User talk:Mooretwin/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mooretwin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Scouting Ireland

The edit war on this article has to stop. You are both at the 3RR level. I have fully protected the article and removed all reference to WOSM until such a time that the affiliation with WOSM is fully clarified by reference to reliable sources. Since WOSM recognises national associations, the bottom line has to be that Scouting Ireland is the WOSM approved association in the Republic and the Scout Association is the WOSM approved association in the UK, including Northern Ireland. If this is incorrect, we need a source and with that reference the article can be edited to add back reference to WOSM and then be unprotected. Please find such a source. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree totally! Mooretwin (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again

How do you deal with editors like this? I gather you've experienced the same things I have. I'm sick of being met with 'wiki policy' when trying to make a point. But I probably should watch my language! NewIreland2009 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Be careful. There are editors who spend an awful lot of time on here, stand guard over certain articles, and know the wiki policies inside out and when to use them. They will also complain to sympathetic administrators and you may find yourself banned if you show frustration. There are serious "players" here who put in the hours and know how to play the game. Mooretwin (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've noted your comments above and reported them here. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. Mooretwin (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean Mooretwin. When this blows over I might get to the business of editing articles again. This wiki law malarky isn't for me! NewIreland2009 (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, he's reported me now! Mooretwin (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I really had a good laugh at his actions. Such irony and I doubt he realises it. NewIreland2009 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

On another point

What keeps you motivated? If I hadn't realised a couple of hours ago how absurd/hilarious the situation was I probably would have walked in frustration also. But I'm sure that'll die down as I see yet another stomach wrenching piece of irony... NewIreland2009 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Fein

"Sinn Fein":Mooretwin, I have removed a contentious sentence from the introductory paragraph on the Sinn Fein page. If the article is about Sinn Fein since 1969 exclusively, then it should be stated in the first paragraph, before the PIRA is introduced, or else it's totally confusing. PurpleA (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning at all. The hatnote, and the intro both state that the article is about the current SF - and the PIRA connection is introduced after that. So by your own reasoning, there is no basis for removing the PIRA reference. Mooretwin (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Ladbrokes Championship logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ladbrokes Championship logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've sorted it, now. Mooretwin (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unions in plural

Just a quick note to say that both "trades unions" and "trade unions" are acceptable plurals of "trade union". I believe that the former is the more traditional format whilst the latter is the term preferred in common usage (a bit of a focussed/focused issue). As long as the article remains consistent to a certain term (keeping up appearances) then I couldn't give a hoot anyway! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Ictu logo small web.jpg — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was given as Trades Unions in the article - go ahead and change it. Looks like the TUC is flying the flag on its own. I'll concede that myself and TUC are in the minority. Mooretwin (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't see that one. I think Trades Union is an old spelling of Trade Union that has fallen out of use. The Image Mafia will be around shortly to remove this shocking use of a fair use image on a talk page -:) — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Venue for Ireland talk

Hello Mooretwin! Since you're the only one who voted against option 3, I would like to understand your concerns. Would you be completely opposed to it, or do you just prefer number 2?

You wrote "that's where the solution lies waiting to be rescued". I admit, I haven't looked carefully there, because I assumed it was made obsolete by the later discussion. But I assure you, we will work on rescuing the information from there, regardless of where we do the talking. I am confident that we can do that together. (I once did that in a situation that may have been more complicated here. Back then, I did that by myself, and it was a lot of work, but if we decide to do something like this together now, it would be much easier.)

I am impressed by the discussion so far. Editors are very civil; I sense a strong, genuine desire to resolve this. All it takes is an occasional nudge by a trusted, independed person, when the discussion is stuck in Buridan's ass's place. — Sebastian 17:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that I, and several others, devoted a lot of energy and time into the task force, and I would be disillusioned if the progress achieved there were lost. If you read my proposal there - which generated unprecedented support - you'll see that my strong belief is that the only way to resolve this dispute, and the best way to maximise support for a resolution, is for a "package" agreement that covers more than simply the title of the current Republic of Ireland article. That is why there were 4 elements to my proposal. I believe this is why it garnered support - everyone got something, but no-one got everything. Mooretwin (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. That sounds very good. Of course, we should include any proposal that garnered support. I have to go now, but I will look at it later. I will try and find out why it was skipped over by the ArbCom discussion (or at least why I got that impression). Please let me know if you have any ideas about that, and please don't hesitate to send them by mail, which allows a less guarded communication. — Sebastian 23:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So, I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force, and it seems you are talking about this proposal: "Unregistered editors should not be permitted to contribute, in my view." This is something you could propose at WP:IECOLL, too. Personally, I find the word "contribute" a bit vague - what do you mean: edit an article, write a message, or vote? Of these, the first is clearly in contradiction with general Wikipedia policies, and would need an unrefuted reason to be enacted. Writing a message can't harm; as long as the message itself is helpful; there's no difference who wrote it. Only the latter makes sense to me, but that may not be relevant if there is agreement to avoid votes altogether. — Sebastian 09:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no. I'm talking about this. Mooretwin (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, of course! Sorry that I overlooked this. It's a bit too soon for this, since we're currently (1) only talking about non-content issues and (2) waiting for ArbCom. (See WT:IECOLL for details.) — Sebastian 09:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RoI/Ireland ArbCom ruling

Hi, I've been reading the various Talk pages about the RoI/Ireland naming dispute and I'd like to ask you if the ArbCom panel has arrived at a decision or not ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.185.56 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. Mooretwin (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

RoI article

"Parliament means both houses - no need to spell it out" - The NI Parliament includes the Monarch - just as in Ireland today it includes the President. Check it out. The difference is significant - A Parliament cannot make an address to its King - the Houses of Parliament can.

