This page is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox. Don't forget to maximize!
Gaimhreadhan is taking an erratic long term wikibreak. He has very little time left.
"Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities." Jimbo Wales" Consequently, inappropriate text will typically be read but then deleted without comment perWP:CIVIL (except for the edit summary; my life is too short and there are better things to do than converse with unreconstructed and unapologetic trolls and dicks.)
Incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behaviour that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any threads with no replies in 365 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Bed and Breakfast. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Mwanner | Talk14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that we have already reached a modus vivendi over on your own talk page at Talk, Sir.
If I am wrong,it is rather academic since my request for page protection has now been acceded to (albeit with your version of Bed and breakfastwithout any external links whatsoever) since you serially reverted my edits (as did I yours and in ignorance of 3RR) after I made my request for temporary protection of only three external links (wry grin).
Nevertheless I do not wish your implied slur on my character to stand unchallenged on my talk page.
I will, therefore, rebut your allegations again here with a paraphrasing of what I wrote (rather more intemperately) there:
Please do not simply delete appropriate external links in Wikipedia, as has been done in Bed and Breakfast.
Please first discuss in the Discussion page of Bed and Breakfast why you think the specific links you personally have scheduled for removal (especially if you intend to delete all and any external links) do not conform to particular guidelines.
If you are a seasoned and valued contributor to Wikipedia you should know that it is better to reach a consensus before deleting material willy nilly.
For the avoidance of doubt I wish to clarify again that the two links I have added (one to DMOZ and one to privatestay.com) do not turn the Wikipedia Bed and Breakfast article into a mere directory of links and nor do I intend them for for advertising or self promotion and I find it offensive that some
contributors persistently ignore my clarifications in this respect.
I believe that there is a policy that one should assume good faith.
The two links I added are NOT inappropriate links and are NOT links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which I am affiliated, or links that exist only to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guidelines and for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate.
If you feel a particular link should be deleted from the article, then please discuss that specific
link (rather than links in general) on the article's Discussion page rather than spoiling other's efforts unilaterally. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Gaimhreadhan00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with a link to any genuine SI independence movement. I do question whether the link you have readded represents such. The image of a woman's bouncing breasts on the website makes it clear that this is someone's idea of a joke. The other images fail to dispel that impression. I think the whole page, if not a prank, is an advertisement for a book publisher. Please actually look at the website before readding.-gadfium01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice to look at a site before you jump to conclusions is appropriate, Gadfium, and one I always try to practice (especially in my professional life).
This is a multiple page site that has had a lot of effort expended on it. The jokes may not be to your taste or mine but it is NOT a pornographic or joke site.
If you actually read the text you will see that the bouncing breasts draw attention to the news item that women in Nelson (in the South Island) have the biggest breasts - not the clincher in a political argument, I agree, but please also look at the economic and health arguments for independence this site advances befoer you condemn it as being without merit - there are at least 4 separate pages you need to thoroughly read...
Yes, I did read that. I don't consider it authoritative. I also don't consider the website as evidence that a modern South Island independence movement exists. I think this is someone with a strange sense of humour and too much time on their hands. I'll suggest that more people consider the matter by asking at the Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board.-gadfium05:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not just insert the same links into a different article when there is clear consensus against them in the South Island Independence article. This is disruptive behaviour. If you think you have any case, please continue to discuss it at the talk page of that article. I also suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.-gadfium18:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gadfium, as an administrator yourself, you should know that the talk pages of separate articles are not linked.
I do not necessarily concede that a consensus was reached. A vote does not necessarily imply a consensus. (I think we're just beginning to realise that here in Ireland after a long and bloody millenium...)
Even if a consensus had been reached, that consensus was not necessarily binding on a different article's contents. Please play fair and according to the rules....Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you explain why you used the comment added "and member of the Security Council of the United Nations" on your recent edit on United Kingdom? Your edit appears to be wholly unrelated to the comment. Superficially it appears to be a case of vandalism with a bluffed a countrycomment line to attempt to mask this. Do you have any comments on this? Thanks. MarkThomas14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G'Day, Mark.
Appearances can be deceptive. I added "and member of the Security Council of the United Nations" because it is a factually correct and relevant statement. Why do you think it is not appropriate in the starting paragraph of the United Kingdom article?
I take the strongest possible exception to your allegation of vandalism. Please withdraw it.
I think you may be really referring to my excision of the incorrect categorisation of the UK as a single country. As its very title makes clear, the United Kingdom is a Union of countries (UK is a state composed of separate countries - NOT a single country with a unitary culture, banknotes or stamps and the previous reference (No 10's site) offered no support whatever for the contrary viewpoint!)Gaimhreadhan15:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sir, I believe it was. Some of my reasoning is expounded here and on the article's talk page. If you have a problem with the idea that the UK is (paradoxically or not) a country made up of distinct and ancient countries and a nation made up of distinct and ancient nations, then I would prefer that discussion takes place on that talk page rather than my talk page. Thanks for your anticipated co-operation in this matter...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment, actually, reviewing the edits, I apologise as I think I was getting a bit confused in the thick of it as to what edit you actually made! MarkThomas18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Was that a blue UN NPOV helmet Gaimhreadhan or a green one? :-) Anyway, you miss-spelled archipeligos. I think! Does it have an "e" in the end when it's plural? MarkThomas17:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically UN standard issue light blue (the irish Quartermasters haven't got any other colour left apart from the navy blue ones they got gifted by Securicor for escorting the money trucks) but with a kind of weird green (fungus growth) striped effect due to the number of years since I was last in uniform (wry smile).
I think you can have either spelling for the plural but the usage I've deployed is more usual in my neck of the woods (not too many Greeks in South Armagh and County Louth...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 17:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I was in the UN, I would demand pale purple. :-) I have to admit, you are more knowledgeable on Britain's overseas "posessions" than I am - never even heard of "BIOT" - sounds like a yoghurt. All goes to increase my respect for the nationalist and republican traditions. MarkThomas17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I used to be quite creative in my use of jurisdictions for some law suits. Scotland still has an extant law of promise (which neither of the Irish, nor any of the other British jurisdictions [possible exception of Pitcairn] still have) which I've used to successfully sue such entities as HMG and BP when they pleaded `no contract' due to `lack of consideration'.
BIOT is an acronym for British Indian Ocean Territories. You might know the largest atoll, Diego Garcia.
How are you today Gaimhreadhan? I have been following your contributions of late, because I enjoy them. You make Wikipedia a more entertaining place. MarkThomas11:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind and thoughtful of you to enquire, Sir. I'm quite lucky in that the oncology centre now has wireless access. However, it's a two edged sword 'cos the web can get quite addictive and it's not ideal in bed with your legs outstretched - I tend to get lower back pain.
I dont like the name of your new Category - its sounds unsuited and POV - have another other suggestions - maybe IRA Operations.--Vintagekits18:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is short and factual. We already have a categories for incidents where no loss of human life occurred such as Category:Provisional IRA actions Category:Provisional IRA actions
The map of the Chagos you restored is not clearer and not more detailed. Did you bother to check with geographical Sites? In a nation like the Chagos made up of Submerged reefs, superficial reefs and dry land (very little of the latter), it is of the utmost importance to illuustrate the difference between the three. A map with only black outlines (most of them geographically inaccurate) like the one you restored, can never be clear enough. With my map I have tried to illustrate the particular geographical condition of the Chagos archipelago.
