User talk:Seamus48

Climate of Northern Ireland

Hi Seamus

As you seem to be a relatively new editor, I think that perhaps you should step back a little and stop accusing other editors of acting in bad faith. One of the most serious tenets of editor behaviour on Wikipedia is that we should all assume good faith where other editors actions are concerned. If you check the discussion page for the article you will see that there was agreement in 2010 to merge the content of the NornIron article into the Climate of Ireland article. The main reason behind this is that the climate doesn't change as you cross the border, so it makes more sense to address climate on an island of Ireland basis. No one is 'sabotaging' or 'attacking' anything, and if you continue to use language like that you may find yourself blocked.

Take care Fmph (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

>there was agreement in 2010 to merge the content

From reading the discussion, there was absolutely no agreement to merge to the Repbulic of Ireland. In fact other users stated categorically that they wished for the page to be left as it was

>the climate doesn't change as you cross the border

Nonsense argument, the climate doesn't change as you cross any border. As it was pointed out by another user, the statistics are different for Northern Ireland than the Republic of Ireland Seamus48 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

January 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Climate of Northern Ireland. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Seamus48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been automatically blocked because I have tried to revert vandalism to the Climate of Northern Ireland page. The malicious user with a political agenda, Fmph, and I suspect with several different aliases, has repeatedly sabotaged the Climate of Northern Ireland article by deleting its contents and redirecting instead to the Ireland (Republic of) article, an act which is dishonest and offensive and has no consensus. While it is disputed by Irish Nationalists, Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom that is linked to from the Climate of the United Kingdom page and is separate from the Republic of Ireland (by an international land border)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing attacks on other editors will not be considered. Max Semenik (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, technically not automatically blocked. I made a conscious decision to block you based on clear, bright line rules that you had been warned about. Syrthiss (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. The third time I did not revert using the 'undo' button, but instead copied in the original article that was deleted. However, it is completely wrong to allow the Climate of Northern Ireland page to be vandalised and it is the user(s) who keeps deleting it who should be blocked. People have gone to the trouble of writing the Climate of Northern Ireland article and that has simply been sabotaged. Please look into the issue and you will see that redirecting to the Climate of Ireland page is dishonest, offensive and purely politically motivated. Can the page and associated pages be protected from being redirected or removed? Seamus48 (talk)

@Max Semenik, the point is that the other editor is blatently attacking the Climate of Northern Ireland article by deleting its contents and replacing it with a redirect to the page for the Republic of Ireland, which is utterly disgraceful. Seamus48 (talk)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Seamus48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Max Semenik, the point is that the other editor is blatently attacking the Climate of Northern Ireland article for political reasons by deleting its contents and replacing it with a redirect to the page for the Republic of Ireland, which is a different country. The user(s) concerned made mocking remarks as they proceeded to sabotage the article. The Climate of Northern Ireland page needs to be protected to stop it from being deleted and redirected from.

Decline reason:

You were blocked because you were edit warring. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you believe you are right". (Although it is no part of the reason for declining the unblock request, it is also worth mentioning that the target of the redirect refers not, as you claim, to the climate of the Republic of Ireland, but to the climate of Ireland, which is not at all the same thing.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Seamus48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@JamesBWatson I fully accept that I was edit warring, however, it was because I am right without question. Also because I was provoked by the nonsense arguments used to justify merging the Northern Ireland article into the article for its neighbouring country. The confusion lies in the fact that the Republic of Ireland historically disputed the territory of Northern Ireland until it changed its constitution to recognise the existence of Northern Ireland. The term Ireland can refer to either the island (geographically) or as an abbreviation of the country, the Republic of Ireland, which comprises of 26 of the 32 counties on the island. However, clearly the article refers to climate by political boundaries and not by geographical regions and therefore should not be deleted. Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and is indexed under the article, Climate of the United Kingdom. The argument that the Climate of Ireland article suffices is politically motivated nonsense Seamus48 (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no excuse for edit-warring, especially if you're "right" - if you were "right", you would have used WP:DR. As you fail to understand this most basic tenet of Wikipedia, and continually post unblocks as if you're not reading WP:EW, then I will be removing access to this talkpage for the duration of the block due to abuse of the process (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I see that you say "I fully accept that I was edit warring, however, it was because I am right without question". What part of "Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you believe you are right" is difficult to understand? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson I will now pursue the WP:DR policy. I am also very concerned about sock puppets being used to avoid detection. As this is my second day as a Wikipedia editor I am trying to learn how to deal with this problem. According to WP:DR, one is advised to try first of all to resolve disputes by using the discussion page - but how can this work when the page you are disputing skips to a different page when you try to view it? If you see the discussion of the original page, there was no 'consensus' to delete the page. There were clear objections by several users that they did not want the page to be redirected or merged with the Ireland page. The other users set out their reasoning for the page not to be merged very clearly. Please advise on how to deal with this problem, especially regarding the redirection aspect. I am afraid to revert any changes in case I will be blocked again.

