User talk:Padraig/Archive4

Talk Archives
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6

What's the matter with you?

Is there a reason you are refusing to answer? Does this mean you have taken the honourable step in realising that the article was indeed incorrect? Conypiece 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No it means I am fed up repeating the answer to you, so if you have a problem understanding logic there is nothing more I can add, and in future post new sections to the bottom of talk pages, also in future please post on the article talk page instead of here, with questions relating the the article in question.--padraig 00:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, refer to Gerry Adams talk page. Conypiece 00:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting vandalism to my user page. --John 06:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Category: Irish criminals

Please contribute to the discussion on the matter rather than revert. There is reliable sources that suggests he was convicted of a criminal act. If you dispute them, then say so and explain why, but removing independently sourced content as "POV" is unhelpful. Thanks. Rockpocket 23:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Shirley thats the pot and the kettle. You have been substituting Criminal for Prison of War.--Vintagekits 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and I have provided independent, reliable sources among extensive discussion on the subject on the talk page. That is very different from reverting with a summary of "POV". Provide a source that says he was convicted of a scheduled terrorist act and I will back you 100%. In the absence of that we are left with the sources that say he was convicted for conspiracy to rob a bank, which is a criminal act. Rockpocket 00:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Padraig

Because, since the account exists, despite having made no contributions, it cannot be renamed to. I pointed you to the usurpation page, where you can, via a slightly more complex process, take it over. Andre (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Req. for Usurpation

No problem. Just a slight mistake, thats fine. A message on his talk should do it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Misleading categories

Padraig, there's a discussion about categories at the WP:IWNB, could you please stop changing articles until some kind of agreement is made? The status quo should remain until the issue is resolved. Cheers. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Six County Flag Issue

Padraig. The article is about the North's flag issue, which, as the article itself states, "is one that divides the population along sectarian lines. Depending on political allegiance, people identify with differing flags and symbols, some of which have, or have had, official status in the province." Why then a whole lot of union flags at the top of the page, if the objective is to point out the use of the main flags that ARE in use??? What use mentioning former government flags at all? I think editors are getting this article and 'Flag of Northern Ireland' articles mixed up!! Diarmaid 01:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave up trying to get unionists to agree to anything remotely resembling fairness or equality, it's not in their belief system. Diarmaid 12:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As a conscientious editor ...

SirFozzie has suggested that, as a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here.If you have any questions on what it would entail, please do not hesitate to ask SirFozzie on his talk page or via email.

removing?

No, I'm not removing. I'm trying to prevent him from renaming the page without discussing on the talk page first.--Urthogie 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the edit dif in the article shows otherwise.--padraig 20:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Padraig3uk or User:Padraig ?

Sometimes you seem to use one account, sometimes the other?

What's the difference, please?...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I upsurped the username Padraig since Saturday 21st July, so any posts made prior to that will still show as Padraig3uk, but my user page and contributions are all now moved to Padraig.--padraig 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid reply and congratulations on a successful manoeuvre!...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 00:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask, did you get the idea from me? --John 04:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I Discovered that the name was registered but had never made any edits, so I applied for a username change, and was advised by Andre to use the upsurp process to take over the name.--padraig 08:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, enjoy the new name. I changed mine a couple of months ago. Best wishes, --John 14:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--padraig 14:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Peace on earth and goodwill to all men

We've just had an edit conflict at Rockpocket's Talk page (and I also see that you've just replied there). The trouble with the existing CEM proposal is that no-one from the 'Irish' side signed up to it, and I think that it's probably dead in the water for that reason. I think that its (almost) failure may be one reason why SirFozzie feels so disillusioned.

SirFozzie has taken a lot of stick, including from me, in his mentoring. I think that he bent over backwards to protect Vintagekits both from other editors and from himself, and at the end felt betrayed himself. As he seems to be trusted by the Irish contingent as understanding their concerns, I think that it would be a tragedy if he moved away from his involvement just now.

Frankly, if I am right that Irish editors view him as sympathetic, you (plural) need to support him back. You (plural) need to take the leap of faith and sign up to the CEM, even without being clear on the details, and trust him to protect your interests. The alternative is that he departs and we all go back to business as usual.

As I see it, the CEM proposal would have established a neutral solution for areas of potential conflict: eg. IRA prisoners being referred to as prisoners of war and Volunteer/ volunteer; and reduce the scope for friction, eg. by adopting naming conventions. I am not clear on what CEM actually entails: it seems to be a new process. I expect that we would all be feeling our way for a bit. I'd rather be involved in the process from the beginning, and try and push it in the right direction, than immediately view it as suspicious and a plot by 'the other side', to be avoided at all costs. But anything has got to be better than the deadening stupidity of the current warring and blocks.

My own proposal is slightly different from the CEM, which I view as largely failed through not attracting Irish support. It's simply that we draw a line in the sand: no-one refers to previous events and there are no sanctions applied for them. We start with a clean slate. Each 'side' will largely police its own members, and if some happy idiot wants to start warring, the Admins come down on him like a ton of bricks. To put it bluntly: you rein in Domer48, and we'll rein in MarkThomas; if they can't play nicely, they get blocked.

Regarding POV: it seems to me to be a really simple problem to solve. Firstly, citations. Secondly, on contentious articles like the Potato Famine, we can have separate sections: an 'Irish' view (conspiracy) and a 'British' view (cock-up).

I had previously targeted Domer48 to try to drum up some support - he seems to be on an erratic Wikibreak - and my post to him remains unanswered. If you want to try and run with this, I'd be very grateful: please give it some thought and feel free to add your own tweaks.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your idea of drawing a line in the sand and having a fresh start on the part of all involved in past disputes, But the CEM idea is OK if only two editors are involved, but to extend that to involve multiple editors, without setting out ground rules on how this would work is never going to work. I am not opposed to the idea in general, but I refuse to sign up for some vague idea without knowing exactly what we are agreeing to, as this will only lead to more problems then we currently have.

As for none of the so-called Irish editors not signing up for it, in my view this is because of the reasons outlined above, a few of them have ask for details on this and so far none have been forthcoming. If one of the editors proposing this idea wants to outline the details of the proposal so we can discuss the issues involved then I will do my best to try and find a agreement that we can work with. And whilst these details are being sorted out we all agree to leave all disputed articles as they stand.

My major concern is the issue of POV, I believe that existing WP policies work well in this aspect therefore asking all editors to abid to 1RR in cases of editors is not going to work, as then it just boils down to which side of the arguement has the most editors to remove or insert POV into article, that is just a numbers game that disregards WP:NPOV .

I haven't been involved in the Famine article so I am not sure of the issues involved in that, but some of the remarks on talk pages and edit summaries that I have been aware of, by both sides are not helpful in resolving issues, so I think AGF and Civil, NPA policies should be strongly enforced, there is also the issue of certain editors re-inserting POV into articles repeatly without ever discussing changes in the talk pages first or ignoring ongoing discussions.--padraig 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok; let's leave CEM to one side.

POV: ideally what I would want is space given to both sides on a controversial issue, then everyone can stay within their own area without treading on anyone else's toes. What does an article like the Potato Famine actually need? At its most basic:

• a neutral statement of the facts;
• a section setting out the Irish-nationalist 'conspiracy' version;
• a section setting out the British 'cock-up' version;
• legacy (incl. memorials);
• a historiography section (plus references and bibliography).

I suspect what you are going to say is: yes, but the 'neutral statement of the facts' will be taken over by the POV-pushers. They will probably attempt to. We need goodwill here; if someone is being a dick, his own side should pull him up. If he's still being a dick, it's one for Tyrenius. The really contentious stuff might have to move from 'a neutral statement of the facts' to one or other of the different POV sections. We need sensible dialogue between adults, not a playground fight; because certain editors are obviously not prepared to listen to what the other side has to say, or address opposing positions, everyone else is getting dragged into juvenile squabbling.