Please check the image in high resolution.
Besides the map you restored doesn't even have the Owen Bank and has a question mark instead.
You could have checked well before removing my highly accurate map. We are supposed to improve the quality, not bring it down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohonu (talk • contribs) 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I did closely examine both maps before I reverted your change. I agree that `your' map would be the better one to have if you were the master of a Super Tanker with a draught exceeding 60 feet. Unfortunately, because of the detail, when presented as a thumbnail as you edited it, none of the captions or names were visible at all. For the lede I think the map with clear captions and without a dark blue background is better. However the article's talk page is really the place to be discussing this - not here.
I have now added 'your' map to the right of the long history section, changed the caption and enlarged it to the minimum size necessary to read anything.
Thanks also for providing the Maldivian mariner reference - I have now also corrected the syntax so it displays better in the footnotes...
One wee quibble: you tend to mark you edits as minor; if you feel strongly enough about them to come here to my talk page rather than discussing them on the article's talk page, I suggest you do not mark them as minor.
Thanks for your useful contributions in improving our article!
PS: You do realise that, because Owen Bank is dropping to the sea floor and sea levels are rising, many cartographic charts no longer show Owen as a bank at all because of it's extreme depth - hence the question mark?
You're welcome. Often I find with any article I've been editing for quite some time that it can be difficult to see the small problems that are staring you in the face. It's an article I think definitely needs further improvement, to push it over the line to GA or eventually FA class. Bearing that in mind it needs work on sourcing, given your obvious interest in the subject are there any particular books you can recommend? Ideally one that's quite neutral rather than gushing with praise for Collins, although I'm not limiting myself to just one book. Thanks. One Night In Hackney30315:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's rare that M inspired neutrality. I do have family documents which I could use. However, given the sensitivity of some of the material, our family have been reluctant to release them to outsiders. However, recent deaths may mean that the consensus and opposition within the family may have changed. If you can provide me with your bona fides, I could make a decision on whether to argue for their limited availability for research purposes. ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Privately held documents are no use for the article sadly, they need to be in the public domain. Regarding the edit, the earlier version wasn't particularly clear and seemed like redundant duplication, now I see it wasn't. One Night In Hackney30316:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give up fighting for your health! Each day brings us closer to a cure! To answer your questions: a) yes, although it's looked down upon unless it is obvious vandalism (try archiving them, see WP:ARCHIVE) and b) yes, again, but they don't have to respect it (but you can remove their posts per a). Personally I discourage both a) and b) but have seen users do it for many times (up to and including to myself :>).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply which I will take as authoritative since you are an admin I respect.
I'm already 22 months past my "sell-by-date" so nobody doubts my fighting spirit. I'm determined to have my birthday party with the wife and kids. I've got to go now 'cos the nurse wants her station back, but I'll try and e-mail you a proper thanks when I get out of here - that should be on 1 June 2007 at the latest. God bless! ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am really happy with your proposal. I feel it is definantly the right move for the article. Also, thank you for the note on my wall, I really appriciated your comment. Thanks for your work on the article, keep it up :) Greenboxed00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not agree that my change (2 characters) was covered by this policy:
"When a long comment has formatting errors, rendering it difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible." ?
If that does not cover my edit (made for the sake of clarity) do you not think that these do not cover the situtation:
"(WP:TPG)is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." or
"Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large."
Definitely not when this was the user's comment at the top of their talk page. It wasn't a long comment in the middle of a discussion thread with other users. However, you post here was wrongly formatted.[2] It should have gone under the existing post, which is now below it, or at the very least have been indented 4 colons so it is indented further than the existing post which is now below it (that post was indented 3 colons, but should actually have only been indented 2). Tyrenius02:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. I note that you have allowed the PIRA povs to strike-out and through and interleave MY user comments and votes as those belonging to a puppet without a whimper...
I've no problem with following rules - just so long as they are clear, transparent and enforced on all, Tyrenius.
However, presumably both you and I can both claim benefit of WP:IAR and plead "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them" (forced smile).
PS:There's no requirement to play nice but it still rankles that you have still not apologised for your consecutive 28 day block, Tyrenius. Do you ever admit when you're just plain wrong?...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 00:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These have all been archived now, so I'm not sure further discussion there will prove productive, however, if you have further evidence that may shed light on the situation, please feel free to start a new thread at WP:AN/I. Rockpocket02:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern in all this is to facilitate a better on-line encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with having a clear, consistent and pronounced world view - it may provide the motivation to beaver away and provide good and multiple sources for articles. The difficulty comes when particularly partisan editors do not even pay lip-service to attempting to achieve a representative balance of the various (competing) viewpoints; that type of conduct leads to subverting WP into a propaganda tool.
I need to know what the current state of play is with Vintagekits before I decide on further action/inaction. Is he currently on parole or subject to a one-revert policy? ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 03:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is currently on a week block. If you have evidence to clear up any uncertainty one way or the other about this issue, please provide it.Tyrenius04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally certain to criminal standards of proof. However, I see he now has a mentor, so I'll step back and see if there is any improvement in his attitude that assists in producing a better encyclopedia ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 00:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern. I have halved the size while I develop a sig that conforms to your reference...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 09:48, 27 June 2007 (NZT) ]
As long as the image isn't there and it conforms to the guideline, it's fine with me. I played with a number of drafts of mine before settling on how it is now...I actually liked an earlier one better, but it was so bold that it stood out way to much on talk pages. I guess I just didn't want to be that visible. AKRadeckiSpeaketh15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, it seems that Brixton Busters does not wish to confirm or deny that he is really a new editor, since he uses 303's old trick of just deleting comments he has no answer to that are left on his talk page: [3]
I do not wish to start WP's equivalent of a Witch Hunt (by alleging socketpuppetry) but please would someone inform me what is the correct forum/mechanism for airing my belief that Brixton Busters is not really a new editor (entitled to a certain degree of latitude and a greater degree of assuming good faith) but has, instead, recently edited on English Wikipedia using a user account not called "Brixton Busters"?
Sure users may have a right to vanish - but do they have a right to then re-appear and continue their old biassed editing agenda while their mates attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes by alleging that the re-appeared editor is a "new editor"?
Enough. Please drop this and leave BB alone. If you have genuine concerns about sockpuppetry and actual wrong-doing, then address that in the proper place. Other than that, please resume your quality editing and let the rest of us get back to business as well. AKRadeckiSpeaketh15:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than a week since I left that last comment.
You are an administrator, Radecki. I know this because you blocked me over classifying the Provisional IRA/SF as "Green Nazis" (although, being fair, you misunderstood that my comment was aimed at WP editors rather than the Green Nazi policies and slush funds that enable a continual string of new accounts to be created here and, therefore, a personal attack and/or breach of civility).
Don't you think it would be more helpful to actually answer my question?
Where is "the proper place"?
What is the correct forum/mechanism for airing my belief that Brixton Busters is not really a new editor (entitled to a certain degree of latitude and a greater degree of assuming good faith) but has, instead, recently edited on English Wikipedia using a user account not called "Brixton Busters"?