Here is the relevant section of the GOvernment of Ireland Act...:

Establishment of parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland. -

(1) On and after the appointed day there shall be established for Southern Ireland a Parliament to be called the Parliament of Southern Ireland consisting of His Majesty, the Senate of Southern Ireland, and the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, and there shall be established for Northern Ireland a Parliament to be called the Parliament of Northern Ireland consisting of His Majesty, the Senate of Northern Ireland, and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland.

Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, technically you're right, but in everyday ordinary language "Parliament" is sufficient. Mooretwin (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we shouldn't let accuracy stand in the way of ignorance. Its only an encyclopedia after all. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hain

On closer inpection, I see that you're right. Apologies Grblundell (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Appreciate the message. Mooretwin (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Names of the railway stations in NI in Irish and Ulster Scots

Hello Mooretwin. Could I ask you why you've deleted some names of the railway stations in Northern Ireland in Irish and Ulster Scots? These languages are officially recognized in NI, and the names often have Irish/Scots origin. Although NI Railways don't show them at the stations, I'm sure that they're used in these languages. <flrn> 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you a source that shows these names being used for the railway stations? Without one, I see no reason for their inclusion. Mooretwin (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got sources. Translink hasn't a map of railway stations in Irish ([1]) although the stations names that are included in the text (like Great Victoria Street) are translated. So now I see that other names can't be included, sorry for the trouble. <flrn> 07:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Mooretwin (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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) 18:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed page should of been at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyMooretwin (Problem 1) not WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyMooretwin (Problem 1) . Can you speedy delete the incorrect one Gnevin (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mooretwin (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

How do I speedy-delete? Mooretwin (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You just add the relevant tag at the top of the page for example {{db-vandalism}} would be used on a page that is considered vandalism. See here for the criteria and tags. BigDunc^Talk 16:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

add {{speedy}} to the page Gnevin (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi I made a reply to your post at my statements talk page. I am quite confused though. You say Ireland can't have two primary meanings but then say somewhere else and I quote "But the "official name" Ireland is ambiguous". Ambiguity is defined as "uncertainty of meaning". So are you still saying Ireland can't have more than one main meaning? In find this to be quite a contradiction.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said Ireland can't have more than one main meaning, therefore it would be impossible for me still to be saying so. Mooretwin (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But surely primary = main? You say there can't be two primary meanings but there can be two main meanings? They both mean the same thing.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

They don't. Mooretwin (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that they do. I'm not going to turn this into an English lesson for you but someone not understanding the meaning of a word should not hinder consensus building. I will make it clear to the moderators the reason for you disagreeing with my statement.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Help please

Can I get some input here please? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm as confused as you are. Would need more time to examine the figures, but have to go to bed now. Mooretwin (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Northern Ireland!

Hey Mooretwin, and welcome to WikiProject Northern Ireland! Thanks so much for signing up - it's great to have new people coming in. I know you've already been an active editor, but please feel free to ping me if you have any questions or would like to collaborate on any projects. Thanks again! Flying Toaster 16:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sly move

You knew full well that moving the Regional postage in Great Britain would be a controversial one, so now the Regional postage stamps of Great Britain is at its more proper WP:COMMONNAME title. Check out this book by Arnold Machin whose designs have been used since 1971 for the regional stamps. In future bring such moves to WP:RM instead of making sly moves just because you don't like the titles. You really should know better. ww2censor (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't. The stamps are UK stamps: not GB stamps. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland flag in Northern Ireland article

Hello,

Please could you take a look at my edit here. I feel this is a reasonable compromise edit, but is being reverted without proper discussion here.

Regards 89.217.188.221 (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Club Honours for Drumaness Mills

I noticed that a large number of team honours were removed from this page. I realise that a full list of club honours may not be considered a notable fact for a club that has moved out of amateur football into the Irish league proper (such as Carrick or PSNI - when they played as RUC). But for teams still in the NAFL, they are notable milestones of a clubs progress through the amateur league system. And for smaller or more recent teams, a win in outside the premier division may be their only notable success.

I recently re-edited the honours section for Larne Tech OB to show how their full honours list would look. If you agree, I would like to restore the full club honours for Drumaness. Thanks and keep up the great work. DarthJoeyJoJo (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree. We're skating on thin "notability" ice by including a lot of amateur teams in the encyclopaedia in the first place. I don't think, for example, winning the third division of a regional amateur league is notable. I think for consistency we note Amateur League champions, Border Cup and Clarence Cup winners, as these are significant honours. They would be the equivalent of winning the Mid-Ulster League or the NI Intermediate League. If we were to include Division 1B runners-up, etc., then we'd have to include lower divisions from these leagues. In general, runners-up are not listed anyway.

(There's also the confusion of Division 1A champions before they brought in the Premier means something different to what it means today.

