Fun on the admin noticeboard |
Courcelles (talk | contribs) m Changed protection settings for "User talk:Vintagekits": Restore prior. ([Edit=Require administrator access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite)) |
||
(956 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{collapse top}} |
|||
</div> |
|||
== Since you continue to be disruptive.. == |
|||
<center> |
|||
[[File:George W. Bush John Paul II funeral.jpg|800px]] |
|||
</center> |
|||
<br> |
|||
{{tocright}} |
|||
</div> |
|||
<center> |
|||
</div> |
|||
</center> |
|||
Take 48 hours off, VK. Your attacks on Elonka are outside the lines, and you should know that by now. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== List of proposed moves == |
|||
:Yawn! exact reason?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Personal attacks and disruptive editing. I've brought it up here. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_more_eyes_on_a_volatile_situation_regarding_The_Troubles] [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am quite astounded by your retarded logic! Not sure why because I shold come to expect it to be honest. So who am I attacking and what is the attack because I cant figure it out.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::So why is vvvkts....zzzz....ACCUSED (sorry) of not observing good manners? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.164.222.233|85.164.222.233]] ([[User talk:85.164.222.233|talk]]) 23:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I dont know why anyone ever does one of these because they are never overturned and fellow admins always see things from the other admins perspective. Sir Fozz says that I have been disruptive and made a personal attack yet refuses to clarify the block, which is poor form. I wasnt being disruptive at all - I hadnt been involved in the revert war that was being discussed and I never suggested that Domer should ignore the probation only that putting him on probation was wrong - I wasnt alone on that. So there can only be the personal attack issue - I made no personal attack, I asked Fozz what was the attack and who was it made towards? Sir Fozz certainly does have a COI with regards me so maybe that clouded his judgement.|decline=You clearly don't ''want'' to understand the meaning of [[WP:CIVIL]] or [[WP:NPA]]. Look right above this unblock request for a perfect example of why you shall remain blocked. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that |
|||
*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, <u>or</u> |
|||
*the block is no longer necessary because you |
|||
**understand what you have been blocked for, |
|||
**will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and |
|||
**will make useful contributions instead. |
|||
Please read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)}}[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Vintagekits, you're welcome to place a list of baronets you think should be moved on my talk page. I don't know whether or not you're considered topic-banned at this point, but I would be perfectly happy to get a list from you and ask anyone watching here not to consider this a violation of any such a ban. (I would reverse a block on such grounds, but I have some work to do and may not be around for a while, so I'd like to make that clear to others.) [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 15:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1=there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack. [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)|decline=No one appears to have objected to your first edit to that thread, but the second one constituted a personal attack. Per your block log, this does not appear to be an isolated incident. I suggest that you consider modifying your behaviour to reflect Wikipedia standards, rather than implying that you are being singled out due to cultural differences. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}} |
|||
* this is just for those in the Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom, there is also the Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England, Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Great Britain, Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Ireland, Category:Baronets in the Jacobite peerage and Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia. I've already "fixed" most of the ones A-D but there are a few left overs. So here is A-G. More later. |
|||
:What "second bit" - throw me a fecking bone here and explain exactly why I am actually blocked instead of having me chase my tail.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Domer48&diff=325272555&oldid=325272125 This edit]. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::You dont like making it easy do you. What '''EXACTLY''' is the personal attack that warrants a 48 hour block.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 00:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::What a load. You just refactored this page to remove the links to the ANI thread and previous attempts to explain it to you. I'm revoking your talk page access for the duration of your block to avoid you're wasting any more of other's time with this foolishness. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 00:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The fact that, considering you have a block list that is literally as long as my forearm you still don't get what you're doing wrong here makes me a sad panda. Which, in itself is odd, since I'm not a panda. It ''does'' still make me sad, though. Have you ever considered maybe going somewhere else on the internet? [[User:HalfShadow|HalfShadow]] ([[User talk:HalfShadow|talk]]) 00:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::(EC x2) I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FElonka_2&diff=148653326&oldid=148650313 not always been] Elonka's biggest fan, and for all I know she may not have made the correct decision as far as Domer48 is concerned. There is nothing wrong with questioning the probation itself. To that end, however, it is unnecessary to disparage Elonka herself; a review can take place without such comments, which are not conducive to a productive editing environment. As a corrollary of what you can see at the top of [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]], comment on the action, not on the administrator. If you really feel it is necessary to review an administrator's action on a wider scale, there are other venues for that which are more productive. Likewise, note that [[WP:NPA]] says that "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruption." Much as in the case of the probation mentioned here, your history of being blocked for personal attacks was likely considered as a contributing factor when deciding to block your account. [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Ban== |
|||
*1. [[Sir Antony Guy Acland, 5th Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Antony Guy Acland]]. |
|||
As you already know, you have been indef'd and banned per [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=325364881&oldid=325364790 this ANI thread]. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*2. [[Sir William Bagge, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[William Bagge]] – only other [[William Bagge]] is his son and was only a Baronet for a year and does not assert any notability. |
|||
::FYI to all the summary in the block log was the result a wrong pasting job. It should have been [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=325364881&oldid=325364790 this] <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*3. [[Sir Godfrey Baring, 1st Baronet]], - has a redirect of [[Godfrey Baring]]. |
|||
:::I have restored your email and talkpage rights. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*4. [[Sir Joseph Beecham, 1st Baronet]], - has a redirect of [[Joseph Beecham]]. |
|||
::::Thank you, Rlevse. Vintagekits, please set a good example with your communications. I've vouched for you to a certain degree. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*5. [[Sir George Bonham, 1st Baronet]], - has a redirect of [[George Bonham]]. |
|||
:::::Jehoch, which is in effect, SirFozzie's 48 hours block or Rlevse's indefinate ban?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 10:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*6. [[Sir Noël Bowater, 2nd Baronet]], - has a redirect of [[Noël Bowater]]. |
|||
*7. [[Sir Gurney Braithwaite, 1st Baronet]], - has a redirect of [[Gurney Braithwaite]]. |
|||
*8. [[Sir George Bullough, 1st Baronet]], - has a redirect of [[George Bullough]]. |
|||
*9. [[Sir Edward Buxton, 2nd Baronet]], - [[Edward Buxton]] redirects to [[Edward North Buxton]] who is a different person and this article could be called simply Edward Buxton. |
|||
*10. [[Sir John Cargill, 1st Baronet]], – more commonly known as [[John Traill Cargill]]. |
|||
*11. [[Sir Toby Clarke, 6th Baronet]], - no article for [[Toby Clarke]]. |
|||
*12. [[Sir Rupert Clarke, 4th Baronet]], - not a proven Baronet. |
|||
*13. [[Sir Augustus Clifford, 1st Baronet]], - no article for [[Augustus Clifford]]. |
|||
*14. [[Sir Philip Colfox, 1st Baronet]], - no article for [[Philip Colfox]]. |
|||
*15. [[Sir Charles Dalrymple, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Charles Dalrymple]], the other Charles Dalrymple is a 3rd Baronet and asserts no notability. |
|||
*16. [[Sir Kenneth Douglas, 1st Baronet]], - has a redirect of [[Kenneth Douglas]]. |
|||
*17. [[Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon, 5th Baronet]], - has a redirect of [[Cosmo Duff-Gordon]]. |
|||
*18. [[Sir William Duff-Gordon, 2nd Baronet]], has a redirect of [[William Duff-Gordon]]. |
|||
*19. [[Sir Culling Eardley, 3rd Baronet]], - has a redirect of [[Culling Eardley]]. The other Culling Eardley is his father and asserts no notability. |
|||
*20. [[Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim, 1st Baronet]], - has a redirect of [[Currimbhoy Ebrahim]]. This offspring with Currimbhoy Ebrahim in their name have different first names. |
|||
*21. [[Sir Ellis Ellis-Griffith, 1st Baronet]], - [[Ellis Ellis-Griffith]] is an incorrect disamb page created by Kitty – in which he mispells the 2nd Baronets name. |
|||
*22. [[Sir Howard Elphinstone, 3rd Baronet]], no article for [[Howard Elphinstone]] and he was more commonly known as [[Howard Warburton Elphinstone]]. |
|||
*23. [[Sir Alexander Erskine-Hill, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Alexander Erskine-Hill]]. |
|||
*24. [[Sir Nugent Everard, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[Nugent Everard]]. |
|||
*25. [[Sir Henry Ferguson Davie, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[Henry Ferguson Davie]]. |
|||
*26. [[Sir Edmund Findlay, 2nd Baronet]], no article for [[Edmund Findlay]]. |
|||
*27. [[Sir Patrick Ford, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Patrick Ford]]. |
|||
*28. [[Sir Arthur Forwood, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Arthur Forwood]]. |
|||
*29. [[Sir Ralph Frankland-Payne-Gallwey, 3rd Baronet]], no article for [[Ralph Frankland-Payne-Gallwey]]. |
|||
*30. [[Sir David Gammans, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[David Gammans]]. |
|||
*31. [[Sir Harold Gillett, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Harold Gillett]]. |
|||
*32. [[Sir Gabriel Goldney, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[Gabriel Goldney]]. |
|||
*33. [[Sir Francis Goldsmid, 2nd Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Francis Goldsmid]]. |
|||
*34. [[Sir Isaac Goldsmid, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[Isaac Goldsmid]]. |
|||
*35. [[Sir Fergus Graham, 5th Baronet]], has a redirect for [[Sir Fergus Graham, 5th Baronet]]. |
|||
*36. [[Sir Graham Graham-Montgomery, 3rd Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Graham Graham-Montgomery]]. |
|||
*37. [[Sir Alexander Cray Grant, 8th Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Alexander Cray Grant]]. |
|||
*38. [[Sir Charles Graves-Sawle, 2nd Baronet]], no article for [[Charles Graves-Sawle]]. |
|||
*39. [[Sir Richard Green-Price, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[Richard Green-Price]]. |
|||
*40. [[Sir Herbert Brent Grotrian, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Herbert Brent Grotrian]]. |
|||
*41. [[Sir William Gull, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[William Gull]]. |
|||
*42. [[Sir Derrick Gunston, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect to [[Derrick Gunston]]. |
|||
--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this.....== |
|||
===H and I=== |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
*43. [[Sir Walter Halsey, 2nd Baronet]], no article for [[Walter Halsey]]. |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:WikiDefender_Barnstar.png|100px]] |
|||
*44. [[Sir Percy Harris, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Percy Harris]]. |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
*45. [[Sir William Wilson-Todd, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[William Wilson-Todd]]. |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar''' |
|||
*46. [[Sir Robert Harty, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Robert Harty]]. |
|||
|- |
|||
*47. [[Sir Arthur Haworth, 1st Baronet]], has a direct of [[Arthur Haworth]]. |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Glad to see some one <s>has</s> had the '''ability''' and '''tenacity''' to defend NPOV against the imposition of POV-by-numbers <span style="font-family:Celtic">[[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]])</span> 09:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*48. [[Sir Cuthbert Headlam, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Cuthbert Headlam]]. |
|||
|} |
|||
*49. [[Sir John Heathcoat-Amory, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[John Heathcoat-Amory]]. |
|||
*50. [[Sir John Henniker Heaton, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[John Henniker Heaton]]. |
|||
*51. [[Sir James Henderson-Stewart, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[James Henderson-Stewart]]. |
|||
*52. [[Sir Arthur Henniker-Hughan, 6th Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Arthur Henniker-Hughan]]. |
|||
*53. [[Sir Arthur Heywood, 3rd Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Arthur Heywood]]. |
|||
*54. [[Sir Alfred Hickman, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[Alfred Hickman]]. |
|||
*55. [[Sir Basil Hill-Wood, 2nd Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Basil Hill-Wood]]. |
|||
*56. [[Sir Samuel Hill-Wood, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Samuel Hill-Wood]]. |
|||
*56a. [[Sir Benjamin Hingley, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[Benjamin Hingley]]. |
|||
*57. [[Sir Charles Hobhouse, 4th Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Charles Hobhouse]]. |
|||
*58. [[Sir Isaac Holden, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Isaac Holden]]. |
|||
*59. [[Sir Everard Home, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Everard Home]]. |
|||
*60. [[Sir Harold Hood, 2nd Baronet]], no article for [[Harold Hood]]. |
|||
*61. [[Sir Claudius Hunter, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Claudius Hunter]]. |
|||
*62. [[Sir Robert Inglis, 2nd Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Robert Inglis]]. |
|||
*63. [[Sir Hugh Inglis, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[Hugh Inglis]]. |
|||
Jeez Vk; you break my heart! Why keep effin' and blinding at people when you '''know''' what will happen????? Still, hope you get back. Maybe look up ''"apology"'' in the dictionary and practice in front of a mirror - without head-butting the glass :) [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
===J, K and L=== |
|||
*64. [[Sir William Moore Johnson, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[William Moore Johnson]]. |
|||
*65. [[Sir Harford Jones Brydges, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Harford Jones Brydges]]. |
|||
*66. [[Sir Evan Davies Jones, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Evan Davies Jones]]. |
|||
*67. [[Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[James Kay-Shuttleworth]]. |
|||
*68. [[Sir Hamilton Kerr, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Hamilton Kerr]]. |
|||
*69. [[Sir Henry King, 1st Baronet]], more commonly known as [[Henry Seymour King]]. |
|||
*69. [[Sir Henry Kimber, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Henry Kimber]]. |
|||
*70. [[Sir Francis Henry Laking, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Francis Henry Laking]]. |
|||
*71. [[Sir Thomas Larcom, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Thomas Larcom]]. |
|||
*72. [[Sir Trevor Lawrence, 2nd Baronet]], no article for [[Trevor Lawrence]]. |
|||
*73. [[Sir Thomas Lea, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[Thomas Lea]]. |
|||
*74. [[Sir Elliott Lees, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Elliott Lees]]. |
|||
*75. [[Sir George Cornewall Lewis, 2nd Baronet]], has a redirect of [[George Cornewall Lewis]]. |
|||
*76. [[Sir Thomas Frankland Lewis, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Thomas Frankland Lewis]]. |
|||
*77. [[Sir Charles Dillwyn-Venables-Llewellyn, 2nd Baronet]], has a redirect to [[Charles Dillwyn-Venables-Llewellyn]]. |
|||
*78. [[Sir Guy Lloyd, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Guy Lloyd]]. |
|||
*79. [[Sir Marteine Lloyd, 2nd Baronet]], redirects to [[Lloyd Baronets]]. |
|||
*80. [[Sir Manasseh Masseh Lopes, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Manasseh Masseh Lopes]]. |
|||
*81. [[Sir Ralph Lopes, 2nd Baronet]], no article of [[Ralph Lopes]]. |
|||
*82. [[Sir Massey Lopes, 3rd Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Massey Lopes]]. |
|||
*83. [[Sir Gerard Lowther, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Gerard Lowther]]. |
|||
*84. [[Sir Jocelyn Lucas, 4th Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Jocelyn Lucas]]. |
|||
*85. [[Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Hugh Lucas-Tooth]]. |
|||
:Hmmmm.....Maybe '''I''' should be apologising: it seems you were merely ''explaining'' the phrase "cop yourself on" when an Admin interpreted that as a personal attack. Bad call. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 10:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
===M=== |
|||
*86. [[Sir Thomas McClure, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Thomas McClure]]. |
|||
*87. [[Sir Robert McConnell, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Robert McConnell]]. |
|||
*88. [[Sir William MacCormac, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[William MacCormac]]. |
|||
*89. [[Sir Archibald Macdonald, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Archibald Macdonald]]. |
|||
*90. [[Sir Harry Mackeson, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Harry Mackeson]]. |
|||
*91. [[Sir Rupert Mackeson, 2nd Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Rupert Mackeson]]. |
|||
*92. [[Sir Fitzroy Hew Royle MacLean of Dunconnel, 1st Baronet]], and [[Fitzroy Hew Royle MacLean]] is an incorrect redirect to a disamb. |
|||
*93. [[Sir John Maclure, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[John Maclure]]. |
|||
*94. [[Sir Donald Macmaster, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Donald Macmaster]]. |
|||
*95. [[Sir Patrick Macnaghten, 11th Baronet]], no article for [[Patrick Macnaghten]]. |
|||
*96. [[Sir Philip Magnus-Allcroft, 2nd Baronet]], no article for [[Philip Magnus-Allcroft]]. |
|||
*97. [[Sir William Mahon, 7th Baronet]], no article for [[William Mahon]]. |
|||
*98. [[Sir Harry Mallaby-Deeley, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Harry Mallaby-Deeley]]. |
|||
*99. [[Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller, 3rd Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Mervyn Manningham-Buller]]. |
|||
*100. [[Sir John Blundell Maple, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[John Blundell Maple]]. |
|||
*101. [[Sir Anthony Mather-Jackson, 6th Baronet]], no article for [[Anthony Mather-Jackson]]. |
|||
*102. [[Sir Willie Mathews, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Willie Mathews]]. |
|||
