

You can carry on what you want. Mr Hall of England (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? Canterbury Tail talk 19:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That means you can do what you want to do but I have three other tours for you.

• 1908-09 Australia rugby union tour of the British Isles and France
• 1927-28 Waratahs tour of the British Isles, France and Canada
• 1947-48 Australia rugby union tour of the British Isles, Ireland, France and North America

Mr Hall of England (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Two of them are fine, but the final one isn't as it already includes Ireland in the term British Isles. Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

CT, you maybe missed this. --HighKing (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your response, but you haven't answered the questions I would like answered so that I know what the current situation is. Leaving aside the version the article is protected on completely. Do we now have two admins with different policies on this article - one with "no reverting a revert" policy, and your policy to protect the article? If so, how is that going to work? And why? Finally, I suppose I'm disappointed because I actually thought that SheffieldSteel's policy was working very well. There were genuine attempts to discuss and form consensus on the Talk page, and no edit warring. Compare that period of relative stability with the lack of any meaningful discussion whatsoever once the page is protected. --HighKing (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

As an admin are you allowed to remove trolling from the talk pages? If so, could you remove this entire section? Some of it tells us a lot about the motives of certain editors, but the talk page is not a forum and while the space is being filled with bizarre soapbox theories we cannot make any headway discussing the article itself. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Repo Men Do the Repossession Mambo

http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/32773/repo-men-do-repossession-mambo Bencey (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't doubt it, just we needed a reference. Canterbury Tail talk 15:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Moon Madness

Hi! I just wanted to thank you for your recent revert on the Moon landing article. I can't tell you how much time I have spent trying to keep that one paragraph from degenerating into the National Enquirer. The last sentence, as it has been restored (thanks!) seems to walk the fine line of presenting the information without calling skeptics "morons". I don't mind it being improved, but I can't help but roll my eyes when I see the page on my watchlist, wondering what new interesting fiction I'm apt to find. I have mulled requesting protection for the page, but the new Lunar Recon Orbiter mission makes that impractical now, with new info being relayed. Anyway, thanks again for the attention to detail. ;o) --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 05:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User: 76.117.96.151

This vandal just won't stop! It's blocking time, again!--Freshh (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Canterbury Tail talk 02:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

SPAs

Based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Historical populations template about the edits of 3 users User:Happy Geographer, User:Delicate Enumeration and User:Census1911 fan, who all seem to be WP:SPAs and refuse to enter discussion could they be socks and is it worth doing a checkuser on them? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No checkuser needed, they're blatantly the same user. They come in, register an account and only use it for one day. Next time they want to edit they create a new account. The edit summaries are even the same, so a checkuser would just be a waste of time. Canterbury Tail talk 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am no very familiar with it. What suggestions do we have to deal with them? I wonder if they could be socks of one of our other Irish puppets. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You could raise a talking point at the Administrators noticeboard if you think there is an issue with the edits. However other than not communicating I don't think they're really doing much wrong. Canterbury Tail talk 21:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested to see that someone else opened a WP:SPI at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Happy Geographer. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Maiden City

Could you have a look over User talk:78.33.101.58 as the page is being used by the banned sock to attack other editors. BigDunc 10:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorted now Nja247 protected the page. BigDunc 10:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is checkuser appropriate in this case?

Not sufficiently familiar with sock investigations, but there are strong similarities between User talk:82.198.140.206 and blocked IP User talk:86.47.53.31. RashersTierney (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. I'm not terribly familiar with the Checkuser process to be entirely honest. It probably is the same user, but since it's an IP I'm not sure much can be done really. They'll just get another one eventually most likely. They're on teh verge of being blocked as is. Canterbury Tail talk 13:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:86.47.43.227 appears to be another possible sock with a similar pattern of disruptive editing. These sites are becoming difficult to monitor; could do with another eds. input. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

City of Derry Airport name link

Can I ask why you reverted my deletion of what can only be seen as inappropriate links. Translink and CIE have absolutely no relevance to City of Derry Airport and have most definately no possible qualification of the nme in Irish. If you need a link please put up something relevant and not outdated Council lists and Development plans which relate to the Irish Republic. Thank you. --Cyber Fox (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Was reverted as you removed valid references for an item that was requested verification in the past. Canterbury Tail talk 13:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)a

Oh I see, you mean that you have to trail through an entire document just to find a single reference to say that a certain entity can have an Irish name? Why 4 links then for such a trivial matter?

