Jump to content

User talk:Gob Lofa/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Blocked from editing

To enforce an arbitration decision and for breaching 1RR at Protestantism in the Republic of Ireland (1 & 2), you have been blocked from editing for a period of one day. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

  • I honestly would have thought that someone who had been around for as long as you would know that communication and discussion is always a better option than reverting. Given that you have previously been blocked/warned for similar issues (regarding not communicating or not communicating honestly, i.e. edit summaries are not accurate; though your edit summary use is not a lot better than it has been in the past), your next sanction will likely be a long block or topic ban. As I said to Mabuska, one of the remedies I'm looking at is an interaction ban and a topic ban (for one or both of you). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean about edit summary use, what's the problem there? Gob Lofa (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Things like "dishonesty" & "claptrap" are incivil rather than actually explaining what you did and why you did it. However you are actually using them for a very brief summary, but when making contentious edits it's usually better to put in more detail rather than less. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. Gob Lofa (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Billy Fox

FYI - Troubles restriction [1] and also as this is now part of an Arbcom case - [2]. I am closing discussion as A) it has gone on for long enough B) There is no consensus for your proposed changes and C) it is now part of an Arbcom case against you. Snappy (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That case seems to focus mostly on 1RR breaches. Best keep your head down for a while until the heat dies down, comrade. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You had a lucky escape there; Mabuska and I took a hit that rightfully should have been yours alone. By the way, I recall you suggested a time-out on that discussion; in this light, your current approach seems a little dishonest. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

History of Sinn Féin

Snowded (talk · contribs), I'm having difficulty understanding your revert and edit summary at History of Sinn Féin. Why do you believe political parties need figureheads? Why do you believe this position is a neutral point of view? What on earth is the "Official Ceremonial"? Why have you removed pertinent links? What part of my edit do you consider controversial? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

the place for this is the talk page of the article ----Snowded TALK 18:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Not possible today. I see Scolaire has reverted your unexplained changes, and I'm encouraged that you haven't challenged this. As I believe you now realise you made a mistake with your edit, I'm not going to press for an explanation. Chalk it down to experience. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


What part of the 1rr rule on the troubles do you not understand? I'll raise the issue with Scolaire and you need to start to behave if you want to avoid a more permanent block. ----Snowded TALK 20:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't revert your unexplained changes. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
And neither did i reinstate them after another editor reverted - get it now? ----Snowded TALK 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw, and I applaud you for it. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

24 hour block

Just noticed your block. Sorry to hear about it. Try to keep your cool in future. Awaiting your return on the Troubles talk page. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I guess you can edit talkpages. Cool. Quis separabit? 12:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It looks bogey enough as the two edits were different, but as it's only 24 hours I don't reckon appealing is worth the effort, if it was longer I would. It's maddening to see some editors get away with flagrant and unambiguous breaches of 1RR and then have its meaning stretched in one's own case, but there it is. I can edit my own talk page, that's why I pinged you. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Also you can review the Troubles talk page. I left some replies there in case you want to research or postulate replies, etc. so you don't get bored. You know what they say about idle hands and the devil's workshop. I know from firsthand experience. LOL. A third party has been very active and has made some edits I am pretty sure you'll not be thrilled with, but ........ such is life and Wikipedia. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems that your pending edit on Islamic state of iraq and the levant is to humiliate islam as a religion rather than providing correct info. Your behavior is against Wikipedia policies. Hope you rethink your editing strategy. Aamer 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Stick around, Aamer. You make at least as much sense as most visitors to this page. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siege of Limerick. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

You just broke the 1RR policy on Troubles articles after having been formally warned. Please self revert at Ulster Defence Association or you will be reported. You are clearly aware that it applies----Snowded TALK 21:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that's true. You might have a word with Snappy about 1RR, though; he's being a bit truculent about it. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Clearly true and showing no respect of WP:BRD. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that one given that you mixed it up with other edits the first time round. Its your call. I don't have time or decent internet access from tomorrow until the weekend but I will put in a formal report then if you haven't self reverted. Don't assume that someone else won't pending my having time ----Snowded TALK 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Gob Lofa's edits are about 2 days about so no 1RR breach. They always wait long enough to avoid breaching 1RR. However Gob Lofa is once again using the deceptive edit summary of "See talk" when there is nothing at the talk page to back their stance (again), and quite likely intent on slow edit-warring just like at Billy Fox (politician), because you now only Gob Lofa is right on this site. Mabuska (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Per policy waiting two days does not avoid a breach of 1RR. In fact such gaming can result in an extended ban. its pretty clear but giving him/her a last chance ----Snowded TALK 22:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
'See talk' refers to my query to Snowded on the talk page about his unusual edit, which I couldn't make sense of. When he hadn't responded after two days, I believed he was too embarrassed to, so I reverted. I'm still waiting for him to explain that edit. He might also explain the double standard between his attitude to my non-existent breach of restrictions on Troubles-related edits to Snappy's actual breach, which he seems blissfully relaxed about. Is Snappy on a last chance and you're not even going to warn him? Gob Lofa (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
If you are that confident then self revert and make the case on the talk page of the article. ----Snowded TALK 22:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa don't talk bullshit. That is a lame excuse for pushing your edit into an article just because there is no immediate response to your query. People do have real-life's that means they can't sit all day like some editors and fart about on Wikipedia and respond at your beck and call. Regardless of that it still doesn't give you a right to push a contested edit back into an article. Mabuska (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in ab urbe condita, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