*103. [[Sir James McGrigor, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[James McGrigor]]. |
|||
*104. [[Sir Mark MacTaggart-Stewart, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[Mark MacTaggart-Stewart]]. |
|||
*105. [[Sir John Middlemore, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[John Middlemore]]. |
|||
*106. [[Sir Powlett Milbank, 2nd Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Powlett Milbank]]. |
|||
*107. [[Sir Frederick Milbank, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Frederick Milbank]]. |
|||
*108. [[Sir Philip Miles, 2nd Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Philip Miles]]. |
|||
*109. [[Sir Harold Paton Mitchell, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Harold Paton Mitchell]]. |
|||
*110. [[Sir Anderson Montague-Barlow, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Anderson Montague-Barlow]]. |
|||
*111. [[Sir Clive Morrison-Bell, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Clive Morrison-Bell]]. |
|||
*112. [[Sir Thomas Munro, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Thomas Munro]]. |
|||
*113. [[Sir Philip Muntz, 1st Baronet]], no article for [[Philip Muntz]]. |
|||
*114. [[Sir Max Muspratt, 1st Baronet]], has a redirect of [[Max Muspratt]]. |
|||
::Is the Barnstar something I should NOT wish to have on my name? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.164.222.233|85.164.222.233]] ([[User talk:85.164.222.233|talk]]) 23:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
===N, O and P=== |
|||
*115. [[Sir Joseph Napier, 1st Baronet]] - has a redirect of [[Joseph Napier]]. |
|||
*116. [[Sir Herbert Naylor-Leyland, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Herbert Naylor-Leyland]]. |
|||
*117. [[Sir Richard Neave, 1st Baronet]] – no article for [[Richard Neave]]. |
|||
*118. [[Sir John Neeld, 1st Baronet]] – no article for [[John Neeld]]. |
|||
*119. [[Sir Harry Newton, 2nd Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Harry Newton]]. |
|||
*120. [[Sir Godfrey Nicholson, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Godfrey Nicholson]]. |
|||
*121. [[Sir Andrew Noble, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Andrew Noble]]. |
|||
*122. [[Sir Iain Noble, 3rd Baronet]] - has a redirect of [[Iain Noble]]. |
|||
*123. [[Sir John Norton-Griffiths, 1st Baronet]] - has a redirect of [[John Norton-Griffiths]]. |
|||
*124. [[Sir Christopher Nugent, 6th Baronet]] – no article for [[Christopher Nugent]]. |
|||
*125. [[Sir Percy Nugent, 1st Baronet]] - has a redirect of [[Percy Nugent]]. |
|||
*126. [[Sir Walter Nugent, 4th Baronet]] - has a redirect of [[Walter Nugent]]. |
|||
*127. [[Sir Anthony Nutting, 3rd Baronet]] - has a redirect of [[Anthony Nutting]]. |
|||
*128. [[Sir Michael O'Loghlen, 1st Baronet]] - has a redirect of [[Michael O'Loghlen]]. |
|||
*129. [[Sir Colman O'Loghlen, 2nd Baronet]] - has a redirect of [[Colman O'Loghlen]]. |
|||
*130. [[Sir Archibald Orr-Ewing, 1st Baronet]] - has a redirect of [[Archibald Orr-Ewing]]. There is another Archibald Orr-Ewing but he is a 3rd Baronet and there is nothing to suggest any notability. |
|||
*131. [[Sir Richard Paget, 1st Baronet]] - has a redirect of [[Richard Paget]]. |
|||
*132. [[Sir Gilbert Parker, 1st Baronet]] - has a redirect of [[Gilbert Parker]]. |
|||
*133. [[Sir William Payne-Gallwey, 1st Baronet]] - no article for [[William Payne-Gallwey]]. |
|||
*134. [[Sir Henry Peek, 1st Baronet]] - has a redirect of [[Henry Peek]]. |
|||
*135. [[Sir Sidney Peel, 1st Baronet]] - has a redirect of [[Sidney Peel]]. |
|||
*136. [[Sir James Pender, 1st Baronet]] – no article for [[James Pender]]. |
|||
*137. [[Sir Robert Perks, 1st Baronet]] – no article for [[Robert Perks]]. |
|||
*138. [[Sir Christopher Peto, 3rd Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Christopher Peto]]. |
|||
*139. [[Sir Basil Peto, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Basil Peto]]. |
|||
*140. [[Sir Robert Phillimore, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Robert Phillimore]]. |
|||
*141. [[Sir Kenneth Pickthorn, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Kenneth Pickthorn]]. |
|||
*142. [[Sir Philip Pilditch, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Philip Pilditch]]. |
|||
*143. [[Sir Charles Pole, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Charles Pole]]. |
|||
*144. [[Sir Charles Ponsonby, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Charles Ponsonby]]. |
|||
*145. [[Sir Uvedale Price, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Uvedale Price]]. |
|||
*146. [[Sir Peter Proby, 2nd Baronet]] – no article for [[Peter Proby]]. |
|||
== |
== Not banned yet == |
||
*147. [[Sir William Raeburn, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[William Raeburn]]. |
|||
*148. [[Sir John Ramsden, 5th Baronet]] – no article for [[John Ramsden]]. |
|||
*150. [[Sir Carne Rasch, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Carne Rasch]]. |
|||
*151. [[Sir Alfred Rawlinson, 3rd Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Alfred Rawlinson]] – and was actually known as [[Toby Rawlinson]]. |
|||
*152. [[Sir Henry Ripley, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Henry Ripley]]. |
|||
*153. [[Sir Leonard Ropner, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Leonard Ropner]]. |
|||
*154. [[Sir Robert Ropner, 1st Baronet]] – no article for [[Robert Ropner]]. |
|||
*155. [[Sir Josias Rowley, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Josias Rowley]]. |
|||
*156. [[Sir Edward Ruggles-Brise, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Edward Ruggles-Brise]]. |
|||
*157. [[Sir Hugo Rutherford, 2nd Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Hugo Rutherford]]. |
|||
*158. [[Sir Thomas Salt, 1st Baronet]] – no article for [[Thomas Salt]]. |
|||
*159. [[Sir Stuart Samuel, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Stuart Samuel]]. |
|||
*160. [[Sir Edward Sassoon, 2nd Baronet, of Kensington Gore]] – has a redirect of [[Edward Sassoon]]. |
|||
*161. [[Sir Philip Sassoon, 3rd Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Philip Sassoon]]. |
|||
*162. [[Sir William Savory, 1st Baronet]] – no article for [[William Savory]]. |
|||
*163. [[Sir Thomas Scarisbrick, 1st Baronet]] – no article for [[Thomas Scarisbrick]]. |
|||
*163a. [[Sir Charles Seely, 2nd Baronet]], more commonly known as [[Charles Hilton Seely]]. |
|||
*164. [[Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Geoffrey Shakespeare]]. |
|||
*165. [[Sir Ernest Shepperson, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Ernest Shepperson]]. |
|||
*166. [[Sir George Shiffner, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[George Shiffner]]. |
|||
*167. [[Sir Robert Workman Smith, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Robert Workman Smith]]. |
|||
*168. [[Sir William McNair Snadden, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[William McNair Snadden]]. |
|||
*169. [[Sir Louis Spears, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Louis Spears]]. |
|||
*170. [[Sir Albert Spicer, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Albert Spicer]]. |
|||
*171. [[Sir Alexander Sprot, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Alexander Sprot]]. |
|||
*172. [[Sir Lovelace Stamer, 3rd Baronet]] – no article for [[Lovelace Stamer]]. |
|||
*173. [[Sir Samuel Strang Steel, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Samuel Strang Steel]]. |
|||
*174. [[Sir Henry Kenyon Stephenson, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Henry Kenyon Stephenson]]. |
|||
*175. [[Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[George Stokes]]. |
|||
*176. [[Sir Henry Studholme, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Henry Studholme]]. |
|||
*177. [[Sir Duncan Swann, 2nd Baronet]] – no article for [[Duncan Swann]]. |
|||
*178. [[Sir Alan Sykes, 1st Baronet]] – no article for [[Alan Sykes]]. |
|||
The debate about blocking or banning is still ongoing at ANI, as such VK should be permitted to edit his talk page. Everyone has a right to defend themselves before a sentence is passed. There seems to be a lot of unssemly and undue haste on this matter - why? <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Green;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
===T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z=== |
|||
*179. [[Sir Eustace Tennyson-d'Eyncourt, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Eustace Tennyson-d'Eyncourt]]. |
|||
*180. [[Sir Gordon Touche, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Gordon Touche]]. |
|||
*181. [[Sir Ernest Tritton, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Ernest Tritton]]. |
|||
*182. [[Sir Eustace Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Eustace Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes]]. |
|||
*183. [[Sir Reginald Tyrwhitt, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Reginald Tyrwhitt]]. |
|||
*184. [[Sir Robert Uniacke-Penrose-Fitzgerald, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Robert Uniacke-Penrose-Fitzgerald]]. |
|||
*185. [[Sir Lambert Ward, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Lambert Ward]]. |
|||
*186. [[Sir Charles Warde, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Charles Warde]]. |
|||
*187. [[Sir Courtenay Warner, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Courtenay Warner]]. |
|||
*188. [[Sir Sydney Waterlow, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Sydney Waterlow]]. |
|||
*189. [[Sir Henry Webb, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Henry Webb]]. |
|||
*190. [[Sir William Welby-Gregory, 4th Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[William Welby-Gregory]]. |
|||
*191. [[Sir Thomas Woollaston White, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Thomas Woollaston White]]. |
|||
*192. [[Sir Herbert Huntington-Whiteley, 1st Baronet]] – no article for [[Herbert Huntington-Whiteley]]. |
|||
*193. [[Sir Charles William Willink, 2nd Baronet]] – no article for [[Charles William Willink]]. |
|||
*194. [[Sir William Welby-Gregory, 4th Baronet]] – no article for [[William Welby-Gregory]]. |
|||
*195. [[Sir Henry Willink, 1st Baronet]] – no article for [[Henry Willink]]. |
|||
*196. [[Sir Walter Womersley, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Walter Womersley]]. |
|||
*197. [[Sir Thomas Worsfold, 1st Baronet]] – no article for [[Thomas Worsfold]]. |
|||
*198. [[Sir Richard Worsley, 7th Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Richard Worsley]]. |
|||
*199. [[Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Laming Worthington-Evans]]. |
|||
*200. [[Sir Nathaniel Wraxall, 1st Baronet]] – no article for [[Nathaniel Wraxall]]. |
|||
*201. [[Sir Thomas Wrightson, 1st Baronet]] – has a redirect of [[Thomas Wrightson]]. |
|||
:I have to say this looks like a witch hunt. As I look at it, it is beginning to stink. A discussion about a possible ban was opened... a dozen or so people voted straight away to say ban... and then people tried to close the discusion AFTER AN HOUR and impose a ban. Sounds like some canvassing was going on there and some people letting their hurt feelings over rule their reasonable side. Having had a look into this yes VK has some WP:Civil issues but really... complete ban after an hour's discussion? I have to say I think a number of editors should step away from this issue completely. --[[User:LiamE|LiamE]] ([[User talk:LiamE|talk]]) 10:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Wowsers, why do those articles have '''Sir''' in their titles? Seems un-needed IMO. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 12:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point: |
|||
::I dont know - but KB and BHG seem very eager to keep them like this for some reason.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 15:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Vk, as I had already posted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&oldid=287928826#Topic_ban_discussion Sandstein's talk page], this list is a very useful starting-point. Thank you for providing it. |
|||
:::As I have repeatedly stressed, I don't want the titles kept except disambiguation purposes, and that includes disambiguating redlinks. Before any pages are moved, those checks need to be done, and I see no sign in your list of any such checks having been done. Once those checks have been done, I guess that probably 80% or more of them can be moved ... but the question is which 80%. That's why the rapid-fire naming was a bad idea, but this list is a great idea. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 22:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::If there are to be disamb pages with red links then those redlinks must be for people with proven notability.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Per [[WP:BIO]], members of national parliaments have a presumption of notability, so that covers both peerages and MPs; in other cases such as [[Albert Bennett]], the other links fall into other classes of presumed notability (in the case of the Alfred Bennetts by playing sport at a high enough level). In the case of MPs and peers, some of the many redlinks are already pre-emptively and systematically disambiguated (by middle name, by d.o.b and or d.o.d., or other suffixes or other titles), though some are not. A whatlinkshere on the bare name will find some, but more checks are needed both on wikipedia and elsewhere (e.g. at http://www.leighrayment.com, at http://hansard.millbanksystems.com or http://www.thepeerage.com), or through other sources which document the positions of power and influence held by these oligarchic families. That's why it's a time-consuming process. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 23:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I agree that MP's are automatically notable. And if you wish to create disamb pages which link to such notable individuals then I am happy for you to do so. However, I would not agree that you should create a disamb page with the "correct form" of the name and a load of redlinks to the 6th, 7th, 8th etc Baronets without proving they are notable. |
|||
::::::Does anyone know where [[User:Choess]] is? Because I would have thought that I would have had some feedback on this by now.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 12:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
<blockquote>"To RLevse: ''The discussion about my block is ongoing and as half of Europe has just woken up I think you should allow them the chance the have there say.'' |
|||
== Topic bans == |
|||
''Can you a. please restored by block to the original 48hr b. unbar me from sending emails and c. unblock me from using my talk page.'' |
|||
At the moment there is no consensus to topic ban you from anywhere, and anyone trying to impose such a sanction is acting unlawfully. I do, however, see a consensus slowly building to topic ban you and Kittybrewster, possible BHG too, as a temporary measure pending a greater deliberation, preferably by the Arbcom. It may be helpful if you put forward some sound and rational ideas for a solution to the editing impasse you KB and BHG seem to have reached. You are a very useful and competent editor, banning you from any topic would be a detriment to the project, so I hope you have some ideas which will be agreeable to all. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 13:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I dont think there is anything I can add further than the [[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_016#Your_concerns_.28Take_II.29|discussion I tried to start]] on BHG's talkpage and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=287836165 this post on ANI]. If there is anything else I can you let me know.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 15:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
''You have left me utterly armless and legless in being able to defend myself against the allegations put.''! From Vintagekits</blockquote> |
|||
== Question that has nothing to do with baronets == |
|||
Posted here by <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Green;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
You're probably best placed to give a second opinion – do you think [[Ricky Hatton vs. Paulie Malignaggi]] and the like ought to exist as separate articles? I can understand why we have separate articles on historic fights like [[Jack Dempsey vs. Luis Ángel Firpo]], but [[:Category:Boxing fights]] is full of things like this that don't seem to have any particular significance (no major titles changing hands, no records set etc). Someone's obviously put a lot of work into them, so I don't want to wade in and start AFD tagging, but I really can't see why we have them – we don't have articles on every football match etc. – '''<font style="font-family: Courier"><font color="#E45E05">[[User:Iridescent|iride]]</font><font color="#C1118C">[[User talk:Iridescent|scent]]</font></font>''' 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Certainly refreshing! Personally I wouldnt get involved in editing such as article - but that is purely a subjective decision. Its hard to argue against it considering the multiple sources. I suppose its a matter of where do you draw the line. I know that the football (soccer) project have a ruling with regards articles for individual matches - I am not sure what that ruling is but it would probably be good guidance.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd support that. I'm of the view that Vk was by no means the only person sending emails last night. And the initial block was so bad it merited a severe reaction. IMHO. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Topic ban == |
|||
:Show me the diff that justifies preventing this user from any sort of communication. I don't see it. When people get blocked we expect them to get heated and do a little cussing on their own talk page. Escalating at that point is harmful to Wikipedia. Just let them blow of steam and if they are still in the mood to cause trouble after 48 hours, reblock them. If you think the user has warn out community patience, you need to give the community a chance to comment. One hour of discussion is not enough. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Based on community consensensus as found on [[WP:ANI#Temporary three way topic ban]], I am [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=287945036&oldid=287944496 enacting] a topic ban on the subject of Baronets (edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive) on you and Kittybrewster, as well as mandating that BrownHairedGirl not use administrative tools on the same topic. |
|||
::If you do adjust the block, and consensus seems to be against the idea, please do not re-enable e-mails. I don't appreciate e-mails of the type I was sent last night, I don't need to hear how disgusted VK is with me or any of his other opinions on me. There is always the unblock mailing list, or arbcom to e-mail. E-mailing other Wikipedians has already been abused. [[User talk:Chillum|<small><sup><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.2em 0.3em; class=texhtml; color:#C53F17">'''Chillum'''</span></sup></small>]] 15:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 23:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Have we had a chance to look at this infamous email yet or do we have to just take you word on it that it was as bad as you have been making out? --[[User:LiamE|LiamE]] ([[User talk:LiamE|talk]]) 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Notification of arbitration request == |
|||
*Chillum, you have email enabled so you can receive emails - was the email abusive or was it not, perhaps you are "''confused''" - again? In fact, I think I will seek VK's permission to post it here, then we all may judge. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Green;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*Wow, the choke hold is off! I would like to know why I was banned from my talkpage in the first place. If my talk page wasnt banned then no one would have received any emails - as it was my only outlet of communication at a time that editors were discussing my very "wiki-life" what was I supposed to do. |
|||
