Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
==Help== |
==Help== |
||
Someone called Matthew hk is repeatedly vandalising pages that I have created, and then accusing ME of vandalism when I rectify them, and threatening to block me from editing. Is there anything I can do to resolve this? (The problem has arisen because the [[Irish First Division]] and [[Irish Second Division]] have become defunct and replaced by the [[IFA Championship]] and [[IFA Interim Intermediate League]], and so I redirected the former pages to the latter pages, and also updated the text to make the articles accurate and up-to-date. This Matthew hk character keeps undoing the redirects, and even deleting the text on the new pages. If you go to my Talk page you can see the messages he has left. Any advice you can give me is appreciated. [[User:Mooretwin|Mooretwin]] ([[User talk:Mooretwin|talk]]) 11:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC) |
Someone called Matthew hk is repeatedly vandalising pages that I have created, and then accusing ME of vandalism when I rectify them, and threatening to block me from editing. Is there anything I can do to resolve this? (The problem has arisen because the [[Irish First Division]] and [[Irish Second Division]] have become defunct and replaced by the [[IFA Championship]] and [[IFA Interim Intermediate League]], and so I redirected the former pages to the latter pages, and also updated the text to make the articles accurate and up-to-date. This Matthew hk character keeps undoing the redirects, and even deleting the text on the new pages. He won't engage in discussion, as he has ignored messages I have left on his talk page. If you go to my Talk page you can see the messages he has left. Any advice you can give me is appreciated. [[User:Mooretwin|Mooretwin]] ([[User talk:Mooretwin|talk]]) 11:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:26, 2 August 2008
Limited unblock request
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Traditional unionist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wish to submit to WP:AN/I on the issues surrounding this block in a few hours. I am requesting that the block be lifted so that I can do this on the understanding and condition that I will not edit the mainspace for the duration of the block subject to the discussion I intend to initiate.
Decline reason:
You do not indicate why this must happen now instead of after the expiration of your block. You also do not address the reason for your block. Page protected for abuse of the unblock template. — Sandstein 17:13, 18 July 2008 (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.
Hey TU. Be careful and watch 3RR there. While the editor involved is clearly being abusive and IP-hopping to boot, just be careful with the number of reverts you do before reporting the matter. I'm going to semi-prot the page for a short while just to be sure as they've been going up to their 3R limit and then switching IPs. Nobody's fooled :) - Alison ❤ 12:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't understand why the admin who dealt with it yesterday didn't do something more than say "now now, don't do that again". 3RR and blocking policy needs looking at. I'm gonna put something together on that soon.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You appear to have made some reverts lately on Eamonn McCann. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in blocking of accounts. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your warning was completely unnecessary. I was reverting vandalism, which I reported yesterday, but the admin who checked it saw fit only to warn the offending editor after a final warning had been issued. If 3RR applies to protecting WP from vandalism then we're in some trouble.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The three-revert rule applies to all reverts, except for a very limited number of exclusions. One of them is simple vandalism, which is one or more edits that any person who had just looked at the page would know immediately to be vandalism. (Examples: page-blanking, adding swearwords, etc.) This is not simple vandalism, and may not be vandalism at all. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alas, it is simple vandalism. You should not fall into the trap of believing that because it's northern ireland it must be a shade of Gray. Eamonn McCann was born in Northern Ireland, not Ireland. That is backed up by WP:MOS and WP:IMOS. The vandal was warned three times, then reported, then inexplicably warned AGAIN. The next day he was up to his tricks again. I was fully justified in reverting this vandalism. It was NOT a content disputeTraditional unionist (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm Irish, and I know the difference. I can see it is vandalism, an average American could not. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Then you know that this instance was simple vandalism and warning me for 3RR was inappropriate.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm Irish, and I know the difference. I can see it is vandalism, an average American could not. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alas, it is simple vandalism. You should not fall into the trap of believing that because it's northern ireland it must be a shade of Gray. Eamonn McCann was born in Northern Ireland, not Ireland. That is backed up by WP:MOS and WP:IMOS. The vandal was warned three times, then reported, then inexplicably warned AGAIN. The next day he was up to his tricks again. I was fully justified in reverting this vandalism. It was NOT a content disputeTraditional unionist (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- The three-revert rule applies to all reverts, except for a very limited number of exclusions. One of them is simple vandalism, which is one or more edits that any person who had just looked at the page would know immediately to be vandalism. (Examples: page-blanking, adding swearwords, etc.) This is not simple vandalism, and may not be vandalism at all. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your warning was completely unnecessary. I was reverting vandalism, which I reported yesterday, but the admin who checked it saw fit only to warn the offending editor after a final warning had been issued. If 3RR applies to protecting WP from vandalism then we're in some trouble.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
← To be honest, Stifle, I can see TU's point here and my initial comment above reflects that. You're correct in that it's not simple vandalism, per your definition, but it is vandalism nonetheless. However ... WP:DTTR also applies and boilerplating TU in this instance was a tad unnecessary especially given that I'd already brought it to his attention - Alison ❤ 10:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Alison and I have one more point to make. The worst kind of vandalism is the one that is subtle because it does not get detected easily. If the Seigenthaler incident teaches us anything is that subtle vandalism is the one that damages Wikipedia the most. I was blocked without so much as the courtesy of a warning despite my long service, my record of civility, long standing vandalism fighting and up to this point a record without blocks of any kind. The block was imposed even though I proved on the talk page of the article Greek name that the edits of the IP scored 0 Google hits and despite the fact that the IP continued vandalizing the article as per WP:VAN: reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages Treating established editors this way is no way to run an encyclopedia and it is demoralising to all good faith editors who spend their time here to clean up the project only to get blocked as a reward. Reverting subtle vandalism should be rewarded not punished. Dr.K. (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have such an unblemished record which doesn't help me, but I agree with you!Traditional unionist (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Traditional unionist. Your username inspired me to suggest something else as well. Maybe we can form an editor's union where at least we can establish a few rights for good faith editors so we don't just get slapped with sanctions without discretion. Why then have human admins at all? Just load the WP:3RR regulations into a robotic software program and then the program can count to four and slap everyone involved. Counting to four is not difficult and this should be a simple program to write. If humans are to be involved we must expect more from them. Things like respect for editors' intentions, history, vandalism fighting record and of course they should be able to deal with the subtleties, nuances and different varieties of vandalism without drawing arbitrary lines in the sand etc. If they can't handle that then by all means bring on the robots! At leat we would know what to expect from them. If I knew a robot would handle the WP:3RR rule enforcement by counting to four do you seriously think I would have gone past three reverts? Robots would be safer for users if such human behaviour continues. By the way now I am completely demoralised after this ill considered sanction against me and I don't want to even check for vandalism anymore. By the way I apologise for the intrusion and I thank you for your hospitality on your talk page. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have such an unblemished record which doesn't help me, but I agree with you!Traditional unionist (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Alison and I have one more point to make. The worst kind of vandalism is the one that is subtle because it does not get detected easily. If the Seigenthaler incident teaches us anything is that subtle vandalism is the one that damages Wikipedia the most. I was blocked without so much as the courtesy of a warning despite my long service, my record of civility, long standing vandalism fighting and up to this point a record without blocks of any kind. The block was imposed even though I proved on the talk page of the article Greek name that the edits of the IP scored 0 Google hits and despite the fact that the IP continued vandalizing the article as per WP:VAN: reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages Treating established editors this way is no way to run an encyclopedia and it is demoralising to all good faith editors who spend their time here to clean up the project only to get blocked as a reward. Reverting subtle vandalism should be rewarded not punished. Dr.K. (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