What about signing up for something like this: For a one week trial, I agree to 1RR, no edit-warring, no POV-pushing, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc., etc. I agree to let bygones be bygones and not bring up past issues. If I have alternate User accounts, I undertake not to use them. I will encourage others on my side of the debate to abide by the same undertakings even if they do not sign up to this agreement. If I see an editor from my side of the debate breaching these conditions, even if he has not agreed with them, I will point it out on his Talk page and encourage him to stop. If I see someone from the other side of the debate not abiding by these undertakings, whether or not he has signed up to them, I will notify Major Bonkers/ whoever, to take similar action. If I have a problem with another editor or these conditions I will try to resolve it myself, with WP:AGF, and not post on an Admin's Talk page.

(My version would be exactly the same but with an Irish editor as a point of contact in case of dispute.)

If we can get a bit of momentum behind this, what it would mean is that if someone started a war they would find their own Talk page filling up with 'cease and desist' notices from their own side. The Admins get some well-deserved peace and quiet. We slowly take the sting out of a stupid 'war' and the hardliners are either isolated or brought onside. Feel free to tinker. Thanks for taking me seriously!--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Provisional Irish Republican Army

I have made changes to reverted edit agree was badly wrote.--BigDunc 19:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree guilty of that myself.--BigDunc 19:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for the heads-up. I see both of you have been at it. Please don't edit-war; try to find compromise, as I have done in Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations and Gibraltar. Best wishes, --John 20:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I did engage in talks with him User_talk:Astrotrain#Ulster_Banner and here User_talk:Biofoundationsoflanguage#LIST_OF_British_flags, Astrotrain ignores the talk pages on articles and if you check the edit summaries you will see I refered them to there.--padraig 12:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading the above links, you did attempt to engage in discourse, however from what I read, you did know you were in fact edit warring. Whether you knew you did 3 reverions or not is irrelevant. Please note, you are not entitled to 3 reversions and you could have been blocked after showing you were in an edit war. I am unfamiliar with the subject matter but it appears there are more people who disagree with you then agree with you. Instead of edit warring, you should have attempted to discuss with the parties (which you did). that failing you should pursue other forms of dispute resolution instead of continuing to revert. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Padraig is really a conscientious editor and will take your comments to heart. Because of this his block should be reduced to just a slap on the wrists...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I reccomend he email AGK if he feels he should be unblocked. I did not block him and from my stance, a cool down is probably a good idea. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Myself and other editors have been trying to sort out the edit warring and constant disputes, the problem we face is disruptive editors like Astrotrain ignore all attempts to calm things down, the issue involved here is editors trying to use WP as a soapbox for there political POV, refusing to provide references to support their claims, despite numerous sources being provided to disprove them. WP is a encyclopedia and should present facts not the WP:OR of certain editors, you say many disagree with me I would disagree, check out Talk:Northern Ireland and Talk:Northern Ireland flags issue and you will see this is a ongoing problem. The bottom line is the Ulster Banner is not and never was the flag of Northern Ireland, it was a Governmental Banner used by the former Government of Northern Ireland between 1953-1972, this government was abolished by the British Government in 1973, along with its banner under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. What we have in WP is a group of editors trying to re-write history by claiming this flag represents Northern Ireland today, their claims have been discredited and they fail to provide source to support their claims, Despite the fact it has been proven to them that the British Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Executive neither recognise the Banner as representing Northern Ireland today.--padraig 13:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just seen this. I'm off to bed shortly - don't laugh, it's part and parcel of having a baby! - and wondered what had happened. I see you've only got less than an hour to go, so it isn't worth my while making representations, otherwise I'd do so. Please can you add any comments to my Talk page in due course. Don't get riled about these things - it isn't worth it. Have a drink on me and we'll try and sort something out tomorrow.--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Whats the story here I was blocked at 12:24 yet I still can't edit and when I try I get a notice saying my block expires at 23:23 thats 11hrs not 10.--padraig 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

3 revert rule

You seem to have broken the 3 revert rule on List of British flags. Could you please fix/recognise this error by undoing your last action on the article? Thank you. Biofoundationsoflanguage 07:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I take it as you've been online since and neither responded here, on my talk page, nor undone your last revert, you're not going to? Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't break 3RR, my last edit was to fix incorrect information, added in good faith by David Lauder I discussed this with him on his talk page, before removing it, I also added the link to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 under which the Parliament of Northern Ireland was dissolved. May I suggest you read up on the issue involved before removing information from this and other articles, some of your edits although intended in good faith are misleading wrong. Edit warring on these issues is pointless and disruptive, its better to use the use the talk of the article to discuss any content you may feel is incorrect, and give those editors involved the chance to justify or provide sources for the content in dispute.--padraig 10:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Navigation Box

Padraig..your navigation box is cool, i.e the mail, talk, sandbox, etc., link box. How do you do that? Hughsheehy 11:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I adapted it from one used by another editor, If you click edit on my user page, you see the list of templates used in it there the navigation and status ones, copy the content of them to your userspace and edit the links in them to point to your username. then just put the template link from in your user page.--padraig 11:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I´m obviously doing something wrong...´cos it doesn´t work for me at all when i copy what I think I ought to be copying.. Can you give me some more hints? Hughsheehy 15:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Hughsheehy 11:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

List of flags

Hopefully people will take notice of the 3RR report, but it's on my watchlist, and if any sort of edit-warring breaks out I'll protect it on the spot. Scratch that, seeing as you've asked at WP:RFPP - I'll let another admin decide on it from there though. Cheers,ELIMINATORJR 13:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Phew!

I've just dashed in from the garden having just remembered your other proposal. I'm glad you've added it. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it best not to continue posting on Major Bonker's talk page on that issue- please use Talk:Northern Ireland where users are discussing this in a civil manner. Please respect the developed consensus. Thanks Astrotrain 11:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Assembly Logo

The Assembly logo is not used by the Executive (see [1]) Astrotrain 13:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Murder

What requirements do you think are needed for a murder to take place? I should be most interested to know. --Counter-revolutionary 18:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request re murder/killing

I'm afraid I'm not prepared at the moment to wade into these battles between editors on such issues. However, I presume that any responsible wikipedia editor, who has wikipedia's guidelines such as NPOV at the forefront, would recognise that there are different sides to this question, and would therefore seek to word the lead in a less categorical way, followed by exploring the point more specifically in the article, in the way that was done in Norman Stronge for example in the "reactions" section. It is a mandatory editing practice to source information and attribute it. I find the discussions on this point fail such requirements, as they are arguments between editors which amount to original research. They also hint very strongly at a priori positions, which does not make for good editing either, with claims to owning "the truth". I suggest bringing the matter to a wider forum and following WP:DR if agreement cannot be reached. Tyrenius 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Although admins often do assist in editorial issues as a mediating force, it is not actually part of their official role to do so, though it may become so if 3RR or whatever is breached. No one is obliged to do anything on wiki, including admins, who can easily get burn out by taking on too much. As I've pointed out above, there correct procedure for solving edit disputes is in WP:DR, where recourses such as RfC and mediation are available. Tyrenius 19:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to look into the rest of the WP:DR procedures. Talking is only the first step recommended. There are links to the other procedures, where you can find out about them. Tyrenius 20:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Its good to be back :). --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 21:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sf wiki pages

So you honestly believe it to be useful to have wiki pages for simple town councillors? If you care so much then why not edit them with correct details, instead of just clicking to keep.