Four is maybe a bit excessive, but Irish placenames has been a highly contentious issue in the past on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry, I think a wide berth is called for. --Cyber Fox (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

I'm not comfortable with those proposed maps. Oh well, it's up to the Wiki community. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to improve yourself!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 16:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Need a bit of assistance

Is it possible that you could leave a message for 220.100.125.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) explaining why we can't delete File:Immigration of Narita Turminal 2 200507.jpg (Wikipedia usage) and where they should take their concerns, Commons:Help desk. The file was originally uploaded to Commons in 2005 by っ (talk · contribs) (commons:User:っ, ja:User:っ) who has made no edits since 2007. Yesterday the IP removed the image from Narita International Airport and then left っ this message. The impression I get that they want the image deleted because it was taken in an area where photography is prohibited, though the last part of the message in the online translation didn't make any sense. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see what I can do. Not sure if my technical Japanese will be up to it but I can give it a try. Canterbury Tail talk 11:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I think you're right. They're basically saying the photo was taken in a forbidden area and therefore shouldn't be used by Wikipedia. Also making the claim that the Japanese language version of Wikipedia once used the image but has since deleted it from use (at least he thinks that was the case.)

Yes we don't delete images just because someone shouldn't have taken it, but I don't think the image actually adds anything to the article. It doesn't really demonstrate anything encyclopaedic. Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the Japanese version of the article I can't find any trace of that image having been used there. And there was certainly no discussion about it on the talk pages. Also it looks like the UP is a roving IP address, so not sure leaving a message would accomplish anything. I honestly don't think my Japanese is up to leaving a good coherent message for a native speaker in reply. If it was a conversation about how to get somewhere, or discussing dinner no problems. The ins and out of why we don't delete images because they shouldn't have been taken would be a bit more uncertain. I'm far far from fluent, only really a conversational level plus decent comprehension skills (given enough time :) ). Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a bit and see if any more IPs pop up and make the same edit. I found it odd that they wanted it removed here but not on any of the other Wikipedia's. I noticed that it's also used on 2 Japanese Wikinews pages and a sub-page of っ on the Japanese Wikipedia without any sort of problem. Thanks again. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

british isles

1. What I am putting down is fact, not opinion; there has never been a comment from the British government on the naming of the Irish sea. Im sorry if north american dullards can't realise this. 2. My edits were different each time, so you silly rule doesn’t even apply to me. 3. you are biased in your opinion, because it is clear from this page that you have clear political reasons for removing my edit. 4. who appointed you judge and jury? How can you go and threaten me with removal of my editing rights? 5. PS - you a pedant and need to get a life if you think Wikipedia needs patrolling for apostrophes in 1920s! 6. Do you think vandalism on your user page might have something to do with your atitude? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superruss (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please check your attitude at the door. Can I ask what North American dullards you are referring to? Do not make personal attacks against other editors. Also how do you know the British Government has no opinion on the Irish Sea naming? Have you asked them? Can you reference this? Is is even relevant to the article? Canterbury Tail talk 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My God you're a wiki drama queen. No you can't ask. Comments were warranted for excessive pedantry, superiority complex and political bias, and was not of a personal nature. The British Government have made public no opinion, therefore they have no opinion - that’s how opinions work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superruss (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no personal political bias in this, you must be confusing me with someone else. And stop commenting on other editors and comment on the article. Do you have a reference to support that the British Government has no issue with the naming of the Irish Sea? And how is that relevant to this article anyway? Canterbury Tail talk 15:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Theres no political bias in removing the sentence, i removed it too even though i basically agree with the point behind the sentence. We just always need consensus for changes to the introduction on that article to prevent edit wars. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The only way its relevant is just a comparison along the lines of "Ireland may have a problem with the British isles because "British" is in the title, but the British government doesnt have a problem with the Irish sea, which is the same sort of naming issue". I think thats a valid argument, ive made it several times on the talk page in debates but it certainly doesnt belong in the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a valid argument yes, but shouldn't be in the intro and needs to be referenced (and the relevancy proven.) Should be discussed on the relevant talk page, not here. Canterbury Tail talk 15:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Date linking by User:203.97.255.42