Hi. As per GAA talk page, if you feel there is more to be gained from discussing or restating my apology in another forum, then I'm happy to do so. As stated, it wasn't my intent to suggest that your input was any less valuable than others. Just that we needed to focus on WP:CON. It was poorly put, but that was the intent. As you will have noted from the discussion (if the my note didn't distract from the actual content), I am on "the same side" as you in terms of ensuring context for why the GAA is perceived a nationalist org in certain NI communities. So I have to say that I don't think there is anything to be gained by sustaining any perceived conflict between us as editors. If you don't want to accept my apology, and instead want to put me on your mental "enemies list", then that's your prerogative. But I personally wouldn't understand it given that (as one of what appears to be a minority of Irish editors *not* bent on partisan editing) my attempts to temper nationalistic fervour has seen me labelled as a "unionist supporter" and "unpatriotic" by many. So, I personally wouldn't understand it. Guliolopez (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you're trying to garner consensus, accusing me of being unconctructive when I've made four edits, mostly to add sources, isn't the best way to go about it. Some others see themselves as the guardians of nationalist consensus on wikiepdia, I have no illusions that your're one of them, but treating me as the unionist equalivent is not helpful.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar
Thanks , however you didn't complete process , you may wish to edit my page again and replace the {{{1}}} with some text .Anyway thanks Gnevin (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I did but it didn't work.
You seem to have undone that good work though.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
UDR
Thank you for the warning. I did edit a reference in afterwards. All the information is contained in the regimental history. Perhaps I will add page numbers.
Judging by the comments made on the discussion page by some, registering a user name is not an advisable thing to do. Nor does engaging in discussion seem wise. There appears to be a general downer on Wikipedia on anything positive about the British Security forces in Northern Ireland. I've no wish to become a target for anyone's political or sectarian rhetoric.
Sources on councillors in Northern Ireland
Sadly, I've got nothing beyond ARK other than the results of Googling, which tend to be assorted council documents, press reports, polemics and occasional scholarly works. Fortunately, it seems that your discussion on my talk page proved rather more fruitful. Warofdreams talk 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Unionism in Ireland
I had a quick look over this by means of a copyedit and a few quick corrections and will have another go at it later when I've more time. Currently I'd say that it's way short of GA status, mainly due to the lack of references. There are also quite a few POV statements/labels such as
"traditionalist Democratic Unionist Party led by Ian Paisley, followed by the more moderate Ulster Unionist Party..."pluralist Conservative Party" who says the UUP are more moderate? Cite needed. Also the Conservatives are pluralist in what ways or according to who?
"A Unionist win is a virtual certainty in ten constituencies:" POV which could possibly be replaced with raw data showing Unionist vote share and/or lead over combined nationalist vote share. On that issue, the table showing overall Unionist vote share needs explanation as to which parties and groups are counted as Unionist.
"A power-sharing government between nationalists and unionists in 1974 was brought down by the Ulster Workers' Council Strike. Faulkner as a result lost the support of his party, where he was replaced as leader by Harry West," ??Hadn't Faulkner already been replaced as UUP leader by the time the UWC strike took place?
There are a few other style points: one which I didn't correct is capitalisation which is inconsistent throughout with unionist, Unionist, nationalist and Nationalist appearing interchangeably. There's more but those are just some initial thoughts. Valenciano (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Help
Someone called Matthew hk is repeatedly vandalising pages that I have created, and then accusing ME of vandalism when I rectify them, and threatening to block me from editing. Is there anything I can do to resolve this? (The problem has arisen because the Irish First Division and Irish Second Division have become defunct and replaced by the IFA Championship and IFA Interim Intermediate League, and so I redirected the former pages to the latter pages, and also updated the text to make the articles accurate and up-to-date. This Matthew hk character keeps undoing the redirects, and even deleting the text on the new pages. He won't engage in discussion, as he has ignored messages I have left on his talk page. If you go to my Talk page you can see the messages he has left. Any advice you can give me is appreciated. Mooretwin (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)