Harrassment

I propose to raise a complaint about your activities deliberately going around pages that I have either created or made major contributions to to attack them in numerous ways. All because I fail to agree with you on a stupid flag. Have I ever done this to pages you are concerned with because I fail to see your point of view? No. It demonstrates a nasty streak on Wikipedia. David Lauder 12:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but what are you refering to, because I don't know what on about, I fix problems and errors on WP when I come across them, I neither check nor care who created articles.--padraig 12:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not assume I am a fool. David Lauder 12:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would advise you to remain WP:CIVIL now could you provide a link to this article your refering to, or whatever error you think I might have made.---padraig 12:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not play all the Vintakekits/One Night in Hackney games with me. I've been there before. You know all too well exactly what I am talking about. David Lauder 12:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but I have edited alot of articles during this past few days I don't know which article your refering to, and I will let you know I sometimes use the Random Article link to find articles of interest so unless you can refer me to the article in question, then this discussion is pointless, as I have no intention of checking every article I have edited in the past few days to find which one was created by you. Also are you saying that articles you create cannot be edited by other editors because the last time I checked Wikipedia dosent work that way.--padraig 12:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't stalk David, Padraig, or I will have to re-consider my opinion of you.

This is entirely a stab in the dark but he may be referring to your interest in articles relevant to the British Establishment and Aristocracy and his own family.

These recent edits of yours jumped out at me:

Padraig contribs

If I'm half right, no need to reply as actions will speak louder than words and if I'm talking through my hat again, then congratulations on your new found interest in the British Aristocracy and erudite contributions. God bless!...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 14:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you mention above Aristocracy and his own family so your saying that he has a personal interest in these articles, that would be a conflict of Interest issue then, WP is not a depository for someones family history nor does it give the creator of articles a veto over other editors editing or moving those article to conform to the policies of WP.--padraig 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[2]...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If padraig can prove a connexion between me and and anyone's page that I have worked upon (other than similar or the same surnames which is meaningless - just look in the telephone book - I would be very interested to see the evidence. David Lauder 08:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said you had any connection it was Gaimhreadhan mentioned it above read again his comment.--padraig 09:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

New section

Just to let it be known I am in complete with agreement with David in regards to making a formal complaint against Padraig. In simple terms he is a stalker. Here are a few example's of the edits he made this morning

01:13, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Naomi Long (restoring removed information) (top)

01:10, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Lisnaskea (restoring removed information)

01:07, 7 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Lisbellaw

It is obvious that he went through my contributions page and started editing against what I had said. This in my opinion is just a pathetic thing for anyone to waste their time to do. Just in the future Padraig chill out and back off from the stalking. You may have the mindset (as do others in your clique) that if you simply edit and keep on editing then the other user will eventually give up and move on. Well im sorry Padraig but I am not going to be walked over by people using petty methods. So now, care to recommend an Admin to whom I should make an official complaint? Conypiece 00:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of what a watchlist is because many of the pages you edited last night are on mine with shows me when any edits are made to them, and your removal of information from those article and given the edit summary you left in some your comment you where cleary editing in an POV fashion, which I warned you about on your talk page, so go and make a report to an admin.--padraig 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So it is just by sheer coincidence that you arrived on Naomi Long's page, and then to two Fermanagh towns. Here's a question, why them two towns? Why not one of the other towns she represents? Seriously dude, I'm not that thick... Conypiece 00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No it was your posting of deletion templates on a string of nationalist politicans articles some of which are on my watchlist, that alerted me to your edits, then looking at your contribs I could see some of the edit summaries you left, which clearly show that such as this that you have a very clear POV in your editing.--padraig 00:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why you felt it was necessary to edit on for example Lisbellaw when you knew the statement was both pointless and provocative? Conypiece 00:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how the content you removed was pointless and provocative, or how pointing who the local politican for that area is provocative.--padraig 01:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It was pointless for the info was already there. It was provocative for you copied and pasted exactly an earlier edit by an anon user, that was later rightly removed by myself. You were trying to provoke a reaction. Care to answer why you copied and pasted that exact edit? Conypiece 01:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You removed material from the article which you seem to seem to have a clear POV against, I restored that material, you are now claiming the material was provocative, I ask you to explain how it was, you says it was already there so I assume your refering to the infobox which mentions the constituency, but it dosen't say who the local MP was so explain why you felt it was necessary to remove that information.--padraig 01:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you restore that material? Do you think it efficient to include that sort of material on village articles? If so then why have you not reverted? I felt it necessary to remove the information for it was irrelevant to the article.Conypiece 01:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include the information, it concerns the area so I fail to see what the problem is, you have still explain how it was provocative.--padraig 01:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No reason not to include? Then why have you still not edited it back? Why have you not went round every town/village in Northern Ireland and listed who their MP is. Why stop at MP, why not Cllr/MLA? It was provocative because you firstly it was a direct copy and paste from a previously removed edit, secondly provocative in the wording in that you knew you would not get away with saying the 'elected MP is Sinn Fein party member and lifetime Republican Michelle Gildernew' on a article that is meant to focus on an individual neutral village. Conypiece 01:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Because besides replying to you hear I am also engaged in another discussion on another talk page, your edits can wait until I have time, they will still to there later. She is a MP, She is also a Sinn Féin member and a republican, so what is the problem, do you object to her, the fact she is the MP, or because she is a member of Sinn Féin and a republican, so which part of that do you find provocative.--padraig 01:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh I was just waiting for you to spring the 'is it because she is republican' line. Well sadly for you nope. Conypiece 01:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So It becauses you don't like her then, or you don't like MPs, your the one the said it was provocative. So onless you can say why then you have no ground to remove factual material from any article.--padraig 01:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to change what I'm saying. Never have I said anything about having a problem with her personally or because she is a republican, so I am not going to fall for that ploy. I have already said why it was provocative. Please read what I type. Btw it is a fact that the sun is bright but that does mean I have to write it in the introduction of the Sun, use your initiative. It's called being pragmatic... Conypiece 02:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So the only reason for removing the material is down to your personal POV, well that is not a reason to justify your removal of factual material. So detest from doing so as any future removal of the material by you could be classed as vandalism.--padraig 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Again don't threaten me with your 'guidelines'. It is not my POV it is the general position wikipedia takes in regards to the introduction of villages/towns. Or do you disagree? Conypiece 02:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well unless you can point out the specific section of which guideline your refering to I don't know what you mean by that. So if you would like to provide a link to that I will read through it. And there not my 'guidelines' there the rules that apply to all WP editors.--padraig 02:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok a change of words, don't try to shut me up by stating the rules (of which I did not break!). So again I state it is not my POV it is the general position wikipedia takes in regards to the introduction of villages/towns. Or do you disagree? Conypiece 02:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not tried to shut you up, you started off saying the content removed was provocative, then it ended up you claimed it breached WP rules on articles on villages/towns now I have never come across this guideline you refer to, and ask you to provide a link to which guideline your refering to when you do so I will be able to decide wether you acted within that guideline or not.--padraig 02:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet again there is complete avoidance of the question. Yes is was provocative (in terms of knowing there would be editing as a result of your actions). I never said wiki had rules or guidelines, but instead the general structure of village/town introductions is that they do not get involved with political individuals. Do you agree or disagree? Simple question, its the third time I have asked... Conypiece 02:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you removed factual material, I decided to restore your edit, and your saying that me restoring the removed material was provocative, so in other words you think you have the right to remove any material from articles and no other editor has the right to restore it, because you regard them doing so as provocative. Thats an interesting viewpoint, unfortunately WP dosen't work in that way. And this has nothing to do with any of the rules or guidelines of WP that the rest of the editors of WP have to follow. I don't understand this general structure of village/town introductions bit as all wiki articles are based on style guidelines which sets out guideline on layout etc. But I haven't come across any guideline that says what can or can't be include within the article, apart from WP:POV, WP:MOS WP:OR and WP:RS.--padraig 03:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed factual material, that was not of major relevance, and that was easily available through a link on the article. Your at it again, read what I write please. It was provocative for you knew it would have been quickly removed, if not by me, some other editor. Them links you provided have no relevance to the question whatsoever. Even though you still didn't the answer the question I'll stop asking because things are becoming slightly clearer (you don't want to answer...). However the issue remains, its simple really, you think it is appropriate to pick two towns (off my contribs list) to randomly state their MP/Political Party/Political leaning all within the introduction. For consistency then I assume you are calling for all towns/village articles on wiki to be structured this way? Please don't avoid the question. This is the only way we will sort this. Conypiece 03:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• No you removed material and made and Breach WP:NPA and WP:Civil . [3]

• it was restored by another editor [4]

• This same editor then added more info the the article [5]

• You then delete the info + the new info as well [6]] and made breach WP:NPA in your edit summary

• The other editor made a small edit but didn't restore the material you removed.

