User talk:O Fenian

Hello O Fenian, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Domer48 (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

--Domer48 (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Easter Rising

Thank you for your edits to the Easter Rising article. It is often through mutiple small changes like this that an article is significantly improved in the longer term. It is no longer customary to link isolated years like 1913, and Irish Republic with a capital 'R' is usually reserved for the actual Republic proclaimed in 1916 and established in 1919, but I'm not going to bother reverting those, although somebody else might down the line. Otherwise your edit was excellent and most welcome. You might consider adding your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism. It's not the most active of projects at the moment but new blood is always welcome. Cheers. Scolaire (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair warning

I'd like to make sure you're aware that Irish and Troubles related articles are under general sanctions here at Wikipedia. Articles such as the PIRA article are under a specific probation. I strongly suggest that you work on the talk page and get consensus before making any further changes. SirFozzie (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the person making the changes in the first place! O Fenian (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

IP Heads Up

Just so you are aware this IP has a history of inserting contentious material as they have been doing it for quiet a while on the Kevin Barry article so be prepared for your edits to get reverted by another IP as they change and make the same edits. But good bit of research and supplying what the book actually states. BigDunc^Talk 12:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And another heads up

You might want to comment here an editor is trying to have content changed and as a result of this doing it this way is a proposed remedy to avoid trouble. BigDunc^Talk 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on November 25 2008 to North Irish Horse

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Derry etc

Generally speaking I'm not particularly bothered either way (and since it's the policy adopted by at least one major British newspaper, there is good precedent even outside Wikipedia, but when Londonderry is actually being used as part of a regimental title or similar, so referring to the city at one remove, I think we may well need to stick with Londonderry to be really accurate, please exercise a little judgement when looking into this issue. David Underdown (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If it were merely location, it would follow the unit title, however it's included immediately after the number, which makes it part of the unit name. This is standard practice, it indicates affiliation, rather than (necessarily) location. The substitution of Derry for Londonderry simply isn't accurate in this case. David Underdown (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Special protection area

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I moved the page to Special protection area, since it doesn't seem to be a proper noun, and thus should not be in all caps. If it is a proper noun, let me know and I'll move it to the all-caps version. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done If there's anything else I can help you with, feel free to ask. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Good call

[2] Thanks Anoderate1 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Troubles

Please note: 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 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

You have now made 2 reverts on this article in breech of the above sanctions.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made one revert, when I was blindly and stupidly reverted in breach of fair use image policy. The image still fails policy, but I will deal with it later. O Fenian (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Shambles Square, Manchester

Just letting you know that I've reverted your edit to the above article, where you erroneously removed the term "terrorist", claiming it was POV. Nev1 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources, or your edits will be reverted. Here's one refering to a "sickening terrorist attack in Manchester". Nev1 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources contradicting the above source? Nev1 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you remove the term "terrorist" from the article, I'm assuming you do have reliable sources. What are these? Nev1 (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

I made a mistake by misinterpreting what had happened. In this instance, removal was the best option. A slightly longer explanation is at the relevant place on WP:AN/I. My apologies.  DDStretch  (talk)

Collins

I've made a new edit on the Collins article. Please clean it up as you please, but don't revert. The previous edit is misleading and portrays the idea that the army was made up on pro-treaty veterans rather than the fact that most of the new soldiers were not. And its also an old cover up of the fact that ex British veterans fought in Free State army, which caused much consternation among the Irregulars. NewIreland2009 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway massacre

Hi, I've noticed your edits to subjects around 1920s in Ireland and I'd appreciate your opinion at Dunmanway Massacre article. There are a few issues around refs, layout and tone and we'd be grateful for some fresh eyes, if you have time. See the talk page for (extremely!) lengthy discussion of the issues.