Keep up your own good work, by the way. We're making some good improvements. Mooretwin (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

You know by now you need consensus for things like that. If you wish to change what it says go to the talk page.MITH 10:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You know by now that you don't need a consensus for simple changes to comply with policies. I noted the irony of your edit description. Mooretwin (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Irelands

Republic of Ireland to Ireland (republic) (appeasing one group). Then, we allow Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation) to remain as is (appeasing the other group). It has possibilites. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't solve the problem of agreeing how the state is referred to in other articles. I'd agree to the above so long as ROI can still be used in prose elsewhere throughout the encyclopaedia. Mooretwin (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RoI in prose, in exchange for pipe-linkg British Isles as Britain and Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In exchange for Derry moving to Londonderry? Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The possibillities are endless, IMHO. The alleged pro-British group & the alleged pro-Irish group, in these BI & Irelands disputes, should be able to compromise. Each side giving up something, to gain something in return. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what I have been pushing since the IDTF (which was sadly abandoned and replaced by the ludicrous recent exercise). Worryingly the current moderator seems to be pushing for individual polls on each separate issue, and is even alluding to ruling out one of the options before a poll. Mooretwin (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In my opinon, the Ireland naming dispute & the British Isles naming dispute, are inter-twined. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they necessarily are, except in the sense that many editors are involved in both. Mooretwin (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I could be a mad man, but I believe they're linked. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than the links in terms of personnel, how do you mean? Mooretwin (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

They both have a common thread: Frustration over British dominance of Ireland, through the centuries. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If so, then it would seem that those objecting to British Isles and to Republic of Ireland are approaching the issue emotionally rather than rationally. Mooretwin (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether that's so, may never be known. Remember, it's just my theory. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There's emotion on both sides, for sure - we need a little bit more rationality. Don't know about you guys, but I'd say that in the last 12 months, I've detected a little teensy bit more compromise than previously... But I also agree with GoodDay that RoI and BI are linked - I was pretty active on WP:BISLES with a number of other editors, and we were asked to put it on hold until the RoI issue was resolved. At the time, I didn't want to because I believed they were separate topics, but now .... now, I think they're linked (at least in some editor's (non-rational) brains). --HighKing (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Where/what is the link? Mooretwin (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert on ROI

I reverted your edit to Republic of Ireland. I've expained why here. I hope you understand. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

SI

There is no edit war on my part with you. You changed a range of articles like RTE, proclaiming that the BBC was there first. The article is about Ireland, not Northern Ireland. I don't go around changing Northern Ireland articles because I disagree with some point. Point is, I don't edit war, and actually try and avoid those situations. Tfz 09:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is part of Ireland. The BBC was in Ireland before RTE. Mooretwin (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You edit-warred at Scouting Ireland. The evidence is there on the article history: at least six reverts, including the most recent one. Mooretwin (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You also gave a false reason for supporting the removal of "Republic of Ireland". Mooretwin (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Bottom line is, you seem to resent Ireland using the name Ireland for the title of the country. I don't think we can change that, and it is 85% of the island. Tfz 09:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't know about what? That Northern Ireland is part of Ireland (to what do you think the second part of the name refers?)? That you edit-warred (the article history is there for all to see)? Or that you gave a false reason for supporting the removal of "Republic of Ireland" (you said it was because there should be no change while Arbcom is ongoing, yet "Republic of Ireland" was removed while Arbcom was ongoing and I was restoring it)?

Bottom line is, you seem to resent Ireland using the name Ireland for the title of the island. I don't think we can change that, and it is 100% of the island. Mooretwin (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The names are what they are, I don't control that aspect of things. Tfz 10:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed they are, and that is why we need disambiguation. (I note your failure to explain what it was that you "didn't know about".) Mooretwin (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"false reasons" I guess. To be honest with you, I didn't even look at it to check, but it must be a misinterpretation of sorts. I wouldn't do that. Tfz 11:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You said you supported "Ireland" because there should be no change while Arbcom is ongoing, yet "Ireland" was only introduced to the article while Arbcom was ongoing. By your own logic, therefore, you should support going back to "Republic of Ireland". But you don't. Mooretwin (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm working at moment and can't get back after this. Was looking at the history for a few minutes. I can't see the need to have countries mentioned in the lede at all, and think Ireland is fine, as it was in the beginning. Tfz 12:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't "Ireland" at the beginning. It was "Ireland (both Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland)", which was WRONG. Hence it was changed just to "Republic of Ireland". The fact that you don't realise that SI is an ROI organisation demonstrates the need to make this clear in the lede. Mooretwin (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Ireland article names case

Hello, Mooretwin. For your information, an amendment has been proposed to the Ireland article names arbitration case. As you were a named party in that dispute, you may wish to voice your opinions on this request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names. If you have any questions, please contact myself, another clerk, or an arbitrator. Thank you. For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again

I've blocked you for edit warring at 1973 Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape. In view of your previous log, I've blocked you for a month. Be aware that this is probably your last block: the next will likely be indef William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I appeal this? I didn't break 3RR and all I was doing was restoring text being repeatedly changed by an editor without consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're allowed to make a request for unblock. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but how? Mooretwin (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't break 3RR. All I did was restore text being controversially and repeatedly changed by an editor without consensus, and using deceitful edit summaries.