• I restored the material back that you have removed, not to it original position but at the end of the second paragraph. [7]

• Again you removed the material and made a personal attack on me in your edit summary.[8]

I think the edit history shows who was edit warring so if you want to report this to a admin, then go ahead, they can look at your edit summary and view your personal attacks on other editors.--padraig 03:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmms until looking at that I hadn't noticed that the other editor was 'unregistard' ie. they didn't sign in. So there was 1 editor who insisted on inserting inappropriate details. I removed it. You come along and see a chance to lower yourself to petty editing. What's the problem, just because 1/10/100 people say its right does not make it right.

Now seriously this is becoming pathetic on your part, every question I have asked you have either totally ignored or refused to answer.

Don't worry, im working on your complaint to the Admins so lets try and concentrate on this. We have moved on to the issue that you think it is alright to inconsistently edit wiki articles. This is in regards to villages/towns. Never throughout this whole discussion have you explained as to why you think it is needed to have MP details (yet not others!) and their party and their political stance within the introduction to a village/town. This is not the only issue that needs to be resolved, secondly you refuse to state whether or not these sort of details or required in every village page or just those I happen to edit on.

So finally to prevent any chance of confusion, please just answer these questions which have been asked so many times above.

1* Why do you think it necessary to have MP (and only MP) details within the introduction of village/town pages?

2* Do you think there should be MP details in the introduction on every village/town page? Conypiece 04:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought you would have had the decency to answer me. A reply to my above comment would be nice? Conypiece 01:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stay civil in your edit summaries and don't make comments directed at other editors. Stick to the subject. Also it is a good idea to include as much relevant factual information as possible in such articles, including political representatives. I don't see the problem. Tyrenius 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts on Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/World Flags

I'm having a hard time figuring out what your problem with the presentation of unofficial and proposed flags on this list is. This list isn't even an article, its purpose is solely as a collection of flags: historical, current, and proposed, as they relate to political entities. There is no intention (nor could anyone presume such an intention by the way the information is presented), to show support for any flag, or to pass off any flag as official. I understand that you have a problem with the use by some people of the former flag of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia articles to refer to present-day Northern Ireland. However, the list in question is an internal page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology for the sole informational use by members of that WikiProject, is not an article, and is not intended to be read by the general public. Lexicon (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, I was just passing to say the same thing. We now have the Ulster Banner () marked as unnofficial linking to Northern Ireland flag issue and 5 proposed flags:

• 
• 
• File:North flagproposal1111.JPG
• 
• 

It at no point states any are right and I'm getting a bit annoyed that you cant accept this. I suggest you either live with it or ignore it. Highfields 09:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Padraig: your argument on my talk page couldn't possibly be more irrelevant to the issue. The page's sole purpose is for the listing of whatever flags members of WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology see fit. Period. Lexicon (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Article Has Now Been Made Acurate Acording To The Comments On It's Talk Page, And in future when you have doubts, as the article's creator could you take it up with me not Lexicon as I'm sure he has got better things to do than speak to you about my pages and edits Highfields 15:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit reversions

Usual thing: WP:DR. I suggest a bit of patience/involving other editors/posting on talk page/WP:SSP etc. Tyrenius 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Adams

Is it too much to ask you to reply to my questions? Conypiece 17:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I will when I get around to it, I assume your refering to the Gerry Adams talk page.--padraig 17:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh well that sounds like someones avoiding the issue. You still have time to send messages to me though... interesting. But in regards to your question, yes the talk page. You must have an answer for you edited the page 3 times. Conypiece 17:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a few more questions, please don't start ignoring talk pages. Conypiece 17:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

1981 Hunger Strike Template

I also have a questions on this talk page, left quite a while ago. Please refer to your watchlist. Conypiece 18:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you not find them? Conypiece 18:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have answered all your questions, try keeping this discussion in one place the template talk page, rather then jumping back and forward.--padraig 18:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have simplified the layout. I would remain on the talk pages in question, however you need constant reminders to answer the questions asked. Conypiece 18:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a chat service, where you get instant replys as soons as you post a question, I am doing other things.--padraig 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the only way of sorting out these issues is through discussion. Them questions will be waiting for you, as will I be waiting on your reply. Conypiece 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

The report you filed on the 3RR noticeboard has been ignored thus far because you did not put the diff times for the reversions you provided. Add those if you want an administrator to respond. Perspicacite 18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do, I am not used to the process yet.--padraig 18:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding questions

Remain within the following pages, Its been over a day...;

• Template talk:1981 Hunger Strike
• Talk:Gerry Adams

If you don't have a reply then theres no shame in admitting that edits may indeed be needed. Conypiece 23:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There are questions for you at Talk:Gerry Adams Conypiece 11:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have answered your question many times, and I see no pointing repeating that seeing as you refuse to understand the difference between the different movements and continue to try to present Strawman arguements.--padraig 11:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No you have not answered these questions. Since you are refusing to talk over there then it seems I'll have to bring the questions to you here. Below answer the below,

You seem to have little understanding of Republicanism or the various groups and movements involved, the Continuity Republican Movement is the name they themselves refer to themselves as. There has never been a provisional movement.--padraig 23:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you back up that? Can you give me sources where they describe themselves as being part of thecontinuity irish republican movement? Careful though, Im looking for the movement, not what they call their organisation. Please look at Republican Movement (Ireland). It is a fact that they are considered part of the overall movement (however much you disagree). Conypiece 23:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Conypiece 11:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link for your provisional movement claim, this article dosent refer to the CIRA.--padraig 11:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already told you that no such thing exists. However you then claimed cira were in a completely different movement to the Irish Republican Movement, I am asking you to either backup this claim, or provide a link. If you cannot then it prooves CIRA are indeed part of the overall movement, therefore showing Adams cant be spokesman. Conypiece 11:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So you admit that their is no such thing as theprovisional movement yet your edit warring to insert that term into a article that clearly states who it is Gerry Adams is refering to as a spokesperson for the Irish Republican Movement.--padraig 11:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats why provisional movement was in "...", understand? Yes I know what your preferred statement reads, and I also know that is either an inaccurate POV/ or lies on your part. Now lets change the focus back to you (you deflected it above), what makes CIRA less a right to be considered part of the Republican Movement? You made a statement earlier, about them being part of a Continuity movement, can you back that up? Conypiece 13:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to have the decency to reply? Conypiece 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Message on my talk page

Neil, could you take a look at these [9] [10] [11] posted by User:W. Frank who has been warned for edit warring on these and other articles, can I remove these posts as they are intended to harass editors who disagree with his POV, he has posted the same on other article talk pages as well.--padraig 11:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Padraig. No, please don't remove his comments, even if you don't agree with them. It will just make things worse. Feel free to explain why you do not agree with his interpretation of policy, though. Neil ム 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I was trying to rv to the one before Biofoundations silly pranks. Didn't succeed though. Thanks for tidying up. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I seen that, no problem its fixed now and Biofoundations has been blocked again.--padraig 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Irish articles assessments

It seems that the assessment of Irish articles has fallen off the radar but recently Flowerpotman, Sarah777 and I have been doing a little work on this as well as actually classifying articles (actually Sarah has done the most work). Anyway, you are listed as a member of the WikiProject hence this post.