Thanks for both the hard information and for your personal opinion that I have a fixation on Brixton Busters.
I actually have a fixation on "Green Nazis" having their particular Propoganda pushed into an encyclopaedia to the exclusion of the majority and properly referenced point of view.
Brixton Busters is actually displaying the more academic and cool approach evidenced by his illustrious vanished predecessor; it's only occasionally that the mask slips.
I was quite amused by this example just placed on User talk:Brixton Busters (I particularly enjoyed the way the "we" was emphasised by being emboldened - it's so nice to have a sense of community and belonging...):
(deindent)As far as I can see, your signature is fine now, thanks for fixing it. I wish you could leave the other issue alone; as several people have said, it isn't going anywhere good. I also wish you could refrain from calling anybody "Green Nazis"; it is inflammatory and breaches Godwin's Law. Please be civil, it makes life so much easier. --John18:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice reference, John.
I'll cogitate for while.
My instant reaction is that these two words are the most concise reference to the Provisional IRA's political ethos, economic policies and revanchist tactics. However it does carry the downside that it makes the Provo's seem even more attractive soulmates to some of the more ignorant, but rich, Americans who have funded them over the years
Hi Gaimhreadhan, I'm going to pass this time. The row with Domer was the first bust-up I've had in a while (and to be honest that was more a matter of trying to build consensus with a wall). First in a while that is except for Sarah - but I think 30 odd editors agreeing that Sarah is uncivil is no case for me having to sign-up to a 1RR promise. I've never run past 3RR in any case, so its not going to be a problem. Regarding Sarah, since being exhausted by Domer I enforced my own personal mediation not to get riled up by her. --sony-youthpléigh21:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your call, Sony. I just thought it might be interesting to try something relatively new. As I understand the process, 1RR is not necessarily the sole or obvious remedy. Might be a very quick process if it would just be reasonable editors like yourself that would sign up - If I could wheedle you into re-considering (grin) ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 22:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current problem is far more wide-spread and needs much more agreement on approaches to the differences between British and Irish politics, nomenclature, symbols and history. I think a 1RR might be okay, and I'd be willing to support it, but along the following lines:
A "whole community" 1RR encforced on all aspects relating to British and Irish politics, based on a consensus agreed between a raft of British and Irish editors.
A British-Irish Manual of Style.
A British-Irish code of conduct.
A "Best Practice" for demands and responsibilities regarding referencing, use of language, approaches to consensus building, etc.
Community policing against divisive "campaigns" with structured mediation that halt the editing, work it out, and decide on enforced compromises.
An elected "admin council" for British-Irish matters, that are recongised as 'super admins' for British-Irish matters, maybe with two members from the Republic, two from the north (1 unionist, 1 nationalist), two from the UK, and two "neutrals" (preferably continental European, in my experience other Anglophones tend to have hard British or Irish sympathies).
On its own I think a 1RR will just melt down, although the proposal itself would seem like a indication of good will. We need structures to make sure things don't go nuclear as they have in the past. --sony-youthpléigh10:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur.
However, as I understand CEM, it is a relatively new and experimental procedure and perhaps we may be able to break new ground with your thoughtful and well-laid out proposals. There may also be reeady-made reservoir of experienced and neutral arbitrators, there? Perhaps you would consider starting an essay page to flesh out your proposals - then they could be discussed on the accompanying "article" talk page. Thanks again for your erudite contribution!...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 10:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I would find helpful on "use of language", Sony, is a list of words on "both sides" that one should not use ever or only use in certain contexts. Several times I seem to have inflamed people on the "other side" not deliberately but through misunderstanding the connotation of certain phrases or national-related words that are considered very negatively by a particular community. This would be helpful for all concerned. Thanks. MarkThomas10:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a very helpful and constructive suggestion. Maybe you could co-operate with Sony on his essay?...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 10:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gaimhreadhan. I'm a little unclear as to what I'm being asked to sign up to. Is this in relation to a particular article or issue? Also, the WP:CEM seems to suggest that its only open to requests involving two editors at a time? I'm not in dispute with anyone at the moment (discussion, yes, but not dispute). Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the article does presently refer only to 2 editors, but if I have understood SirFozzie correctly he thinks that we may be able to expand this into a multilateral procedure and also develop a way to resolve some of the interminable and lengthy "discussions" that take place on Irish-connected articles without recourse to some of the coarser, blunter, more bureaucratic and ancient procedures. I realise that I may be regarded as one of the sinners, but the fact that SirFozzie himself has signed up for it might indicate that it may be a useful and educational procedure. Or I may have misunderstood him completely - (wan smile). Might be best to e-mail him in case I've got completely the wrong end of the stick...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 22:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think many of the things mentioned above by Sony-youth would be good and useful, can't tell from reading the CEM notes if we could introduce instruments like that. Doesn't all this point a glaring finger at the basic weakness of WP though? That when a small determined group of ultra-POV editors "storm" articles, and use all kinds of trickery and distortion to gull passing admins, that nothing can really be done about it unless completely dedicated admins spend dozens of hours reading all the close-in text points and swatting the incivil? I'm not sure myself that anything can really help other than tough and focused admin action in these cases, which is invarianly not available, admins being human and having limited time. So the net result is the sort of increasingly locked up, neutralised or battle-ground segments of WP we have for contested zones like the Ireland/Britain articles. I can't see it getting any better, although there are signs that when admins take a concerted interest in puts off some of the more persistent cases. I'm happy to try the CEM route but fear it won't have much impact on the really determined troopers. :-) MarkThomas10:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the course of my last couple of weeks on wikipedia, I have started to associate users with "This user is a citizen of Ireland" on their userpage as terrorist-sympathisers, POV-pushers and trolls. However, I am intrigued that you seem not to be that way inclined. In fact you seem to have been given quite a tough time by the aforementioned and their buddies.
Are you an example of your average, easy-going, fair-minded Irishmen. Or are you a rare breed? Biofoundationsoflanguage17:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is actually one of the nicest editors on WP, when he's not being banned for getting in a (usually very short-lived) stew! That's one heck of a name you've got yourself there by the way Biofoundationsoflanguage. MarkThomas17:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! My cousin told me he was attending a lecture on the biofoundations of language and I thought that it'd make a great wiki username. I actually know very little more about language that what I speak. Looking over his talkpage I can tell that he's a genuinely nice chap and yet his treatment is far from nice. Things like that make me lose what little faith I have in the wikipedia project. Biofoundationsoflanguage18:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in the course of the last few weeks, I have started to associate users who call a broad class of editors as "terrorist-sympathisers, POV-pushers and trolls" as POV-Pushers and trolls. Funny how that turns out.. SirFozzie17:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna touch that with a ten foot pole Mark, except to say that generalizing editors.. ESPECIALLY with the phrases above is a REEEEAALLY bad idea. I do agree that at least some editors on both side have been happily feeding the fire.. Hopefully, my job will be to try to put out the fire, or at least to try to tamp down the fire, and keep editors from both sides from throwing kerosene on it in the near future. Makes me remember the old definition of diplomacy.. ;) SirFozzie17:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think the former but my family biographies would probably indicate the latter. Seriously, though, most people take the easy route and mass opinion can change very quickly. At the moment it is only a (significant) minority of irish that would uncritically support the Provisional Sinn Fein PoV or support them electorally. You might draw a parallel with Germany in 1929 when support for the (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparteiⓘ was similarly limited. However, after a masterful propaganda campaign and with a charismatic leader those rather non-Green people achieved electoral success four years later. That party was a disaster for the Germans and the World. The Provos are not in the same league but there are certain lessons to be drawn.