:Even though it was late and I was tired and should have been in my nest, I dont think I sent anything untoward, I may have expressed my disgust and disappointment the way some experienced appeared to be screwing the facts in what I considered a "witch hunt". I am happy for any editor to disclose the content of any email I sent last night to allow others deem if it was offending or not. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=287957652&oldid=287954949--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 00:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*SarekOfVulcan, asks if Elonka considered my comment a personal attack. Shouldnt the more pertaintant question be to Domer - i.e. if my interpretation of what he meant by "cop yourself on" was a more polite version of what I said.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Please trim your statement on [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration|requests for arbitration]]== |
|||
*I have little desire to continue explaining my actions here over and over. My removal of talk page access had nothing to do with the discussion at ANI, and pre-dated any serious discussion of a ban/indef block. I was simply trying to prevent VK from posting any more unblock requests during what was at that time only a 48 hour block. Next thing I know this is in my email inbox: |
|||
Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration|requests for arbitration]]. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators. |
|||
<blockquote>You obviously have never experienced bashing your head against a brick wall for months on end. I am hounded by British sympathising editors on every page I venture onto because of my support for physical forces Irish republicanism - what you Americans would now call "terrorism". |
|||
I never expect a fair shot so was not suprised by your decline - admins look at my block log and say "fuck me this guy is a monster" - however the vast majority of the blocks were bad blocks and most of the time an admin with enough balls to spot it unblocks me. |
|||
Its simple just come to an end now - I've had enough.</blockquote> |
|||
*and another: |
|||
<blockquote>its utterly contemptable and inflamatory to block someones talkpage - a talk page should not be blocked unless it is being used to abuse wikipedia, cause further breaches of policy or to out another editor. NONE OF THESE WERE BEING DONE!!! |
|||
YOU ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO PUSH ME INTO MAKING A REAL PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU WHICH I AM ON THE VERGE OF! you are a disgrace!</blockquote> |
|||
For the Arbitration Committee. [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 02:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm not particularly offended or appalled by these, but they are not exactly helpful or logical either. VK seems to believe he is the target of some vast British Wikipedian conspiracy. I can only speak for myself of course, but I can assure you my actions were not based in any way on his nationality or political views. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Just look VK, Somebody posted this link on the Arb page today [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vintagekits/Archive_7] Just read through it, just look at the socks that BHG was cohorting with then, supporting her and KB's point of view. There's even [[User talk:W. Frank|old Frank]] remember him - weren't you supposed to have threatened to murder him - death by email or something? Then he dissapeared before he could provide the evidence, leaving them all looking rather silly. I suspect they all suffered death by checkuser, if the truth be known. What happened to him, didn't he say he was dead or was that "his friend" who died suddenly after being caught sharing Frank's computer? How time marches on, less than 2 years, if only we had known then what we know now. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 20:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::*you are not offended because there is nothing to be offended by - he is merely explaining to you how he feels. If he feels ganged up upon and victimised, can you really be surprised after the events of last night, when while all of Europe was fast asleep a group of mostly American acted as they did in a seemingly co-ordinated fashion and at such speed. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Red;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::All very suspect alright! lol!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 08:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Get real, the idea that this disruptive user feels ganged up on and victimized is a joke. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 17:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::(ec) You need to stop beating that drum. Perhaps the closing of the discussion and imposing of a ban was a bit hasty, I must say I was surprised to see things progressing so quickly, but the idea that it was some deliberate "anti-European cabal conspiracy" has little to no merit. If anything it was VK who was doing the canvassing with all of his email activity. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*I'm very much afraid you people should have considered your actions and words more carefully during the night - then things may not appear as they do. <small><span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Red;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::: "Perhaps the closing of the discussion and imposing of a ban was a bit hasty" - when you can say something like that I really just shake my head and wonder how you were ever allowed be an admin. Rlvese acted acted as judge, jury and executioner last night - and all down in the record time of an hour - whilst all of other had slept, they would have awoken to find me beheaded. I find it strange that until Alsion turned up this was unanimous to ban me - but since then it is even with regards bans and opposes. I find that very strange. Either there is a mailing list or there are a lot of lemmings - maybe both. I dont know, all I know if that I have had the shitty end of the stick here. You personally havent even taken one moment to consider this from my perspective and it shows.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Howdy Vk. It's your usage of foul language, that's getting ya into these block problems. Personally, I don't mind the colorful words, but it appears an increasing numbers of editors do. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I know i have a potty mouth - it doesnt bother me to be honest its not turned on to insult people its just the way I talk. I supposes it could be a cultural thing.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::If the community chooses 'not' to ban you, I'd recommend no more foul words. Afterall, once the Wiki community tells an editor he/she is out? he/she is out. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Perhaps somebody could write a Javascript filter that would clean up your posts. Watch out for the [[seven dirty words]]. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I hear you GD, and thank you for all your support and advice in the past. It is genuinely much appriciated.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::No prob, Vk. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::PS: I've voted '''oppose''' on the Wiki ban proposal, as you haven't vandalized any articles. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== FYI == |
|||
:::::My personal motto at Wikipedia is "go with the flow". Right, GoodDay?--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::PS, I also voted '''oppose'''.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yep. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Howdy Vk. I decided to delete my 'vote' from your Ban case. I shall have to take a neutral stand on it. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Gordian_Knot_Solution FYI]. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 04:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I saw! I have to say that I am a little disspointed that you did that. Answer me this what made you change it? When in the last year have I vandalised a page or caused so much disruption that it woul dwarrant an indefinate ban?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 10:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::I had to revert to 'neutral', when I was reminded of your past sock-puppetry. Which (I'm glad) you haven't committed for over a year, since your last Banning case. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I have to say that certain people have been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill over VK's emails. They frankly look like reasonable responses given his limitations on communication at the time. I have taken some time to look over some of the troubles articles and there does seem to be a systematic Britsh POV bias going on. No wow I will lay my cards on the table here... I am a Brit... but being from an Irish family I am probably more aware of and attuned to the issues at hand than most editors. Most editors seem to take the Britsh POV and are backed by what would seem to be a a number of admins all with either a British POV or American ones with a strong anti terrorism POV. Take the "British Isles" as an example. Geographically and geologically speaking the term seems fine to me - simply meaning the group of Islands the biggest of which happens to be called Great Britain. That is pretty standard terminology for any group of Islands to be refered to by the biggest. Now the term is also used in political and economic sense where its use is not so clear cut and can have overtones that are not welcome that most British editors are simply unaware of, and the term is used in this way, which can be considered an inflamatory way, throughout wikipedia. There are alternatives to the British Isles which can and should be used outside of purely geographic or geological articles yet the weight of editors on the British side surpresses this. It is no wonder to me that editors who try and redress this balance problem feel like they are beating their head against a wall sometimes because frankly they are, though I would say it is not a wall of anti Irish sentiment but one of ignorance to the issue. --[[User:LiamE|LiamE]] ([[User talk:LiamE|talk]]) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I've changed my mind (yet again). I'm once again, opposing the indef-ban, as I've no evidence of sock-puppetry (since the last Banning case). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==AfD nomination of Benjamin Flores== |
|||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|42px]]</div>I have nominated [[Benjamin Flores]], an article that you created, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Flores]]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<font color="0000FF">☎</font>]] 11:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::VK do not rise to the bait. I have asked here for an univolved admin to deal with the matter [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=288654852&oldid=288654483]. Any coment by you could be misinterpretated, so say nothing. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 11:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Official statement requested == |
|||
== Notification of motion relating to Baronets naming dispute == |
|||
Jehochman has asked for you to write up and post an official statement to be contributed to the ANI discussion before it's closed. Can you create one here and indicate when you are done editing and want it copied over? Thank you. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]], in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Baronets naming dispute]], have voted to implement a motion. It can be viewed on the case page by following [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Alternative_.282.29|this link]]. The motion is as follows: |
|||
:George, I wasnt on line much yesterday and will be away from my computer for most of today as well as I have family visiting. That issues would you like me to address.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 09:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
<blockquote>The community enacted topic ban on {{userlinks|Vintagekits}} and {{userlinks|Kittybrewster}} is recognized and confirmed. Kittybrewster is admonished to respect community and administrator decisions, including the imposition of sanctions, and directed to utilize the standard channels of appeal and review in cases where he disagrees. Disregard for sanctions, whether imposed by an administrator, the community, or the Arbitration Committee, is grounds for the imposition of escalating blocks and/or further sanctions. Vintagekits and Kittbrewster are indefinitely restricted from moving pages relating to Baronets and Knights, broadly interpreted. They are both restricted from nominating articles created by the other for deletion and more generally warned from unnecessarily interacting with each other, especially where it is likely to be perceived as baiting, trolling, or another form of harassment. {{admin|BrownHairedGirl}} is admonished not to use administrative tools to further her own position in a dispute. BrownHairedGirl is prohibited indefinitely from taking any administrative action against or in connection with Vintagekits.</blockquote> |
|||
:::Vintagekits, my advice is to request a full and thorough Arbcom case, so much has happened in your career here that is does need cold and calculated scrutiny - a laying bear of facts if you like. Then a few people can assess if you are of any value to the project rather than a braying bob. The strange behaviour of some very important Wikipedians yesterday in the threads concerning you has convinced me, you need to be examined only by the Arbcom. It will be unplesant for you - you have many wiki-faults, but are not alone in that - as I see it you are standing on the trapdoor with a noose around your neck, and the mob have their hands on the lever - the lever needs to he in the hands of a responsible few. That's my advice take it or leave it. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 10:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the issues which I would hope you would address are the comments and issues raised in the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block Vintagekits indefinitely]] thread. A number of editors have commented, there and in the various alternatives which flowed out of that in the major heading. |
|||
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] ([[User talk:KnightLago|talk]]) 20:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Any specific ideas, comments, opinions that were raised there and statements you'd like to make. Someone's going to have to make a determination and close the various proposed community actions threads, and it's only fair if you have a chance to be heard and respond to the issues. |
|||
:Thank you for your time and effort.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I see Giano's comment above requesting an Arbcom case. That's probably premature at the moment - nobody has closed the community remedies threads, so for right now you're just indef blocked, not banned or otherwise restricted. I recommend that the community discussion be allowed to come to an end and then if you disagree then appeal any decision to Arbcom. That's purely procedural - I think Arbcom will want to wait until the community decides, so it wouldn't make sense to appeal to them before. Once there is a community decision of some sort then you should feel free to file an Arbcom appeal or ask for a case to be opened. |
|||
:If waiting 24 more hours while you have family over and are unavailable to comment here will help, I will post a request to the thread asking for no admins to close during that period, until you have a chance to respond. I believe there's no harm done to anyone by a decent wait - a week would be hard to justify, but another day (or even two) won't hurt the community or you in any way. |
|||
:[[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 02:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::George, if you could that would be great. There is a [[Ireland vs. France 2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off|big game tonight]] and they will want to be brought out for that as well. I hope to put an hour aside tomorrow to get my thoughts down. Thanks. |
|||
---- |
|||
Yep agree a full and thorough Arbcom case. To cut out the BS insist on Diff's for any and every accusation. --<span style="font-family:Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''</sub></span> 10:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Lift the block== |
|||
== Apology/comment == |
|||
Given the nature of the block and my suspicion, based on personal experience, that this is a ''tactic'' in a banning process I believe the ban should be lifted ''before'' any further proceedings. Here we have a trial in progress while the accused has already been locked away without bail - all the better to provoke him. Not the circumstances for a fair assessment of the many issues at play here. It's not as if Vk can abscond while out on bail. I think my proposal here will tease out the ''real agenda'' of the block and ban lobby. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 12:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I thought I'd post an apology for my comments at AN regarding my behaviour. Treating a fellow contributor like that was completely unacceptable. I would like to reiterate, however, that I have no POV here. Before this dispute I had never interacted with either you or Kittybrewster before, and I support parts of both sides arguments. However, I think you need to look at your own behaviour - with the way you are treating people, you will eventually piss them off to the point where they don't want to deal with you in any way not involving a block button. Accusing people of sockpuppetry, for example, is over the line (although there was some evidence of bias on his part, regardless). I hope you can accept both the apology and comment in good faith, and we can try and put all this behind us. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 10:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::No, any debate about lifting the block will split any arguement in process and confuse things further, let one decision be made at a time. If he can't be mentored, and he can't have an Arbcom case then there is no point unblocking at any time. VK can post here and a hundred helpers can post where he wants things. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 12:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Apology accepted, comments noted - clean slate.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 10:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, I didn't ask for any "debate". I asked for the bad block to be lifted, given it's nature and context. I am still asking for the block to be lifted, first. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 13:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== {{tl|UKFlags}} == |
|||
::::That's my advice, take it or leave it. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Mentorship == |
|||
Regardless of whether the Union Jack should sit next to the link or not—I honestly care not about that particular point—please leave the actual link to [[Flag of Northern Ireland]] in the Home Nations section. The point of that section of the template template is to link to those articles for the flags to the current nations in the UK, rather than overly concerning itself with the itty-bitty little flag icon that accompanies it. Northern Ireland ''is'' a current part of the United Kingdom, it has an article concerning its current flag or lack of, ergo it is a completely valid link alongside the articles that deal with the current flags for the other UK nations. The historical section link is also more suited to the [[Ulster Banner]] article than the [[Flag of Northern Ireland]] article as the former deals with the historical flag, while the latter deals more with the present-day situation. Come on, lets try and deal with this in a civil manner, rather than bandying around unnecessary accusations that other editors are treating it like a "joke shop". -- [[User:S@bre|Sabre]] ([[User talk:S@bre|talk]]) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Would you be willing to have me, and likely some others (which will need to include people you don't care for - so to be acceptable for those who do not appreciate the effort being expended to keep you editing this project), as mentor(s)? This would run concurrent to Jehochman's suggested limiting you to sport/boxing topics and ban from Ireland/Troubles related areas. I am asking the community the same thing at ANI, and will only accept supping from the poisoned chalice if there are two positive responses. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Appeal == |