• The first thing that needs doing is to work on the WikiProject template. Actually there are two templates both of which get recorded by the assessment statistics bot that collects the ratings and creates the listings in the category Category:Ireland articles by quality. The two project templates are {{Irelandproj}} listed on the main project page and {{WikiProject Ireland}} listed on the assessment page—the first allows both quality and importance rating as well as nesting but no reviewer comments, while the second allows quality rating and comments but the importance does not seem to work and comments are not included. This needs to be fixed, so we use one that works fully—can you help?

• The next thing is to decide if we just let editors assess as they wish or to create some criteria or guidelines for rating the quality and importance of the Irish articles. Personally I am in favour of some guidelines—some will be easy to decide while others are a little more complex. What do you think?

• Some projects make lists of articles for assessment while other go after groups of articles by category. What should we do? A mixture of both by using a "To do list"?

• As of the last assessment statistics bot run on Sunday, August 20, only 1462 articles have been tagged, of which 1156 have been assessed for quality but 660 of these have no importance value.

• Besides these 1462 there must be hundreds more untagged articles that should be tagged when we get the template issue mentioned above fixed.

We are not bad in our assessments but some projects have all their articles assessed while others are lacking more than we are. We can really use a few active editors to bring assessments to the fore. Please reply on the assessment talk page as to what you can do. Please help out. ww2censor 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi again Padraig. I found your edit summary here a little misleading; that was not a spelling and grammar change. I make no comment on the merits of the edit, but can you please try to provide an accurate summary? Thanks --John 19:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, I see why you used that summary now. Remember it is better not to revert if you can avoid it; often there will be a compromise wording you can use instead. --John 20:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 21:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You refusing to answer

When you start an edit war and refuse to give clear explainations then I will naturally try to seek clarifacation, I do this via talk pages. However you are becoming more and more relucant to answer questions on these pages, it has reached a stage where you only answer when forced to. You cannot edit and run away without explaining. You can delete as many topics on this page as you like, people only have to look at your page history to see this. So I remind you again, you have outstanding questions on talk page. Conypiece 23:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I already answered you, now stop posting on this page.--padraig 23:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Northern Irish alias

Hello. I have copied your question and my answer to Template_talk:Country_data_Northern_Ireland#Northern_Irish_alias for centralized debate and archival. — Komusou ^talk @ 14:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flag issue

Hello, Padraig. I'm in Warsaw at the moment, just stopping by to see what the latest is - still a farce, but enough about that. The sun is shining, it's a beautiful day, and I'll just finish off at the Internet Cafe before going on my way.

By the way, out here they drink vodka and lager (in the main). Both of these, of course, are largely flavourless. The Poles produce a brand of detergent, on a par with meths, called 'Polish Dark Whisky' - God knows what it's made of, but it's completely disgusting. I bought myself a bottle, as an experiment, a couple of years ago and was only able to drink a little bit before deciding life was too short voluntarily to drink bad whisky (so I gave the left-overs to a Scotsman, who later professed himself delighted - quantity being more important than quality, I suspect). Myself, I like a bit of flavour; I prefer a good porter, bitter, or stout (in that order), and whisky for my shorts.

But that's my point; horses for courses. We should leave the Poles to their 'Polish Dark Whisky' and vodka, and we should stick with our own 'vin de pays': Guiness and an Irish whiskey for you, Porter and Scotch for me. Arise, son of Erin, and eschew the repulsive Jack Daniel's!

Padraig, I've been thinking about this flag issue. It seems to me that if, as an example reducio ad absurdam, an editor were to add an infobox to someone such as Gerry Adams, the result would be that he (GA) would be tagged with a Union flag. That's clearly an absurd result and, I suggest, the lesser evil would be the Ulster banner referenced with an explanation. In the same way, I put it to you, in many cases where the NI flags dispute is raging, this might be a better solution than insisting on achieving a provocative and (to a certain extent) insulting 'correct' solution. What do you think?

I'm on Wikibreak, but'll look in mid- to end of the week. I'm afraid I think some form of compromise on both sides is necessary. I also think it's important to take a hard line against flag craft.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Segregation in Northern Ireland

Hi. The reason I reverted your edit was that the MOS states, "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers)". Is there a problem with the way the image is displaying without the size specified, because it looks fine on my screen... Cordless Larry 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well its wasn't displaying for me, which is why I added the smallest possible size to make it display.--padraig 16:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this has something to do with it being a gif image rather then a jpg.--padraig 16:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, strange. We should probably just leave it with the size specified then. Cordless Larry 16:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning for Edit Warring

Please cease and desist with the editwarring on the template of British Flags as well as any others that I may have missed. 3RR is an absolute limit, not an entitlement and you will be blocked if you continue. (I've already given the same warning for Astrotrain). SirFozzie 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive message for Conypiece

Conypiece, please do not get into an edit war on someone else's talk page. If someone is removing your comments from their talk page, it's understook that they have acknowledged and read it (they may not agree with it, but they have read it.) SirFozzie 23:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Civil rights movement

I removed the opening paragraph in the NI section of Civil Rights Movement. You immediately reverted. Please see the comment in the talk page. With that paragraph reverted by you, the section becomes POV. If you are going to reinclude that paragraph, the whole NI section should be rewritten. --81.132.246.132 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

... for 48 hours for intense revert-warring on the Harry West article. And your compadre has received same, you'll be pleased to hear. So much heat and energy expended and nothing achieved. - Alison ☺ 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Alison can you add this user User:Conypiece to the earlier checkuser request.--padraig

Will do - Alison ☺ 00:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--padraig 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

Duly warned - Alison ☺ 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just seen that thanks.--padraig 00:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag Used by some people in Northern Ireland

I can understand that you don't agree with the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland to represent the people or area of Northern Ireland. However the fact that is is used by some people is a fact. How then can you justify the user box on your user page. Surely this is an encyclopedia and by trying to rid Wikipedia of that flag is trying to sensor the facts. --81.132.246.132 00:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read what his info box says it is the misuse of this flag. It is not the official flag of NI and should not be portrayed as. Also the Tri Colour is also used by some people FACT. But it's not portrayed as an official flag of NI. BigDunc 10:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you are shouting fact at me. I am very well aware of the use of the Tricolour in NI. People in NI use both flags. It so happens that the majority use one, and that one has historically been used as an official flag. It would seem that a small group of people are trying to rid that flag out of wikipedia all together. For the few sporting events that NI take part in alone (i.e. not as a part of an all Ireland team) what flag to the team use? I think it is better to show the flag (actually both flags) with explanation of the issues, rather than removing the flag to an obscure page. --81.132.246.132 17:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You are still not getting what info box says it is the MISUSE of this flag, editors are trying to use the Ulster Banner as the Flag Of Northern Ireland which it is not, this is something a lot of editors are trying to stop. Also would you not sign in instead of posting with an IP address some editors get a little paranoid about editors not signing in and posting on contentious subjects. BigDunc 17:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

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

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As a reply to your message on my talk page. Padraig, let me explain some things here. A) It is possible (not I didn't say probable, POSSIBLE) that Astrotrain did not realize he wasn't logged in when he made those edits. B) I am an involved party in the ArbCom case, which would be a BAD thing if I blocked someone that is also in the ArbCom. I'm talking "possibly leading to de-adminning" bad. I had to pre-emptively post notice of the three page protects that I have done. C) I have brought it up in the ArbCom, with a link to the CheckUser result, and posted my belief that it shows further Astrotrain's edit warring modus operandi. SirFozzie 18:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Irish elections

