User talk:De Unionist

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Royal Ulster Constabulary appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. BigDunc^Talk 10:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Omagh bombing, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

See WP:TERRORIST. O Fenian (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for pointing this out before the ink was even dry, I have now had a chance to add the relevant corroborations and verifications in accordance with Wikipedia Policy to support the contention that the Real IRA was and is a terrorist organisation. --De Unionist (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately your edit was still incompatible with WP:TERRORIST, please discuss it on the atticle's talk page before making it or a similar edit again. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a link to the Federal Register of the United States will assist you come to terms with reality [1]. Can I suggest you refer to Wiki:NPOV and again I thank you for your interest in this article. --De Unionist (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it requires it in the format of "x said y", which if you had read the next few sentences of the article you just made another point-of-view edit to you would have seen that is exactly what is already there. O Fenian (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Community Sanctions

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. O Fenian (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The UN

The United Nations is the organization which continuously warns North Korea, to behave. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why? --De Unionist (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So do I. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Omagh bombing

Please try and discuss issues without resorting to an edit war. This is not constructive to the project. You are close to a breach of the three revert rule policy and could be blocked. If you need any help or assistance please just give me a shout and I will try and help you.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Scotland edit

Hello De Unionist. I noticed your edit to the Scotland article concerning criticism of the Scottish legal system. Your addition does not actually belong in the lede as it should only be a summary of the article. If it belongs anywhere you should include it under the section Law and criminal justice. Thanks. PS, I'll go back to my retirement now. Jack forbes (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate, will sort it out.--De Unionist (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacking other editors

Please note that on Wikipedia edits such as this one attacking other editors are not permitted. Always assume good faith and comment on improving the article, not other editors. Any further such comments may result in a temporary editing block. Canterbury Tail talk 13:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but I have never attacked any editors. You have a strange understanding of such. Please explain whom I attacked and I will certainly apologize? --De Unionist (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As linked above, comments such as "you have to look at the bigger picture and not your own narrowmindedness." are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I am so terribly sorry for being so obtuse as to refer to another editor as being narrow-minded; would Irish Republican be better? --De Unionist (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Seriously, its time to cut the abuse.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So now you are assuming insult by the term Irish Republican? ok..lets try nice Irish person from Ireland. --De Unionist (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to the link I provided.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice day friend! --De Unionist (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for this edit despite warnings to comment on articles, not editors. Canterbury Tail talk 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DU, you must learn the ways of the force. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Omagh bombing. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 13:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on editors again.

Again with the commenting on editors. Please comment on constructively improving the article, and do not attack other editors or resort to name calling. If you continue you may be blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 19:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What, sad? --De Unionist (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, calling other editors sad. Don't do it. This isn't a forum, and isn't a soapbox but an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 19:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again

I've blocked you again, for 48 hours this time, for disruptive editing and attacks against other editors such as here. Refrain from making such comments on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum, is not a soapbox and is not the place to push your own person viewpoints, but is a neutral encyclopaedia. You are free to return to editing once your block has expired, but if you continue to edit in this manner then you may be blocked again for a longer term. Canterbury Tail talk 22:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, just maybe you should be looking at the language and methods of others instead of picking on a newbie. --De Unionist (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Wikipedia are not tolerated, no matter who issues them. Canterbury Tail talk 20:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Okay, edits such as this, and this are just disruptive and seem like you're trying to make a point. You've been pointed towards the WP:Terrorist guideline so I ask you to follow it. Continuing to go around Wikipedia and edit article to say people are terrorists, or groups are terrorist groups, is disruptive editing. Please stop, follow the guidelines, and help improve Wikipedia rather than putting your own viewpoints onto articles. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 17:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? Is it not correct to label a former terrorist such when it is obviously correct according to the available sources. Is it not good enough that the High Court in Gibraltar amongst others have stated so? Just exactly when is a terrorist a terrorist according to your warped logic or are you being politically correct for the sake of pandering to the minority as I have observed others state?

As a relatively new user I fail to see your logic. WP:Terrorist clearly states that the term terrorist can be used where there is unequivocal support for such which by the way is the case here. McGuinness was a terrorist and further more, a terrorist leader and the commander of the PIRA in Londonderry for many years; this is verifiable fact. It is therefore quite correct for this information to be attributed to McGuinness...if editors don't like the term then that is a matter for them. Martin McGuinness was a terrorist. --De Unionist (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and you cannot just insert the word terrorist into an article as you like. Terrorist is a very pejorative word, and inherently non-neutral. You need not just references but clear attribution of such, direct attribution. You edits to Martin McGuinness, just by inserting the word terrorist with direct attribution and reference doesn't meet with Wikipedia guidelines. You can't just go around throwing the word around into articles as you see fit. Your edits to Martin McGuinness for example, there is no attribution, no clear information that this is the common consensus. Is there a clear source from, say, the British Government saying "Martin McGuinness is a terrorist"? No. You cannot just decide Y was a terrorist organisation, unless it is very clearly attributed as such, and then you cannot state Z was a terrorist just because they may have been in an organisation. It doesn't quite work that way. Please read the guideline again, read what others have been saying to you on the talk pages. However if you continue to blindly insert the word terrorist into the project you will be blocked for disruptive editing and pushing of a point of view. Canterbury Tail talk 12:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the reason you can't go around using the term just as you like is it is inherently a loaded point of view. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. We are not here to make people think a particular way, every person should make up their own mind about something not have an opinion forced upon them. And this is part of the neutrality of Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr Bell. You state that the term 'terrorist' is a very pejorative word. This I must agree with and an individual labelled with such a term is a similarly distasteful individual for all the right reasons. The facts speak for themself in this:-

1. Martin McGuinness by his own declaration was a former member and proud of it of the PIRA. "I am a member of Oglaigh na Eireann (IRA) and very, very proud of it Martin McGuinness, 1973". [2].

2. The REAL IRA are a terrorist organisation.

3. The PIRA were a terrorist organisation at the time of the failed bombing in Gibraltar.

If I may ask Mr Bell, what further verification does one require? --De Unionist (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Gaelic Athletic Association. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 12:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)