|||
:There doesn't seem to be much likelihood of the community accepting you being mentored, so there is little point in you agreeing/committing. Perhaps the ArbCom option above is the only venue left to determine if there is a way for you to continue to contribute. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 11:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree, but suggest leaving the mentoring option just a little longer - people do change their minds - occasionaly. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:The Mentorship option is acceptable. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would offer mentorship as part of any Arbitration decision, should a Request get to such a stage, in any event. I regret that those opposing mentorship currently appear to be too numerous for anything but a complete about face to bring about a consensus for it. I think 36 hours from my initial offer should be sufficient time to establish the communities position on it, so there is a little time yet. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Hello Vintagekits, good to hear from you again. I'm not so sure about an appeal, I've already tried it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=227382367#Request_for_appeal:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FLapsed_Pacifist]. I wouldn't mind so much except for the extraordinary breadth of interpretation of the ban, which has already been stretched over half a century before the beginning of the [[Troubles]]. While the ban specifically refers to "the conflict in Northern Ireland", one of the ArbCom members who decided on it told me he considered this to cover any conflict in the northern half of Ireland at any time, which means I even have to think twice about editing articles like [[Táin Bó Cúailnge]]! Anyways, how are you? [[User:Lapsed Pacifist|Lapsed Pacifist]] ([[User talk:Lapsed Pacifist|talk]]) 09:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Completely unconnected question == |
|||
== [[2009 UEFA Champions League Final]] == |
|||
Is Manny Pacquiao's fight on Miguel Cotto British TV tonight, if so when ? I can't find it anywhere and the dog has eaten today's newspaper? someone watching this page is bound to know. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Yes, that is certainly a good idea. I am in the process of adding a few images to the article. I already managed to get someone to upload a Creative Commons-licensed photo of a ticket, so I'm quite proud of that. I need to find a shop that sells the match ball, though, so that I can add a free image of the ball to the article. All I've found so far is an image of the Finale Capitano version, not the full Finale version :( – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: [http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12183_5684216,00.html Sky Sports 1.] [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 22:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Than you Rockpocket, but I on a computer wired not to let me look at anything pleasurable (probably why it permits Wikipedia) could you have a quick look for me, I think I have a few hours yet. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::: Oh. Its being shown live at 2am on [[Sky Sports 1]]: |
|||
:'' Live Big Fight Special in HD. Manny Pacquiao v Miguel Angel Cotto. All the action from the bout at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, as Pacquiao steps up a division to challenge for Cotto's WBO Welterweight title. Pacquiao's last fight was the second-round knockout of Ricky Hatton in a light-welterweight contest in May, and he can further add to his reputation as arguably the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world should he take the belt from Cotto.'' |
|||
::: As far as I can tell, it is not being shown on any free-to-air channel. So it depends whether Giano's household subsidizes Mr Murdoch or not ;) [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well actually we do, purely for the children's educational purposes you understand. In fact, it's purely for the children's educational purposes that I fiddled with the parental controls of this computer and now can't reverse them, this is the problem with passwords when you seldom spell the same word twice two days running. Thank you for that. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 23:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Block and associated discussion== |
|||
Also, I was also planning on doing a full re-wording of the match summary, and I was also going to add a Reaction section. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 13:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I have closed the discussion at the [[WP:ANI|incident noticeboard]] regarding your block. At this time, there is a strong, albeit not unanimous, consensus that the block is to remain. You may, as normal, request that the [[WP:ARBCOM|arbitration committee]] review the matter. As I stated in my closing rationale, if you post a request for arbitration on this page, I will move it to [[WP:RFAR|requests for arbitration]] for you. |
|||
:Yup, definitely. I'm just downloading the coverage of the match from the internet, so I'll add a section about the opening ceremony in a moment. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Whatever the outcome here is, I urge you to strongly consider why things have come to this point. I hope that you will do so. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Hi== |
|||
:Came on to post a response now. Is it too late.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Yes, I am stopping to create, give daily-fight by fight-follow-up to any of the lists. If you check them you will see that all what I did there is not more the same. If you follow my wiki-history you will understand. I was years working in them before bring them to wikipedia, for nothing. At least i have my medical devices and my books: no one can edit them without go to court, hehe =) Thanks for your concern but I think the torch might be passed to somebody else. [[User:Io Wiki2007|~~Io_Wiki2007~~]] ([[User talk:Io Wiki2007|talk]]) 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::It aint too late. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well it looks like [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] has now closed the discussion.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 16:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yep, it's closed. But ya got the option of requesting a review by [[WP:RFAR]], per Sera's above instructions. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Take a peek at [[User talk:Rockpocket#Long discussion|here]], another option. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Hey, my friend. No, I am not departing, just abandoning the lists that were/are/will be edited (and destroyed) by people that do not understand (or do) the very "complex" of its structure. They are no simply lists... What is not protected or understood will be destroyed. I am a autor of books (copyrighted) and medical devices (patented); I completely know what I say. Hey, You have a friend on me; I included you in my section "Wikipedians that are Leaders". Any question of boxing just let me know. [[User:Io Wiki2007|~~Io_Wiki2007~~]] ([[User talk:Io Wiki2007|talk]]) 11:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:PS: The RFAR route, is much less risky (of course). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::VK, I strongly advise you to take this whole matter to Arbitration. I repeat, your value and worth to the project needs to be formally and quietly assessed by the Arbs. If you are concerned, and I think you should be, RLevse can be asked to recuse, banning you in an hour while Europe slept was totally wrong and biased all further debate on ANI. I am unsure if you should remain or not, but I truly beleive what I said here in the now famously oversighted edit [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=325449650] <small>(outing indeed - no one was fooled by that excuse)</small>. You need and deserve a fair rational hearing, and that is probably the only way you will get one. <small><span style="border:1px solid Black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Pacman, WBO welterweight champion == |
|||
== Ulster banner == |
|||
Pacman TKO's Cotto in 12th rd. I was close, eh? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I've started a discussion at the [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#Northern_Ireland_flag|Snooker Project]]. I would appreciate you taking the discussion there because removing the flag has huge repercussions across all snooker articles. It is best to decide on a universal course of action rather than making arbitrary changes all over place. If we have to change it it would be best to use a bot but if editors have started removing the flag it makes the process much more difficult. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for that. I'll pop of and add my two peneth worth. regards--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 14:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== The Third Road == |
||
Hi Vintagekits, the two paths laid before you are both [[wikt:shithouse#Adjective|shithouse]] because both of those paths mean more unhappy work for me. |
|||
I think you should have a look at this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Charlie_Zelenoff.2FVintagekits Apparently I am you alias! --[[User:LiamE|LiamE]] ([[User talk:LiamE|talk]]) 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Come over to [[Wikisource]] for a while! Bring all your friends!! ;-) |
|||
Wikisource ''needs'' someone with your passion. [[s:Wikisource:Sports]] doesn't mention boxing. Someone needs to create [[s:Wikisource:Boxing]] We have a few poor quality works in [[s:Category:Boxing]]. |
|||
As an example, I have set up [[s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 1.djvu]] and [[s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 2.djvu]], where you can clean up and improve existing biographies written long ago. e.g. [[s:Page:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 1.djvu/81|Thomas Smallwood]]. Simply log in, click edit, and fix the [[Optical character recognition|OCR]] errors. The Wikisource community will help you with the syntax voodoo; you'll get the hang of things pretty quickly. |
|||
I'll be happy to set up projects for any old book that interests you; any topic, any language. I'd rather spend my time helping you settle into Wikisource rather than spend that same time in arbitration or investigating socks. |
|||
After a few months, you can then appeal your Wikipedia ban either to Arbcom or to the community. |
|||
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 13:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Please do come over. We are very friendly and only bite if you ask us very nicely. ;-) Gotta to be beat all that poetry stuff that some love! We need more sport, things of real consequence. More than happy to show you the ropes, and it is great for building up resources and links to be used here. [[User:Billinghurst|billinghurst]] ([[User talk:Billinghurst|talk]]) 11:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions== |
|||
As a party in ''[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles|The Troubles]]'' arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Amendment_1:_New_remedy:_Discretionary_Sanctions|here]]'''. |
|||
''For the Arbitration Committee'' |
|||
'''[[User:Seddon|Seddon]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Seddon|talk]]</sup>|<sup>[[wmuk:Main_Page|WikimediaUK]]</sup> 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== VK is blocked indefinitely, not retired == |
|||
Why is the tagging of his user page with [[:template:indefblocked|{indefblocked}]] even up for debate? Why are certain people so absolutely desparate to make themselves look like tag teaming edit warriors that are utterly blind to reality? Considering there are already descriptions of this nature of these exact editors before arbcom right now, you would think they might take the hint and actually stop acting like tag teaming edit warriors. It is precisely this sort of lack of [[WP:CLUE|clue]] about reality that got VK indeffed in the first place. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:If the blocking admin did not put the tag up, other editors should not. It is unnecessary [[WP:BEAR|bear poking]]. This user has contributed a lot of content to Wikipedia; he may be blocked indefinitely but we have not shut the door behind them, and adding a tag that queues their userpage for deletion like we do to mere vandals is insensitive at best. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::This is the same kind of logic that allowed him to be 'retired' for the past 6 months when he wasn't, allowing him to flip off the countless people who rightly pointed that fact out, hilariously, even Giano. VK's feelings are paramount I guess, plain common sense and consideration for other users has no place here, as usual. If the template serves no purpose, then delete it. How it is in anyway usefull to Wikipedia as a whole to suggest to all visitors to this page that VK is not indef blocked, but has merely wandered off into the wilderness and could return at any time, is utterly beyond me. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::And not that it even matters, but Beeblebrox was the admin who originally revoked VK's talk page privelages on 12 November, and he was the one who then placed the indef blocked tag here one hour after VK was indef blocked the same day [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AVintagekits&action=historysubmit&diff=325376288&oldid=324924104], which Rlevse the final blocker has never seemingly objected to. It was only in the subsequent intervention hours later by you Xeno that suddenly this tag is apparently not appropriate. If none of you admins can agree as to how the template should be used, that's fine, but don't pretend like this convention of 'must be placed by the blocker' has any legitimacy at all. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, this issue perhaps needs to be clarified at the appropriate venue to try and get folks on the same page. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:It's just VK's best buddies trying to be as disruptive as him, I bet that within a few months they will all be going down the same line as he is. Being sensitive to VK is a laugh, since when was he ever sensitive? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Jeni|<span style="color:deeppink">Jeni</span>]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Jeni|<span style="color:deeppink">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vintagekits&diff=325444792&oldid=325444506] I am not VK's best buddy; in fact I barely know him. However, I do not think treating a long-time contributor like a garden-variety troll or vandal is appropriate - no matter who that contributor may be. Adding the "indef blocked" template serves no constructive purpose and if the blocking admin wanted it there, they would have added it themself. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::*jeni, it is just that sort of negative and uninformed comment that has caused most of the problems which surround VK and irritated him so. If you read some of the diffs surrounding this case, you will know that far from being one of VK's best buddies, I am merely one of many that want to see things brought to a satisfactory and happy conclusion for all. This may be a happy conclusion for you, but it is not happy or even satifactory for many others. I am not re-hashing the debate that has been had, but if you think this will be the conclusion and the end of Vintagekits then you are indeed uninformed. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::* Xeno is right. Regardless of the correctness of the indef block (I am in two minds about it myself), dancing on someone's grave is looked on dimly both IRL ''and'' on Wikipedia. Stop it, please. <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<span style="color:black">Black Kite</span>]]</b> 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::* Ditto. I was just about to say the same thing. Grave dancing is not welcomed. Our goal is to help contributors, not push them over the edge and celebrate when they fail. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 19:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::*I'm guessing none of you then give a monkeys about the people who are utterly confused when they arrive here and are greeted with the impression VK has just wandered off, or were similarly concerned about the treatment of the dozens of people who were greeted with such sensitity here when they arrived because of one or other of VK's edits to find a 'retired' editor was more than active, and duly commented as such. None of these people seem to be in your considerations at all. This is supposed to be a community, where basic things like notifications of status have a pretty obvious and logical purpose. Pandering to the sensitivites of people blocked after one of the largest shows of community displeasure I have ever seen for an established contributor, is utterly secondary to plain and simple common sense tbh. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::*The first thing I do to check an editors activity level is look at their contributions page. And the first thing you are presented with at [[Special:Contributions/Vintagekits]] is the fact that they are indefinitely blocked. –[[user:xeno|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:black">'''xeno'''</span>]][[user talk:xeno|<span style="color:black"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*I'm guessing that's what most experienced editors do (although its a bit of a fiddle to do even for experienced users for the likes of Giano with his multiple redirected user pages), but Wikipedia is not made up of just experienced users as you well know. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Let the administrators decide. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Which ones? The ones who placed the tag, or the ones who removed it? [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::If necessary, contact the [[User: Jimbo Wales|administrator-in-chief]]. If one wishs Vk exiled, one shouldn't be risking a block, over Vk's userpage. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Considering Jimbo once said that if he weren't American, he would have loved to be born British, I think that's an <s>excellent</s> crazy suggestion. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oh, for crying out loud, somebody who cares should just ask Beeblebrox if he wants [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AVintagekits&action=historysubmit&diff=325376288&oldid=324924104 his original placement of the tag] restored or not. And regardless of the response, move along afterwards. — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The next person who edit wars over the tag earns themselves an indefinite block of their own, and I will press for a formal ban. In the face of any objection, we should err on the side of decency, compassion, and polite behavior, and ''not'' screw around with the user and usertalk space associated with others.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:An indef block or ban, is a little heavy. A 1-hour block would likely do the trick, IMHO. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:For crying out loud, it is just a silly little tag. Just let it be people. The presence or lack of tag doesn't do anything to change the status quo. |