In particular, the "Era style" section of the "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers". Jc3s5h (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Temperate rainforest may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] in BC and Montana, and the [[Russian Far East]] ([[Ussuri]]), [[Outer Manchuria]], [[Sakhalin]]) in [[Asia]] have more continental climates but get enough precipitation in both rain and snow to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

1981 South Africa rugby union tour

I have reverted your move of this page. Please see Category:South Africa national rugby union team tours which shows the usual naming of these tours for the sport of rugby union. -- Ham105 (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Rojava Revolution
added a link pointing to Ras al-Ayn
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization
added a link pointing to Unrecognized state

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

AN/I notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Gob_Lofa regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mabuska (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Auxiliary Units
added a link pointing to Paraffin
Barrack buster
added a link pointing to Creggan
Murals in Northern Ireland
added a link pointing to Falls Road
Pretty Village, Pretty Flame
added a link pointing to Duga

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

1972 crimes in the United Kingdom

FYI, I have removed Category:1972 crimes in the United Kingdom from all the Troubles-related articles in it (i.e. all but one). I removed other political-point-making cats at the same time. I am not watching any of the articles, and I haven't looked at any of the other "crimes in the United Kingdom" cats. If I'm reverted, I don't even want to know. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear you. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible political motivation

Hi Snowded, as you see I'm still monitoring. User:Scolaire and I have been discussing lately whether the use of crime and terrorism categories could perhaps be politically motivated; what do you think? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you should start to use the talk pages of articles before reverting ----Snowded TALK 21:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you? Gob Lofa (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
If you consider the question trolling, that's up to you. You might do better to ask yourself why you hold some editors to a higher standard than you hold yourself, as well as whether it's acceptable to alter talk page discussions. Gob Lofa (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

List of books about the Troubles

Hello, the list has been nominated for deletion, you may wish to participate in the discussion. IQ125 (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Dunmanway killings

Hi. What do you think? Please update or correct as you feel necessary. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

History of Ireland (1801–1923)
added a link pointing to Establishment
Irish People's Liberation Organisation
added a link pointing to Henry McDonald
Tønder
added a link pointing to Dyke

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colin Wallace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Cooper. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Double 1RR violation and Arbitration Enforcement notification

As you have committed a double 1RR violation within the past 24 hours you have been reported: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gob_Lofa. Mabuska (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1973 Chilean coup d'état, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"You surpass your usual opacity" etc

Do you find it necessary to be so abrasive when discussing a controversial topic? As an uninvolved administrator, I strongly suggest you tone it down. I've just spent 20 minutes or so looking through your contributions and you seem like a well-intentioned editor whose edits, by and large, are an improvement to the encyclopaedia, but your combativeness is going to get you into trouble. Administrators have the authority to block you from editing altogether, to ban you from editing articles about the Troubles, or to impose other restrictions on your editing that they feel are necessary to ensure order in the topic area. I would like to think that we're not at that stage yet, but you should be aware that sanctions are a distinct possibility if you can't resolve your differences with other editors in a civilised manner. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

On the face of it, that's a fair comment HJ. I would like to point out though, abrasiveness is relative and that treatment was pretty mild compared to what comes the other direction, e.g. near the top of this talk page section: [3]. The vast majority of my interactions with other editors are nothing like this, but this one has been wikistalking for months now and to my knowledge has never been pulled on it. It's pretty frustrating for me when someone uninvolved like yourself comes along and takes this editor's comments at face value. When they comment like this, as if butter wouldn't melt, my options are limited. The option I chose was to point out their hypocrisy. If you disagree with my assessment after 20 minutes studying Mabuska's edits, then that's fair enough. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Lets get a few things straight