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring and have a long history of doing such (10 blocks for the same issue!). I'm going to put a motion forward to put you on a single revert sanction. Toddst1 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

Sockpuppet

Can someone check if 192.122.221.72 is a sockpuppet for User:MusicInTheHouse? This IP has just reverted the same text that Music in the House reverted earlier. Mooretwin (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lacking CU I can't myself; I doubt if anyone would bother for one edit, now reverted William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A Month?

I went to Administrator Connolly's page because I thought there was a bad block on MITH (assuming no socks of course) and I find you have been blocked for a month. Why do you bother fighting on minor articles? - especially since you seem to have a reasonable approach to the main naming dispute? The month block is OTT and now we have lost one of the "moderates" in the Ireland naming dispute. I'm on the verge of despair. Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I resent that the most belligerent and determined editors seem to get their way because more moderate editors tend to "give up" on content disputes. I also resent hypocrisy, when editors say "no change until IECOLL" on one article, but then proceed to make changes on another. That is why I reverted Music in the House's edits on the Mountjoy article. I made sure to keep within 3RR, (depsite Music in the House's false accusation), but that wasn't taken into consideration and I was banned for "edit-warring".

I feel like I am the only editor prepared to stand up against certain other editors, and I get punished for it.

I'm that glad Music in the House got banned, because telling tales and trying to get another editor banned is pretty low, and he got his own comeuppance as his hidden reverts were obvious to the Admin, but I'd prefer it if neither of us were banned.

If you can do anything to get my ban reduced, it would be appreciated. If I do get unbanned, I will continue to press for a compromise on the Ireland naming dispute, as I have done since last year. Mooretwin (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also mentioned to the blocking admin that I think a month is excessive. However, I think unless you and Music admit to your errors and promise to desist in future, there is little prospect of an about face and the blocks being lifted earlier. RashersTierney (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How and where can I do that? Mooretwin (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of teaching grannies to suck eggs....you should look to the banner above at "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the 'unblock' template again." The admin wants reassurance that you know why you were blocked, that you accept that a block was warranted and you will not re-engage in what has been determined to be disruptive editing. Don't rehash your initial appeal, and please drop your argie with Music. Good luck. RashersTierney (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have questions, feel free to ask them, I'm watching. If you want advice it is: blocks are preventative, not punitive. If you're prepared to commit to avoiding edit warring in future, I'll consider unblocking William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If I have a clear, unambiguous understanding of what edit-warring is, I'll commit not to doing it. I don't want, however, to commit to something where an innocent edit results in somebody running to admins to get me banned again. I can commit to 1RR - is that acceptable? Mooretwin (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that on all articles you are making that commitment you need to clarify as you said 1RR is tight and you can very easy without knowing breach it I did and got blocked for 48 hours even after I said it wouldn't happen again so don't fall for the preventitive not punitave BS that wiki is supposed to have. BigDunc^Talk 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Dunc, that is what I'm trying to suss out. Mooretwin (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you'll have to learn to operate in the face of ambiguity. Because of your editing history, you'll need to lean very heavily on the side of caution. If you're unsure whether a given edit is a revert or not, you should assume it is, and instead of editing comment on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1RR is not acceptable? Mooretwin (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As a moderate who's quit the Ireland naming discussion; I think it best you get unblocked sooner, rather then latter. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't quit! I've been banned. >:-( Mooretwin (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the moderate, who's quit. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked you. This is conditional on:

you adhering to WP:1RR on all articles
interpreting WP:REVERT broadly; if in doubt, talk
leaving this message on your talk page

After a while (a month perhaps) you can ask to have this sanction removed. This will occur if you have a demonstrable record of good-faith non-controversial editing. Bear in mind that this is likely your last chance: further violations are very likely to trigger and indef block William M. Connolley (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that one revert ever on every article? Mooretwin (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it isn't clear, is it? 1RR in common parlance means "per 24h", just like 3RR. That is what I mean by it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both for unblocking me and for clarifying the terms. I'll endeavour to be more careful and seek a review after a month or so. Mooretwin (talk)

Comments

Consider this a warning for your continued commenting on editors rather than on the article. Directly pertaining to this edit. Assume good faith, and discuss article not editors. If you continue along this editing path you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not over-react to a bit of understandable frustration CT! Welcome back Mooretwin! May your stay be long and productive:)Sarah777 (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Sarah. I'm getting some support from some unlikely quarters - it is appreciated. For the record, I "redrafted" the "offending" comment above, although I should have thought that most of us have thick enough skins to withstand a bit of robust argument. Mooretwin (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

...and thank you for supporting my stance in the use of the term murder in the Norman Stronge article at [2]. --De Unionist (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A Deletion Discussion of an Irish Catholic Category

is being discussed at [3]--Epeefleche (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Norman Stronge

Next time you remove other peoples (mine in particular) comments from a talk page without their permission I will report you to ANI.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The comments were removed in accordance with WP:TPG and this was explained in the edit comment. Regards. Mooretwin (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem.

– Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 14:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

You are confusing "Great Britain" (England, Scotland and Wales) with "Britain" (synonymous with "UK", or "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"). Northern Ireland is not united with Britain in the UK, it is united with Great Britain. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

'Britain' is, indeed, often used as a synonym for UK. But it is also used (perhaps more often) as a synonym for 'Great Britain'. Viz. recent advertising in Northern Ireland for HSS ferries "to Britain" from Belfast. Regardless, your use of "Ireland" is also confusing as it is an island as well as a state. Mooretwin (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

When used as a synonym for UK, it is correct. When used as a synonym for Great Britain, it is incorrect. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Mooretwin (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

[4] Britain, UK: These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain, however, refers only to England, Wales and Scotland. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian may say it is "officially" the short form of UK, but there is no source for their claim. Even if true, "unofficially", it is often used in place of "Great Britain" and hence your suggested form of words should not be used in the interests of clarity. Mooretwin (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You said "Northern Ireland is united with Britain in the UK". There is no sense in which that is a correct statement. If you wish to continue in your state of ignorance, that's fine by me. I'm just letting you know. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC) ps The Guardian is a reliable source.

There is a sense in which it is correct: the sense being that "Britain" refers to "Great Britain". Personally, I would never use "Britain" in that sense, but others do: hence your proposed text should not be used in the interests of clarity. Mooretwin (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Jjbpremiership158.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Jjbpremiership158.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You can delete it. I used a bigger version of the logo and this one is unused. Mooretwin (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Algernon William John Clotworthy Skeffington, 12th Viscount Massereene

The only reference you listed on this article, here, does not mention the subject. Please provide a source for verification. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 14:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the source (which says: "Parliamentary Secretary, Department of the Prime Minister 7th June 1921 Viscount Massereene and Ferrard"). Mooretwin (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, but where did "Algernon William John Clotworthy Skeffington" come from? Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 14:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

From the main article about the viscountcy: Viscount_Massereene. Mooretwin (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for clearing that up. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 14:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Mooretwin (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, for succession boxes concerning peerage titles and their format you might wish to take a look on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Succession. For the naming of articles about peers with more than one title, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Location. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Recommended action

I've given up trying to mediate at Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army, however other admins will keep a silent watch and will extend protection if consensus isn't reached. In the meantime if things don't improve it is likely appropriate to take this dispute, along with the actions of certain editors to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Put in a request for Dispute Resolution in IRA article

Following Durova's advice, I've opened a topic here in the hopes of getting consensus moving. Lot 49a^talk 16:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Parliament of Northern Ireland 1921-1925

Hi - I see that you recently created this category. It's a good idea, but the title is quite long. Would you have any objection to me renaming it Category:Northern Ireland MPs 1921-1925? That title would be similar to the categorisation of Westminster MPs by term. Warofdreams talk 15:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to appear unhelpful, but I wouldn't support that title as, in my view, it would be ambiguous. Readers may think that it was referring to (Westminster MPs) from Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Earl of Mayo

Mooretwin; are you trying to restore or remove the redlinks defacing this article?! Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither, although I agree the article is better without them. I just made a raft of grammatical improvements, we had an edit conflict, so I attempted to restore YOUR version, but with MY grammatical improvements (admittedly by C&P - bad boy). Mooretwin (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:CarlingPremiership.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CarlingPremiership.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How dare you!!!!

....create the article I had put on my long finger to create: Texaco (All-Ireland) Cup. Good job, it was a hole in the Irish football bucket for too long. :-) Fribbler (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries! Mooretwin (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Orangefield

By any chance, are you Moore Sinnerton, former teacher at this school? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No chance whatsoever, I'm afraid. Sorry to disappoint! Mooretwin (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

1996 Manchester bombing

Fair enough, care to discuss how it was inappropriate and what improvements can be made to the section? Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It was more appropriate to an article about the history of Ulster or Northern Ireland, rather than a single event. Indeed, it looked like it had been copied and pasted from such an article. Mooretwin (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So you suggest having no background section at all? The background isn't simple, and perhaps the section was too detailed (although I actually thought it didn't explain the situation half as well as it needed to), perhaps it should be limited to stuff about Irish home rule rather than extending back to the 16th century? As for copy and pasting, when someone edits Wikipedia they "irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License", so even if material is copied from one article and posted to another there's no problem. Nev1 (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would the background to a bombing in 1996 need to refer to Irish home rule bills from the 19th century? Mooretwin (talk)

The reason for the existence of the IRA is to gain independence for all of Ireland from Britain and to defend Irish home rule, at least that's what Coogan says. Nev1 (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If that is so, then add your information to the Provisional IRA article. Mooretwin (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

One step at a time, I'm going to reinstate the section. It may need a trim, but the event can't be taken out of context. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to copy and paste long histories into every article about every incident in the Troubles? Mooretwin (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I've removed the first paragraph for deviating from the topic too much. The section now focusses on the IRA and why they were using violence to achieve their aims of Ireland's independence from Britain. What do you think now? Nev1 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that it won't be long before someone removes it. Mooretwin (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's as maybe, and I'm guessing you think there's a good reason, but could you explain? Nev1 (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

GAA

Would you please revert your unilateral edits on the Gaelic Athletic Association page. Consensus has not been reached on any of your POV edits, in fact you seem to be in a minority of one. Please also be careful on the number of reverts you make, or you could get into trouble once again for edit warring. Thank you. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to make a multilateral edit? I haven't made any POV edits: kindly read WP:AGF and do not come to my Talk page if all you can offer are accusations. Mooretwin (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to make an edit the does not violate consensus. I've posted a dispute notice at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Gaelic_Athletic_Association. I notice that you've reverted the article 3 times. Please be more careful with reverts. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Did someone say it wasn't possible to make an edit that does not violate consensus?? Mooretwin (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops

Perhaps move your notification from his user page to his user talk page, where he'll see it? Shenme (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Silly mistake. Mooretwin (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

English, Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish

Howdy Mooretwin. Do as I, avoid using those 'four' terms & go with British. Afterall, England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Clancy McDermott

I have nominated Clancy McDermott, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clancy McDermott. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Eric Treverrow

I have nominated Eric Treverrow, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Treverrow. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Sammy Hughes (footballer)

I have nominated Sammy Hughes (footballer), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sammy Hughes (footballer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Billy Neill

I have nominated Billy Neill, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Neill. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Arthur Stewart (footballer)

I have nominated Arthur Stewart (footballer), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Stewart (footballer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources,

The source which you have been using on various Biographies, the source listed in the following link has been deemed unreliable. Please do not use it.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

AfDs and VK

Are suggesting I'm some kind of sock of VK? I'm the one that nominated the article, not him.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not. But your nomination was prompted by him. Mooretwin (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd say

Although we don't always agree on some things and we've had ....discussions... in the past, just thought I'd say that I like your work. Keep it up. --HighKing (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Doug Wood a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Dougie Wood. 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 articles 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. R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye. Didn't really happen like you say. I created the page and only later realised that an article existed at another name. Was too late, then. Mooretwin (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

S-par

I've added the Northern Ireland parameters to {{s-par}}. You can see them at Template:S-par#United Kingdom; Ireland. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Many many thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Campbell & Thompson

I have started two RMs for Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer) and Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer); your input would be most appreciated. Regards, Giant Snowman 14:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer)

Howabout moving that article to Trevor Thompson (b. 1936)? GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:QUALIFIER, the Northern Irish footballer parenthetical is the more correct one - you usually disambiguate by profession or some other well-known characteristic, and avoid using birth- or death-dates as the qualifier as such dates are hardly common knowledge. Particularly for the case of athletes, the (nationality type of athlete) convention is fairly widely accepted. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a powdered keg, concerning (not surprisingly) Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Only because of a concerted effort by a small group of editors to make it a powdered keg. Mooretwin (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, is it "powdered keg" or "powder keg"? I thought it was the latter. Mooretwin (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothern Irish, oops

IMHO, we should be using British, in place of 'Northern Irish, Scottish, English & Welsh'. But, I know that's gonna meet resistants from atleast 3 factions. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should open that Pandora's Box, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Probation

Because of ongoing edit-warring at Troubles (Britain/Ireland)-related articles, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies, your account is now under official probation for the next 90 days: "Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert." --El on ka 01:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you advise what has prompted this, and why I have been selected for punishment? I am unaware of this remedy. I note that dates from 2007 (before I had become an editor) and it covers "any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given". I'm not aware either of being a party to this case or of having been given a warning. All I'm aware of is that Troubles-related articles are restricted to 1RR. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This was prompted because of you and Domer48 (talk · contribs) reverting each other at the Sinn Féin article. As for a warning, please spare me the wiki-lawyering. Your account has already been blocked eight times, and you are well aware of the ArbCom case, as multiple of those blocks were directly related to the Troubles case, because of your edit-warring on Troubles-related articles. You have received multiple notifications about the case,[5][6][7] and you have engaged in discussions about the case with administrators.[8] But deleting messages off your talkpage does not remove them from history. Bottom-line: The ArbCom ruling about a "warning" is intended to state that an editor must be aware of the case. It doesn't mean that I have to warn you personally. --El on ka 17:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye. As I said I was aware of the 1RR thing, which I haven't broken. Didn't know it related to this 2007 ruling. Why haven't BigDunc and others been put on probation for reverting? Mooretwin (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer48 (talk · contribs) was put on probation at the same time you were. --El on ka 23:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But BigDunc and others weren't. Domer and I weren't the only ones reverting. (To be clear, I don't want BigDunc or anyone else to be sanctioned, I just want to know why I was selected and others weren't.) Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If BigDunc and others continue with reverting good faith edits, they may be put on probation too, don't worry. And anyway, look at it like this: Probation is not a punishment, it's just a notification. You're not blocked, you're not restricted from editing, you're not restricted from participating on talkpages. The only thing that you're restricted from, is reverting an article more than once a week. And since you really shouldn't be reverting good faith edits anyway, there's no real restriction, right? What I recommend that you do at this point, is just continue editing in a good faith manner for the next 90 days, and then the probation will expire on its own. In the meantime, if you see an edit that you don't like on an article, try changing it to a compromise version. You're still allowed to edit any article you want: You're just not supposed to use the revert button. --El on ka 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reverted any good faith edits - only those of obstinate editors who refuse to compromise (as per the Sinn Féin article where Domer48 will not permit any change to the article despite overwhelming evidence of the need for change)! And it will not be possible for me to change an edit to a compromise version as that will be considered a revert! (I get the impression you placed sanctions on me so that you would be able to say that you have not taken sides and sanctioned editors from "both sides". Well, I resent being characterised as being from one "side". My interest is to achieve NPOV: not to edit articles to favour one side or another. Confronting POV does not mean one is pushing a different POV!) Mooretwin (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you change the text to something different than it was before, that would not be a revert, it would be "attempting to find a compromise". --El on ka 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:EW, "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". Therefore changing the text to a compromise version is considered to be a revert. Therefore I will not be able to change text to a compromise version under the sanction. Mooretwin (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! In fact, I seem to recall getting a block from WMC for this little understood interpretation in the past. My advice would be to get another opinion - Elonka's interpretation is certainly not shared by other admins. --HighKing (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll just play it safe. Mooretwin (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And there will be no more blocks from WMC! Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Though you be so wrong so often I award you........