Cheers Jdorney (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on The Troubles

You don't have to leap to the (incorrect) assumption that because someone disagrees with your point of view, that they disagree with the point you are making. Tone down your comments. You've reviewed my edit history so you can see that I've been in my own share of arguments, and one thing I've figured out is that Truth doesn't matter here, only verifiable sources. If you look closer at my edits, you'll actually see that most of my editing was based on ensuring that the sources backed up what was actually stated. That way, the facts represented in the articles cannot be disputed. Maybe I'd understand why you're digging your heels in, if I understood why you don't was to use the term "Britain"? It doesn't seem like a big point for you to make.... --HighKing (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ulster/LOL

Thanks for contacting me. I will revert myself - I didn't know that, and thank you! - Philippe 20:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

NI Flag

Im sorry if there's been any confusion caused by the NIYF page. We're not using the symbol in the sense of a national flag, but rather to differentiate between the jurisdiction of this forum in the UK as opposed to other devolved nation youth groups like the Scottish Youth Parliament or Funky Dragon. I'm aware that the Ulster banner is no longer an official flag of northern Ireland and hasn't been for quite some time now. But I was finding it difficult to insert the union flag without a caption referring to the United Kingdom, which is represented by the UKYP and not ourselves. If you know of any solution to this problem it would be most helpful. --Marty721 (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, it doesn't add any clarity to the infobox. So in the interest of neutrality I think the flag should be left out as you've suggested. The last thing we want to do is create controversy. Thanks for the advice --Marty721 (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Kelvin

Fixed. Apologies for the first edit, I read it as 1924 (duh). Talkpage now though? The article does state he's Irish-born, so is there a major problem with the infobox? Could be tweaked as "Belfast, then in Ireland" or something like that? Black Kite 01:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darvit Chandhurai

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darvit Chandhurai. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reporting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darvit Chandhurai. You saved a short period(24 hours) of my time. Syjytg (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks that was just getting stupid, they weren't even bothering to read anything.

go raibh míle maith agat

2 week protection

I went ahead and semi-protected this page for two weeks... should resolve most of the issues. :) Cheers! —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions Declined

I put a number of categories up for speedy deletion, as they are not used anymore:

• Category:Unassessed-Class Spirituality articles
• Category:Unassessed-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Category:Unassessed-Class Green Bay Packers articles
• Category:Unassessed-Class Trucks articles
• Category:Unassessed-Class Irish Republicanism-related articles

The categories are now at:

• Category:Unassessed Spirituality articles
• Category:Unassessed Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Category:Unassessed Green Bay Packers articles
• Category:Unassessed Trucks articles
• Category:Unassessed Irish Republicanism-related articles

The reason they need deleting is that the {{cat class}} template links to the old one if both exist.

I've put a number of similar categories up for deletion before and they've all been speedily deleted. Do I now have to put up at WP:CFD instead? As when I've done that before, I've been told they they could have just been done as a speedy. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware there were new categories as your summaries made no mention of them. O Fenian (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Constructive editing

Just thought I'd acknowledge our positive collaboration on some articles recently. Makes a nice change. Mooretwin (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is always more useful than edit warring to improve articles. O Fenian (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to Irish Republican Army. It was that which prompted me to protect the page (4 doses of vandalism in one day is too much), but somehow I forgot to do the revert myself. Thanks for picking up the pieces! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Physical force republicanism

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I've put that term in the intro and created a redirect. If necessary, the redirect can be changed to a more general page later. Superm401 - Talk 15:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland article and partition

See my suggestion at Talk:Ireland#Highly_Misleading_Description_of_Partition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Britain or UK at Easter Rising

Britain is not a political entity, the UK of both varieties is/was. Your recent revert, implying a wish for independence from a a geographical entity makes no sense. RashersTierney (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

history of terrorism

There's considerable debate at the moment would you care to weigh in? Sherzo (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

== Sorry about comment on discussion page - I did not realise that my contrib had just been moved to the bottom, not deleted. PRPCunningham (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Derry. 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 18:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please also note that edit summaries such as the one in this edit aren't acceptable, please keep it civil. Canterbury Tail talk 18:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR Block