Of course I could be wrong, but I believe the intention of both SirFozzie and I was to limit (at least the first CEM process) to editors that contribute to irish themed articles/tensions.[4].
Since you have already signed up, you are, of course, very welcome to use the agreed wording[5] to invite anyone else you think would find the experimental CEM productive...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 10:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You removed a reference to the Drew Carey show, but left this in a different section:
Joe Hill's song "The Preacher and the Slave" includes a reference to a group called the "Starvation Army", who perform music and solicit donations but offer the poor only promises of "pie in the sky when you die."
Why is the Drew cary inappropriate for the type of institution, yet this is OK? I'm not sure I understand the difference. Perhaps you didn't see this one. Let me know. Cheers!--WPaulB21:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are probably aware that it was neither I that contributed your quote and neither did I examine the music section when I made my excision. Now I look at your quote I think it does marginally qualify to remain included as a properly referenced (minority?) point of view, but heh, I'm not the arbiter of good taste so feel free to do what you think is appropriate according to our policies. God bless!...Gaimhreadhan • 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciated and am grateful for the time, attention and thoughtfulness you put into this (having lived in Deutschland for some decades, my Englisch has deteriorated accordingly). On the point you raised re. "Service - not self", better wording? this is the Legion's motto whose journal he last edited and was associated with. Greetings Osioni18:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How nice to get a compliment for once! I really must spend more time away from the border battlefields (wan smile). It's a lovely article - why don't you get someone to review it for "Good Article" status?...Gaimhreadhan • 18:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the suggestion, I also feel it deserves GA rating, but find the Wiki an unending maze where I would not know where to begin to apply for someone to review it (I have tried but responses led nowhere) Who can help with a suggestion ? By the way, my impression is that administrators like their work cause they seemingly enjoy the bashings !! Osioni20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other matter I came about is the use of speedy deletion. Speedy is only for unquestionable cases, and only within the limits stated as WP:CSD, If the article makes an assertion of importance, whether sufficient or insufficient, it does not fall under speedy A7. If the content is what is under dispute, it certainly does not fall into speedy, which is the rough equivalent of an ex parte action. For other deletions, when the article has apparently been abandoned, WP:PROD is the suitable method, so I changed the speedy on Gerak Khas to a prod. It gets deleted in 5 days if nobody objects. If they do, it is up to you to follow it and send it to AfD if you want to contest it (for an deletion that will be contested, it's simpler to send it to AfD in the first place). DGG (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up, David; I'm a bit of an inclusionist and it's rare that I nominate stuff for deletion - hence my incompetence...
The only Gerak Khas I know is a Malaysian SAS style military unit - I think it was the article Clayton Jacobsen II that I nominated for deletion.
I suppose that if I was in a provisonal frame of mind I could always
Delete the unreferenced first paragraph as unsourced
Delete the second (and sole remaining) unreferenced paragraph as unsourced
Delete all the categories as inappropriate for an article with no content
Nominate the article for speedy deletion as having zero content
Ok, this edit is one step too far. I've been watching this from the sidelines for some time and you've been repeatedly asked to drop it regarding this new editor and ONiH. User:Brixton Busters is not Hackney. This is now heading towards the whole area of WP:POINT and harassment. You've been repeatedly warned about this. Consider this your last warning - Alison☺20:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you're from the old sod so I'll assume you have insider knowledge that you are not free to e-mail me about. It's a pity BB could not issue the same simple and emphatic denial (in General terms) that you have for himself but, never mind, I'll go and strike through the edit you complain about...Gaimhreadhan • 21:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not about your edit, it's about your single-minded obsession with an editor who has now left the project. Unfortunately, this fixation is spilling over and other editors are being harassed in your pointless quest. You need to get over it and move on. Seriously. - Alison☺21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you say, Alison. I, of course have a different opinion expressed in the 4th paragraph of the section above entitled "User talk:Tyrenius". Enjoy the California sunshine and pity us...Gaimhreadhan • 21:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious on a technical level Alison - how can you be so certain? Or are you just speaking Wikipedian? My opinion is that the system as it stands is so full of holes that any competent person can run multiple accounts. MarkThomas09:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I doubt we'll see a concrete reply from Alison, MarkThomas, for a number of reasons. These reasons may include:
She may not be monitoring my user page - she is a very busy admin and she has just come back from holiday in Ireland
Her strong position may just be a gut feeling or opinion rather than verifiable fact
She may not wish to reveal her sources and/or close connections
She may not wish to pour petrol on the flames
and there again I could be entirely wrong and up she'll pop...)
...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 10:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we're just in the realms of intuition here. Likewise I have a strong "intuition" that at least some multiples of the Green Police are controlled by a single human being, but at least I don't class that hunch as a certainty! MarkThomas13:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seriously busy both on and off wiki. Look, I've known ONiH for a very long time now & I know him a whole lot better than you. I contacted him privately and he has vehemently assured me that he is not Brixton Busters. Not only that, but the editing style, interests and on-line time for both editors is quite different. WP:DUCK and all that. However, all that aside, you are still continuing in your campaign against this editor and that's totally unacceptable. I don't need "sources" or "gut feeling" to understand that. It's not on & you've been warned about it again and again. Up I pop, as you say - Alison☺19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please incrementally indent your comments, Alison, so that we can better follow the thread.
There's no easy way to put this: You are completely and utterly wrong about a campaign of harassment - by me.
You might just as easily say that I am being harassed and Wikipedia is being disrupted by the dogged reluctance of my alleged victim to put the record straight. If he can do that in e-mails to sympathetic admins, such as yourself, why can't he do the decent thing and make a one line reply to our whole community.
Now if you want to do something useful, warn the editors that keep raising this issue (yourself included) not to mention this subject again - if you actually examine my so-called campaign (forensically - it's not a quick or slapdash thing to do) you will see that I only ever respond to editors that keep addressing me on the subject!
Now my final low blow is to say that the Duck analogy works both ways. It convinces you one way and me the other; the most convincing thing for me is the simple lack of denial when BB wants to avoid an issue.
That issue for me is not whether BB is your GN returned but whether BB is a new editor who has not edited on WP before and, consequently, whether he is entitled to more latitude than the experienced editor he has shown himself to be....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
He may not be 303 but you only have to look at his opening edits to see a highly experienced WP hack at work. Shame there isn't a more rigorous process for this really. MarkThomas19:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, Dr Sony! How are you getting on with jotting "something up" "on approaches to the differences between British and Irish politics, nomenclature, symbols and history" ?
