User talk:Redking7

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Djegan 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Djegan 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placenames

Wikipedia uses English language places names on the English language Wikipedia. If you wish to contribute in the Irish language, there is an Irish language Wikipedia at http://ga.wikipedia.org. Otherwise, do not change names in articles. --85.134.167.112 17:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have continued to do this - please stop. --85.134.167.112 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: what you placed on my user page (and not my talk page, where I might have seen it earlier) - Irrelevant - We use the English language place names for towns. In the case of Dun Laoghaire, this *IS* the English language place name. Please stop with your edits, which are tantamount to vandalism. There is a Irish Manual of Style which makes this very, very clear. --85.134.167.112 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure Dún Laoghaire is an English language place name? Very interesting. I'm curious to know how you come to that conclusion?

Its the official placename of the town in both languages, very simply - unlike other apparently officially named but non-Gaelthact towns as Baegnalstown (English language official name is Muinebeg) or Newbridge (which is, erm, Newbridge in English). Also note such things as the entirely English language named "Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council". Your current contributions/changes to articles (placing "official name") seem OK, but the previous ones broke internal links, etc. Please sign your contributions on talk pages - you place ~~~~ --85.134.167.112 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Irony....(Sarah777 01:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Irony of what? --85.134.167.112 20:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you must be American, eh? (Sarah777 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, Irish. Quite obviously I would have thought. --85.134.167.112 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 85.134.167.112. To promote understanding, I will hazard a guess as to what Sarah777 found ironic: You asked me to sign my contributions on talk pages. Yet you use 85.134.167.112 to sign off. I don't know that that really counts as 'sign off', at least not in the spirit of things! 85.134.167.112 ain't exactly catchy. Thanks for you tips on Dún Laoghaire though. It was appreciated. Here's my sign off for you! Regards.: Redking7 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its my IP address. I don't use a user account as I don't feel the need to do so. --85.134.167.112 19:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inis Mór

Redking, please see recent edit history of Inis Mór. As User:Djegan has pointed out the article title and the name in main space should be the same. You will have to move the articles to their new name. It would probably be best to open a discussion on the project page before any mass moves. I would also caution other users to stop reverting your changes till this matter is sorted out. (Sarah777 21:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

~~:Yes, I definitely got the wrong editor in this instance. Abject apologies.~~ Nope. There is a User:Red King as well as Redking7 here! Holy Confusion Batman! (Sarah777 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Copyright

Please bear in mind that the material you added to Official Languages Act 2003 is copyrighted, please see WP:COPYRIGHT. Please bear in mind that using copyrighted material is subject to limitations, and may result in removal of material, the repeated use of inappropriate material in an article may result in the article been locked and users prevented from editing the article until any outstanding issues are resolved. Djegan 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure what I added could constitute copyright material (a statement of facts in the public domain) but to address any concerns, I will try again. Thanks.[reply]

Alternative names for Northern Ireland

Note we already have an article that deals with the official name of Northern Ireland, its called Alternative names for Northern Ireland. We don't need ***another*** article on nomenclature. Djegan 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree. I will amend. Thanks.Redking7 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Redking7, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Vintagekits 15:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to come along and help out over here! Choose one article and help improve that!!

The Irish Republicanism WikiProject is a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.

(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects).

--Vintagekits 15:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland Act 1948

I confess that I've only just now seen that Republic of Ireland Act 1948 was not signed by the President until April 1949, which makes you right about the decription "Republic of" coming into effect in 1949. What confused me is that there is a UK Ireland Act 1949, which is what I thought you were referring to. If you would prefer to revert again, I won't complain. --Red King (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Please do not move pages without first seeking consensus, especially where the move might be controversial. Please also see here. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Wholesales delition of text will only lead to tears. ~~Please stop deleting material from Eire.~~ Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I looked through the changes, and you did a good job, with difficult material. Sorry for being presumptious. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Why are you using a name similiar to Red King's? GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too have been confused by this. May not be deliberate, but a little close to "impersonation" for comfort. (And if this RK, and this is a DG account, it shouldn't be used for editing.) Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Green Fields

Please consider creating another (separate) article for My Four Green Fields (the art work). Per convention it's not normally appropriate to include two disparate topics under one title. Consider creating a DAB page, and linking both back if necessary. Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm going to split so. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Please stop edit-warring on the article The Troubles.