  1. Most of your edits are in the 'mostly harmless' comprising small changes to capitalisation etc. They could be contested at times but I and other editors let those go
  2. Another group of edits involve referencing, providing links etc. That is a useful service to wikipedia
  3. Mixing edits that you know to be controversial (such as the removal of 'terrorism' in with a mass of other minor uncontroversial edits is disruptive. You also do it frequently and have continued to do it after you have been asked not to. So its deliberate.
  4. If your edit is reverted then you seek agreement on the talk page before you reinstate it. You don't wait a period and hope that people aren't watching, then sneak it in again
  5. Reverting a controversial edit is not 'edit warring' and you should stop making that accusation
  6. Accusing another editor of "pro-IRA' edits is unacceptable and could lead to you being blocked. I suggest you redact that and don't do it again
  7. If on a talk page no other editor supports you then the conversation is over. I and most other editors will not indulge you by continuing to 'banter' about aspects of the edit
  8. If you mix controversial and non-controversial edits then then are likely all to be reverted. If you reinstate the non-controversial ones that is OK, but don't expect other editors to do that work for you
  9. If you took a voluntary restriction not to mix controversial and non-controversial edits and to raise controversial edits on the talk page first then a lot of these problems would go away.
  10. Speaking personally, if I have reverted you and responded on the talk page to a legitimate question and no other editors get involved then as far as I am concerned its over. I will not feel obliged to continue to respond to petty questions.

If you do nothing else redact the personal attacks, for your sake rather than mine ----Snowded TALK 19:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Response here, as it's been deleted from recipient's talk page:

Let's get a few things straight:

  1. Most of your edits are in the 'mostly harmless' category. They could be contested at times but I and other editors let that go. Others are definitely a useful service to Wikipedia.
  2. Mixing edits that you know to be controversial (such as using 'terrorism' arbitrarily, e.g. in categories but not article bodies) in with a mass of other minor uncontroversial edits is disruptive. You also do it frequently and have continued to do it after you have been asked not to. So it's deliberate.
  3. If your edit is reverted then you're supposed to seek agreement on the talk page before you reinstate it.
  4. Reverting a controversial edit is not 'edit warring' and you should stop making that accusation.
  5. Harassment of other editors, especially when it exposes a lack of knowledge, is unacceptable and could lead to you being blocked. I suggest you don't do it again.
  6. I and most other editors will not indulge you by continuing to 'banter' about aspects of an edit and expect you to use intelligent arguments to defend your stance.
  7. If you mix controversial and non-controversial edits then all are likely to be reverted. If you reinstate the non-controversial ones that is OK, but don't expect other editors to do that work for you.
  8. If you took a voluntary restriction not to mix controversial and non-controversial edits and to raise controversial edits on the talk page first then a lot of these problems would go away.
  9. Speaking personally, if I have reverted you and then ask a legitimate question and no other editors get involved then as far as I am concerned that in no way makes you right. I will not feel obliged to put up with childish non-responses.
  10. If you do nothing else redact your 1RR violation.

Gob Lofa (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Heather Humphreys

Hi, I've edited Heather Humphreys in an attempt at compromise. So, rather than foisting your Pov and OR on her, I used a quote from the source you provided, i.e. her own words. I've also removed the ref from a blog as that falls under unreliable refs. I would also appreciate it if you don't link your pet article here. Snappy (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Snappy, insisting someone who desribes themselves as a Protestant Ulsterwoman is not an Ulster Protestant doesn't come across as much of a compromise. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
If a link were required, either Protestantism in Ireland or Protestant Irish nationalists would be more appropriate then your pov fork article. Snappy (talk)
Why do you say "pov" and "fork"? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Because your article is a pov fork of Protestantism in Ireland. Snappy (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
What point of view are you referring to? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I must be asking you the same question for nigh on two years. Will you ever answer it? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

AlwynJPie

I hope you're not going to use a problematic editor as a way of getting at me. Scolaire (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because you're problematic doesn't mean I'm trying to get at you, and I don't agree that anything worth adding to historical articles would have been added already. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Have a look at this lengthy page move discussion and then this page move out of the blue, and see if you still think he's just a nice sincere guy in search of answers. Scolaire (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Exogamy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of individuals who are relatively less related genetically: that is, [[outbreeding]] as opposed to [[inbreeding]. This benefits the offspring, as it reduces the risk of the offspring inheriting two