|||
:Why so many want to edit war over a tag is beyond me, but to suggest edit warring should result in an indefinite block and formal ban is beyond ridiculous. It isn't even remotely that important. There are a thousand ways people could better spend their time 1) arguing over the tag and 2) worrying what other people think about it. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 20:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, Thaddeus, it's not just a tag -- it's a tag that says "Hey, everybody, come delete me!"--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::: And frankly, anyone who even thinks about deleting it will get a [[WP:WHEEL|trout]] followed by an [[WP:BLOCK|even bigger trout]]. Just ... don't. <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<span style="color:black">Black Kite</span>]]</b> 20:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
''"All we are saying.... is give peace a chance"''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The best solution I've found in these situations is often to delete the userpage altogether. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I would rather it stayed as is, if reality and common sense isn't going to win the day. The sooner that uninformed readers learn about the various idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia, like the running joke non-status of tags, the better for them. Coming here and finding a red-link won't help them on this learning path one bit. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 21:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Plus deletion removes some of the evidence from those users seeking answers to the question as to why VK is blocked indefinitely from editing the site (presuming that is that they get that far in their knowledge quest, and have passed the first hurdle in knowing not to trust any tag they see on a random users page and to instead delve behind the scenes, WP:CSI style) [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
My reasoning for threatening an indefinite block are simple. This kind of edit warring is disruptive, and is all about [[WP:POINT|making silly points]] [[WP:BATTLE|in a conflict that has nothing to do with improving an encyclopedia]]. Quite frankly, its often grave-dancing behavior, which should be strictly discouraged. I have no tolerance for such displays, and neither should any of you.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Why is this editor's talk page being vandalized?== |
|||
An indefinite block is not a ban. If Vk chooses to retire that's their decision. Their block was unseemly enough and pushed by the worst kind of partisans, but now to have this abusive antagonistic and disruptive display is outrageous. Anyone who alters this editor's talk page from <s>their</s> Vintagekits' desired state should be indefinitely blocked. Simple as that. This kind of bullying is unacceptable and makes clear the kind of abuse this editor was suffering. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Just one question, why are some of ya describing Vk as ''they''? Vk is a ''him''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: See [[Singular they]]. [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 01:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Phew, I thought ya'll were describing Vk as having 'multiple personalities'. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Not appropriate. == |
|||
This back and forth bickering is not appropriate on a banned users talk page. The hint should have been taken when the user page was protected. If it continues I will protect this page and take a trout to those who led me to do so. Take it to ANI(or even better just drop it), arguing here is nothing more than a drama magnet. [[User talk:Chillum|<small><sup><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.2em 0.3em; class=texhtml; color:#C53F17">'''Chillum'''</span></sup></small>]] 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Ah Chillum, you are in error; VK is not banned but blocked, a subtle difference I agree, but a nevertheless a difference. The problem is that all debate that lead to the blocking, before and after, is null and void. The reason for this is that the Arbitrator and those few that quickly arrived in the night and pushed the block through in an hour were in error by their unnecessary haste. Therefore all debate that followed was biased, poisoned and influenced by the fact that an Arbitator has already declared him guilty. This is the reason I want VK to take the matter to Arbcom (RLevse if he is still around, recused). Then, at least we will have a fair and impartial result, otherwise the bickering here is unlikely to cease. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 07:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agreed. --<span style="font-family:Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''</sub></span> 10:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I've currently 'no clues' as to Vk's status. Is he retired, banned, indef-blocked, a victim of abduction, re-programed, etc? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::He added the retired tag some months ago, and resumed editing with the tag in place. He is currently blocked indefinitely. Personally, at this point, unless the editor files a request for lifting the block with the ArbCom soon, I would favor turning the user page into a redirect to the talk page, and then full protecting the redirect. It would allow someone who really wanted to see the user page history to still do so, but it would take a bit of pointed effort to do so. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 17:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Okie Dokie. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::The talk page history is viewable. If this editor chooses to retire and to post something on their page accordingly that's within their discretion. The vandalism and campaign of attacks against this editor, who's already been blocked indefinitely, need to stop. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 17:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Which edits were [[WP:Vandalism]]? — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Have ''you'' read the history CoM? His (latest) 'retirement' was 3 months, 800 edits, 5 blocks and 30 edit wars ago. Giano is just playing his usual role, VK is indef blocked, defacto banned, and will remain so barring a miracle. Still, new arbcom, new direction and all that. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 17:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::So let him go quietly as he chooses. There's no need to rub salt in his wounds or to stick unsightly templates on his usertalk page. It looks like a vendetta in a dispute that you and those siding with you already won. There's no policy restricting people from retiring or unretiring. Just leave him be as you would want to be treated had you been the one to receive such a harsh sanction. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Why is this such a problem for you Mick? <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::You can't get that from the numerous statements above? [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Alright. New idea, everyone out, this is a dead horse argued on the page of a non-present editor, but if you insist on continuing to discuss it, do it on [[WP:ANI]] or I can sacrifice my own [[user talk:Tznkai|talk page]] to the task.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree that it should be discussed elsewhere. Vintagekits' page should be restored to the state he put it until there is a consensus directing otherwise. The standard policy seems clear in favoring respect for other editors even when they've been sanctioned and to allow editors to retire and unretire at their discretion. This looks like a disruptive campaign of antagonism by partisans who aren't satisfied with the indefinite block they already won. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Trouts all around. Take a hint, this should be discussed in a neutral venue or not at all. VK is not participating in this discussion and that is the only reason to have a discussion here. I am protecting this page for 24 hours, hopefully by tomorrow more sense will be shown. [[User talk:Chillum|<small><sup><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.2em 0.3em; class=texhtml; color:#C53F17">'''Chillum'''</span></sup></small>]] 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] nomination of [[Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)]] == |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|left|48px|]]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|deletion]]. The nominated article is [[Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)]]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and "[[WP:NOT|What Wikipedia is not]]"). |
|||
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)]]. Please be sure to [[WP:SIG|sign your comments]] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). |
|||
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the [[WP:AfD|articles for deletion]] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. |
|||
'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a [[WP:BOT|bot]]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --[[User:Erwin85Bot|Erwin85Bot]] ([[User talk:Erwin85Bot|talk]]) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==RfD nomination of [[:'The Great White Hope'.]]== |
|||
I have nominated {{la|'The Great White Hope'.}} for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 31#'The Great White Hope'.|the discussion page]]. Thank you. — <span style="font-family:gill sans">[[User:The Man in Question|The Man in Question]]</span> [[User_talk:The Man in Question|<small>(in question)</small>]] 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Request for feedback == |
|||
Alright VK, Kattis from the HB here. Myself and the Da finally finished out wiki page and was wondering what the next step is re; feedback. Type this into the wiki search bar... |
|||
Free State Intelligence Department - Oriel House |
|||
I'm not sure if the page is properly live yet as its not coming up when I google search it. Could you make the other members of the 'The Irish Republicanism WikiProject' group aware as I couldn't see a 'talk' tab to share this. |
|||
Thanks again. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.203.209.68|84.203.209.68]] ([[User talk:84.203.209.68|talk]]) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Unreferenced BLPs== |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px]] Hello Vintagekits! Thank you for your contributions. I am a [[WP:BOT|bot]] alerting you that '''4''' of the articles that you created are tagged as[[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources| Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons]]. The [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure [[WP:VERRIFY|verifiability]], all biographies should be based on [[WP:RELIABLE|reliable sources]]. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current ''[[:Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs|{{PAGESINCATEGORY:All_unreferenced_BLPs}}]]'' article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{tl|unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list: |
|||
# [[Robenílson Vieira de Jesus]] - <small>{{findsources|Robenílson Vieira de Jesus}}</small> |
|||
# [[Georgian Popescu]] - <small>{{findsources|Georgian Popescu}}</small> |
|||
# [[Asylbek Talasbaev]] - <small>{{findsources|Asylbek Talasbaev}}</small> |
|||
# [[Cathal Boylan]] - <small>{{findsources|Cathal Boylan}}</small> |
|||
Thanks!--[[User:DASHBot|DASHBot]] ([[User talk:DASHBot|talk]]) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[Mark McAllister]]== |
|||
[[Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|48px|]] |
|||
The article [[Mark McAllister]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]  because of the following concern: |
|||
:<b>Non-notable footballer who fails [[WP:ATHLETE]] as the Irish leagues are not fully professional. Also fails notability and verifiability due to lack of sources.</b> |
|||
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]]. |
|||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Mark McAllister|the article's talk page]]. |
|||
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. The [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion process]] can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> -- [[User:BigDom|<span style="color:#990033">Big</span>]][[User talk:BigDom|<span style="color:#3BB0FF"><small>Dom</small></span>]] 12:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]] nomination of [[:The Lying Down Game]] == |
|||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|42px]]</div>I have nominated [[The Lying Down Game]], an article that you created, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lying Down Game]]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 20:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg== |
|||
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">'''[[Image:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|left|⚠]]'''</span> Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphaned]], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. [[WP:BOLD|You may add it back]] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]). |
|||
'''PLEASE NOTE:''' |
|||
* I am a [[WP:BOT|bot]], and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. |
|||
* I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again. |
|||
* If you receive this notice ''after'' the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Example&editintro=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpg}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests&create=Request here] to file an un-delete request. |
|||
* To opt out of these bot messages, add <code><nowiki>{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}</nowiki></code> to your talk page. |
|||
*If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off [[User:DASHBot/F5|here]] and leave a message on [[User talk:Tim1357|my owner's talk page]]. |
|||
Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> [[User:DASHBot|DASHBot]] ([[User talk:DASHBot|talk]]) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Clothing store listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
|||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[Clothing store]]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Clothing store'' redirect, you might want to participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 7#Clothing store|the redirect discussion]] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, [[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|his otters]] and a clue-bat • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|Otters want attention]])</sup> 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Possibly unfree File:Kieran Nugent.jpg == |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Kieran Nugent.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files]] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the [[:File:Kieran Nugent.jpg|file description page]]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 December 19#File:Kieran Nugent.jpg|the discussion]] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Unblock request== |
|||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=time to unblock I think. The actually block was malicious in the first place but I think time has been served anyway. | decline=I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that |
|||
*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, <u>or</u> |
|||
*the block is no longer necessary because you |
|||
*#understand what you have been blocked for, |
|||
*#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and |
|||
*#will make useful contributions instead. |
|||
Please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. In particular, you should see [[WP:NOTTHEM]] and would have to address the fact that stringent terms have already been attempted before ([[User talk:Vintagekits/terms]]). See also comments at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=404433983#Vintagekits_seeks_unblock ANI discussion about this request]. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 11:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
See discussion at [[WP:ANI#Vintagekits seeks unblock]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:So far the few who have participated are unanimous in opposing an unblock. Doing this on Christmas is probably not going to win any sympathy. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: Can I just point out for the record that VK is '''not''' currently socking, nor has he been - to my knowledge - since his indef block - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<span style="color:#FF7C0A">l<span style="color:#FFB550">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 23:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::In that case, I've no probs with unblocking. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I note the SPI on [[User:MFIreland|MFIreland]] being suspected as a sock, has been closed per lack of 'diff's for evidence. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::If by mentioning socking you intend to imply that the [[WP:OFFER|standard offer]] applies, I wish you would just say so. The conversation at ANI is not about socking, and he was not blocked for socking. The SPI case did not find evidence of socking. Fine. I'm willing to believe that, it doesn't change my position one bit as I wasn't previously aware of it anyway. The offer is just a suggested course of action, it does not apply in every case. I am a big fan of it myself but I don't believe this is a situation where it should be invoked. Even if it was VK continues to blame others for his own blocking, showing no signs of intending to change his behavior. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
VK, I recommend you admit responsibility for your own indef block. If you don't? well you see the trend at ANI. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:And the few users who do support unblocking you have indicated a rather elaborate set of restrictions, including a topic ban from all articles related to Irish or British politics and all articles related to The Troubles, and supervision by a mentor that will not be chosen by you. In the interest of moving the conversation forward it seems appropriate to ask if you would even agree to such restrictions as a condition of being unblocked. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Indeed, stick with the Boxing articles. Leave the political stuff to others. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