This edit misleadingly used the edit summary "disambig", when there was no disambiguation involved. Another editor who reverted your edit commented on the issue at Talk:the Troubles; please discuss the issue there rather than repeatedly reinserting a disputed edit.

May I draw your attention to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? That's not bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert ... it's discuss an edit as soon as it's contested.

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported your violation of the 3-revert rule. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Redking7_reported_by_User:BrownHairedGirl_.28Result:_.29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 8 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Additionally, please be advised that articles on this topic are subject to a general restriction (see The Troubles section of Wikipedia:General sanctions) according to which editors who engage in edit warring may be placed on probation at the discretion of any uninvolved adminstrator. CIreland (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2008 (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).

Redking7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would be grateful if some one could take the time to look at the edits I made and determine if I deserved to be blocked. I don't think I did. I edited the page. Some of the edits were reverted (without discussion). I reverted again. A discussion opened. I participated immediately and gave the reason for my edit, then reverted again. Some hours later, my edits had been reverted again. Instead of 'reverting', I made some changes which I though were a fair compromise so to speak. I then set out my reasons for the compromise on the discussion page. I though I'd acted fairly and reasonably, particularly in finding a compromise. Do I deserve to be "blocked" for this behaviour? I know it takes a few minutes to look at things properly and I am grateful for whoever takes the time to do that. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are no longer blocked, please don't use this template. Maybe a request on WP:ANI or using the helpme template would be more apt. — Golbez (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2008 (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.

WP:PARENT

You may want to review WP:PARENT - going to a different location because you don't like the reply on the first isn't looked well upon. WLU (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Per your request, I deleted your userpage which a different user had created. Your userpage could be fully protected to prevent anyone editing it, but that seems to be uncommon. For someone else to edit your userpage by the addition of unwanted content is vandalism and they can be blocked if they persist. Your username now appears in red as it did previously. Edison (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant categories

Why? Why do you keep adding Category:Western Sahara to Sahrawi nationality law? That article is in three categories which are themselves subcategories of Category:Western Sahara, and the parent category of a country is supposed to remain virtually depopulated. See also Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Suspected it was some POV point but I accept your explanation. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please read WP:BRD and cease edit warring.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on One-China policy. 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 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Green caterpillar (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Ireland

Having read over [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

I find it interesting to see many of the comments made coming from a political stance. In my opinion, articles such as Flag of the Republic of Ireland can never be written or named from a purely encyclopedic perspective. Its unfortunate, but when the policy is to let anyone edit, which is a good thing in many respects, this will always happen. Articles with political overtones will never be stable, an editor could, if it lasts that long, spend his or her whole life arguing over the contents. I decided to join Wikipedia for the enjoyment of editing articles I have an interest in. As a new editor I have as yet to do so, but I don't think, other than looking in and making a comment or two, I will concentrate on these type of articles, I'm not sure how long I would want to remain an editor on wiki if I did. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Diplomatic_missions_of_Ireland&diff=249909297&oldid=249834461 No, that was introducing an inaccuracy. Taiwan refers to the island (its use as a stand-in for "ROC" is strictly colloquial) - Republic of China refers to the government. Plus Taipei, NOT Taiwan is used by governments with no formal recognition of the ROC. Why? Because if "Taiwan" is used then that implies that Taiwan is not a part of China, and we know the PRC doesn't like that. That is why Chinese Taipei is used at the olympics. That is why Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office is used to refer to de facto ROC embassies and consulates. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dáil Courts

Excellent recent edit by you to this article. Would welcome your views on its Talk Page on the whole question of the paragraph dealing with 'efficacy'. I think much of it should go. My view is that it over-simplifies the complex relationship between the institutions of the Irish Republic and the nascent institutions of the new Irish Free State. The courts were deliberately suppressed, not because of an inherent failing, but because of the janus-faced attitude of the new State towards them and the overriding necessity of indisputably controlling the 'new' judiciary. RashersTierney (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Redking7. You have new messages at ESanchez013's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 21:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed an {{inactive}} tag there in lieu of your text. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 04:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piping