For continuing to pursue and edit war on Wikipedia articles I have had no choice to block you for 24 hours as a result. You have gotten into an edit war with a series of IPs (of one or more users.) Canterbury Tail talk 11:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, god forbid an editor dares to remove such ridiculous point of view as "It is well documented that the Roman Catholic church encouraged Catholics to have large families in order that the Nationalists could eventually outnumber and outvote the Unionists. This overpopulation in itself was the cause of much social hardship and resulted in a drop in living standards for the Nationalist population for which the Unionist Authorities have been wrongly blamed". The idiocy of your block speaks for itself. O Fenian (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on Ben this is a bad block this kind of sterotyping OR is vandalism IMO and should be reverted O Fenian has tried with messages to the IP but it didn't work. BigDunc^Talk 11:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem is this isn't blatant vandalism that is being undone, but continued warring with IPs (of which I've blocked one.) It's more of edit warring than vandalism undoing. I'd be more inclined to remove the block if O Fenian didn't use statements like "The idiocy of your block speaks for itself," which I feel is speaking towards keeping the block for disruptive editing. Now O Fenian's edits are generally of a high quality, and I have no ill will towards him/her in any way, but this whole Derry editing is becoming an issue (not one caused by O Fenian.) Because of the involvement of disruptive changing IP editors in this I shall lift the block, but remember these aren't pure vandalism reverts, they are indeed edit disputes. If more multiple reverts as such are performed on articles in such a manner in the near future, I will have no option but to block again. Remember a 3RR block doesn't necessarily mean that I think undoing the edits in themselves were wrong, but the continued reversion is disruptive to the project. Canterbury Tail talk 12:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the same editor as the "British Isles" Derry editor. Edits like this, this and this (see the bottom part especially) show it is someone from an entirely opposite point of view. My comment is due to the fact that you are not unfamiliar of Northern Ireland articles, and hopefully should realise that the statement I was removing is unsourced, highly point of view and is itself disruptive to the project. Which is more disruptive to the project? Edit warring to remove the statement, or allowing the statement (which is also highly offensive to the Roman Catholic Church) to stand? O Fenian (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it's still an edit and content battle, not blatant removal of vandalism. Anyway I've unblocked you. Just, be careful with your edits and reverts. Canterbury Tail talk 12:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Ecuadorian Stalker

I have reopened the sockpuppetry case against this person. Please comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian19. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I had already asked an administrator familiar with him to intervene. O Fenian (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Buenos Aires

What did you mean here? It's easier for admins if you accompany allegations like this with a report to the appropriate noticeboard. Thanks, --John (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

See the article history for the last few days of that and Irish people‎, the new versions are the same as the ones that the previous socks had. O Fenian (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Whose sock is it? I am happy to block based on what you say if you can provide this info. --John (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see this to see there's no difference between the new version and the last sock's version. O Fenian (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Coffee Republic

Thanks. I meant to remove the section, I didn't realise it was older and that the IP user had only corrected a typo in it. Fences and windows (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

2-1

Hallò! Now it's 2-1. If one more person sustain Northern Ireland flag at Google Street View additions I will put it back. Tìoraidh! Greetings from Romania. TouLouse (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That account

BTW posted to CU list so should be dealt with soon. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Eoghan Quigg

Please refrain from removing any cited information from the page on Eoghan Quigg. Although you may not like the content, it is fact and you cannot let your personal like of an individual lead to the editing of their page to improve their image. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Both passages you removed had sources cited so please check in the future before removing content. Thank you. Ngage77 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The information regarding the review of his album by Peter Robinson has a reference the the Guardian website where the article was published. This should not be removed as this page does not contain any other information regarding the recption of his debut album. Please refrain from allowing your personal feelings leading you to remove this passage, your point of view does not matter regarding his album. Feel free to cite any other publicated reviews of his album. Thank you. Ngage77 (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Gerry macLochlainn

O Fenian you keep removing material about Gerry MacLochlainn. You claim that the material is not supported by proper references because you consider the Western Mail to be a tabloid newspaper. Can you please advise how this can be resolved because your constant removal of material from this page for no good reason without any means of appeal is very unreasonable. I went and sought these references and find that you now question the authority of the main daily newspaper in Wales - a paper that is accepted as a paper of record by all impartial observors. I have accepted what you claim about the Sun and removed that material. Now please explain or atleast enter dialogue to resolve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.127.183 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am attempting to do just that nut am getting no response. The Western Mail is a paper of note and whilst its archive is not available online all of these articles are readable in the paper's physical archives - which I have done. I have removed anything not included in the Western Mail articles although I feel that the Abergavenny Chronicle may be similarly offended and being dismissed by you. These reports were widespread in the Welsh media at that time although they are not available online at this time. They go back too far. What else can be done if this important aspect of his history is to be permitted. All of the material relating to his arrest and imprisonment is confirmed in the Western Mail articles that are referenced

Image at Irish people

Any particular reason why the Mary Robinson image was removed? Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove the image. The Commons bot removed the image as it had been deleted, I just removed the caption as the corresponding image was no longer there. O Fenian (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for unwarranted implication. RashersTierney (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edinburgh

Ay caramba! I was assuming good faith and trying not to hassle the newbie, so I let a whole load of questionable edits slip past. I don't have time right now, but over the weekend I'll go through the edits and work out what's worth keeping.

