Thank you for your contribution to Cushendun, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. Thank you.[1]Guliolopez15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
it was just some fun sorry[reply]
Yes however i've moved to the sub page until the admin removes the original history, dont get discouraged wiki is still confusing to me and i've been here for more than a year(Gnevin17:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Greetings! I've deleted the old copyvio article. I've moved the temporary one to Ruari Og. This is consistent with other GAA clubs, e.g. Dr. Crokes. Likewise, to be consistent, I've used the rendering of the name into English. If I've typoed or otherwise gotten confused there, let me know and I'll move it to the right place. —C.Fred (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.Ruairí Óg's11:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.(Gnevin16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC))
Got you.17:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ruairí Óg's, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! (Gnevin16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This was discussed at WP:GAA and no consensus could be found , if you want you cant re raise the issue but please stop moving page's until such time as a consensus is found Gnevin21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Chris19910 (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making those few corrections to some fighters in the table, I forgot to check forgot to check for ambiguities in the opponents links. Enjoy the fight tonight!--19daedalus88 (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I haven't heard of WP:COMMONNAME until now, because I've never moved an article before. Anyway, the title was fine as it was, as there are many articles about Brazilian footballers listed under their full names, and, as I mentioned before, there are other active Brazilian GKs who share the Dida nickname.
Your first message was deleted because it was unsigned, and I don't reply to messages from unknown users. While you're more than welcome to leave me a message, please sign your posts. Thanks. Beemer6905:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to hound me if I don't respond right away. Anyway, the article's been changed back and this discussion is over. Beemer6922:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nationality field refers first and foremost to nationality as in citizenship, not cultural nationality. In this regards Barry McGuigan is both a British and Irish national due to being a citizen of both. Hence the article has to relfect that. Mabuska(talk)10:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To take a more mature stance on the issue of Northern Irish boxer nationalties, i have started a discussion over the issue of nationality in regards to Northern Irish boxers. I have made a proposal and your opinion should be given. Mabuska(talk)11:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ruarí, just a word of advice. Based on your behaviour, you are heading for a block - probably a short one to start. But once that's on your record, and you don't change your behaviour, the blocks get progressively longer and longer. The golden rule for WP:CIVIL and especially dealing with nationalistic issues is to not comment on editors. If that is too difficult for you, your editing privileges will be suspended. If you have a point to make, use data and facts. For example, based on what you seem to be saying, you need to collate evidence showing a pattern of editing which is designed to result in the removal of "Ireland", these removals being against policy or against consensus. Without the evidence or data, "mouthing off" on Talk pages is regarded as personal attacks and disruption, and you will be blocked. --HighKing (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. I did provide a load of evidence at ANI but he keeps carrying on in spite of the evidence. Its frustrating I tell ya.
You haven't provided any evidence at all. Darron Gibson where i AGREED to call him Irish hardly fits the claims your trying to label against me. Jonny Evans was an issue to do with Northern Ireland or Northern Irish not Irish. If that is evidence then by all means continue. Mabuska(talk)13:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You havent replied to about a million things I have ask of you either you dramaqueen. Go push your agenda somewhere else.
Do you think that calling another editors sourced edits 'vandalism' is going to build a lot of good faith. It takes two to tango.
When you kept reverting changes that adhere to policy such as the removal of flag icons despite being notified of the policy in the edit summary (which i did in many articles so you can't say you didn't know of the policy) - that constitutes vandalism. Mabuska(talk)14:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me why you tried to me sneaky and removed the nationality as well as the flag, trying to mask your sneaky actions under the cloak of a different MOS, sneaky.
You prove you never read other peoples comments in full. Though as it was an interjection into my comment before you had responded 2 minutes later, maybe you missed the change when you were typing your replying - which is my fault but it was still there afterwards to see. Mabuska(talk)18:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three other messages on this page about signing your posts, so I know that you are aware of it. Regards —DoRD (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)To be honest, I dont know how to do it. I know that might sound stupid.[reply]
Click on the bluelink in my message for instructions, but all you have to do is type ~~~~ after your message. —DoRD (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've broken a long-standing consensus on the Feargal Sharkey (to link "Northern Irish" to the People of Northern Ireland) page without providing any evidence he self-identifies as Irish or holds solely Irish citizenship. Now the article violates WP:BLP through your original research, but I can't revert it lest I break this. Nice work. JonChappleTalk 09:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
What consensus, where?--Ruairí Óg's (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What restriction. Please be clear in what you are saying on both accounts.