Hi Redking. I have noticed that you piped ROI/Ireland on an article recently. I think you should read User talk:Mooretwin#Pipeing because the same principle applies (albeit in the opposite direction). I appreciate one edit doesn't a problem make, but its worth being aware as I expect you may be reverted before too long. I urge you to get involved in establishing a project wide consensus on this issue. Rockpocket 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky (talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Redking7. You've been reported for edit warring by User:Kransky at the 3RR noticeboard. See this complaint. I notice that you have continued to revert at Diplomatic missions of Ireland even after the official 3RR warning, and after admins have discussed your edits. Be aware that if you revert once again at Diplomatic missions of Ireland, without first obtaining a consensus on the Talk page, you will most likely be blocked. I have moved Kransky's warning above to the proper location. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Diplomatic missions of Ireland

Hello Redking7. If you keep on reverting the article itself, without waiting for a Talk page consensus, you and your counterpart may both be blocked, per WP:Edit war. Please work toward a consensus, and wait for it to form. Bring in outsiders if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Diplomatic missions of Ireland. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

This issue has been discussed at WP:AN3, but you reverted again here after numerous warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion procedure

Hi Redking7, please read CfD - How to use this page about the procedure for proposing category renames. You provided an entry and rationale on the day's log, as is appropriate, but it is also necessary to tag the category itself to alert active contributors of the proposal. I have tagged Category:Constitutional laws of Ireland prior to independence for you. Cheers. -choster (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Countries of the UK

Hi, i saw your post a little while ago on the Northern Ireland page about Constituent Countries. I thought the same thing a few days ago when i joined, i didnt like the idea of describing England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland as countries, however there is reasonable justification for doing so based on many sources. The main concern has to be ensuring the relationship between the Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom is not lost. Countries of the United Kingdom does that in my opinion. There is debate on that page about merging it with the subdiv list which is currently listed.. If that was done, a reasonable opening line to the 4 parts of the UK could read, "Northern Ireland is a Country of the United Kingdom which is ALOT better than the current version, where just country is linked. If you have the time and are interested in this issue, pls comment on the Countries of the UK page. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You hit it right on the nail, Redking7. Too bad, we're in the minority. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RedKing7 - UK law does not define the word 'country'. Your comment of "no legal basis" was utter rubbish. I also consider it a form of trolling, given all that is happened regarding this over the past year. Saying that someone describing England etc a "country" has "no legal basis whatsoever" is tantamount as saying it is unlawful - which is simply unacceptable - provacative and misleading to the point where I believe arbcom should be able to cut it out. You are entitled to you POV, but bullshiting regarding law is totally unacceptable. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Europe

Thank you for this notice. This is now fixed. Regards 16@r (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Taskforce

Party pooper. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My amended proposal

I have withdrawn my amendement - it was poorly thought out and obviously won't get support. I thought I was simplifying aspects of Mooretwin's proposal that were inhibiting discussion - the last thing I want to do is create more division. Scolaire (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red King (talk · contribs)

Is this account in any way related to the above user? If so/not, can you please consider making a note of it on your user page, as you are both active editors apparently interested in the same topics, which makes discussion confusing to follow for others. I placed the same note on their talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

reply ~ R.T.G 05:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partition of Ireland

"Re.: On the Boundary commission part I've changed this big mistake - 'The report of the Commission (and thus the terms of the agreement) has yet officially to be made public:" - in fact the agreement was made public about an hour after it was made (and the agreement meant that the Commission and its report were no longer needed). See this.Red Hurley (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC) From what I can see you have confused publication of the agreement concerning the border with publication of the Boundary Commission's report....Not the same thing! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)"

