Warning: Three-revert rule on 2017 Stockholm attack. |
Apollo The Logician (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 11:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC) |
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 11:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
::What on earth are you talking about Thomas?[[User:Apollo The Logician|Apollo The Logician]] ([[User talk:Apollo The Logician#top|talk]]) 18:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:44, 9 April 2017
Category:Relations of those involved in the Irish revolutionary period has been nominated for discussion
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Category:Relations of those involved in the Irish revolutionary period, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —swpbT 18:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Blanking
You're correct regarding the blanking and templates. Apologies for that, my mistake. Canterbury Tail talk 18:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's fine.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hiberno-English
Hiberno-English is not spoken in Northern Ireland, the main English varieties is Mid-Ulster English. Northern_Ireland#Languages has a nice language map. Mabuska (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Mabuska:Mid-Ulster English is Hiberno-English. See Hiberno-English page.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- No it is not Hiberno-English, it is regarded by some as a sub-branch of it but it is not the same as the other dialects due to the heavy plantation and settlement influences.
- Also please revert The Troubles back to the stable version. I reverted a undiscussed controversial edit and you restored it. Escheated is the commonly used term and by definition means reverting to the state, in otherwords forfeited in this case per the terms of Surrender and Regrant. The fact those that fled in the Flight of Earls had been planning a new rebellion and thus fled Ireland upon its discovery meant that their titles and lands where forfeited/escheated under the terms of Surrender and Regrant. Call it stolen if you wish but that is a unsupportable POV. In fact as I reverted an IP unconstructive edit 1rr won't apply so I'll revert you now. Mabuska (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Mabuska:Mid-Ulster English is Hiberno-English. See Hiberno-English page.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- If that is not POV historical revisionism I dont know what is. One look at your user page shows you have an axe to grind on the subject.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please don't make spurious and unsupportable comments about other editors. There is no axe to grind. There is only reality. If you can prove via relible academic works that the land was "stolen" and that that is the most common term used to describe it then by all means provide it. Otherwise it is you purporting revisionism.
- On revisionism as far as I can see when it came to the 1918 general election of the eight border constituencies that became part of NI four where won by unionists, hardly a nationalist majority. And why the need to mention Londonderry? May as well state that Trinity College voted unionist but was cast aside in the free state. Mabuska (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- If that is not POV historical revisionism I dont know what is. One look at your user page shows you have an axe to grind on the subject.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
And on this axe you claim... part of my ancestry is of the Cenel nEoghain who where directly affected by the confiscation but you don't hear me complaining of my ancestors land being "stolen". Rather I'd bemoan Hugh O'Neill and his cohorts for abandoning their people. Mabuska (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sure that may be but your profile states you are a unionist so that is why I suspect bias.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- And your profile states you're a republican, so that could have a bias suspicion as well. Please comment on content, not users. Canterbury Tail talk 19:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- I know, if I were him I would suspect me of bias also. I did comment on content, I did both.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
If that is not POV historical revisionism I dont know what is. One look at your user page shows you have an axe to grind on the subject.
- not once did you comment on the content, but rather on the editor, i.e. me. Also do you have evidence that I my profile states I am a unionist or is that another attempt to smear and personally attack me by suggesting that makes me a suspect POV editor? The infobox on my page states I am a native citizen of Northern Ireland and has a picture of a Union Flag which last I checked was the de jure flag of Northern Ireland. The Alliance Party is not designated as a unionist party but many of its members and voters are proud natives of Northern Ireland and are happy enough with the Union Flag (in Belfast City Council they only had the flag days reduced to the same amount throughout the rest of the UK) without tagging themselves as unionists.- But I am happy enough to stand behind reliable and verifiable sources when commenting on article content. I would appreciate if you did the same before doing knee-jerk reverts and imposition of factually inaccurate and misleading unattributed statements. Then everyone would get along just fine. Mabuska (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I know, if I were him I would suspect me of bias also. I did comment on content, I did both.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- And your profile states you're a republican, so that could have a bias suspicion as well. Please comment on content, not users. Canterbury Tail talk 19:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sure that may be but your profile states you are a unionist so that is why I suspect bias.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Daly (Irish revolutionary), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IRB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
April 2017
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at 2017 Stockholm attack shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about Thomas?Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)