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Just to restate what I have already told you before elsewhere and what is well within my right as Scolaire stated... I don't have to respond to you. If I don't respond to you it is not because I am being ignorant or disrespectful as I have responded many times when I don't need to answering your questions when you yourself have not answered those posed to you. Rather it is because your asking questions over and over that have either already been answered elsewhere, or the answer is already given above but you don't seem to notice it. Some questions I don't see as they get lost in a sea of watchlist items, but those that I do notice only serve to create a merry-go-round of repetition that is just a waste of all our times. Thus I will only respond when there is a case too and it is something that isn't already answered or focused on editors as opposed to content. Mabuska (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

What questions would you like me to answer? The strange thing is, you keep saying that you've answered certain questions but refuse to say where. It would make you look more honest if you could. It's a bit rich of you to talk about time-wasting when you've been warned about it several times recently, but there we go. You don't have to respond to anyone Mabuska, but this is a community. Try treating it like one, see how it feels. When you say you would only respond when something isn't "focused on editors rather than content", does that mean you don't think I should have responded to this? Gob Lofa (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This isn't an article talk page or an article content dispute. It isn't even entirely about you, but mostly about me and explaining why I am not replying to some of your questions, so how that argument would apply is anyone's guess. Also there is no need for your continued incivility and bad faith in your responses. Comments such about "make you look more honest", "a bit rich", "this is a community. Try treating it like one, see how it feels" are not helpful especially when they are heavily contradicted by your own behaviour and are without basis. You were warned recently by an administrator for such comments. If that is treating Wikipedia like a community, then we're doomed. Mabuska (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the LAD site? A common theme of theirs is loyalism and irony, and I've lost count of how many times you remind me of it. If a question's put to you regarding a content dispute, try answering it. If you don't, people may believe you can't or believe that doing so may embarrass you. If you're confident you already have, try pointing the inquirer toward where you've done this. If you don't, people may believe you haven't. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murder of Ann Ogilby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry McDonald. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The British Empire a "Superpower" and "World Power"

Hi Sitush, do you agree that the British Empire was a "Superpower" and "World Power"? [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Snowded keeps denying the fact that Britain was a "Superpower", and now, he denies it was a "World power". He never presented any facts and brings up that everyone is against my edits and that I'm alone in this when there are users that do support this. All he did was deny and threatening me, he even mocked us here and keeps deleting my messages like here, there and now. (N0n3up (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Crumlin, County Antrim
added a link pointing to GAA
Dutch Cape Colony
added a link pointing to Bantu
Frank McGuinness
added a link pointing to The Emergency

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Politicians convicted of crimes

Do you realise that Jennifer McCann is not an elected politician in the Republic of Ireland? Do you realise that has been convicted of crime, like Ian Paisley? She therefore belongs in the category. AusLondonder (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ireland's bigger than the Republic, and you're in breach of the one-revert rule for Troubles-related articles. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The article is not designated as having those sanction applying. She may consider herself Irish, however, she simply is not an Irish politician. To suggest so is to defy logic and fact. AusLondonder (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, on all counts. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You disagree that the article is not designated? You disagree that Northern Ireland is constitutionally part of the UK? AusLondonder (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It certainly looks like a Troubles-related article to me. I don't know what you mean by "constitutionally" but I'm certainly aware of what state Northern Ireland's in. By the way, why do you describe McCann as British in the categories but then as Irish in the infobox? Gob Lofa (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
My understanding was a notice should be placed on the talkpage. I have neither stated she is British, however she is a politician in the UK. It would be factually wrong to state she is an Irish politician. AusLondonder (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
My understanding was that when I moved this discussion to Talk:Jennifer McCann, it would be continued there. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions reminder

Just a reminder of this clarification of the 1RR discretionary sanctions concerning The Troubles, specifically all articles could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, are placed under an 1RR rule under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions. Liz Read! Talk! 15:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll pass it on straight away, thank you. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Violent non-state actor incidents

Category:Violent non-state actor incidents, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Violent non-state actors

Category:Violent non-state actors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Arthur Morgan (Irish politician)
added a link pointing to Carlingford
Brendan Hughes
added a link pointing to Northern Command
The Twelfth
added a link pointing to Scots-Irish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Martina Anderson

Despite your false claims the categorisation of Anderson, an MEP for the United Kingdom has not been discussed. You have now violated the sanctions you have notified me about (twice). Hypocrite. AusLondonder (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Stiff upper lip, old chap. Gob Lofa (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