Despite your final warning two days ago, [26] anonymous user 203.97.255.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continuing to link dates, for example: [27] –Signalhead ^< T > 17:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 17:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks.–Signalhead ^< T > 18:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

SOLAE page deletion

Hi, I am curious as to why this page was deleted the second time? The first time it was deleted I kinda understand, most of it was info from the organizations web page. I had saved it as i was editing it and was not done.

The next time it was deleted I do not understand. The only thing on the page that came from the organizations site was the mission of the foundation. Every thing else I wrote. Nowhere on the the site is there any history, who makes up the organization, who founded it or information about their community involvement. All of this was included in the artical I wrote.

Can you please explain why this page was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToyCharlie (talk • contribs) 17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Large chunks of text where lifted directly from the organisation's website and PDF. That is a copyright violation, and we can't allow that on Wikipedia. Any text lifted in such a manner is a copyright infringement, see WP:Copyright. Canterbury Tail talk 17:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I am wondering what you were reading. What "large chunks"? The only item in the article that came from the website was the discription of the organization. If I am to fix this i need to know what you are refering to.ToyCharlie (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The very second paragraph was lifted directly (with a word or two inserted.) "SOLAE is a non profit 501 (c) (3) organization, whose purpose is to promote the study of science, through the reading and writing of books, promoting appreciation of the arts, and aiding educational efforts in the Central Ohio area. This is done by raising funds for scholarship awards and collecting of books or funds for schools, and other non-profit institutions. This goal is primarily reached by presenting events through the year that provide experiences that promote such learning, appreciation, and education." Canterbury Tail talk 18:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so then the Canada Foundation for Innovation needs to be deleted because their whole article is right from their about page. Same with Vinayaka_Mission's_Research_Foundation,_Deemed_University theirs is right off their front page. Same with Foundation Fighting Blindness their mission is the opening sentence in their article and comes from their mission page. My point is I could do this for hours. Why am I being deleted for listing an organizations mission and it is ok for all these others to do it? ToyCharlie (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Concentrate on the one article, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep your copyright violations. The others will be dealt with as and when people get to them. If you wish to have someone else review it, then please take it to the Deletion review. Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for SOLAE

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SOLAE. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ToyCharlie (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandal at Cara Dillon AGAIN

There's another vandal who decided to removed the "London" on Londonderry on Cara's place of birth. It is a different IP address. But if you ask my opinion, it's probably the same person editor/anon. I say that because not only did he revert what you undone on the main article, but on the talk page also where the same guy resorted to using profanity to make his case. I already undid the latest case of nonsense on both tabs. But surely this is not going to be the end of it, and somebody whether it's the same anon or not will put the same nonsense again. I decided to leave it up to you to issue the warnings though to this obnoxious editor(s). If this keeps up, I would suggest semi-protecting Cara's page from repeated vandals such at these latest incidents. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It happens now an then, it's not biggie. Canterbury Tail talk 23:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

City of Derry Airport

I notice thaat you reverted the edit by an unregistered user. I have asked Amalthea to have a word here [28]. Thank you. --Cyber Fox (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This unregistered user continues to cause disruption and is now making threats on my Talk Page which another user was kind enough to revert. --Cyber Fox (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll deal with him. He's in violation of the 3RR, if he edits again he will be blocked. I've also warning him about personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay the abuse was not on, however the edits where valid enough. The flights do appear to exist with references. Canterbury Tail talk 17:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Esteban Núñez Meléndez