This editor need to be unblocked. his opponoents, who have behaved in far worse fashion, have been unblocked. What is the difference with VK? Please explain that to me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:[[WP:NOTTHEM]]. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 11:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Don't quote stupid, ridiculous essays and links to me! Explain why this is acceptable [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Counter-revolutionary#Unblock] and an unblock of Vk is not? Are you even aware of the facts? I very nuch doubt it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:If "opponents" have "behaved in far worse fashion" then that is an argument to block or chastise them, not to unblock VK. I will support appropriate measures against "opposing" editors to minimize disruption when those are proven with diffs. Let's address that on ANI as an independent issue. This is an encyclopedia, not a boxing match. We don't need to find sparring partners. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<span style="color:#595454">Will Beback</span>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<span style="color:#C0C0C0">talk</span>]] </b> 11:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*Get hold of Alison then, and ask her for some explanations of her behaviour here, I am enjoying a pleasant and relaxed holiday, to which I am hurriedly returning, and leaving the sleezy mire of hypocrisy which I have found here while looking in briefly. Disgraceful and disgusting exhibition of double standards. I have never seen such gross hyppocrisy from so called admins here before. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Um, is "hypocrisy" aimed at me? You realise I had no involvement with the unblock of Counter-revolutionary? Also, I think this is another instance where supporters of an editor vocally and even aggressively trying to defend them in their absence is, if anything, counter-productive. If VK makes a serious unblock request (which you're welcome to help him formulate), ''that'' would merit lengthy discussion. Discussing the now-declined request this much merely prejudices any future request. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 11:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Eh, it's Giacomo. Everything he disagrees with is proof of Wikipedia's moral decline & hypocrisy. Best to just ignore him. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You know what would be totally awesome? If we used Vintagekits' talk page to talk to and about Vintagekits, and not each other! Vintagekits, there are three audiences that will be reviewing your block request. People who know you and are inclined to help you out, people who know you and are disinclined to help you out, and people who don't know you at all. If you even appear to place any of the blame for your block on someone else's shoulders, that last group will not help you. Its just the way it is around here.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 18:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:With unblock requests worded like the one under discussion here, standard procedure is to decline the request. If he's serious about being unblocked, he is free to submit a properly-worded unblock request. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*Far from ignoring the multitude of reason for my various blocks I am fully aware of them and hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. My indefinate block was ushered through on the back of a bandwagon whilst half the world slept. When the remainder of the world awoke they were basically told it was too late. |
|||
*Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. |
|||
*Do I understand what I have been blocked for, yes. But I also understand that there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished and many have shown their faces here already. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with those editors in futures - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. |
|||
*will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion is enough to prove what I have said above is true. |
|||
*will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. |
|||
p.s. apologies for the shoddy original unblock request, one would think that with all my experience that I would know what the correct procedure was, however I am obviously out of practice.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Well that sounds a little more like an unblock request, though you should probably address the old [[User talk:Vintagekits/terms]] specifically since that came up in the recent ANI discussion. When you're ready, use the appropriate unblock request template, and someone should then start a new thread on [[WP:AN]]. Unfortunately the starting of an ANI discussion in relation to your recent request may have poisoned the well a bit, so you may have to work extra hard to convince people to have you back. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:A friendly word of advice: In such an unblock request, don't say ''anything'' about other editors. It will, ''for sure'', result in an "unblock declined". ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I think what's being sought, is an apology for being un-civil (the colour languages on talkpages) & prior to your indef-block, the usage of socks. Plus a promise to do neither again. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::The second time VK was blocked for incivility, back in February 2007, he solemnly promised to "avoid comments that even could come close to being perceived as attacks or incivility".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&diff=prev&oldid=109541190] He's been blocked 20 times for personal attacks since then, not to mention the edit warring blocks. Following many of those blocks he's promised to reform. But he is who he is, and at this point it'd be foolish to assume he's capable of change, no matter how sincere his promises may be. See [[The Scorpion and the Frog]]. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<span style="color:#595454">Will Beback</span>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<span style="color:#C0C0C0">talk</span>]] </b> 08:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Why the fuck should VK apologise for the "usage of socks"? When was the last time he socked? It certainly wasn't anything to do with his last block was it? VK has certainly got it half right though, you only have to look at the history of the now disgraced admin who blocked him last time, who clearly had it in for VK to such an extent that he was busy gathering villagers with pitchforks to ban VK while ignoring that the article that caused the problems had a BLP violation in that his death was completely unsourced! And isn't it funny how two things I've taken to ANI recently have had little to no input, the no input being an IP editor who violates BLP with virtually every single edit they make. But VK posts an unblock on what should be a quiet day of the year and people are there in the blink of an eye, it would seem keeping VK off Wikipedia is far more important than upholing BLP round here... <span style="font-family:Celtic">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">2 lines of K</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></span> 13:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Why should he? Well, how badly does he want to edit? Editing here is a privilege, not a right. And blaming others for getting blocked will accomplish nothing, so I'm trying to imagine how your comments are likely to help the blockee in this case. As to the other items you mention, I'll take a look, but IP's can't be given lengthy blocks except in limited circumstances. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Oh just grovel to them VK, crawl on your hands and knees shouting "''I'm nout but a thick bog peasant, please kind sirs let me edit, I'll be ever so good and brown my nose''" I rather think that is what is required. Were you pretending to be a fine upstanding English gentleman, then of course you would be aplauded and welcomed back, even if you had been "abusing multiple accounts and using threatening behaviour" all behaviour seemingly taught on the playing fields of Eton. It looks to me like you are perceived to be the wrong nationality and type. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::How badly does he want to edit? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:*About as badly as [[User:Counter-revolutionary]], one of his old prime-agressors, who has just been welomed back after a two year block for all forms of deporable behaviour. It seems there is one rule for the Brits and one for the Irish. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*Yeh, a lot of us Yanks have it in for the Irish while we love the British (guess which one we fought two wars against). ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Oh I had no idea, that decisions solely up to you "Yanks." I thought this was an internationally collaborative project. Silly me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::And how does a baseless accusation of anti-Irish bias aid in that collaboration? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*The unblock of the other user looks questionable, and you're free to follow the guy's edits and see if he misbehaves, and then take it to the admins. None of that has anything to do with O'Vintagekits, though. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:*I support Vintagekits return to productive contributing. Under some restrictions perhaps for a couple of months to help him settle back in and on a short rope as regards rudeness to other contributors, all he has to do is to be polite or be blocked again. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*That seems fair, provided he stops playing the "look what you made me do" game. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
To focus on socking is a red herring. Yes, Vk has socked before—persistently—but there is nothing to suggest he has done so during the length on this block, despite ample time and opportunity to do so. Expecting (or demanding) an apology for socking is both pointless and punitive. Giano has a point beneath the nationalist spin: every block should be reviewed in the context of the reasons for the block, not other sundry past crimes. |
|||
Vk seems to have addressed the reasons for his block on the second attempt. But, in my opinion, a major concern remains: denial of responsibility ("''The actually block was malicious in the first place''", "''there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished''"). If you don't demonstrate that you appreciate ''why'' your actions led to a block (and instead blame the actions of others) its unlikely you can make the judgments required to avoid making the same comments in future. My reading of both requests is that Vk believes he was blocked unfairly by a conspiracy of others. Only if the community accepts this should he be unblocked. [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*I dont really want to focus on this as it is exactly the type of negativity that I want to avoid but do you agree that there are a band (orcastrated or not) who would not wish to see my return to wiki no matter what I said. Lets not kid ourselves here eh!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I expect there are editors that consider your bridges well and truly burnt, and no matter what you say now will be unlikely to support your unblocking. But you might consider ''why'' some people feel that way (hint: the 31 prior blocks may have something to do with it) and instead try to convince those who are willing to give you another chance that you know how to avoid reaching 32. [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 21:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::*Thank you Rockpocket, I think we will both agree that VK was a thorn in many sides and I will conceed that when in drink he could be objectionable. However, as he says "''Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with those editors in futures.''" I know that his RL responsibilities have increased and with them his sense of responsibility. Does one punish the adult for the sins of the child? returning to that punishment, the reasons many were unhapy with his block was becase it was most defiitely as VK says hurriedly "ushered through on the back of a bandwagon whilst half the world slept." I have never before or since seen such a hurried indeff, in one time zone. Regardless of if you like it or not, VK was indeffed while Ireland was asleep. Now that his old adversaris are all unblocked, '''My view is that comon justice demands the lifting of this block'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::: But irrespective of whether the indef was hurried through or not, the fact remains that there was a good reason the initial block was placed. Few, if any, of the editors who argued against the nature of the indef took issue with that. Vk-with-added-responsibilities said he would be happy to answer queries. So I have four before offering an opinion on the merits of his request. |
|||
::::#Do you think it is acceptable to refer to another editor, completely unprovoked, as a "fucking arsehole" or an "ego maniac"? |
|||
::::#Should editors who repeatedly or persistently use bilious language in personal attacks or in reference to other editors be welcome in our community? |
|||
::::#Pursuant to your answer above, why? |
|||
::::#If you were unblocked and used such language again in reference to another editor, should this block be immediately reinstated? |
|||
:::: Thanks, [[User:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">Rockpock</span>]]<span style="color:black">e</span>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<span style="color:green">t</span>]] 17:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Just to be clear: I support having Vk's indef block lifted, therefore I aint requesting anything from VK in his unblock request. I merely observed about the kind of unblock request he'll need, to get the community to support his unblock. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
You're doing fine Vk. Remaining patient, no foul language usage, no socking. Such an approach helps & I believe at some point in 2011, you'll be unblocked. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. |
|||
Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. |
|||
Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editor in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. |
|||
Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. |
|||
Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them.|decline=At this point, there's no way for you to be unblocked without a community consensus at AN or ANI (or appeal to BASC). Trouble is that starting such a thread so soon after the last one is unlikely to accomplish much. Consensus can change, but rarely does it overnight. My best advice would be to either wait a few months and try for return per [[WP:OFFER]] or to email BASC. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</span>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]] 03:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
:*Here's the problem: At the recent ANI discussion, most users were opposed to you being unblocked. The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor. I asked above if you would be willing to agree to these conditions and I don't see an answer anywhere. You have a few more supporters here now, but another discussion will be warranted if we are to seriously consider unblocking you. I don't see any point to initiating said discussion until you indicate whether or not you would be willing to accept such restrictions. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::It's quite apparent (at the moment) that if/when Vk is unblocked, another ANI community review will occur. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|side conversation}} |
|||
::the problem with that is, were similar restrictions imposed on his adversaries who behaved in far worse fashion and who are now unblocked after similar blocks - are you seeking to bias the Troubles debates and pages? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 20:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Giano, your backhanded accusation of bad faith is really not going to help the situation. I'm sure you are aware of [[WP:NOTTHEM]]. I'm not saying VK has to agree to these terms, I'm saying he should answer the querstion of whether he would be willing to agree to them or not. If the answer is no, then we know before re-starting the discussion that that particular option is off the table. That's all, there is no conspiracy, just a simple request for clarification of a point that has already come up in these discussions. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::*Please don't quote these ridiculous [[WP-THINGS]] to me because I never read them as they are usually written by Admins atemptimg to justify their own bad behaviour. I can assure you I meant nothing "backhanded," in fact, my meaning was quite obvious. You have allowed back his adversaries (who committed worse "crimes") without a murmer of dissent; now, just get on and unblock VK who has, unlike them, promised to mend his ways. It's begining to look like a huge bias. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::I haven't personally allowed anyone back in. I don't even know who you are talking about and I don't care to find out either. We are discussing VKs possible unblock. Some other user being unblocked by some other admin is a separate matter, and has abcolutely nothing to do with the simple question I am asking for an answer to. This bias you speak of, as it applies to me anyway, is purely a product of your imagination. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If you have not bothered to avail yourself of the facts pertenent to this case perhaps you sould not be commenting here at all. Such ignorance is worryingly common amongst Admins keen to have their names seen here, there and everywhere. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I have to wonder, at this point, if Giaco is actually trying to sabotage VK's attempt to get unblocked. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Your wonderings are of very little value. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{small|My comments are every bit as valuable as yours. But thanks for the non-denial denial :) ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
::::::This entire conversation is of little value at this point, all I wanted was a simple yes or no answer to a question, and you have decided to drag imaginary nationalist conspiracies into it. I don't care one bit if VK is Irish, English, Iranian, Australian, Navajo, Greek, Albanian, etc. I'll have you know I'm half Irish Catholic myself, so if anything I would be more inclined to be biased in his favor. Now, if we could just let this non-issue alone and give VK a chance to answer the question with either a yes or a no that would be ''super''. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: Giano - who are these ''"adversaries who behaved in far worse fashion and who are now unblocked after similar blocks"'' because I'm really not seeing them? I hope that's not a reference to Counter-rev, as he was 1) neither Sussexman nor David Lauder, both of whom are still well and truly blocked and 2) was never as abusive as VintageKits was in his prime. See my talk page where I went over that already during the week - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<span style="color:#FF7C0A">l<span style="color:#FFB550">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 10:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*I see, so WJBscribe was lying/grossly exagerating here: "''19:26, 1 July 2008 WJBscribe (talk | contribs) blocked Counter-revolutionary (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (abusing multiple accounts, threatening behaviour)''" and that well known upstanding paragon of Wiki virtue Rlevse (renamed as Vanquished on VK's block log) was mreley upholding the sacred Wiki after the disgraceful night of dirty knives when North America hurriedly sent VK packing while Ireland slept - I hope you are proud of that in North America! One only has to look at the names on his block log [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AVintagekits] to see what was happenng a combination of monumantal and engineered ignorance. You Alison, released Counter-revolutionary from his cage in time for the 2010 election after asking for few if any reasurrances of futire behaviour. Yet, when VK wants similarly releasing all hell breaks loose as the drones march out to comment, clearly (as Beeblebrox admits) with mot a clue about that which they are comenting on. I find this all very odd indeed. I am delighted that VK states he is a reformed charactor and hope he has the chance to prove that - a great pity you did not require similar assurances from CR. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please cease posting comments to this thread in the recent nationalist-battleground and what-about-that-guy vein. You clearly support VK's unblock, but your efforts are counterproductive to that aim and you seem unable to recognise that (as I said before, if you have current issues with other editors, then pursue [[WP:DR|DR]] as appropriate). My expectation is that VK will address the issue of whether he would accept the previous unblock terms and why they would work this time (with the hope that successfully respecting them would later give some chance of them being lifted) or else make the best case he can why he should be given the chance to show that such terms aren't necessary now. Then we can have another AN thread, where I don't rate his chances in the near future, but with a good enough effort, who knows. At any rate, there's no other way back, and you're not helping - quite the opposite. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 13:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::*I'm sure you all hate haveing the nationalistic overtones of this debate brought out into the open, but there are no other conclusions one can draw? Bad behaviour hapened on both sides, yet only one side continues to be punished - or have you just unblocked VK? Oh and will you all please stop quoting these stupid [[WP-things]] at me, all written by yourselves. Either behave fairly or be quite yourself. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Any more of this nonsense and I'll page ban you from here, mostly for VK's benefit but also for your own. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 15:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*{{small|Well, he's still blocked. Your reverse-psychology strategy worked. :) ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