When did the Irish Free State come into existence? What was the 1918 election held for? Baksando 23:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't answered the questions. Baksando 23:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That was their platform. Neither the Irish Republic nor the Irish Free State existed by then. The Irish Republic can be said to have been established retrospectively, but that doesn't meant by the time of the 1918 election it was already in actual existence. After all they were all candidates in an election held by the British government. Baksando 18:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Fifa 08

Please do not change the article on a subject that is under discussion. There is no point in discussing issues if you are going to change the article in any event. Aside from which, you are wrong. Toronto FC plays in the American league, Swansea, Cardiff, Werxham play in the English, and Derry City in the League of Ireland, therefore two flags should be used for each article.Traditional unionist 18:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In a sporting context the flag is not under dispute. It is not accurate to use only the Tricolour, as not all clubs in the league are represented by that flag, just as it would not be accurate in the MLS, the flag used across the sporting world is the one that you removed.Traditional unionist 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is also unfortunate that you seem to want to open ANOTHER battlefront on a matter that is under mediation as we speak.Traditional unionist 18:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The flag is used to represent football in Northern Ireland, the League of Ireland plays football in Northern Ireland. The flag is used to represent players and teams in Northern Ireland by FIFA and UEFA.Traditional unionist 18:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're missing the point. The same can be said of Toronto FC and Cardiff City.Traditional unionist 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don;t. My point is that your selective editing belies your POV editing. The flags should be used in those contexts, as should the flag of Northern Ireland.Traditional unionist 19:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, that is subject to mediation, which you are attempting to pre-judge. Specifically in a footballing context it is accepted as the flag of Northern Ireland.Traditional unionist 19:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They play under its geographic and political jurisdiction, same with Toronto and Cardiff.Traditional unionist 19:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But all footballing authorities, do.Traditional unionist 20:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fifa 08

No offence, but I don't care what reasons other editors have for putting it; mine were completely sporting and that remains the case. Anyway, I have replied to you on the talk page regarding the use of other dual flags - the context is the same (i.e. just one team in each league from another country). To be honest, it is probably better without the second flags, but it is important to be consistent. Number 57 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage

Are you planning on making a statement? I notice you continue to edit these articles during the mediation which is not helpful. Astrotrain 11:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello Padraig. I know that you are busy in real life, but I noticed that you have resumed editing Wikipedia, so I decided to leave you a reminder that there is a mediation going on with you as a party. We would like to continue with the mediation, so it would be appreciated if you could leave a statement on that page. If you have any questions or comments, you may leave them on my talk page, or you may e-mail me. Thanks in advance. --דניאל - Dantheman531 20:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the current arbitration case involving many users involved in this mediation; however, I think that we should move on with mediation for the time being. --דניאל - Dantheman531 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but I think that it should be sooner rather than later. This mediation has been just sitting for the past couple of weeks, and I'd like to get it going again. --דניאל - Dantheman531 18:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to represent us against the flag's usage? I'm fine with that if you want to. Fennessy 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm really not on here enough to commit to it, seeing as I have unforeseeable 3-4 day gaps between internet access. Plus you seem to know the ins-and-outs better than me or the other guy.
Just one thing—— bring up the first two pillars of Wikipedia(if nessasary).

• The first pillar: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers;
  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; Wikipedia is not a democracy.
  
• The second pillar: Wikipedia has a neutral point of view.
  

It's clear that the use of the Ulster Banner would be a violation & contradiction of these pillars. Fennessy 00:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

table

Belfast Victoria (Northern Ireland Parliament constituency) a bit wonkyTraditional unionist 09:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer

You agreed to the consensus made on the 'Volunteer' mediation discussion earlier this year here. However, some editors believe that a new consensus has been established where "IRA volunteer" is used without the initial mention of "IRA member". Although no discussion has taken place, they feel that because articles were changed from the format of "IRA member (volunteer)" to simply "IRA volunteer" and were not subsequently reverted for several months (until noticed by myself and another user), that this therefore establishes it as the new consensus and that the mediation ruling is now defunct. You can see discussions of this here,here, here. As a party involved in this discussion previously, your commentis valuable, and so it would be apprreciated if you could make any comment you might have here if you have one. Regards. Logoistic 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible userbox deletion

The userbox on your page featuring the former flag of Northern Ireland has been nominated for deletion. You can comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia (2nd nomination) Lurker (said · done) 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Biofoundationsoflanguage

I warned him. Thanks for the heads-up. --Coredesat 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flags issue on UK article

Hi. I noticed you were involved in the revert war that has been ongoing there, so thought I would ask for your input at Talk:United Kingdom#Edit war over inclusion of Ulster Banner. I hope we can take the matter forward there. Best wishes, --John 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at another editor's complaint that you have been edit-warring over this I see four reverts in the last few days. Please do not edit-war, but try to discuss towards a compromise. If you make another revert, you may be granted a short break to think things over. Please don't. --John 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing WP:POV and WP:OR is in line with wikipedia policy John they have been ask many times to provide sources and fail to do so, their continious attempts to insert the Ulster banner is disruptive editing, I have not breached any policy, nor have I come anywhere near breaching 3rr.--Padraig 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring is not the way we do things here Padraig, and 3RR is absolutely not an entitlement. "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." (from here). Please don't continue to edit-war; take it to talk and try to compromise, please. --John 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

John I made one revert on today the 11th, one on the 9th, one on the 8th, that is not edit warring the is removing POV edits by by a editor you refuses to accept fact. As for discussion this issue has been discussed all over WP, it is also part of the arbcom on the troubles, and a seperate mediation. How much discussion are we expected to engage in with disruptive editors.--Padraig 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I see the whole issue as being disruptive, and I see the edit-warring as disruptive. Of course you believe you are right and that justifies your actions; every edit-warrior believes they are right and the other person is a "POV" editor. Why would they do it if not? Nonetheless, I have clearly explained the policy to you and I do not expect to see continued reversions on this issue from you, especially while it is under debate. --John 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Look all you need to know about that "Loyalist" rag (you call ulster banner) is it is not acceptable to the Nationalist people of the the 6 counties of the north of IRELAND. We have a flag The Irish Tricolour. - Culnacréann 19:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Banner

Relax, I've undone my edit (failed to see it was being disputed). I was quite suprise to learn Northern Ireland currently has no flag. GoodDay 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. GoodDay 22:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Milne Barbour, bt.

Thanks for the help with the dates! --Counter-revolutionary 20:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Dublin Shopping Centre Articles

Please see Talk:Shopping in Dublin (Sarah777 20:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

Now we are really British!

See this - we are not merely part of the British Isles but now it seems all of Ireland is now part of "Britain" [12] (Sarah777 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

List of British Flags

• Note: same message posted to User:Astrotrain.

Please don't start this nonsense again. Further reverting on this article will result in protection, plus - given the history - blocks for disruption would not be harsh. ELIMINATORJR 19:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK - I have protected the article for the time being, just as a preventative measure. ELIMINATORJR 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of constituency

Ah - I'd just got it from our article on Antrim Borough (constituency), which I was planning to split. But I hadn't checked anything official. How do you think we should name the article, in order to distinguish it from the 1921 - 29 Antrim constituency? Or do you think we should combine the two constituencies in one article? Warofdreams talk 12:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the tables on that article you will see it also uses 'Antrim, Antrim' for the elections from 1929, which is correct. For 1921-29 the constituency was just 'Antrim', there is a template for the constituencies tl:Parliament of Northern Ireland, although the Antrim link for 1929 onwards is wrong.--Padraig 12:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

'Antrim, Antrim' is a possible solution, but I am reluctant to use it, as it differs from the practice for all other constituencies (and not just in Northern Ireland, but in the south and in Britain, too). 'Antrim (borough)' or 'Antrim (town)' would be more in keeping with practice elsewhere. Warofdreams talk 02:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions in the Dark

Padraig, are you aware of what is going on [13] here? If not you might want to put some perspective on matters. (Sarah777 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Ulster Banner etc

Thanks for the link - I had seen it posted on the mediation page. It's a really good source, and supports your case well.