Thanks for that support of my patriality and good taste, BaStun not BaTsun. Nice to see you keeping an eye on my thieving tendencies here and God bless!...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 10:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was very kind of you and a very prompt response to my wheedling - I've changed it a wee bit to add a reference to Heterosis in the "Allsort" part of "Liquorice Allsort" just to balance up my Green Nazi image since I found that I was too far left and libertarian on the political compass scale test to be a convincing PoV Warrior. Now if I can just get my signature up to scratch...Gaimhreadhan • 10:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. Glad you liked it - feel free to mess around as your wish! Just a note about your sig testing bits - don't put an image in it! They're disallowed under WP:SIG. Cheers, see you round the 'pedia! Pedro | Chat 10:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly why I was experimenting, but my experiment failed 'cos my code was too long to be saved in the relevant box in my "user preferences". I'm too much of a dummy to know how to shorten the code here...Gaimhreadhan • 10:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try getting rid of the &backspaces and use a typed space, also you can shorten the hex code to three characters rather than six for the colours - You need to get it under 255 characters if memory serves. Pedro | Chat 11:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best I've been able to come up with short of a long session of boning up on HTML - many thanks for the pointers and please remind me to support your application for mop and bucket status when it is made...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 14:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are too kind! Might be a problem with WP:CANVASS though! As to the sig. Looks okay in both IE and Firefox - only think is that if you're not going to link to your user page I'd link your username to you talk page as well (if you have enough characters left) Pedro | Chat 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have enough characters left to link my user page; however, by a strange quirk, it is only on this my user talk page that the green box end of my sig does not link to this, my user talk page. on other user's talk pages the link does work...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a quirk. You can't wikilink a talk page when you're already on it. The software will ignore the link. Go to my talk page and you'll see the "chat" part of my sig doesn't work there either!!! Cheers!! Pedro | Chat 18:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I upsurped the username Padraig since Saturday 21st July, so any posts made prior to that will still show as Padraig3uk, but my user page and contributions are all now moved to Padraig.--padraig22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's all getting rather Jesuitical. I think your defence is adequate and reflects my position too. I better go and take my medicine...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 13:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Titanomachy; a wonderful picture which comes from the National Gallery of Art, Copenhagen and is one of the best pictures there (despite being heavily over-restored). This picture has previously been thought to refer to Satan and the losing angels being cast down after the War of Heaven; it knocks a similar picture by Pieter Bruegel the Elder into a cocked hat (and notice the use of butterflies in both). Although at first sight it looks like a gay orgy (especially with those moustaches), see how the composition draws you into the picture, creating a sense of light and space. That fellow in the bottom right hand corner looks as though he's going to have his eye put out by his neighbour!
You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment. Thank you, Bastun, for the apposite reminder of this fabulous, allegorical painting - it's brightened my day in more senses than one. Now I need to excise my signature so as not to upset the colour balance...Gaimhreadhan • 09:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is adding the Ulster Banner to Template:Northern Ireland cities removing the Assembly logo from List of Northern Irish flags adding the Ulster Banner to United Kingdom in the symbols and adminstrative areas, adding the Ulster Banner to the list of Current National flags in List of British flags appropriate edits to you, this is what User:Astrotrain is doing. The Ulster Banner is not a National Flag and never was and it is not a current flag being defunct for 34 yrs. This is a encyclopedia it is suppose to educate people, not give them false information because certain editors want to push a political POV. I have ask them to provide a source to support their claims and they can't, because all sources discredit their argument, therefore they edit war, which is very disruptive. Maybe if some of the other editors tried to prevent them from doing this we might be able to implement the CEM idea.--padraig10:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I deprecate the fact that neither of you ever showed willingness to engage by signing up for the CEM. However, I am not an administrator and it is not for me to pass judgement on either your behaviour or that of other editors.
I sympathise with your desire to improve WP by adequately referencing articles, Padraig, but you are missing some valid reasons for featuring the Ulster banner in the appropriate place in WP.
A country does not necessarily cease to exist because the government is prorogued, overthrown, subverted or changed. Countries are constructed by people's feelings. If people feel that they have a national banner then they do. And if it is in common use, then Wikipedia can not ignore it as a de facto national flag. (I think we are all agreed that none of the common national flags of the UK are de jure. Equally other people may feel that it is not their country, emotionally, and that a particular banner is not representative of them). WP should, in a balanced way, make both your points and Astrotrain's - the difficulty, as ever, is finding the right balance and I can only encourage you all to use the article's talk pages to achieve that consensual balance. I know it can be tedious, but the alternatives may be worse!
If people travel through the northern parts of ireland they will see both the Ulster Banner and the Palestinian flags flown. Our encyclopaedia needs to explain why.
Transdniestr and an independent Kurdistan are not formally recognised by any sovereign state - that does not mean that we should not feature their respective flags...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 10:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I didn't sign up is because when I ask for the process to be explained how it would work in cases involving more then two editors, no one was able or willing to explain it, I am two old to start breaking the habit of a life time by putting my name to something without understanding exactly what is involved. Should any editor want to put the proposal down in writing so we can discuss the issue, I am more then willing to be involved.
As for the flag issue, if you go into any nationalist area you will see Tricolours which is used by the nationalist community to identify themselves and its useage is just as much as the Ulster Banner in Unionist areas, therefore both flags could be claimed as de facto. On the Issue of your claim that none of the UK Nation flags have status that is not correct, the British government recognises the Scottish, Welsh and English flags, also the Scottish assembly passed law the other day to give the Scottish people the right to use the Scottish flag in everyday use to represent Scotland.--padraig11:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you are very cautious in signing up for something that was so poorly defined, however you could have made a leap of faith and also done some work in drafting an outline of a procedure you would have been prepared to support and commit to.
I had an interesting conversation with Lyon, King of Arms some years ago in which he made clear that use of the Scottish Saltire (as opposed to the red lion on a yellow ground) was available to all without restriction. This was in the context of a proposed Scottish Passport that had been mooted as a private enterprise by one of my clients. Do you have a reference for asserting official approval for the St George's Cross? You're very welcome to try and get the Irish Tricolour or the Palestine flags categorised as additional de facto "National flags" of Northern Ireland but I fear you'll meet strong resistance on, at least, vexological grounds of non-distinctiveness. That's why there is an additional emblem in the middle of the tricolour of Moldova. Now you'll excuse me. Padraig, I'm still not feeling too well today...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 12:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try and be patient and keep using the article discussion pages to achieve a consensus for improving our Encyclopaedia.
Beware of administrators that have particular protegés who go running to them falsely alleging personal attacks and harassment like snitching schoolboys, when those editors can not succeed in introducing a strong and minority bias into our pages by persuasive argument or authoritative references.
Don't use any phrase that will encapsulate a persistent minority PoV as bearing a marked similarity to a 20th Century political party ably served by Dr Goebels. It just inflames the discussion and will get you banned - even though there is no overt WP policy justification for banning editors characterising political parties (as opposed to characterising individual Wikipedia editors) as "GN"....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 13:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put together two proposals User:Padraig/Sandbox5 and User:Padraig/Sandbox6 but as you will see from the Talk:Northern Ireland page I am up against some editors that just want to have the Ulster Banner, even it's a defunct flag and doesn't represent Northern Ireland today. I sometimes wonder if this is worth all the trouble, when editors ignore facts and just want to push a POV in articles.--padraig
I've already made a few copyedits there - hope you don't mind?