If so it wasn't intentional. Think of it in two parts. The report was to specify where the new boundary would run, including as I recall about 100,000 six-counties nationalist voters in the IFS and leaving about 350,000 in a smaller NI. The agreement signed on 3 Dec 1925 made the report irrelevant, except of course of interest to us historians. The "terms of the agreement" were published later on same day. There must be hundreds of government reports that have not been made public, and like this report were superceded by events.Red Hurley (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS one of my favourite quotes on the whole boundary saga was made by a conservative MP in 1914, when it was all up in the air: It is perfectly manifest that somebody is going to be tricked. There is no genuine honest reason for making a secret of this kind. My hope is that it is the Nationalist party who are going to be tricked. It may be them, or it may be us, but that somebody is going to be tricked is perfectly plain.. Seemingly it took eleven years to happen; but that's my POV.Red Hurley (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redking7, I've created your statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRedking7, hope that's ok. PhilKnight (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Redking, just to let you know I've split my second statement into separate sections for editors can separately oppose/support different points. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Solomon Islands. 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 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. AussieLegend (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, please stop this. I have just had to spend time reverting a whole set of edits where there was no consensus and put still more pages under watch. You need to buid consensus for any changes, not go on a mass edit of multiple articles. --Snowded (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any consensus built at Talk:United Kingdom, and I don't see any consensus yet, does not immediately become applicable to every article about a Commonwealth realm as you seem to believe. If editors oppose your changes, you need to discuss the matter. Simply reverting as you have done, without attempting to build consensus for your changes, is considered vandalism. It's clear that several editors oppose your changes so you need to discuss the change, on each and every article if necessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Papua New Guinea has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked your account for 48 hours as you continue to edit war at various articles such as The Bahamas, Papua New Guinea & Solomon Islands despite continued requests to discuss over many days. I also note that your edit summaries are not descriptive of what you are actually completing in the edit. I will post a template warning below this message so that you have appropriate links should wish to dispute the validity of this block. I should also note, in case you are not aware, that your blocks are being escalated in their length and you are in serious danger of being blocked indefinitely.--VS ^talk 20:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued edit warring at the articles described in the comments above this notice. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. --VS ^talk 20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia precedent

Thanks for your comments about Mongolia, Luxembourg, Solomon Islands, and Samoa. -- Evertype·✆ 06:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Hello, how are you doing RK7? GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

I again deleted your user page, per your request on my talk page, so your signature would appear red. Please note that you can make your signature appear in a variety of colors by clever formatting. Take a look at the colorful sigs of other users and do some expermenting. Regards. Edison (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The time is coming...

...for pro-movers like me, to accept the fact that there'll never be a consensus to move those Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After months of continous failed attempts for a consensus, I've given up on those Ireland article titles. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations

I'm an administrator, but no, I have no intentions of trying to get you in trouble. However, further violations of the edit warring policy may lead to consequences. Please discuss the matter on a relevant talk page, and pursue dispute resolution if necessary. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, removing references with an edit summary that says that the previous editor didn't provide references is very disruptive. Please don't do that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any references removed (?) did not provide proper references for the date the Commonwealth was established! Thats what was asked for etc. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say they didn't provide "proper references"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom request for clarification

I have put up a request for clarification to ARbCom here, regarding your actions. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one don't see the request there. -- Evertype·✆ 22:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He meant Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, as far as I can tell.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on June 24 2009 to List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

The duration of the block is 24*7 hours.

You now have enough blocks to be straying close to an indef block next time. I very strongly caution you to move more slowly and to make more effort to seek consensus before reverting, and indeed to simply edit different articles if you cannot edit except by reverting at a given article William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re unfair block

EXTRACTED FROM RELEVANT TALK PAGE

You posted the above on my talk page and blocked me for a period. I feel a bit sore about it as I do not believe it was justified. I do not have time to read the huge wealth of information contained on the manual(s) around how to appeal a block and, as you blocked me, I feel you should help out. Please could you create an appeal from me on the relevant appeals page - I appreciate that the block has now expired but "for the record", I would like if this could be looked at. The following is the text you might post at the appeals page:

"User: Redking7 does not believe this block was fair because (1) the dispute related to an assertion by another Editor that the UK had a diplomatic mission to "Taiwan/Republic of China" and User: Redking7 relied on a reputable source showing that this was not the case whereas the other Editor did not (2) User: Redking7 discussed from the outset the edit on the talk page; (3) User: Redking7 realizing that the other Editor would insist on asserting that the UK had a diplomatic mission to "Taiwan/Republic of China" regardless of what source countered this sought the intervention of an Administrator (noted on the talk page) - (Summary) User: Redking7 acted reasonably and fairly at all times. In contrast Administrator who blocked User: Redking7 ignored the edits of the other editor, User: Kransky, and only blocked User: Redking7 which appears not to be fair or balanced and the Admministrator appears not to have even read the talk page (having regard to his posting on User: Redking7's talk page). For and on behalf of User: Redking7"

You might kindly give me a link to the posting when its up so I can check it out. Thanks. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has expired; there is nothing to appeal. It was, in any case, justified. Only in exceptional circumstances will blocks be subsequently noted as for-some-reason-invalid. Had you actually read the block text, instead of re-posting it here, you would have seen the clear guidelines it gives for appeal William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but the guidelines are too long....Could you not just post it for me? You blocked me after all so the burden to "prove" it was justified should really be on you....basic principles of justice. It'd be appreciated. I am not v. technical. The appeal is for "the record" - It doesn't matter that the block has expired. Regards.