Do you envisage an outcome soon from this process? I've stepped back a little, but watching each post. I do think your suggested compromise was good, but I have no strong views on the matter, just an interest. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree the banner is neither a national or official flag of NI, and should be stated in various related entries. I also personally agree that there should be no flag on the main NI infobox or navigation templates, but it's one for the community to decide I guess. I'm conscious that some editors want it's outright removal (some even replaced with the tricolor), but you've stayed on point and brought suggestions and source material. Keep focussed and calm and I'm sure it'll pay off for you and the wider user community. I still have a few peripheral concerns about the use of a map of NI in place of a flag in templates etc, but I think you and Astro are beginning to get past a few of the larger issues now. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not again

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Flag of Northern Ireland. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --John 21:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland

Setanta, Padraig, VK: I have protected the above article to prevent another edit-war. Given the ArbCom ruling, this really would not be a a good idea. Use the talk page, please. ELIMINATORJR 00:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair Warning

I invite your attention to the following edit. [14]. SirFozzie 18:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sfnew.jpg

Hey there Padraig! I just restored an image you uploaded, Image:Sfnew.jpg. I had asked you about it months ago, and I seem to remember you saying that you created it, and the difference between your image and the actual SF logo is rather slight, but different nonetheless. It got deleted at some point, and I just now restored it. Hope this is OK with you, and ff not, I can delete it straightaway if you no longer wish to share your image with the project. Thanks mate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok with me, I fail to see why it was deleted in the first place.--Padraig 11:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Thanks mate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Various templates

A few templates you created, Template:Irish By Election TOC, Template:Irish By Election Start TOC, and Template:TOC Irish elections, have been marked for deletion as deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there have been no objections, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objections here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the templates. If you feel the deletions are appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorting "McX" under "Macx"

You ask a good question. In the past, it's been the generally accepted practice to order in this fashion, and most articles on people (including most in Ireland) are defaultsorted as "Macx". But when I went to look for a policy or guideline stating this, I was surprised to find that there isn't one, only a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Ordering of Mac, Mc and M'. I don't have a strong opinion either way; perhaps you could comment there if you think it's bad practice? I'd like to see some agreement, either way. Warofdreams talk 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion I linked to above is probably gives as much information as to why it is done that way as anywhere - some sources collate names starting with Mac, Mc and M', and it's become customary for Wikipedia to, although this has apparently happened without any real discussion as to whether this is desirable. Warofdreams talk 22:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for revert on my talk page Fans is not a happy camper. BigDunc (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Waggers, Dave and Padraig - a while back you left some messages on my talk page supporting the idea of me going for adminship ... well I thought about it and if your support is still there I think I'd like to run the gauntlet of the process. I'm not sure whether to self-nominate or whether one of you would. In either case, would you still be supportive of the idea? --sony-youth^pléigh 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Easter Rising

It's all in the following section, explained much better. I didn't remove anything. I added information, as you'll see if you look at the difs. We don;t need that information in there twice, especially if it's misleadig the first time. What exact part of my edit do you have an issue with? -R. fiend (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See the article talk page for elaboration. Let's move the discussion there. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we're getting somewhere with the Easter Rising discussion. Looking at both paragraphs together (see bottom of the talk page), I think it is pretty clear that they repeat one another (hardly surprising, as one is an expansion of the other) so having both is pointless. The question becomes which to include. As long as the "never a consideration" hypothesis is stated as being the minority view expressed by a single historian, I'm not too adamant about it. I think my additions are useful, and it's a bit exasperating to see things dismissed as "original research", as I can seeing nothing "original" about stating that Connolly was a devoted socialist, that Casement negotiated with the Germans, or that the leaders were willing to go forward without any hope of success, though there were other people against this approach. Literally any book on the subject will back all that up, but if people demand footnotes I'll grab a random volume off the shelf and add it. As it is, I'm glad to get the input of other editors on this; I posted a message on the Irish Republicanism Wikiproject talk page but never got a response. I think if editors can get past automatically reverting we can improve the article. -R. fiend (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Clarke's rank

Hi, Padraig. I want to discuss this issue here because I find talking to Domer is like talking to a 4 year old, and you clearly have capacity for rational discussion. But I have to call into question the interpretation of the sources on Clarke's "rank". The discussion on Damac's talk page seemed to yield a basic agreement that the entire military infobox was not well suited to Clarke, and his position was best not described by any "rank". The matter of the aide-de-camp is interesting, but it seems a stretch to say that having an aide de camp = holding rank of Commander, unless you can point out to a reliable source that states that in Ireland at the time, aide de camps were given only to people who held the specific rank of Commander (and even then, we'd have to question the weight given to a single sentence by a single witness). Kathleen does not ever seem to describe her husband as holding that rank. I'm away for the holidays, and don't have Kathleen's book in front of me, so I can't look at the context now, but is it possible that Clarke was given the aide de camp for his position in the IRB (where he did not hold the rank of Commander, but was a very high ranking member)? The list of ranks held at the start of the Rising that you provided on the talk page does not list him as having that rank either, and it would seem a major oversight to have omitted it if it were true. What are your thoughts on this? -R. fiend (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding before comment

I have left a responce on the troubles talk page if you be so kind to read.

(Paddy (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

Unionism

How do I go about setting up WP:Unionism, creating the page, &c. I appreciate you're prob not the correct person to ask!! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It gives details on the wikiproject page, but basicly you just create WP:Unionism in mainspace, try looking at some of the other projects for ideas on layout etc, I'am interested in helping out where I can, my interests include the politics of the period, and have already added info to many of the Unionist MP from the stormont period.--Padraig (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide.--Padraig (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Done; Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenancy areas

They are the areas that appoint a Lord Lieutenant. The linked article Counties of Northern Ireland does explain they are the Counties of Northern Ireland plus Belfast and Londonderry. MRSC • Talk 18:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Essentially they are the Queen's representative in each county. You can start here Lord Lieutenant of Armagh, then use the footer at the bottom of the article to access the others. MRSC • Talk 19:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I was considering creating a Lieutenancy areas of Northern Ireland article, but resisted as they are so similar to Counties of Northern Ireland that the information can be contained on a single article. Perhaps it would be better to expand that article somewhat and link the template to the section dealing with it? MRSC • Talk 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Irish Republican Info box

Good job with the infobox and using the "position" entry to elaborate on Clarke's role. I like the fact you also added the dynamite campaign (should we have an article on that?), but I wouldn't really call it a "battle" or a "war" (another example of the limitations of infoboxes). What would you think of replacing "Battles/wars" with "engagements", much like "positions" replaces "rank"? Just looking for some input. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Campaigns might be a better discription, the Dynamite Campaign would be a good article.--Padraig (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags

I've replied to you on my talk page, Im not really sure what you are getting at. On a not dis-similar note there was a discussion about the IFA flag at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_14#Ireland Fasach Nua (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend the night on WP, have a good one Fasach Nua (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK happy New Year.--Padraig (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: 80.229.9.98