Seamus - the discussion page for the redirected page remains in place. Try clicking on this Talk:Climate of Northern Ireland. All the discussion can take place there. On a slightly different matter, if you click on Climate of Northern Ireland, you do get redirected to Climate of Ireland. But at the top of the page you will find another link "Redirected from Climate of Northern Ireland". That will take you back to the redirect.Fmph (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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 or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Climate of Northern Ireland a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Northern Ireland Climate. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. I see that your creation of this article followed attempts to add the same content at Climate of Northern Ireland, which is being opposed by other editors. I strongly advise you cool down and let discussion take place. Your view could prevail if you do that, but right now you are being totally counter-productive; the way things are going you will simply end up getting blocked. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Climate etc

Seamus - there are too many varied discussions in too many different places. Can we agree to centralise discussions in a single place? How about Talk:Climate of Northern Ireland. It seems like the most appropriate place to me, although I'm open to suggestions. Fmph (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is the redirect makes the Climate of Northern Ireland inaccessible to others. Secondly I have responded on the talk page (and so had others objecting to the merge proposal). How about removing the redirect and continuing the discussion on the page? It is clear there is a political motivation to subjugate the Climate of Northern Ireland article and I will continue to pursue the resolution with the administrators until the page is allowed to exist.Seamus48 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing, in the form of creating a new copy of a disputed article to attempt to impose your own opinion. Going through the motions of dispute resolution while actually taking unilateral action to try to get round the process is not acceptable. You are well aware that you were previously blocked for edit warring on the article in question, and continuing the same edit war in a separate copy of the article is not constructive. Under the circumstances I regard a 48 hour block as minimal: it is quite likely that any further disruptive editing may lead to a much longer block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Seamus48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Nonsense, why are you accusing me of edit warring and of imposing my opinion when there is clearly (unless you have a very low IQ) political vandalism taking place on the Climate of Northern Ireland article? The page has been repeatedly obliterated by an anti-Northern Ireland vandal(s). I was not the one who continually forced the page to be redirected under different aliases. Rather than being arrogant and idiotic, I suggest you go and carefully study the history of the Climate of Northern Ireland page to see that it has been repeatedly sabotaged by a user who for political reasons wants to pretend that it doesn't exist and has forced their opinions as a result and blanked the page and the information contained in it by forcing people to see the Climate of Ireland page instead. Seamus48 (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Hey dude, calm down. See my first decline regarding attacks on others. If you continue down this road, your next block will be indefinite. Max Semenik (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Seamus48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How can the the dispute be resolved if you are blocking me from contributing to the discussion I raised? Now that the page has been raised as disputed, the offenders are now making mocking comments on the talk page and I am not able to respond to them. First of all, the dispute is not that a separate page should be created, but that the original page should be left alone and not attacked by nationalists. Every country has its own climate page, especially every other Home Nation of the United Kingdom so why should Northern Ireland not have its own climate page? The reason to delete it and replace it by an all-island page is purely political and offensive. It has been done deliberately to offend. If you don't understand that then there is no hope of resolving this situation. I have repeatedly offered to compromise by having a link to an all-island page in addition to one for each of the two countries that make up the island. When the user 'merged' the page on their own authority, they also did not add the climate data for Northern Ireland to the all-Ireland page, so they were clearly being dishonest. Please, please will you look at the diffs and histories. The Ireland page was originally for the Republic of Ireland, which gets weather data from a different source as Northern Ireland. Seamus48 (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You can join in the discussion after your block has expired - you have only yourself to blame for being blocked. When you do rejoin the discussion, you must not take unilateral action again, but must await consensus before making any changes - if you don't, you will be blocked again, for longer -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Climate again

Seamus - your edits tonight to Climate of Ireland and Climate of Northern Ireland are against the editorial consensus of the community. If you want your preferred version to prevail, you need to persuade the community of your point of view on the article talk page. Anything else may be considered disruptive. Fmph (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Climate of Northern Ireland. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Per this edit. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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 or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Syrthiss (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, this edit where you are soliciting others to edit war because you are afraid of being blocked for edit warring. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]