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For promoting NPOV even when it wasn't clear what you were doing :) Sarah777 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring

You recently reverted an edit by BigDunc at Irish republicanism, with an edit summary of "Go to talk".[9] However, I note that you are not participating at the talkpage. In the future, when you revert an established editor, it is also incumbent upon you to explain the reasoning for your revert at the article talkpage. If you do any other drive-by reverts, this could be regarded as disruptive and uncivil. So please, work a bit harder to engage in discussion? Thanks, --El on ka 05:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:BRD? It's up to BigDunc to propose changes on the Talk Page. I resent your insinuation that I do not "work hard to engage in discussion". Go and look at Talk:Sinn Féin. BigDunc's revert is linked to the discussion there, in which I am heavily engaged, and of which BigDunc is aware. Please do not come here and make lazy accusations. Mooretwin (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I also note that you didn't even have the courtesy to respond to my point above about the meaning of a revert. Mooretwin (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

USC

Moretwin, since you've expressd an interest, I'm dropping you a note to say I've started work on re-structuring this article. Your input is welcome. Jdorney (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Mooretwin (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This could be another long slog, but we'll get there. In the meantime I've created a sandbox to wrok on User:Jdorney/Ulster Special Constabulary. Feel free to contribute comments/input if you see fit. Regards, Jdorney (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I admire your patience. Ulster Defence Regiment needs similar treatment. Mooretwin (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney is the editor who added the sentence you put the {{who}} tag on, maybe you should ask him before adding tag or did you just see that I made an edit and had to revert as obviously I couldn't add something you would agree with. BigDunc 22:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't care less who added the sentence. It's weasel wording: hence the tag. Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Fein

Howdy Mooretwin. I've been watching that article for weeks & I gotta say you've got guts. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire has managed to establish himself as an "honest-broker", but "compromising" between two unequal positions - on the one hand, the verifiable position that the current SF was formed when they in 1970; and on the other, the unsourced opinion of Dunc 'n' Domer (and Scolaire himself) that Official SF split from Provisional SF (!) (at least I think that's what they're trying to argue). This seems clearly to me to be against WP policy, but I'm a lone voice. Others appear to feel that appeasing Dunc 'n' Domer is worth the price of a less-than-satisfactory article. Mooretwin (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I had considered diving into that article discussion, but thought better of it. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Pity. These types of articles always benefit from wider input. Mooretwin (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, my knowledge of SF is quite limited. I've always known it as a political party that supported a terrorist group (IRA), in hopes of Ireland re-unification. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! To clarify, I'm not arguing that "Official" SF split from "Provisional" SF or that "Provisional" SF split from the "main" SF but that SF split into the "Official" and "Provisional" parties. I'm not going to say more here, any more than on my page or the SF talk page; just, as I say, to clarify. Scolaire (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Clear your cache

I Googled it and found this. It may be what you need, or it may not. Can't hurt to try. Scolaire (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Tried it. Still can't see BwB's comment. Mooretwin (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Football clubs

I see that you are on a sweep through football club articles, reverting the term "Northern Ireland" to "Northern Irish". I have no preference which term is used, but if you are reverting an established editor, it would be best if you included a citation at each article, to help clarify the matter. Thanks, --El on ka 23:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got it the wrong way round. It's BigDunc on the sweep (I brought this to your attention on Friday and there is a discussion on your talk page!). Citations on the talk pages where he has edit-warred. Mooretwin (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations would be more helpful in the article, than on the talkpage, thanks. --El on ka 00:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the clubs in question are Northern Irish. No more need for citations in these articles than any other football club articles. The ledes follow the manual of style for football clubs. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs. BigDunc has a political issue about the term, but there is no consensus to support his edits. Mooretwin (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