I was just looking at this user's talk page, and see that Alison blocked him for violating 3RR. I have been fighting with this guy for the past three days on a number of Jacobite-related articles, and he has really shown his stripes. Take a look at his edit summaries earlier today on Jacobitism, Battle of Culloden, and Battle of Dunkeld, in which he felt the need to add condescending and insulting comments directed at me simply for asking him to add references for the changes he made to the article and to tone down the POV language. It seems clear that he is another edit-warrior and POV-pusher. We would do well to keep an eye on him. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been unblocked.--Padraig (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that... Troubling. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider grammar when editing

Might I politely suggest that you consider the basic principles of grammar and syntax next time you edit an article. While your recent edit to Republican Sinn Féin[15] might make some sense in terms of content, it actually makes no sense in the way you've provided it.--Damac (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Try again.[16] "In the subsequent walkout about 20 members led by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh walked out" is very poor.--Damac (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Syntax has been corrected and additional information added. Describing the split as "minor" still reflects a point of view; the reality is that Adams and co. worked very hard to avoid the split, and that several very prominent people left -- no matter their number. The article should be value neutral.~~

Do not interfere with references, the split was minor that is a Fact not POV and the reference supports that view, I was at that ard fhéis and personaly I would have put figure around 30/40.--Padraig (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you would "personally" put the walk out figure at 30-40, why then did you allow the reference from Feeney, which had the number at 20 (half as many?)? Does your willingness to let that go reflect your POV? Use "small" instead of "minor", as small is neutral. Why do you refuse this?~~

Use 4 ~ to sign your posts. The feeney source is an WP:RS my observation from attending the Ard Fhéis is personal opinion or WP:OR, so my pov dosent come into the issue.--Padraig (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know

Giving you advice (and no, not threatening you with a block or anything (grin)). I would be really hesitant to take it straight to ArbCom (you know as well as I do that it's a massive pain in the tuckus!), but the couple of AN threads could be used as evidence that you tried to resolve it before hand. The other possible step you could take is opening An admin conduct RFC over this behaviour, especially pointing out that he has not attempted to resolve it in the ANI thread. If it was me, I'd go RfC, but it's up to you. SirFozzie (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a wee bit busy (friday at work, joy!) but I'm sure sometime over the weekend myself and/or Ali will be able to help you get an RFC started. (UPDATE: You may want to drop in over on Ali's page.. she mentioned that she was going to file the rfc herself today sometime... SirFozzie (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ireland national football team

Padraig, Thank you for your support at Talk:Ireland national football team (IFA). I was beginning to think I was on my own. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Have sort help to resolve Ireland national football team (IFA) issue at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Djln —Preceding comment was added at 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Padraig, thankyou for posting at this talk page, the more editors involved the better! I was wondering if you could flesh out your comments, the aim of the discussion is to reach an outcome we can all agree on, and perhaps the fresh perspective you bring to the discussion would help us reach this point Fasach Nua (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Padraig, Fasach has now decided to nominate Ireland national football team (IFA) for deletion. Djln--Djln (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Sands

This is from the text to which the ref links:

"In Spain ... the conservative ABC said he was a political kamikaze who had got his strategy wrong. Die Welt said in West Germany that the British Government was right and he was simply trying to blackmail the state with his life." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.9.98 (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So out of about twenty reports you find two, one of which supported the british stance and the other questioned the method used by Sands in carrying out a hunger strike, that hardly equates to much critism as your comment says.--Padraig (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland

Talk page, please .... I've protected it for 24 hours to stop any sort of editwar breaking out. BLACKKITE 19:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Padraig, I could see an editwar approaching and decided to nip it in the bud; but last time I did this there were some complaints that I only informed some editors, so I decided to notify everyone who'd edited it recently. BLACKKITE 20:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

86.x.x.x IP

Blocked by User:LaraLove. I will revert. BLACKKITE 18:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I haven't protected the articles, but will do if he comes back again under a different IP. BLACKKITE 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, he will be back again, I would be curious what a checkuser would reveal as I suspect he is a registered editor gaaming the system.--Padraig (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Padraig. 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. BLACKKITE 14:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lists of dead

There was no decision made at mediation. Hance the reason for its removal is not valid. I would suggest a RFC. Aatomic1 (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

PIRA

I'm not the anonymous IP who reverted your changes with the comments you added, i.e. I made no "edit warring" as you mentioned in my personal talk page. Escorial82 (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

John O'Leary (poet)

Pádraig a chara, could you tell me what is the process involved in having the above named article changed to John O'Leary (Fenian). I wish to expand this article over the coming days, and O'Leary's notability is directly drawn from his involment with the Fenian's. --Domer48 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Open a discussion on the talk page first, and see if agreement can be found. Don't know if there another way of doing so.--Padraig (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

browser cache

Hey, I was talking to you why I couldn't see certain flags. I use Internet Explorer how do I clear my browser cache? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Still not working. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Try this to clear cache in Internet Explorer 7

1. From the Tools menu, select Internet Options
2. Choose the General tab.
3. Under Browsing history, click Delete
4. Next to "Temporary Internet Files", click Delete files
5. Click Close, and then click OK to exit.

Internet Explorer 4.x, 5.x, and 6.x for Windows

1. From the Tools menu (for version 4.x, the View menu), select Internet Options
2. Choose the General tab.
3. In the "Temporary Internet Files" section, click Delete Files... .
4. To confirm the deletion, click OK.
5. In the Internet Options dialog box, click OK.

That should do it.BigDunc (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If that dosen't work all I can suggest is try another browser, I would recommend Firefox it is far superior to IE and safer as well.--Padraig (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope still nothing. Cheers for all your help anyway. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hockey article

Honestly - what was wrong with that? If you're going to start reverting attempts at consensus you're just going to end up with locked articles all the time, and none of us want that. I've put that edit back - have a think about it this time, and if you're going to edit it, have a good reason on the talk page. BLACKKITE 01:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Padraig, you know better. As you know, I have to be completely impartial here, but it's obvious to me that you cannot give what is frankly incorrect information in the article. Random people reading this article will equate Ireland = Irish, which some of those players obviously are not. We need to inform them of this fact, not just to be awkward but for serious things like WP:BLP. If you can think of a better way of doing this, please point it out. BLACKKITE 01:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, please feel free to inform me how that page is going to be changed so that the information doesn't mislead the uninformed? BLACKKITE 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, stick there. I'm trying to keep this neutral. Have a look at my latest post. BLACKKITE 02:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Philip Gray

Pádraig any chance of a look see on the above article. Any mistakes jump out that I have missed? Thanks --Domer48 (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Reverted per your request. Tyrenius (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT WAR!

Padraig, you appear to be involved in an edit war on several articles involving the IRA Border Campaign, regarding the IRA apparently calling it (or not calling it) internally the Resistence Campaign. I'd like to try to resolve this issue. First of all, I think that it would be best to mention both names if possible, if both have been used historically, even if one was used by a minority. Clearly the terminology used by the members of the IRA, even if they were a rather small group, are relevent to any article about their actions.

I am coming to believe that you are actually attempting to harrass myself and William Hanrahan. Clearly you have been on wikipedia longer, know the policies better, and seem to have established some kind of base of power, but the rules guidelines clearly state that something that improves wikipedia belongs in wikipedia, regardless of whether or not it fits within the technicalities of every little rule. You seem to me to be using the letter of the law to violate its spirit. Furthermore, I resent the accusation that I am a sock puppet, which I am not.

Now, I may be way off base, and I'm sure that at least you think that you're making edits in good faith and everything. I hope we can get this issue resolved.

Regards, Reindeer Armies (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sinn Fein

Hi - Thanks for the response. The site in question has a valuable archive of Sinn Fein publicity material which is valuable to students and researchers of the peace process such as myself. Surely who owns the domain isn't important? Crossborder (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)