* - the question to Vintagekits .... |
|||
The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor...Would you be willing to accept such a condition? I am unsure but I imagine such a condition would not be indefinite but perhaps for say six months or until the community could see you moving forward in a collaborative manner and a measure of trust and support was there to lift the restriction.[[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Agree - address that, VK, or else make the best case you can why you should be given the chance to show that such terms aren't necessary now. Then we can have another AN thread and see where we stand. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 15:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::*that conditionality wouldnt annoy me to be honest. I think people will be surprised with how I handle my self from now on so I would have no objection to a restriction like that.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::IMHO, an AN or ANI report/thread shouldn't be opened until Vk's unblocked. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::VK shouldn't be unblocked until the community has agreed to removal of the effective community ban. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oops, I forgot, it was a community ban. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Bringing it up again at ANI could result in disappointment for VK, but could also be the fair thing to do, as the worst the group is likely to do is say "No" again. Just make sure you-know-who doesn't put his oar in and gum up the works for VK. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:*I find it fairly hard to take this process serious, especially considering the CR episode. My first unblock request was largely rejeced out oof hand because I didnt explain myself and then I did in the second and it was rejected because it was "too soon". Whats a guy gotta do?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Be patienet. Remember, there's alot of editors out there, who still don't trust you & aren't quick to forgive your past behaviour. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Make a third one. You've explained yourself better, and as it seems you're willing to accept the terms, it seems reasonable to now discuss an unblock at AN. I think the "too soon" issue may have been because at that point you hadn't addressed the terms, and now you have I wouldn't expect it to happen again. (And if it does, I'm happy to start an AN thread anyway.) [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 17:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::As per the above, you have explained your position and alluded to your understanding of why you were restricted and you have offered and accepted the possible restrictions such as mentor and topic restriction, so moving forward and with this in mind your offer and request is worth presenting to the community, although I am sure you know there is no guarantee, if you are serious I suggest you present the new situation in an unblock template for community consideration. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 19:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Disclosure; I'm half Irish, so maybe I empathize a bit too much, but I suggest you try again right away(apppears to me you have a bit of positive momentum right now) and if anybody who might be Christian throws up the "31 blocks" objection, just remind them, especially at this time of year, that 31 is not [[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:21-23&version=KJV 490]]. [[User:Mr.grantevans2|Mr.Grantevans2]] ([[User talk:Mr.grantevans2|talk]]) 16:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Unblock Request - Take III== |
|||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editors in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project? Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am here for. Will I disagree with people? I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues which is the main thing. That is about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. | decline=Enough si enough. I have revoked your access to this talk page, please direct any further appeals to the Arbitration Committee via their Ban Appeals Subcommittee, the community is not receptive to unblocking you. Any unblock at this point will have to come from the Committee. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 03:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)}} |
|||
*You might want to fix the spelling errors and also clarify the "not...not" statement. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*Chuck in a bit about your agreement to being sanctioned from the British & Irish political areas of Wikipedia. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*Bit disappointing, VK - you just copied and pasted Take II without even reading carefully enough to find obvious spelling mistakes, never mind address the points discussed after Take II. This might easily look a bit cavalier to some, which seems silly when you're trying to convince people. Try and fix the issues mentioned before anything else happens. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 14:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::'Cavalier' - do you agree with the rationale behind the closing of 'Take II'. By the way, my spelling is always terrible. It always has been, it always will be. If you find that offensive then I can only apologies. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, that response robs me of any remaining desire to help you. I wash my hands of this. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I almost closed this one out of hand, thinking it a duplicate of the previous one. Which it is... [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::What more would you like to see in this request?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::What do you think are the reasons you got into trouble here? [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Many because I was reeled in by dishonest people. What about you?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::What were you blocked for? [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 19:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It's all set about in my block log and the above discussions.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Do YOU understand what you were blocked for? [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 19:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Now now KB, have a bit of manners when you are on my talkpage. Its not like you have showered yourself in glory when you have been here before. I'll answer your question with a question. Have you read my unblock request?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] ([[User talk:Vintagekits#top|talk]]) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I have. And I don't believe your reasons for requesting an unblock. You were on a final final chance and you blew it out of the water. [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*I don't think you realise Kittybrewster, that it is your friends who have largley caused the problem which VK has had. However, I'm sure all concerned are noticing, that VK is behaving with maturity and gravitas and not rising to your bait, so perhaps a little introspection would be beneficial for you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Indeed you are right; I don't realise that my friends (whatever that means) have largely caused VK's problem. Nor do I think VK has begun to make clear that he is responsible. [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<span style="color:#0000FF">☎</span>]] 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Whatever makes you happy Kittybrewster can only be applauded. However, I don't think you will find than VK or indeed anyone other eager to respond to yout trolling here. Good evening. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I was about ready to read yet another attempt by Giaco to sabotage VK's comeback attempt, but VK seems to have done a good job sabotaging ''himself'' this time. I can only conclude that he really, really does ''not'' want to edit on wikipedia. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ |
|||
Folks, this bickering is pointless. Whatever anyone's view of the unblock request, it's going to need an ANI discussion to consider it, and a finger-pointing exercise here does not nothing to assist anyone. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I was ready to log a "support unblock", but it's clear he's not serious, so forget it. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*Just a courtesy notice that I have asked at [[WP:AN]] for a previously uninvolved admin to come deal with this, it has obviously dragged on far too long. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Userpage == |
|||
The userpage should be changed to ''indef block'', as that's what VK's status currently is. He's certainly not retired. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:True though that may be, is it ''really'' that big of a deal? Anyone can see from this page that the "retirement" was not voluntary. In short you are correct but it is hardly the most pressing issue here. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 02:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::It's just illogical to keep thate ''retirement'' tag, when that's not the situation. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree completely. I just don't see it as a pressing problem. There has already been a slo-mo edit war over this for over a year, and it's still there. There are things that are worth fighting for and things that are not. I suggest this falls into the "not" category. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I changed it to indefblocked yesterday, especially since consensus was formed at AN/I that he's blocked indefinitely, but I was reverted out of hand by his friend. As usual, on Wikipedia, it's not about what you do but who you know. - [[User:Burpelson AFB|Burpelson AFB]] [[User talk:Burpelson AFB|✈]] 14:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It's not worth edit-warring over. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Nothing ever is.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
*I'm sorry you feel you have been treated unfairly, there have been several community discussions wherein a clear consensus was established that you should remain blocked. Emailing me as if this was all my doing isn't going to change that one bit. You may contact [[WP:BASC]] if you want to appeal this any further, I'd appreciate it if you did not email me any further regarding this as I couldn't override the community's decision even if I wanted to. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Replaceable fair use File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg == |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning.svg|32px|left]] |
|||
Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg]]'''. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|fair use]], but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|first non-free content criterion]] in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please: |
|||
# Go to [[:File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg|the media description page]] and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, '''without deleting the original replaceable fair use template'''. |
|||
# On [[File talk:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg|the image discussion page]], write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. |
|||
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, [[Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission|requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license]], or by taking a picture of it yourself. |
|||
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|target=Vintagekits&namespace=6}} this link]</span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|non-free content policy]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg== |
|||
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">'''[[Image:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|left|⚠|link=]]'''</span> Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphaned]], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. [[WP:BOLD|You may add it back]] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]). |
|||
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "[[Special:MyContributions|my contributions]]" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:Toi tim.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Toi tim.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:Toi tim.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:O'hanlon.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:O'hanlon.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:O'hanlon.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* Moved to Commons and now used on [[Fergal O'Hanlon]] - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<span style="color:#FF7C0A">l<span style="color:#FFB550">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Poster50r.jpg== |
|||
[[File:Copyright-problem.svg|64px|left|alt=|link=]] |
|||
Thank you for uploading '''[[:File:Poster50r.jpg]]'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]]. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free|image copyright tag]]; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. |
|||
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Files|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:Irhm sign.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Irhm sign.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:Irhm sign.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Possibly unfree File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg == |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files]] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the [[:File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg|file description page]]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 8#File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg|the discussion]] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> --[[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:Grave of emmet.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:Grave of emmet.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:Grave of emmet.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: Moved to Commons. We'll have it for ga.wikipedia - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<span style="color:#FF7C0A">l<span style="color:#FFB550">is</span>o</span>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 06:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Bresli an phob.jpg== |
|||
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">'''[[Image:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|left|⚠|link=]]'''</span> Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Bresli an phob.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphaned]], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. [[WP:BOLD|You may add it back]] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]). |
|||
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "[[Special:MyContributions|my contributions]]" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:All 350.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:All 350.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:All 350.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File:JimBreen.jpg listed for deletion == |
|||
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:JimBreen.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 8#File:JimBreen.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Clarification motion == |
|||
A case ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles|The Troubles]]) in which you were involved has been modified by {{oldid2|631252824|Motion|motion}} which changed the wording of the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions|discretionary sanctions section]] to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">S Philbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 21:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Happy New Year== |
|||
Hi VK, I just thought I’d drop by to wish you a prosperous New Year and say it would be nice to see a little more of you around the place. That’s assuming, of course, I’m not already seeing you and am too stupid to realise it. Be happy! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Giano|<span style="color:blue">Giano</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Giano|'''(talk)''']] 22:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 12:52, 19 September 2023
Extended content
| |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Since you continue to be disruptive..Take 48 hours off, VK. Your attacks on Elonka are outside the lines, and you should know that by now. SirFozzie (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I dont know why anyone ever does one of these because they are never overturned and fellow admins always see things from the other admins perspective. Sir Fozz says that I have been disruptive and made a personal attack yet refuses to clarify the block, which is poor form. I wasnt being disruptive at all - I hadnt been involved in the revert war that was being discussed and I never suggested that Domer should ignore the probation only that putting him on probation was wrong - I wasnt alone on that. So there can only be the personal attack issue - I made no personal attack, I asked Fozz what was the attack and who was it made towards? Sir Fozz certainly does have a COI with regards me so maybe that clouded his judgement. Decline reason: You clearly don't want to understand the meaning of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Look right above this unblock request for a perfect example of why you shall remain blocked. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: there is no personal attack. I didnt not attack Elonka, she asked what Domer meant by his comment, I explained, she was happy with the answer I got. As per usual just because an American see a swear word they automatically think there was a personal attack - there wasnt. Dont judge us by your cultural standards. There was no personal attack. Vintagekits (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Decline reason: No one appears to have objected to your first edit to that thread, but the second one constituted a personal attack. Per your block log, this does not appear to be an isolated incident. I suggest that you consider modifying your behaviour to reflect Wikipedia standards, rather than implying that you are being singled out due to cultural differences. Dekimasuよ! 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
BanAs you already know, you have been indef'd and banned per this ANI thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this.....