Maybe a leap of faith and ask some of the editors that posted in previous sections above to review your hard work and make constructive and co-operative suggestions for improvement in your sandbox areas' discussion pages? (Maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised...)
And now a few anodyne comments so that I keep my UN helmet:-
Try and be patient and keep using the article discussion pages to achieve a consensus for improving our Encyclopaedia.
Beware of administrators that have particular protégés who go running to them falsely alleging personal attacks and harassment like snitching schoolboys, when those editors can not succeed in introducing a strong and minority bias into our pages by persuasive argument or authoritative references.
Don't use any phrase that will encapsulate a persistent minority PoV as bearing a marked similarity to a 20th Century political party ably served by Dr Goebels. It just inflames the discussion and will get you banned - even though there is no overt WP policy justification for banning editors characterising political parties (as opposed to characterising individual Wikipedia editors) as "GN"...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked John to look into this List of British flags where Astrotrain and Biofoundationsoflanguage are edit warring adding POV, yet nothing is done, if the admins aren't prepared to stop this behaviour there is no hope of ending the edit wars and Astrotrain has twice accused me of deleting sourced material or sources yet when I challenged him to show where this happened he wasn't able to do so. I think we may as well go to arbcom or whatever it called and get this sorted.--padraig18:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with your frustration, Padraig, but sometimes things may not be what they seem. It may be that John has taken the e-mail route to sort things out, it may be that your timescale for effective action is shorter than his. Keep on as you are by keeping your cool and complaining about behaviour rather than the editor's character. Bear in mind that not everyone sometimes sees the nuances and subtleties that you see as immediately obvious. It can be very tedious and time consuming for an admin going back through all of a prolific editor's contributions. That's why diffs can help assist your plea for effective action - please try and be fair in the diffs you use and don't take them out of context. Finally, don't take things too much to heart - there's a world away from WP and our families need us too. God bless!...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of "infallible admins like Tyrenious and Alison" seems uncivil and unlikely to advance the goals of the project. Will you amend it please? John
Yes. I'll strike it through.
I also find your talk page header "...until Tyrenius returns when it may well become permanent" to be unhelpful. If you continue to have a problem with Tyrenius it may be better to respond to his unanswered questions above or else to move on from the bad feelings you have. Either would be an honourable course of action to take. Continuing to carry this grievance around without taking action about it may well diminish your standing in the community or even lead to further action on my part. Best wishes to you, and thanks for the main content of the post I flagged up, which was positive. --John19:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No.
I have no standing in the community because of Tyrenious's and Alison's hounding and bullying and :I think that they (it) should recuse themselves (itself) from editing my talk pages or resign their (its) adminship and I will then welcome them(it) to my talk page on the same footing as any other Wikipedian. They can't (I shouldn't be banned) for posting on another protégé's talk page and then expect to ignore their own hypocritical advice not to post in user space when they have been repeatedly warned and asked not to. I should imagine it's a toss up who gets me first anyway, A&T or the grim reaper so the "problem" will resolve itself very shortly...
Finally, I have been wasting my valuable time composing an exhaustive (and exhausting) response "to his unanswered questions above" and, if and when it's completed, I'll post it on Tyrenious's user talk page.
At that point it can either retract and apologise or I will take appropriate measures, God willing.
Until then, if either Alison or Tyrenious post here again, I will remove the entire section that includes any previously undeleted comments of theirs (its). Their (Its) behaviour is completely unacceptable.
Uncivil comments have no place on this project. Alison has never said nor implied that she is infallible, and I know that she doesn't believe she is. Please consider why we ask everyone to be civil... and removing comments you don't like from your talk page re-enforces your incivility, really. --Deskana(banana)19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are partially correct. I was going to use a less civil epithet but thought it inappropriate (if accurate) on VK's talk page.
Now unless you've been lurking here for half a year, you really don't want to waste your valuable time by spending a week reading through the relevant comments by A&T and I that prompted these rather extreme attempts not to rise to provocation.
Update: Via e-mail clarification, I have come to the conclusion I was wrong about Alison.
I have already apologised to Alison for my unjustified remarks by e-mail and
I apologise unreservedly and publicly to Alison for my unjustified slur on her character and reputation. I was wrong about her!
Admins have a difficult and thankless task and often insufficient time to read the history and context of edits. None of us should jump to conclusion about their actions and we should assume good faith until and unless it becomes impossible.
For the avoidance of doubt:
Until and unless Tyrenious apologises and retracts its mendacious and illogical comments I will regard any post by it here as further harassment and goading. It knows that I monitor Tyrenious's user and user talk pages and if it genuinely wishes to communicate, rather than grandstand and bully, it has my e-mail address too.
I have never received an e-mail from Tyrenious and W. Frank has also publicly stated the same
The use of the gender neutral pronoun "it" after my strike-thru's above is not intended to be insulting or derogatory; if Tyrenious wishes to declare its gender or pronoun preference I will, of course, be able to use more common pronouns.
For the avoidance of doubt: I've been asked to review some of your posts and actions by another editor. I haven't really dug into some of the deeper issues here (and I can see there are quite a few) but one thing jumps out at me right away... using "it" to refer to a human is incivil and insulting. There are many gender neutral constructions you can use (he/she or they, or always refer by name), which are not insulting. I strongly suggest you discontinue this usage immediately. If you continue you are being deliberately insulting, which is unacceptable behaviour here. ++Lar: t/c10:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G'Day Lar! Dark Tea inadvertently pointed the way forward in his post here this morning [7]. Feel free to make any appropriate changes that do not change the meaning. It's a pity that the subject of all this anguish has chosen not to clarify things by e-mail - I do deprecate that as disruptive of both your time and mine, since it would be a very quick thing for her/him to clarify her/his preference for pronoun useage and then we could all move on to more productive concerns...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 10:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, Gaimhreadhan, a man (or indeed woman) with your obviously firm grasp of the English language can do better than that! I've been monitoring your edits for a while now and impressed with your efforts to calm things down in what is a challenging situation for everyone. However, this sort of game playing detracts from your efforts. I really don't know what you beef is with Tyrenius and/or Alison, but for whatever reason he (or she) clearly doesn't wish to discuss it further. There are mechanisms through which you can persue this (WP:RfC, for example), but calling him or her "it" is really quite incivil. Please amend this, be the bigger man (or woman) and move forward rather than let past disagreements marr you current good work. Rockpocket18:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, you're right, Rockpocket!
I've just amended my user page to state quite clearly I'm male. It took me a bit longer than 130 seconds because I amended a userbox.