You have deleted my further response (above) twice now from this talk page (I initially thought I had failed to save the change) - why? Is that not against the rules itself? This is the talk page and you are censoring my responses? Why? I can only put a layman's interpretation on your behaviour - that you don't want this block to be appealed because you know it was invalid and you acted inappropriatly. I can't give this more time than I already have so I suppose you win - You will avoid this going to appeal and my "record" will remain stained accordingly. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop the tedious "censoring" nonsense. My post of 07:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC) says what you need to know. Hopefully, you really do have no more time for this and will drop this unproductive matter William M. Connolley (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were (correctly) blocked. At the time, you were given clear instructions for appealing that block, which you didn't follow. Now please stop wasting my time [2] and yours. No, I am not going to post your appeal for you because you can't be bothered to read stuff. If you want to avoid such problems in future, please read WP:1RR William M. Connolley (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. As per above - I guess you appreciate your behaviour in blocking me was out of order. Otherwise, you'd just put my appeal up. It wouldn't take you a jiffy. As I say, you win. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- BigDunc^Talk 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop wasting my time

You were (correctly) blocked. At the time, you were given clear instructions for appealing that block, which you didn't follow. Now please stop wasting my time [3] and yours. No, I am not going to post your appeal for you because you can't be bothered to read stuff. If you want to avoid such problems in future, please read WP:1RR William M. Connolley (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Ireland article names

Edits on Foreign relations of the ROC

Hi, I just wanted to contact you directly, as I feel our dispute comes from a misunderstanding. So to clarify, I'm fine with working on your section and try to reach a compromise. Currently, some parts of it are borderline WP:OR which is why I removed them. For instance, you wrote that the list of 23 states is unique because there are no members of the Security Council among the ROC's diplomatic relations. I'd tend to agree with that, however do we have a source explicitely saying so (i.e. that this fact makes the list unique)? That's what we need to find out. To quote the WP:NOR policy, "we must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Hope what I mean is clearer now, and that we can work towards a consensus. Laurent (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree. My modest contribution was of statements that were based on the very list that you have provided (i.e. there is no source for the 23 states - though I belive the list is accurate)...i.e. But you have singled out my modest contribution and applied double standards. If it was up to me, all unsourced materials, including my own would be removed...Instead you are being selective. I do not have the time to carry out the vast work that that article needs if its content is to reach the "verified" standard that you have set for my own modest contribution. I suggested it be deleted and worked on over time. That was rejected. Regards. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Redking7 (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material in my opinion is less problematic than original research on Wikipedia. The first one can be fixed by adding some {{fact}} templates, while the second cannot. Even if I add the template to all your statements, and even if you find a source for them, it would still be original research. The point is that there is no source saying that this list of statements make the 23 states distinct.

As for the rest article, it indeed needs more work and perhaps some other parts of it are original research - it's actually very common on Taiwan political articles. If you noticed any unsourced statement, I'd suggest to tag them with a template. For instance, by adding a {{fact}} tag next to a statement, you'll add a "[citation needed]" note to suggest other editors to go look for a source. If you find some original research, then yes delete it but please explain why on the talk page (as two editors did for your section). Laurent (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Removal of all non de jure diplomatic Missions in List Articles

I would like to seek your view as to whether we should eliminate from the lists of diplomatic missions by sending/receiving countries all references to representative offices of sending states that do not have formal diplomatic missions with the host states. This would affect a large number of articles which relate to Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo and other states. Please provide your views here. Thank you. Kransky (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Please stop canvassing the poll to various unrelated pages like this. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you really might want to stop. I cannot see how posting it to over a dozen talk pages of countries could be considered appropriate Wikipedia:Canvassing. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 3h to put a stop to this spam, and reverted it. Don't do this again William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna consider taking your cause to WP:RFC. Saves you time (has a bot) and won't get you blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening, are you? 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And... what were you thinking of when you did this [4]? No, you cannot do that William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did RedKing supposedly do this time? "Spamming"?? Sarah777 (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Appeal

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).