Far too much of my time on Wikipedia is spent dealing with sock puppets ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

the One Revert Rule

Be assured that if I ever imagine that your opinion might be useful to me, I'll ask for it. jamesgibbon 14:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

No problem. I felt slightly concerned that I was "involved" at that point, but it's clearly nonsense. I'll take the checking if someone feels I've acted inappropriately.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:United States topic

I have noticed the series of edits and reverts at {{United States topic}}. Please stop edit warring and discuss the issues on the template talk page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the disruptive history of the other editor involved. He has some bizarre need for creating spurious redirects (apparently many have been deleted, I assume as an administrator you can see this for yourself) and using them in articles and templates.

Since March he has been edit warring to include days he has made up to Foundation Day. For more information on this see Talk:British Day, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 8, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542#Persistent disruption by Mr Taz and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued disruption by Mr Taz (permanent link). He was recently blocked for three days for his disruption relating to his made up days which included his edits to Foundation Day, yet returned after his block to add his made up days and edit war to keep them in, despite the consensus that the days do not exist outside of his head.

Now for the matter of his edits to this template. Firstly he made this edit which added now value links to One and Fifty. This was reverted by Tuckerresearch with a reasonable edit summary explaining why the edit had been reverted. Mr Taz then makes a new edit changing the piped link of [[U.S. state|States]] to [[Fifty States]] (a redirect to U.S. state created by Mr Taz) and the piped link of [[Federal district|Federal District]] to [[One District]] (a redirect to Washington, D.C. created by Mr Taz), the latter part of which only duplicates the actual content of that part of the template and removes the rather helpful link to Federal district.

Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at both of your recent contributions and have seen some clashes. Both of you have had a block for 3RR violations. Regardless of his behavior, you need to do your part to keep the disruption down, and edit warring is not the way to do this.

I'm not going to take a stand on the wording, but I am obligated to prevent further disruption. By now you should be familiar with BRD— Bold, Revert, Discuss. Before making more changes, please start a discussion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the history of Foundation Day (and the links relating to that I posted above). Since 1 March he has been edit warring to include a day that does not exist outside of his imagination. This is an editor who does not listen to reason or other editors, he will continue edit warring as part of a war of attrition. In particular look here where an editor says "Mr Taz, just because you think that such a day exists (as opposed to the event) does not mean you can keep on putting it on wikipedia ad nauseam. Please stop", and what was the result? He kept trying to add it. O Fenian (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to address other articles here; let us focus on the template in question. If you need to pursue this, please ope a case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am attempting to illustrate the methods used by this editor, which I think the other article (and related redirects) show quite well. He does not listen, he does not understand, he keeps edit warring no matter what. There is nothing that can be mediated with an editor so clueless. O Fenian (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hobson - born Belfast or Holywood?

Can you take this issue to the relevant talk page. We don't want a dispute on the question leading to blocks. RashersTierney (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Berber people

Hi O Fenian, I thought the article looked better with the two referenced quotes, may I know why you decided to remove them? Thanks. Lilaac (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The edits were made by a banned editor who is not welcome to edit Wikipedia, so his edits are removed. The quotes were particularly out of place in my opinion also. O Fenian (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please re-visit Berber people and check out the latest exploits of an IP editor whom you have identified as a sockpuppet of Historian19. --Zlerman (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholic / Nationalist areas

Re the revert war in the article Official Irish Republican Army I would like to voice my opinion that an area cannot be Catholic, Protestant, Nationalist, Loyalist etc. It is the people of the area who may hold certain views, not the area itself. Also when dealing with the early Troubles in Northern Ireland it should be borne in mind that mixed areas were more prevalent and while some of the areas in question may have had a predominantly Roman Catholic make up this was not absolute, hence the area should not be described on the basis of the religious beliefs of a majority of its citizens Coolavokig (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that I was only removing the repeated incorrect addition of "nationalist and Catholic" I do not quite see your point? O Fenian (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought you were engaged in an edit war with another userCoolavokig (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A Barnstar

Hi O Fenian,

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I Marek.69 award O Fenian with The Barnstar of Diligence, for continued and tireless work indentifying and reporting Sockpuppets.