I linked to it with the word "this" above, but here it is again.
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
Welcome to Wikipedia! Although one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, we would like to remind you not to undo other people's edits, without explaining why in an edit summary. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Thank you. Jsharpminor (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also Ruairi i'd like to notify you of this policy. I get a sense that you are trawling through my edit history and following me - maybe its paranoia maybe it's not, but if you are then it is punishable so i'd advise against it if you are. Mabuska(talk)21:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao you can't really be serious? Or was that meant to be a joke to lighten the mood?
Edit histories are wonderful things that would show you otherwise. Thanks to them i can easily prove you've edited articles or made comments on talk pages where you've had no prior history but where i am recently or have been been involved. Edits where you either comment on me directly or revert changes i've made. Corporals killings and Talk:Joe Calzaghe being two clear examples where you've never made a contribution until after i had. Also how about all those boxer articles such as John Duddy, Wayne McCullough, Damaen Kelly etc.? You never made a single edit to them until you just appeared to revert changes i made.
In 99% of cases, any article you've been involved in recently is always after i've been there first. Can you prove otherwise? Edit histories would show otherwise and i'd have a good case that you are stalking and harrassing, whereas your response can't be validated by anything. Mabuska(talk)11:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removing referenced material is vandalism. No two ways about it. Look, you have your agenda, thats fine, just dont play all innocent. If there is an issue with the formatting of a reference simply fix it. But you are your friend that you canvas called Mabuska dont fix stuff you dont like. Pretty sad really. --Ruairí Óg's (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference doesn't support the information. This has been explained to you by Mabuska ("my friend", heh). On another note, that first sentence is what we're all striving to avoid here – having an agenda. If you really feel you have an agenda when it comes to editing Wikipedia, you shouldn't be here. We've all got points-of-view, sure, but you've got to put those to one side. JonChappleTalk06:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All three references refer to him as Irish. Maybe you want a reference showing him with a picture of an Irish passport stapled to his chest? Just keep on with your POV crusade I am not that interested in wikipedia to care. --Ruairí Óg's (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Righty-ho. I don't really care about John Duddy all that much, I just want you to stop assuming bad faith and calling me a "vandal". Bye for now. JonChappleTalk09:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have lost good faith in you and Mabuska. I dont trust either of your edits to adhere to NPOV. So I wont be assuming any good faith with either of you. When you remove sourced information it it vandalism. If you want to discuss it further use the article talk page.--Ruairí Óg's (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you add a source to information doesn't make it undeleteable or trustworthy without question. It must meet verifiability and neutrality and not subject to synthesis such as your doing. You've been informed of it many times, and there is no good faith in your edits as you continually disregard Wikipedia guidelines.
In regards to self-identity, if you continued participating in discussions rather than just appearing to slander me with unfounded accusations and then disappearing again, you'd notice how several editors informed me (including an admin) that due to the problems of UK nationality the way to do it is to go with self-identification, even though its not enshrined in an actual guideline, yet. That is the most neutral way to deal with the issue - self-identification as only the person themself knows what they consider themself to be. Don't you agree? Or do you prefer misusing sources to perpetuate synthesis? Mabuska(talk)19:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please try to resolve editing differences without resorting to sanctions or incorrectly throwing about the term 'vandalism'? A bit of de-escalation is in order. RashersTierney (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not when it is a question of interpretation, as in this case. Consider it the 'c' word of Wikipedia. You just don't use it over a good faith content dispute, particularly towards 'regulars'. Just a heads up. RashersTierney (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regulars with a blatant agenda. Regular or newcomer, its vandalism. Thank you for reverting it to 'his' unsourced version, great shout there mate.--Ruairí Óg's (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know i'm filing a wikistalking harassment AN/I against you for your constant stalking and reversion of my edits. I've warned you before about it quoting you the policy. Such behaviour is uncivil just like your continuous groundless accusations against editors you don't agree with. Mabuska(talk)19:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.
I am in the middle of responding to the accusation of the page above. Why have I been deleted with no evdence. I have nothing to do with the other editor.--Ruairí Óg's (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence that you are Vintagekits is compelling. I have therefore revoked your access to this talk page and would remind you yet again that WP:BASC, not block evasion, is the proper way to contest your block. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