Redking7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Keeping the reasons short: (1) Please look carefully at all my recent Edits. I have done nothing wrong (2) Administrator who blocked me and User: Kransky, another editor who has a legitimate disagreement on a content matter concerning "sources" and "OR" (relating to diplomatic missions) are best of pals - the Admin is not objective (3) I think I have been accused of spamming but this is not so....all the talk pages I left messages were relevant to the topic concerned - country pages (countries send diplomatic missions, hence the relevance) (4) I think Admin User: William M. Connelley has accused me of doing something wrong here - [5]? No, you cannot do that User:William M. Connolley - That edit was entirely legitimate - the intro to the poll was written by User: Kransky and so was completely biased - Kransky even purported to speak on my behalf etc. I obviously needed to change the way my views were being represented. This was entirely legitimate, although undesirable, the background to the "poll" was that User: Kransky set it up, engaged in extensive canvassing (6) Admin Connnolley has abused his position and is prohibiting me from "canvassing" in the same sort of way that he has condoned Kransky's canvassing - this is censorship of a kind. Over all, whoever reads this, I am a bona fide contributor who takes pride in always making contributions that are well sources...What is going on here with User: Kransky and User:William M. Connolley is not fair. Please look into it. If you are going to uphold the block, please give reasons and also please address whether Users Kransky and WM Connelley have behaved appropriately. Thanks for your time. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Editing someone else's talk page comments is bad enough. Editing someone else's poll after people have voted in it is beyond the pale.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2009 (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.

Unblock Appeal

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).

Redking7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not add any further reason for unblocking that has not been dealt with previously and therefore is inadequate for the purpose of another review. It is clear that the diff provided by SarekOfVulcan shows that you did edit another persons poll after people have voted, and it also shows that your request was not simply glossed over. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Indeed with the amount of times that you have been blocked you should not have to have this detail repeated but in case you neglected to on previous occasions would you please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information and before you lodge another unblock request. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 08:31, 8 September 2009 (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.

Unblock Appeal

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).

Redking7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I won't repeat what I've set out above - this appeal is amed at VirtualSteve (who sounded, at least, like he may have his heart in the right place - Steve, what was I to do - look at the Edit. My views were being expressly referred to and inaccurately. Did I not have a right to input on how MY views were being put across. Can an Editor say anythin he/she likes about another Editor provided it is in the text of a poll? Please set out your reasons why my edit was not appropriate under those circumstances?. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I looked at the edit. You completely refactored someone else's comment and changed the meaning of it. No, you do not have the right to do that. You have to right to write a rebuttal. Smashville^talk 15:05, 9 September 2009 (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.

List of Diplomatic Missions of France

I note your insertion of a template warning that citations for verifications are required for this article. Please let me draw your attention to the link at the bottom of the page to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

It was the view of 9 editors to 1 (you) to include quasi diplomatic missions in Taiwan. The matter has been closed. If you want to pursue the matter further I suggest you consult with the appropriate appeals guidelines. Kransky (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I notice that you are continuing to engage this war. Your actions are breathtakingly unwise - are you really prepared to risk a total ban, as you have been warned about in the past, just for the sake of how we choose what goes in these lists - a project you have never had any interest in contributing to anyway. Your actions (and name) reminds me of the Black Knight who fights until he is limbless, but there is an end point for everything. You have exhausted my patience, and I will now actively seek your permanent ban. Do you know what that means? It means logging on to your computer and discovering you can no longer partake in Wikipedia. No point waiting 48 hours watching DVDs until your punishment lapses, because this means a permanent ban. Finito. The End. And unless you have a hobby or some other life outside Wikipedia you are going to find yourself quite miserable. Think about it. Kransky (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redking7, I also suggest you stop inserting your personal analysis of the ROC diplomatic relations all over Wikipedia. If you feel something should change, discuss it or bring to WP:DR but don't just make these controversial edits without getting a consensus. Laurent (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indef

You are a WP:SPA dedicated to edit warring over Roc / Taiwan. You have had numerous blocks and learnt nothing. You were warned on 20:42, 21 March 2009 by VS that you risked an indef block but have chosen to disregard that warning. Well, now I've done it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admins could be interested in this discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RedKing7 APPEALS UNJUST BLOCK

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).