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Esteban Núñez Meléndez, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esteban Núñez Meléndez, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! --CronopioFlotante (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's fine. In fact it's refreshing to have a prod removed and a reason attached :) Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

3dwm

Hi. I agree with your assessment that this article should be deleted most speedily (and I can see that you've actually done that a little while ago), but out of curiosity: which of the various A7 options applies to a piece of software? I've previously had nominations declined on such formal grounds. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If people don't believe it applies to software fair enough. The article still makes no claims to notability and it's only section approaching anything like notability is pure conjecture. Canterbury Tail talk 12:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Service areas AfD

Since you expressed an opinion in the last AfD regarding UK service areas at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services, I'd like to inform you of a new AfD discussion which has recently been started by another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination). In the interests of keeping this within the rules regarding canvassing, I am sending this to everyone involved with that original debate, regardless of if they voted keep or delete, or if they appear to be active or inactive. Jeni ^(talk) 14:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah the old "they're the same as the US rest stops" argument we've seen many times before by people who have no idea what a UK motorway service areas actually is. Which is actually a small town. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

not that it matters, but Thomas Edison, which I unfortunately know very well, & which you well described, is almost unique among the NJ Turnpike stations as old-fashioned; they are, very gradually, being built over several time that size. However, I think they're almost as notable as UK ones, & I suspect the Highways people will be adding articles. Good job. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism accusation

I would like to know why at 11:20 on 7 September 2009, you sent me a message accusing me of "adding nonsense to Wikipedia" which is considered "vandalism", without even making reference to anything I have edited in such a way.

I have made no edits that would compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, nor any that could be considered as causing vandalism. If you care to disagree, then please provide references.

IPs change, so whether someone who had my current IP previously made the edits you're accusing me of I don't know, but I have made no such edits. So unless you can backup such claims, please revoke your comments. 79.97.14.140 ( talk ) 00:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that would have been this edit. And in fact this IP address has a history of making such edits, changing references to County Londonderry to read County Derry. Canterbury Tail talk 11:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As Republican as I am, and as much as I hate the name Londonderry, I never made those edits, so yeh can take back your accusation of vandalism. Tbh I don't even know why you bothered sending such a message, knowing that IPs can change and in this case obviously have. There will always be people out there intent on stirring the ****, and there are plenty both Unionist and Republican who are childish and immature enough to go editing pages referring to both names. So sending a message won't stop that, and as in this case you've ended up accusing the wrong person as well. 79.97.14.140 ( talk ) 19:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We only have your word for that, however as long as vandalism comes from the IP it will continue to be warned, and possibly eventually blocked. If you use this IP and wish to edit Wikipedia then I'd suggest registering an account. Canterbury Tail talk 18:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Road Distances

Hi Canturbury Tail, You requested that I use miles in my distances. If you follow the link Driver Location Signs you will see why I am using kilometres. I reference this article on every motorway page that I have updated. Does this explain my position? Martinvl (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I understand that (and there's been some interesting regulatory arguments over those signs being against the road signage legislations), but miles is still more relevant to the UK articles. Perhaps use the KM reading from the source, and convert it to miles and display both (miles first). Canterbury Tail talk 14:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad

Sorry about that, you were right. I based my revert on this here were it gives both. I assume that one is a subsection of the main body. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, easily done. I almost did the same as you, but had to look at it a few times to realise what it was saying. Canterbury Tail talk 15:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A well once bitten twice shy. LOL. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this editor is a sock of one that is banned and is mentioned a couple of times above. BigDunc 20:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain they area as well. Come in, know the contentious issues, straight into conversion code. Doesn't strike me as a new user. Course they could be someone who edited under IP previously, so we shouldn't be too quick to judge. Canterbury Tail talk 20:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But when they have a provocative username AGF goes out the window. BigDunc 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And all of their edits are to places in Derry it doesn't take much to figure out. BigDunc 20:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I know what you're thinking, and you could be right. MC. Canterbury Tail talk 21:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the one. BigDunc 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And DU. Plus there was another one, but I can't recall. Mind you, I'm trying to decide if the username is too provocative. Canterbury Tail talk 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And they're blocked for username. If it is who we think, then they'll be back. Canterbury Tail talk 11:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That did not take long. Hard to spot though. LOL --Domer48_'fenian' 13:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If only all of them where do obvious. Canterbury Tail talk 13:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Were would the fun be in spotting them then. At least they open accounts, some don't or do they????? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I do find it interesting that we seem to get on so well now considering I was pretty much your first run in on Wikipedia over the County Derry thing that almost came to me blocking you. :) Well we're all older and wiser now. Though in my case maybe just older :) Canterbury Tail talk 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

True, true. I like to think that it's not so much the years, but the mileage. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, I'm in trouble. I've done continents since then. Canterbury Tail talk 14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I came last in the class on “How to make friends and influence people” and have been around the track that many times, I’ve seen ANI more times than most Admin’s. I’m still here, thanks to this post here as I’m ever the optimist. . Here is an IP for you; [29] might be fun for you to watch this one? Not as obvious as the other one I showed above, likes to move around a lot. Is that a challenge I here you say???? LOL --Domer48_'fenian' 21:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well I have no problems with your edits these days. You are a good editor and I long hope that continues. Sometimes you get a bit hot under the collar, but so do many editors. Sarah777 is one, that I've had a long and rocky relationship with, but at the end of the day we remain friendly and helpful to one another. Canterbury Tail talk 01:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Separate section

About the canvassing issue I'm accused by i_Pakapshem, ([[30]] I wrote about a multiply times blocked user, who -according to his record- is Pakapshem, and off course practically impossible to be a current admin), since I have been informed by User:Alarichus that he -I_Pakapshem- proposed the deletion of the specific template from irc-wikipedia.Alexikoua (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pakapshem's sick attempt

I really wonder who is claims that I accused an admin for sockpuppetry? I told: '

...Seems a multiply times blocked user, continues his activity now in irc. ...

I feel really sick of this wp:gaming the system attempt by User:I_Pakakshem who, no wonder, agrees with this unbelievable claim

I'm really pissed off since this continuous reverter made up this sick attempt against me. Actually the topix thread is signed by a user named: worm (in Greek skollix). Who could really sign with such a name? So Pakashem really believes I'm a worm and sings it that way? and I deserve this pic of a Neonazi? What else have I to say? His 'zero' encyclopedic contribution in 3 months with continous nationalist advocating and massiv reverting makes me wonder why he is still here, accusing and personal attacking. Suppose his ghost activity in irc is also active in off-wiki too, but not for too longAlexikoua (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're bring this discussion to my page? Please have discussions in the centralised area. All I'm seeing is a concentrated attempt off Wikipedia to attempt ludicrous vote stacking to avoid the deletion of a contentious template. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Derry

Any chance you could have a look at Derry? We have a newish editor Papist Hunter refusing to discuss matters and I would have thought that was an unacceptable name? I've made three attempts to get them to discuss on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 09:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be Fenian Hunter (talk · contribs) back with an equally unacceptable name. In fact, yes it is. O Fenian (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that would have been pretty obvious anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 12:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Back as User:I love fenians with poor edits. Canterbury Tail talk 12:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And all a blocked as blatant sockpuppets. Canterbury Tail talk 16:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ya'd think he would've been more creative. Should of tried the name Pope George Ringo. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Same anon at it again at Cara Dillon

You remember anon user 217.78.8.102, the persistent vandal you blocked for three months for constantly removing the “London” in “Londonderry” in Cara Dillon’s article? That was three months ago. The moment his block expired, he went back to tampering with the article. I guess some editors refuse to listen despite how many warnings and blocks we throw at them. It seems pretty clear that this editor is not going to chance his ways. As long as he is not blocked, chances are we’ll continue to clean up the mess at Cara's article. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)