Jeez Vk; you break my heart! Why keep effin' and blinding at people when you know what will happen????? Still, hope you get back. Maybe look up "apology" in the dictionary and practice in front of a mirror - without head-butting the glass :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Not banned yetThe debate about blocking or banning is still ongoing at ANI, as such VK should be permitted to edit his talk page. Everyone has a right to defend themselves before a sentence is passed. There seems to be a lot of unssemly and undue haste on this matter - why? Giano 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point:
Posted here by Giano 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Vk. It's your usage of foul language, that's getting ya into these block problems. Personally, I don't mind the colorful words, but it appears an increasing numbers of editors do. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy Vk. I decided to delete my 'vote' from your Ban case. I shall have to take a neutral stand on it. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that certain people have been trying to make a mountain out of a molehill over VK's emails. They frankly look like reasonable responses given his limitations on communication at the time. I have taken some time to look over some of the troubles articles and there does seem to be a systematic Britsh POV bias going on. No wow I will lay my cards on the table here... I am a Brit... but being from an Irish family I am probably more aware of and attuned to the issues at hand than most editors. Most editors seem to take the Britsh POV and are backed by what would seem to be a a number of admins all with either a British POV or American ones with a strong anti terrorism POV. Take the "British Isles" as an example. Geographically and geologically speaking the term seems fine to me - simply meaning the group of Islands the biggest of which happens to be called Great Britain. That is pretty standard terminology for any group of Islands to be refered to by the biggest. Now the term is also used in political and economic sense where its use is not so clear cut and can have overtones that are not welcome that most British editors are simply unaware of, and the term is used in this way, which can be considered an inflamatory way, throughout wikipedia. There are alternatives to the British Isles which can and should be used outside of purely geographic or geological articles yet the weight of editors on the British side surpresses this. It is no wonder to me that editors who try and redress this balance problem feel like they are beating their head against a wall sometimes because frankly they are, though I would say it is not a wall of anti Irish sentiment but one of ignorance to the issue. --LiamE (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I've changed my mind (yet again). I'm once again, opposing the indef-ban, as I've no evidence of sock-puppetry (since the last Banning case). GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Official statement requestedJehochman has asked for you to write up and post an official statement to be contributed to the ANI discussion before it's closed. Can you create one here and indicate when you are done editing and want it copied over? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep agree a full and thorough Arbcom case. To cut out the BS insist on Diff's for any and every accusation. --Domer48'fenian' 10:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Lift the blockGiven the nature of the block and my suspicion, based on personal experience, that this is a tactic in a banning process I believe the ban should be lifted before any further proceedings. Here we have a trial in progress while the accused has already been locked away without bail - all the better to provoke him. Not the circumstances for a fair assessment of the many issues at play here. It's not as if Vk can abscond while out on bail. I think my proposal here will tease out the real agenda of the block and ban lobby. Sarah777 (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
MentorshipWould you be willing to have me, and likely some others (which will need to include people you don't care for - so to be acceptable for those who do not appreciate the effort being expended to keep you editing this project), as mentor(s)? This would run concurrent to Jehochman's suggested limiting you to sport/boxing topics and ban from Ireland/Troubles related areas. I am asking the community the same thing at ANI, and will only accept supping from the poisoned chalice if there are two positive responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Completely unconnected questionIs Manny Pacquiao's fight on Miguel Cotto British TV tonight, if so when ? I can't find it anywhere and the dog has eaten today's newspaper? someone watching this page is bound to know. Giano 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Block and associated discussionI have closed the discussion at the incident noticeboard regarding your block. At this time, there is a strong, albeit not unanimous, consensus that the block is to remain. You may, as normal, request that the arbitration committee review the matter. As I stated in my closing rationale, if you post a request for arbitration on this page, I will move it to requests for arbitration for you. Whatever the outcome here is, I urge you to strongly consider why things have come to this point. I hope that you will do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Take a peek at here, another option. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Pacman, WBO welterweight championPacman TKO's Cotto in 12th rd. I was close, eh? GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) The Third RoadHi Vintagekits, the two paths laid before you are both shithouse because both of those paths mean more unhappy work for me. Come over to Wikisource for a while! Bring all your friends!! ;-) Wikisource needs someone with your passion. s:Wikisource:Sports doesn't mention boxing. Someone needs to create s:Wikisource:Boxing We have a few poor quality works in s:Category:Boxing. As an example, I have set up s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 1.djvu and s:Index:Pugilistica - 1906 - Volume 2.djvu, where you can clean up and improve existing biographies written long ago. e.g. Thomas Smallwood. Simply log in, click edit, and fix the OCR errors. The Wikisource community will help you with the syntax voodoo; you'll get the hang of things pretty quickly. I'll be happy to set up projects for any old book that interests you; any topic, any language. I'd rather spend my time helping you settle into Wikisource rather than spend that same time in arbitration or investigating socks. After a few months, you can then appeal your Wikipedia ban either to Arbcom or to the community. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctionsAs a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here. For the Arbitration Committee Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) VK is blocked indefinitely, not retiredWhy is the tagging of his user page with {indefblocked} even up for debate? Why are certain people so absolutely desparate to make themselves look like tag teaming edit warriors that are utterly blind to reality? Considering there are already descriptions of this nature of these exact editors before arbcom right now, you would think they might take the hint and actually stop acting like tag teaming edit warriors. It is precisely this sort of lack of clue about reality that got VK indeffed in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The next person who edit wars over the tag earns themselves an indefinite block of their own, and I will press for a formal ban. In the face of any objection, we should err on the side of decency, compassion, and polite behavior, and not screw around with the user and usertalk space associated with others.--Tznkai (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"All we are saying.... is give peace a chance". GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC) The best solution I've found in these situations is often to delete the userpage altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
My reasoning for threatening an indefinite block are simple. This kind of edit warring is disruptive, and is all about making silly points in a conflict that has nothing to do with improving an encyclopedia. Quite frankly, its often grave-dancing behavior, which should be strictly discouraged. I have no tolerance for such displays, and neither should any of you.--Tznkai (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Why is this editor's talk page being vandalized?An indefinite block is not a ban. If Vk chooses to retire that's their decision. Their block was unseemly enough and pushed by the worst kind of partisans, but now to have this abusive antagonistic and disruptive display is outrageous. Anyone who alters this editor's talk page from
Not appropriate.This back and forth bickering is not appropriate on a banned users talk page. The hint should have been taken when the user page was protected. If it continues I will protect this page and take a trout to those who led me to do so. Take it to ANI(or even better just drop it), arguing here is nothing more than a drama magnet. Chillum 02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Trouts all around. Take a hint, this should be discussed in a neutral venue or not at all. VK is not participating in this discussion and that is the only reason to have a discussion here. I am protecting this page for 24 hours, hopefully by tomorrow more sense will be shown. Chillum 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC) AfD nomination of Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward O'Brien (Irish republican). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC) RfD nomination of 'The Great White Hope'.I have nominated 'The Great White Hope'. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Request for feedbackAlright VK, Kattis from the HB here. Myself and the Da finally finished out wiki page and was wondering what the next step is re; feedback. Type this into the wiki search bar... Free State Intelligence Department - Oriel House I'm not sure if the page is properly live yet as its not coming up when I google search it. Could you make the other members of the 'The Irish Republicanism WikiProject' group aware as I couldn't see a 'talk' tab to share this. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.209.68 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Unreferenced BLPsHello Vintagekits! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 874 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC) The article Mark McAllister has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Articles for deletion nomination of The Lying Down GameOrphaned non-free image File:Emagee commonwealthbelt.jpgPLEASE NOTE:
Clothing store listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clothing store. Since you had some involvement with the Clothing store redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Kieran Nugent.jpgA file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kieran Nugent.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Saibo (Δ) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Unblock request
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: time to unblock I think. The actually block was malicious in the first place but I think time has been served anyway. Decline reason: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. In particular, you should see WP:NOTTHEM and would have to address the fact that stringent terms have already been attempted before (User talk:Vintagekits/terms). See also comments at the ANI discussion about this request. Rd232 talk 11:02, 27 December 2010 (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. See discussion at WP:ANI#Vintagekits seeks unblock. Sandstein 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
VK, I recommend you admit responsibility for your own indef block. If you don't? well you see the trend at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This editor need to be unblocked. his opponoents, who have behaved in far worse fashion, have been unblocked. What is the difference with VK? Please explain that to me. Giacomo 11:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. apologies for the shoddy original unblock request, one would think that with all my experience that I would know what the correct procedure was, however I am obviously out of practice.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
To focus on socking is a red herring. Yes, Vk has socked before—persistently—but there is nothing to suggest he has done so during the length on this block, despite ample time and opportunity to do so. Expecting (or demanding) an apology for socking is both pointless and punitive. Giano has a point beneath the nationalist spin: every block should be reviewed in the context of the reasons for the block, not other sundry past crimes. Vk seems to have addressed the reasons for his block on the second attempt. But, in my opinion, a major concern remains: denial of responsibility ("The actually block was malicious in the first place", "there are a group of editors that wanted me off wiki for over a year prior to my unblock and were happy to orcastrate a posse to ensure I was banished"). If you don't demonstrate that you appreciate why your actions led to a block (and instead blame the actions of others) its unlikely you can make the judgments required to avoid making the same comments in future. My reading of both requests is that Vk believes he was blocked unfairly by a conspiracy of others. Only if the community accepts this should he be unblocked. Rockpocket 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I support having Vk's indef block lifted, therefore I aint requesting anything from VK in his unblock request. I merely observed about the kind of unblock request he'll need, to get the community to support his unblock. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC) You're doing fine Vk. Remaining patient, no foul language usage, no socking. Such an approach helps & I believe at some point in 2011, you'll be unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editor in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project. Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am hee for. Will I disagree with people, I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues is the main thing. Thats about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. Decline reason: At this point, there's no way for you to be unblocked without a community consensus at AN or ANI (or appeal to BASC). Trouble is that starting such a thread so soon after the last one is unlikely to accomplish much. Consensus can change, but rarely does it overnight. My best advice would be to either wait a few months and try for return per WP:OFFER or to email BASC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:47, 31 December 2010 (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.
The few that did support unblocking you did so on the condition that you restrict yourself from editing British and Irish political articles, broadly construed, and that you accept an appointed mentor...Would you be willing to accept such a condition? I am unsure but I imagine such a condition would not be indefinite but perhaps for say six months or until the community could see you moving forward in a collaborative manner and a measure of trust and support was there to lift the restriction.Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Unblock Request - Take III
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I acknowledge the reason for my block. I was taking wikipedia far too personal, hence the reason I left it over a year before requesting an unblock. Do I acknowledge and repent for my past poor action? Like I say I am fully aware of the reasons I got into trouble on here and have no intention to repeat that. Do I understand what I have been blocked for? Yes. Things have changed in my life, probably the biggest set of changes a person can go through. I approach things different these days and have no desire to engage in the confrontational encounters with editors in the future - nor do I have the time to obesse about the same issues either. Will I not continue to cause damage or disruption to the project? Most certainly not. I feel that a spell of over a year out of the project without whining or whinging or evasion goes some way to proving that I am serious in what I say. Will make useful contributions instead? Thats what I am here for. Will I disagree with people? I am sure I will but the more opposing voices on wiki the better - its how you go about solving those issues which is the main thing. That is about it I think. If anyone has any comments or queries I would be happy to answer them. Decline reason: Enough si enough. I have revoked your access to this talk page, please direct any further appeals to the Arbitration Committee via their Ban Appeals Subcommittee, the community is not receptive to unblocking you. Any unblock at this point will have to come from the Committee. Courcelles 03:34, 4 January 2011 (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.
Folks, this bickering is pointless. Whatever anyone's view of the unblock request, it's going to need an ANI discussion to consider it, and a finger-pointing exercise here does not nothing to assist anyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
UserpageThe userpage should be changed to indef block, as that's what VK's status currently is. He's certainly not retired. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
|
- I'm sorry you feel you have been treated unfairly, there have been several community discussions wherein a clear consensus was established that you should remain blocked. Emailing me as if this was all my doing isn't going to change that one bit. You may contact WP:BASC if you want to appeal this any further, I'd appreciate it if you did not email me any further regarding this as I couldn't override the community's decision even if I wanted to. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Piccadilly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hatton Lazcano (14).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Toi tim.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Toi tim.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:O'hanlon.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:O'hanlon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Moved to Commons and now used on Fergal O'Hanlon - Alison ❤ 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Poster50r.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Poster50r.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Irhm sign.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Irhm sign.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fergal O'Hanlon poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Grave of emmet.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grave of emmet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MacManus Headstone Straight.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Bresli an phob.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bresli an phob.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:All 350.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:All 350.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
File:JimBreen.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JimBreen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Clarification motion
A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Hi VK, I just thought I’d drop by to wish you a prosperous New Year and say it would be nice to see a little more of you around the place. That’s assuming, of course, I’m not already seeing you and am too stupid to realise it. Be happy! Giano (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)