Redking7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OTHER ADMINS - HELP PLEASE - Why have I been blocked? What am I to do? I am not very technical, so if you want to give me any help and it involves special formatting or use of special codes or reading long technical guides.....please try to help me by keeping it simple. I want, at the outset, to say this indefinite block is entirely unjustified. The following are the only Edits I have made since I was last bocked by the same Administrator who has now blocked me indefinitely. How can these edits be used to justify a block of any duration at all? Please see my description of each block: *Edit 1 - 11:04, 13 September 2009 (hist) (diff) List of diplomatic missions of South Korea ‎ (This list needs verification - For example, sources show S. Korea does not have diplomatic mission to Taipei (RoC)) *Edit 2 -11:02, 13 September 2009 (hist) (diff) List of diplomatic missions of Canada ‎ (The List is Wrong. For example, Canada does not have diplomatic relations with RoC Taiwan - Verification needed.) *Edit 4 -10:58, 13 September 2009 (hist) (diff) List of diplomatic missions of the United States ‎ (This article is wrong. References etc needed. For example, US does not have diplomatic relations with RoC (Taiwan)) *Edit 5 -10:57, 13 September 2009 (hist) (diff) List of diplomatic missions of Germany ‎ (Article is not reliable. Sources show list is wrong.) *Edit 6 -10:55, 13 September 2009 (hist) (diff) List of diplomatic missions of France ‎ (Sources show France does not have a diplomatic mission to RoC (Taiwan). Other entries may be wrong too.) In each of the above Edits, I inserted the "This Article Needs Verification Tag". A standard Wikipedia tag. Nothing offensive etc. The articles are partly or entirely unsourced. In my edit summaries, I gave the example of the "Republic of China (Taiwan)" entry on the list as being inaccurate. It is not sourced. However, No Consensus has arisen to support my view that the entry should be removed. Hence, respecting that I did not have the right to unilaterally delete any particular entry, all I did was call for sources/verification. What on earth is wrong with that? Surely, it is entirely right to tag articles that are partly or entirely unsourced? *Edit 3 - 11:00, 13 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:List of diplomatic missions of the United States ‎ (top) *Edit 7 -10:54, 13 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Foreign relations of the Republic of China ‎ (→Fair enough - Unsourced material needs to go) *Edit 10 -10:50, 13 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:List of diplomatic missions of France ‎ (top) These were polite responses to fellow editors around the accuracy of the list etc...Hardly objectinoable (save that I disagreed with the editors concerned - but that is not a Wiki crime!). *Edit 9 -10:34, 13 September 2009 (hist) (diff) List of diplomatic missions in the Republic of China ‎ (Including analysis of the diplomatic missions) If you have a look at the recent edits to this Article (during Sept. 09), you will see that I did a lot of sound work providing the exact name of each of the trade/cultural offices of the various countries....That involved quite a bit of time and effort. It was all 100% sourced from the Republic of China government website. No one disagreed with that. I also gave a longer, quite interesting introduction to the article - where I listed a few distinctive points about the 19 diplomatic missions to the RoC - for example the high preponderence of micro-states having diplomatic missions etc....It was reverted or substantially changed and I changed it back. Thats not edit warring (no breach of the 3 times rule etc). ADMINISTRATORS - User talk:William M. Connolley has not acted fairly and is really too directly "involved" with me at this stage - given the tone of notes he posted here previously etc. I would also like to point out the very many and worthwhile contributions I have made to Wikipedia over the past few years. You can look through my edit history for more details - My work tends to include a high number of sources....I am a stickler for good verifiable articles. Please can you take steps to undo this decision. Thanks and regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've had enough of this kind of stuff here. See below. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2009 (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.