My name (or different spellings of it) has been handed down for more than a thousand years (since 976 to be precise) and one tends to forget that it doesn't automatically sex one. Now had anybody ever queried that before I could have instantly responded in a variety of ways:
ignored them and anyone else querying my gender for ever - I wouldn't have been surprised, however if, after endless speculation and a resolute silence folks started wondering just what it was I had to hide. In this case I might also have had some fun and games by refusing to clarify whether I preferred to give people repetitive strain syndrome (typing g-a-i-m-h-r-e-a-d-h-a-n is bad enough) without actually specifying that I must for ever be referred to as he/she, her/him and made a BIG fuss in closed fora if anyone dared deviate from my secret wishes. (Obviously I'd get all my mates to be vigilant too).
ignored them and anyone else querying my gender for ever - I wouldn't have been surprised, however if, after endless speculation and a resolute silence folks started wondering just what it was I had to hide. In this case I might have had some fun and games by clarifying that I must for ever be referred to as he/she, her/him and made a BIG fuss in closed fora if anyone dared deviate from my publicly expressed wishes. (Obviously I'd get all my mates to be vigilant too).
answered them and anyone else querying my gender immediately. I wouldn't have been surprised, however if folks started wondering just what it was I had to hide. In this case I might have been relatively straightforward and foregone the fun and games by clarifying that I must for ever be referred to as he/she, her/him and made a BIG fuss in closed fora if anyone dared deviate from my publicly expressed wishes. (Obviously I'd get all my mates to be vigilant too).
answered them and anyone else querying my gender immediately. I wouldn't have been surprised, however if folks started wondering just what it was I had to hide if I said I didn't want to specify any desired pronoun or ever clarify my gender. I might or might not have made a BIG fuss in closed fora if anyone dared deviate from my publicly expressed wishes. (Obviously I also have the choice in this scenario of getting all my mates to be vigilant too).
answered them and anyone else querying my gender immediately. I'd just state my gender - no big deal. Boring. No one would have been surprised and no more fun and games. Of course I would still have the option of making a BIG fuss in closed fora if anyone dared deviate from my publicly expressed wishes and called me a him when I said I was a her. (Obviously I also have the choice in this scenario of getting all my mates to be vigilant too for this type of offensive personal attack)
There are a few other permutations, but you get the picture, Rock.
I genuinely believe that it's not me that's playing games here. The subject of our discussion has chosen not to comment and that is her/his/its/their right.
I have no "beef" with Alison at all. She promptly did the decent thing - e-mailed me. I could instantly see that I had misunderstood her stance and motivation and I issued a big, fat, red, unequivocal apology.
These strike thru's were not motivated by a desire to have a dig at any one. This was the context
and while I'm in nitpicking mode there has been no genuine discussion with Tyrenious about the issue of gender or more substantive issues. Tyrenious is anything but stupid and knows clearly the way forward. Tyrenious knows that I am bound by confidentiality in matters that concern past or present clients and/or former employers. Gadfium knows my identity (and that of W. Frank) - but then he agreed to surrender his anonymity so that I could properly brief him on a privileged basis.
After a thousand years of persistent hammering away, there's not a rock bigger than a football on our family farm. (Things speeded up a bit after 1924 with all that redundant jelly knocking around in the barn).
The subject of my little hypothesis knows that he/she/it/they just have to continue this wind-up for long enough and he/she/it/they can step in with a permanent block. 'Course he/she/it/they won't use their account for that part of the plan. A bit too obvious that.
Now this is my e-mail address if anyone (preferably the subject of this hypothetical discussion) wishes to clarify the best choice of pronoun: Gaimhreadhan[at]gmail[dot]com
Lastly, this rigorous and stubborn approach by me all looks, at first blush, very tedious and uncivil but there are instant ways to stop it (other than acceding to the game-playing agenda of banning me for ever). There could be a policy ruling that where a user chooses not to specify a gender they be called - what?
It?
Do we even have to declare that we are human? We could be a machine intelligence couldn't we? after all this isn't Citizendium you know.
Low blow to an admin I actually respect greatly in many ways:
A maximum of 9 characters by the subject of this discussion would resolve all this nonsense:
I understand your point, but irrespective of what went on in the past, goading Tyrenious in this manner will not resolve the issue to your liking. I, and others, have an issue with editors referring to others as "it". If you are desperate for a specific pronoun, my advice to you is to refer to Tyrenious as a "he" (on the rationale that males appears to outnumber female on Wikipedia) and if he has an issue with that he will let you know. I find it disappointing that you would rather grandstand in response than acknowledge a simple civility request from three other editors. If you don't wish to change it yourself, then I'm not going to do it for you, but all you have done by this is lose a lot of goodwill and drawn the attention of other admins to your ill advised campaign. Rockpocket21:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, with genuine respect and sympathy, neither you nor they have understood the point I've been trying to make. That's my failure of exposition not yours of understanding, but it's still deeply disappointing. However, I do understand that only Tyrenious really understand what's going down here. And Tyrenious refuses to e-mail. So be it...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 21:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try again. You're straining at a gnat here. Wikipedia allows anonymous editing. Anonymity includes being anonymous about gender. While we do ask and expect admins to respond politely to requests, when those requests are germane to the discharge of their duties, and to do so in a way that conveys needed information, when that information is needed to answer the request, I am in no way seeing why Tyrenius (note the spelling, you seem to be misspelling the ID as Tyrenious...) has to answer your query about their gender. It's not at all material to the discharge of admin duties. I strongly suggest you let this go and move on to more productive endeavours. Insisting on an apology is not likely to get you the desired result. Instead, you're drawing attention to yourself from previously uninvolved folk, and that attention is also not likely to get you desired results. I hope that helps. To be crystal clear: Please stop spelling the ID of Tyrenius incorrectly, and please let the gender matter drop. ++Lar: t/c21:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G'Day, Larry. I hope you're well. I'm very sorry that I didn't respond more promptly - I missed your latest post entirely until just now. Let me be a bit irish and deal with your penultimate point first. Sorry about the ID mistake - I notice now that it is indeed without the "ous" combination. Do you need me to try and go back through all my posts and excise the naughty "u"?
For me this has never been a gender issue at all. It's immaterial what gender Tyrenius is. I identify this as a common courtesy issue. I am very happy (one might even say eager) to use whatever pronoun Ytrenius prefers (unless of course, he is over-ruled by any policy considerations). The problem is that Tyrenius has never clarified to my knowledge what pronun Tyrenius prefers.
I suggest this way of resolving the conundrum: you are someone that the community trusts; you tell me what pronouns to use and I will try and use it/them consistently in future.
Lastly, and for me, the substantive issue.
It's wonderful to see that, not only have you been prepared to give your real-life name, you also have check user privileges. (One admin, Gadfium who was prepared to meet me - and also gave an appropriate pledge of confidentiality as to our address details, etc, - has already noted the passport and other personal identity details of myself and W. Frank prior to meeting me outside the doors of the airport arrival lounge the month before last. Before I left Europe to meet him, Frank and I spoke to him simultaneously on the same phone line [two separate 'phone instruments in the same room in Frank's Glasgow flat] so I should imagine that Gadfium, at least, is fairly confident that he has spoken to two separate people and knows their individual identity).
The only remaining component is whether I abused W. Frank's account by logging on to his account rather than my own (- or vice versa). We both say we did not (except for trivial self-declared mistakes made in early December 2006 eg: [9] - what else was I expected to do as a conscientious editor after this whoopsie - I even altered the date stamps!). We have both stated that we are willing to risk prosecution for perjury if we are lying by swearing the same to a Commissioner for Oaths here in Europe but this extreme willingness to prove our innocence has simply been ignored by our accuser, judge, executioner and persistent persecutor. Is there an appeal authority? Could I perhaps 'phone you at a time and place of your choosing? I'd suggest that Frank is in the same room with me when I 'phone so that you know there is no monkey business. We're also in the fortunate position of Frank's number being in the telephone directory once I've told you his real name - so you could always phone him back to verify no puppet games.