When information is challenged on an article, it should not be re-added unless sources are included which verify the information. If you have the sources, why not add the citations? --El on ka 00:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc is not challenging the information. For political reasons, he is challenging - generically - the use of the term "Northern Irish". This is the revival of a previous campaign by now-banned User:Vintagekits, which failed to achieve consensus that the term "Northern Irish" should not be used. The campaign is not specific to any of these articles. They sought to have the term removed from the main Northern Ireland article, and failed to achieve consensus. The infobox on that article lists "Northern Irish" as a demonym, with a source. There is no need to pander to disruptive editors pushing a campaign, and I am disappointed that you have come here to allege that I am "sweeping" through football articles to change what they say when, in fact, it is BigDunc (as a result of following my edits) who is doing just that, with no consensus for his changes. I sought your intervention to prevent edit-warring: not for you to ignore the disruptive editor and instead challenge me. Mooretwin (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason that you are being challenged, is because you appear to be edit-warring to insert unsourced information into controversial articles. For example, at Portadown F.C., I see no source for the term "Northern Irish". If you have a source, please add a citation to the article. If you do not have a source, you should not be adding controversial information to the article. Other editors can be held to the same standard: If they are edit-warring to insert information into an article, they had better have sources for what they are trying to insert. --El on ka 16:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No. First, the reason BigDunc is trying to change stable text is because he has a personal POV that the term "Northern Irish" is unacceptable. If you look at any football article you will not find a source for "French", "Scottish", "German", etc. Second, I am not edit-warring. I am abiding by WP:BRD and BigDunc is not. It seems that you prefer to chastise me than deal with BigDunc's POV campaign and his preparedness tp edit-war over it. Mooretwin (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not about BigDunc, this is about your own actions. So let me try to make this more clear: When information in an article is challenged, sources must be provided to verify that information. Revert-warring to put challenged information back into an article, when there are no sources to verify the challenged information, is disruptive. If you engage in any further edit-warring with an established editor, without providing a citation for the information that you are seeking to include (or re-include), your account access may be blocked for disruption and violation of WP:V. --El on ka 20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

With an "established editor"?? It seems that "established editors" are allowed to "revert-war" without being threatened with a block, but "revert-warring" with an "estabished editor" results in such a threat. What is your agenda here? You have deliberately chosen to ignore the substance of the issue that I brought to your attention (in order to prevent an edit war), and have instead chosen to side with the subject of the complaint and threaten the complainant. Quite incredible to be demanding that in-line citations be included to state the obvious. What next? A citation to show that B comes after A?Mooretwin (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ath-bhliain foai mhaise dhaoibh a chara.

Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Fein

Please fix the archive at Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 5 so that it is in sync with whatever you wanted to keep at Talk:Sinn Fein. Otherwise things are going to fork rapidly. --El on ka 17:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know how to do that. If you advise, though, I am willing to learn. (I don't know what "fork rapidly" means, by the way.) Mooretwin (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ARCHIVE. To archive a thread means to take a thread which has had no activity in some time, and move it to an archive page. The general rule of thumb is that a talkpage should be archived when it gets over 32K in size. The Sinn Fein talkpage had grown to over 260K. When I archived, I took all of the threads which had had no activity in a few weeks, and moved them to Talk:Sinn Féin/Archive 5. This shrunk the talkpage down to about 92K, which is still pretty big, but at least was more manageable. When you reverted me, it meant that you restored all of the old threads to Talk:Sinn Fein, but those threads are also still at Archive 5, meaning that the threads are now duplicated. This means that the next time anyone wishes to archive, it may become a tedious process to determine which threads have already been archived (at Archive 5), which haven't been archived yet and still need to be moved to Archive 5, and which threads may have had new comments added, meaning that the updated thread needs to be moved by hand to replace something that is already at Archive 5. Ultimately, I have no preference which threads are archived, as long as some effort is made to get the page down to a more manageable size (under 100K), rather than its current size of 272K and growing. Since things got a bit tangled from your revert, I'm fine on going in to fix it for now, or you can do it, I have no preference. Just let me know. --El on ka 18:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a go at fixing it. I've kept those discussions not relevant to the ongoing dispute at the Archive. Unfortunately, I see no option but to keep the Talk page big until such time as the dispute is resolved. Mooretwin (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There are other options. :) I'll take a look. --El on ka 19:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin McGuinness dispute

I would like to invite you to participate in a discussion over whether to use "deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" or "Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" in the infobox on Martin McGuinness, because that article's editing history shows you to be a major contributor. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Martin McGuinness#"deputy" vs "Deputy". HonouraryMix (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

'Republic of Ireland' on EU page

Hi there Mooretwin, a debate is currently in progress on the EU talk page concerning the use of either ‘Republic of Ireland’ or ‘Ireland’ to identify the state. As the page is clearly political and involves both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, I am arguing for ‘Republic of Ireland’ for reasons of clarity and common sense. However, all my arguments are falling on intransigently deaf ears. Perhaps you would care to take a look? The Spoorne (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That one's a losing battle, I'm afraid. There's less scope for ambiguity in the EU than, say, with [One]. Mooretwin (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent revert

Mooretwin, I am becoming increasingly concerned by your actions at the Sinn Fein article. For example, this most recent revert of yours,[10] it appears that you deleted not only information, but also associated sources. Further, you reverted the information saying it should be in a different article, but you didn't actually move it to another article. On the talkpage, you also seem to be going a bit overboard with generalized jabs at other editors. To best proceed in the future, I recommend that you:

Do not delete relevant reliable sources from an article
Keep comments on an article talkpage focused strictly on the article, and not on other editors.

And of course, you are still under probation per the Troubles case, along with the associated revert restrictions. Thanks, --El on ka 19:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked for your assistance (under the Arbcom Troubles remedy) with a dispute at History of Sinn Féin and you ignored me. Then you come here to scold me. This has to work both ways. Plus, the irony is that I actually agree with most of what Fear Eireann says, but reverted because there was no consensus. I also posted on the Talk page to explain why I reverted. (Most other editors revert only those edits they don't like and support non-consensus edits that they do like.) Mooretwin (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)