Hi Redking7, would you be prepared to take a rest from editing Taiwan articles for a while? I'm guessing there needs to be a process to resolve the content dispute, such as mediation or something. So, if you could agree not to edit the articles or talk pages until some form of dispute resolution commences, then I think agreeing an unblock would be possible. PhilKnight (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I gather that William has been desyopped, which possibly means I don't have to agree the unblock with anyone. Have a look at his talk page if you're interested. Anyway, I obviously remember your constructive input to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, so I think a conditional unblock is justifiable. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PhilKnight - I appreciate your messages. Well, you've asked me to desist from editing Republic of China articles.....thats a biggie for me. You've also asked me not to even contribute on Republic of China talk pages.....thats will leave the Republic of China articles entirely to those who couldn't care less about sources (if you think I am exaggerating on that front, just read through some of the exchanges or lack thereof I've had with editors like User: Kransky etc.) Essentially, you've asked me not to edit/contribute to the articles I am most interested in.....As I see you as a fair minded decent editor, I wouldn't like to let you down and simply say yes....and go back on what I agree to. I would ask you to limit the scope of your restriction - the main issue here for some time has been the "Diplomatic Lists" articles - I will refrain from editing these Article pages until the consensus for no change ends.....I don't feel that I should have to stop contributing on their talk pages, where I wish to try to raise awareness that they are not sourced/misleading. I will continue (as I think I always am) to be respectful on these talk pages.... Well, would that be enough blood? Admittedly, I don't have many choices save taking up another hobby. I'll consult you too if I think I am about to do something likely to get me in trouble. Please? Thanks. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about this block happening at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed re-evaluation of the block. I personally would stick to the proposed restriction from any discussion of Taiwan. Your continued lobbying (for more than a year) against allowing these liaison offices to constitute any form of diplomatic relations has been tiresome. You've gone around to many individuals' talk pages to promote this point, and one of your blocks concerned this behavior. (The word 'spam' was used in the block notice). If you are going to continue any advocacy regarding offices in Taiwan, on any talk page, with any user, I would rethink any consideration of lifting this block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston - Thanks for letting me know about the discussion. Some of the things being said there are unfair (particularly the claim that I - who always provides such detailed/well sourced postings on talk pages - am not willing to participate in a resolution process etc) but I can't participate in the discussion which seems pretty unfair too - To try to "speak up" for myself from the sidelines to me would be undignified so (ironically, unlike Republic of China diplomats whose steel I clearly don't have) I won't!

These last few days while I have been banned, I have had time to do some research on historical topics that really interest me - to do with the histories (particularly foreign relations) of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. I would like to contribute what I can to various articles like the history of the PRC, history of the ROC articles, their foreign relations articles, perhaps a couple of new narrow-scope articles. I want to make the sort of well sourced contributions that I made to the Names of the Irish state article - Just have a look at that article before I built it up on the basis of the many, many sources given on that article....Like many of my edits, they took a lot of time but I enjoyed making them.

I would like to do the same with some of the existing (or potentially new) RoC (and to a lesser extent PRC) articles.

If you want to ban me, thats your choice. I don't want to be treated like some kind of second class Editor - who can edit some articles, not others... I'm not black but it sounds like "Wiki-apartheid" !

Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston - If you are going to ban me permanently, could I ask one final favour – could you deliver the message as follows: “On behalf of Wikipedia, I, User: EdJohnston, hereby confirm to you that Wikipedia has permanently terminated diplomatic relations with you, User:Redking7. Accordingly, you are hereby banished from Wikipedia.” It would seem a fitting choice of words. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And with that, I've reblocked you so you can't screw around with this page anymore. Email unblock if you want to try again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redking7, and you are therefore blocked indefinitely.
If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Do not delete

{{unblock|I was blocked permanently by an Administrator who was expelled from his Admin role a couple of weeks later because of his own misbehaviour. Yet that same Admin's block against me remains, as if it was made by a bona fide Admin. That isn't fair. I am accused of "sock puppetry" whic sounds nasty. But what have I actually done? I've logged in as Staighre so I can edit and make good contributions - just look at them. Check my Staighre contributions. I never tried to pretend Staighre was different to Redking7 and didn't change my style to hide anything. I've made very good contributions here and this permanent block is really unfair - even if I've committed the odd sin along the way. Regards.Redking7 (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC) (ps - if any one can help with the formatting of this appeal, please do. Thanks}}[reply]