Nobody can force an infallible admin to apologise, but it would be nice to have our names cleared before I die....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not worry about the username spelling mistake to the extent of going back and making changes. Just try hard not to make the mistake going forward and let it be. As for the personal pronoun to use when referring to Tyrenius... I think all that is needed is to be reasonable. Almost everyone agrees that, absent a specific request to use "it", "it" should be avoided because of the connotation. But if Tyrenius makes no specification of preference, then use your choice... "he/she", "they", only use "Tyrenius" and never a pronoun, or even just "he" always. All of those are acceptable. If Tyrenius wants a specific choice, it is up to Tyrenius to so specify. Since that has not happened, since apparently Tyrenius prefers to keep that anonymous, which we allow as a matter of policy, just be reasonable. Use whatever is polite. That is my opinion. I'm flattered that it would carry any extra weight with you, thanks for that.
On the other matter, there's a bit to unravel there. First, last I checked, ( :) ) I was not a CU on en:wp, only on Meta and Commons, and even if I was, ... CheckUser is not for fishing ...(as they say)... and it's also not used to clear names. It is only used when there is a clear reason to suspect sockpuppetry and other methods have failed to determine it, and (this is an important "and"...) it matters. That is, if we have two garden variety vandals who merely deface articles, it doesn't really MATTER if they are the same person or not. We don't care. It only matters if there has been apparent attempts to game things (by faking consensus, by reverting more than one should, etc). That said I don't really have the background on the W. Frank matter to know exactly what was alleged. I also don't have time to give the matter full justice. I just popped by because of the pronoun thing... I would suggest that you politely inquire of the admins involved whether there is still matter for concern. Finally, you can't get anyone to apologise unless they want to. A forced apology is just that, forced, and not really worth much. You should just let your record speak for it self... if you've made positive contributions, let that be what is remembered about you, not a quest for satisfaction. That can be rather unsatisfying, even if you get it. We remember Falling Water a lot more than we do Frank Lloyd Wright's spats with his customers about payments. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is specifically the Provisional IRA that I refer to as "Green Nazis" and not "Irish republicans".
I'm an Irish republican myself!
Because the Provisional IRA is a proscribed illegal terrorist organisation in many jurisdictions (including Ireland and the UK), I'd be amazed if any of our editors would ever admit to membership in the Provo's. If and when we do get an editor that admits to membership in the Provo's, I'll have to refrain from calling a spade a spade so as not be uncivil...
Please alert me whenever any editor on Wikipedia claims to be a current member/Volunteer of the Provisional IRA (PIRA) so I can immediately bowdlerise my language....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corticopia has a certain pattern of editing. Corticopia games reversions to exclusively own articles. After an extended period of owning articles by vicious use of reversions, Corticopia uses circular logic to argue that the article's standing condition represents consensus. Corticopia refuses to discuss the issue further in the article's talk pages, seeing as s/he has "consensus" on her/his side. Corticopia conducts this whole procession in an incivil manner, frequently being unnecessarily condescending and making personal attacks. Of course, these aren't personal attacks that would violate the WP:NPA. They are accusations of being sophists, POV pushers and trolls. Ironically, although Corticopia claims there's no consensus for other peoples' edits there is consensus on Corticopia's behavior. Over and over again editors have raised the same kind of issues with Corticopia. Of course, it is rather difficult to see this since Corticopia has blanked her talk page. You are not alone in your dealings with Corticopia.----DarkTea05:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to write what seems, now after looking at her/his contribution record and history of her/his talk page, a very accurate summary.
Do you know of any specific reference to policy that would prohibit the her/his continual use of misleading edit summaries?
(I've taken the grossly presumptuous liberty of internally linking two words in your comments above - simply revert them if you find this changes the meaning of your comments - since I it makes it easier for others to look at what we are talking about).
I only came to the Oceania article as I made a link to my travel experiences from my user page and, for a moment, I thought I was back in the happy, co-operative and utterly unbiased editing pastures of our Birmingham pub bombings article. Life's too short and I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that I really do have better things to do with my time
Lastly, thanks for alerting me about the "he/she", "her/his", "her/him", etc possibilities where an editor has never declared her/his gender and refuses/neglects to clarify same publicly or by e-mail. These are rather clumsy and tortuous constructions, but when I find the time I will go back and do some copyediting of my comments in this article - even though no subject of my complaints has ever either clarified or complained about my using gender neutral pronouns. God bless!...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 09:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DarkTea also has a certain pattern of editing: where does one begin? Let's begin by DT's insistence on continually pushing a unique point of view at 'Asia' despite consensus otherwise, or disruption of other people's talk pages (for which she was ribbed by an administrator). I'm unsure if there is any sort of consensus regarding DT's behaviour, since that would impart self-importance on a character who deserves little. But the meek shall inherit the Earth. In the meantime, enjoy your stay. Corticopia10:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to my talk page, Corticopia. The primary purpose of this page is to communicate with me.
You're very welcome to put your particular point of view (I'm sure you've read my wee reminder at the head of the page already) - especially when you've been mentioned by name in a section heading - but please do not edit or censor (or "<redact>", as you so eruditely put it) comments other than your own as you frequently do on your user page and some article discussions[10]. Leave that job to admins - there are very many neutral and knowledgeable admins that lurk here, ever vigilant.
The other wee point I should make right away is that I also prohibit you from inserting comments in non-chronological order within a section heading here. That typically ruins the existing thread and muddies rather than assists communication. If you really think it vital to post a comment out of chronological sequence, then please ask me or an admin for assistance.
The POV I espouse is well cited by outside sources, so it is not OR. The consensus you speak of is your version of the article which only represents your POV. This version of the article was reached by your vicious use of reversions and lacks neutrality.----DarkTea21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to my talk page again, Dark Tea.
There are very many neutral and knowledgeable admins that lurk here, ever vigilant.
The other wee point I should make right away is that I would much prefer you to insert comments in chronological order within a section heading here. If you really think it vital to post a comment out of chronological sequence, then please ask me or an admin for assistance.
Why do you mark the great majority of your edits as m for minor? Your multiple reverts are not a minor matter in terms of improving our Encyclopaedia....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 11:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I simply had to revert most of your recent wikilink edits to Postage stamps of Ireland because, as an Irish Wikipedian, I would have expected you to understand the links used were more appropriate. You changed independent Irish state's link from Irish independence to link to Ireland - your new link was to a primarily geographical article instead of to something political to do with the independence from UK. It would be better to link to Irish War of Independence and secondly the link to Ireland (the island) having been a constituent part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland seems to me an important thing to introduce to readers who may not be acquainted with the topic. I have however retained the wikilink to Geography of Ireland that you added to the lead image caption. Hope you agree with the reasoning. ww2censor03:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I'd forgotten to mention this previously, but for future reference, you should probably try to avoid posting notices like this. Asking for comment is fine, but explicitly requesting "support" on a forum that is clearly likely to be sympathetic, is likely a violation of WP:CANVAS. Rockpocket17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed your edits over the past few months, even though I have never engaged with you. You'll be missed.Traditional unionist 14:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - TrevorMacInniscontribs00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