RE An Poblacht

Please read this. Quis separabit? 16:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That's quite the scoop. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. Am I mistaken or do you actually, seriously think that a newspaper of a political party/paramilitary group could ever be a reliable source? AusLondonder (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
When was the last time you read the Irish Independent? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Last time I checked the Irish Independent was not the official publication of a political party or paramilitary group. You must have misunderstood me. AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe I understood you perfectly. You're right, there's nothing official about the Independent's stance, but that doesn't negate its zeal. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'm not talking about the Independent. I'm talking about An Poblacht. AusLondonder (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm talking about both. Do you really believe the Irish Independent could ever be a reliable source? Gob Lofa (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Gob Lofa -- you should contribute here at the appropriate site regarding reliable sources and share your wisdom to a wider group of editors, rather than engaging in edit warring with me and erasing my edits with "inaccurate" (shall we say) edit summaries. Quis separabit? 02:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Victims' names

Why do you keep removing the names of victims in the chronology (see [13]), without even mentioning it as a point of contention. If it isn't, then you are deleting my more extensive edits to revert to a preferred prior edition in re relatively trivial edits (i.e. Catholic → Irish Catholic, et al).

So, for the record, do you have an MOS objection to including the names of victims in the chronologies or not? (I understand you are very shy, but please tell me.) Otherwise, in future, please restore your stuff without deleting so much of my work that I have to restore manually. Thank you. Quis separabit? 21:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to including the names. I tried to revert the edits I found objectionable and to leave your others, but wasn't allowed so I had to revert the lot. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
"I tried to revert the edits I found objectionable and to leave your others, but wasn't allowed so I had to revert the lot." -- ummmmm, no. You chose to revert the whole lot selfishly and inconsiderately, thus causing me a lot of extra work, which I will never go to the trouble of doing again in future, given that you have shown your true nature. In future, when you can't do something with one click, do it piecemeal and painstakingly as I have to do now because of your lack of consideration and your egotism. Quis separabit? 03:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Slow down, QS. I appreciate your work and I agree with the vast majority of it, but when you make a mass of edits in one go, you make it difficult to revert in part. I tried to do it with one click, and it wasn't possible. You should try leaving more of a gap between your edits, let other editors have a look. That way, if there's disagreement, you don't lose a lot of work. Gob Lofa (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Christian socialism
added a link pointing to Inequality
Confederación Nacional del Trabajo
added a link pointing to Mutual aid
Irish National Liberation Army
added a link pointing to Paul Williams
Moygashel
added a link pointing to Mill

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

IMOS

Per the Linking guideline of the Manual of Style, the names of major geographic features and locations should not be linked. If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as Ireland.

should not be linked. If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, , thats pretty clear. 09:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it is. The title refers to the Republic of Ireland, but then you haven't piped 'Ireland', which will just confuse. 09:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually it makes it pretty clear again from IMOS
An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating to states, politics or governance) where "Ireland" should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the "island of Ireland" or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland").
Reads pretty clear. Murry1975 (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
But you haven't piped it. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
"Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead" MOS:BOLDTITLE.
Again its in the detail. Murry1975 (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That's my point. You've referred to the Republic in the title, all of a sudden you've dropped 'Republic' in the lede but you're not allowed to pipe that 'Ireland'; therefore you have to follow the title. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
As per
"An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating to states, politics or governance) where "Ireland" should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the "island of Ireland" or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland")."
I see you have had the same issues with Snappy. Murry1975 (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
You don't intend to link to Republic of Ireland anywhere in the article? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It is linked in the info box, you really dont read?
And on Scotstown NI is not mentioned once. Stop being a dick. Murry1975 (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
How many people read the infoboxes before the lede? Another way to look at that question is, how many people does it please you to have scratching their heads at the switch between the title and the lede? As regards Scotstown, where do you think Roslea is? Gob Lofa (talk)


Goba your are complete ignoring MOS rules to suit your POV. Using incorrect edit summaries to push what you are doing to the limit. As per linking, Ireland should NOT even be linked, IMOS says it should IF it needs, but only states have foreign policies and relations, not islands.
As for Roslea, that is in NI, as for the same contextual use on the page, NI isnt mentioned and if it was it would have to be in the same context.
"except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context'", this seems to evade you.
And its not a breach of 1RR, if it is so is your Foreign relations, if not more so as it specifically talks about the Troubles and the two states views on such issues. Murry1975 (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
My POV? Are you referring to my dislike of irredentist terminology? How is the context different? Murry, you reverted on Scotstown twice. Two reverts in one day breaches 1RR; you barely needed an hour. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

direct democracy ireland

care to expand on your comment"i dont think so" so the "irish times is not a reliable source" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railsparks (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe this makes the DDI left-wing; the Nazis had similarly populist proposals in their election manifesto. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

reliable source

would this be classed as a reliable source or fiction "http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/people-before-profit-splits-with-anti-austerity-alliance-on-pact-1.2413042#Railsparks (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you ask? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen - fact erasing

Why do you erase fact that war in Bosnia started when Green beret member on 01.03.1992. killed one Serb and injured orthodox priest. If article should be neutral why clear that and instead have only statement in article that Serbs attacked but not saying what Bosnian Muslims have done before that? Were is neutrality in such approach? 178.149.27.251 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Billy Boys

In response to your template, Billy Boys has nothing to do with The Troubles in Northern Ireland, given it is a Scottish song created in the 20s-30s before the Troubles and only performed in Belfast. It isn't even mentioned in the article in any way. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Save it for the judge. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glenanne gang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DPP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries and slow edit war again I see

I count three times in the last month where you have been reverted, then waiting some weeks and attempted the edit again. Each time you have given misleading edit summaries which are clear lies. That type of behaviour is disruptive. That is combined with a failure to justify your edits on the talk page. You seem to think its clever just to ask questions when in practice you have initiated a change. Again that is disruptive. If you carry on with that then an ANI request for a general err restriction may be the only way forward ----Snowded TALK 12:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"Misleading edit summaries and slow edit war again I see" indeed. Your bluffing deceives no-one; your inability to engage in any meaningful way in several talk page discussions is manifest. Your behaviour is disruptive; refusing to take advantage of weeks given to you to answer questions and then pretending you don't edit war is simply risible. You seem to think it's clever to demand detailed explanations for changes made on subjects where your grasp of the material at hand often leaves a lot to be desired, all the while refusing to offer even the most cursory defence of your edits, which more often than not you simply refuse to discuss. There are three parts to BRD, and you're enjoined to respect the third in particular. How have you escaped ANI so far? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to take the case to ANI anytime you want ----Snowded TALK 01:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Irish War of Independence

Was that IP you then? If it had been in your name I would have left it as you are normally reliable on factual points like that. It presented as a one time IP edit and 99% of the time those are vandalism ----Snowded TALK 13:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't. Your unreliability on factual points like that ought to give you pause. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Not really, unexplained edits by one time IPs don't warrant investigation. ----Snowded TALK 14:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Your unreliability doesn't end at your dealings with IPs. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't recall us disagreeing on a matter fact, only interpretation and style but so be it ....----Snowded TALK 14:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Belfast City Hall flag protests
added links pointing to Waterside and No Surrender
Microlife
added a link pointing to Diet

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Cat move

If you didn't realise you should have taken that controversial category rename to WP:CFD then you shouldn't be editing here, as your behaviour in this area repeatedly confirms. AusLondonder (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you describe the move as controversial? It's standard for NI categories. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It should have been taken to WP:CFD or, at the very least, WP:CFDS. AusLondonder (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Colin Wallace
added a link pointing to 1974 general election
Jeffrey Donaldson
added a link pointing to Vatican
Ulster Volunteer Force
added a link pointing to Self-loading rifle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

British and Irish articles

Howdy. I noticed you've an interest in British and Irish articles. I recommend that you gain a consensus for any changes you wish to make to any of those articles. This is just advice, from an editor who got himself into trouble in those areas, a few years ago :) GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've a few talk page discussions ongoing at the moment which you're welcome to join. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I think I'll pass. BTW, you should get an archive-bot for your talkpage, as it's getting rather long :) GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
How do I do that? Gob Lofa (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Ask an administrator to help you. I forget who set mind up. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've set up auto archiving for you but you don't need to be an admin to do it. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 07:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil! Gob Lofa (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Direct Democracy Ireland

Again you have reverted an edit which has no substantiated fact there is no proof or references that DDI is right wingRailsparks (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

1RR

I have noticed you are overusing the troubles related 1RR violations. It does not apply to every Irish article, as you seem to think. It does not apply to Albert Reynolds. It is not to be used as a threat against other editors. If you continue to abuse the intent of 1RR, you will be reported. Snappy (talk)

Reynolds was involved in ending the Troubles; how could it not apply to him? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
So were John Major and Tony Blair, it doesn't apply to them either. You need to be disabused of this notion that the troubles 1RR applies to everything. Snappy (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gob_Lofa/Archive_5&oldid=1136184860"