In recognition of the work you've done in the Historian19 sockpuppet case. :-)

Best Regards Marek.69 ^talk

Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: My adminship

Oops! I'm sorry, I guess I didn't check carefully enough, Its just that when it said it had the space for 100,000 I guess I went into edit overdrive and added without thinking The C of E (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RUC

Please check out the reference, did you actually bother to click the link? Please do not accuse me of being disruptive Blaggards22 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop and think before asking pointless questions. O Fenian (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The link is dead, hence, no citation is given Blaggards22 (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Try following your own advice, then come back and apologise. O Fenian (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lies from disruptive editor removed it is not my responsibility to actually scour the web for a citation (good job on finding the proper cite anyway)! Blaggards22 (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologise right now for the disgusting filthy lie you just told, I did not introduce a single dead link into the article. O Fenian (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice sockbust

Smelled of unwashed socks from the beginning, but well done on settling the matter, RashersTierney (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Good sock busting again, just to lazy myself to dig up the diffs but knew from start, we need more editors like you to prevent wiki being abused. BigDuncTalk 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not convinced myself that De Unionist and Maiden City where the same user, different patterns and styles. Totally different articles they edited, and with different edits. Not convinced. Maiden City was obsessed with changing Derry to Londonderry, De Unionist didn't push on this line. Plus Maiden never did the terrorist editing. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not consider the articles "totally different", they were in the same general area. As the first sockpuppet report focused on the IP and account editing the same small set of articles, I do not believe that branching out to new articles in the same area lends to a presumption of innocence, it is equally an attempt to avoid being spotted straight away do you not agree? Lending weight to the idea that they are one and the same is this edit by The Maiden City's static IP, the first in over a month and happening under a day after the block, convenient timing don't you think? There are other behavioural factors which I did not list on the recent sockpuppet report, as I believe it will be easier to identify his inevitable next sockpuppet if I did not post everything that made me suspect the last sockpuppet. O Fenian (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As the initial indef blocker of Maiden City I still don't see the patterns in their edits. Yes De Unionist has been disruptive in his edits, but I have seen nothing to lead me to believe they are one and the same user. If someone look at your edits, Big Dunc's, and the edits of many other editors you could always accuse sockpuppetry due to editing the same areas. Obviously you are not, but the point still stands. Troublesome yes, sock I don't see it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider the edit today, the first in over a month, from The Maiden City's known static IP to be suspicious, coming right after the block? Do you not see the same soapboxing, particularly in regard to Martin McGuinness? Do you not see the whole "pro-Republican bias" rants that both accounts had in common? Do you not see the whole "it's BigDunc and O Fenian who are harassing me" attitude that both accounts had in common? O Fenian (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

CT could you not request a checkuser being the blocking admin of The Maiden City and seeing as you have doubts. Also the use of wikilinks on talk pages is another similar trait. BigDunc^Talk 21:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not worth a checkuser on such small editing users. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this anyway, as he was the kind of user that was going straight towards an indef block anyway, I'd told him I'd do so if he did it again. Not entirely convinced he was a sock, but still a disruptive editor none the less. Canterbury Tail talk 12:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the constant ranting and raving about other editors on his talk page while blocked remind you of someone in particular too? O Fenian (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does. BigDunc^Talk 17:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL

See our sock friend is throwing a tantrum on their page car crash television at its best, can't wait for the next installement. BigDunc^Talk 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reblocked and removed his ability to edit his own talk page. He's cut off now. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr Taz

He just won't desist. Discussion started at admin's noticeboard. Your input there would be appreciated. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Historian19

Heh, you're a sock puppet of Historian19 and Marek69, apparently.

Bit of a tangent, but would you happen to recall if Historian19 used US-spelling or Commonwealth-spelling? I reverted an edit earlier that applied US-spelling to Northern Ireland and I'm now pondering...

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The stalking of me to Bandon, the edit to Oslo (a frequent Historian19 target, with remarkable similarities between the latest version and the last sockpuppet version) and the frivolous sockpuppet reports mean if it is not him then it is someone doing a very good impersonation. O Fenian (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I have very limited experience with Historian19, so the sock should be embarrassed I spotted it so easily. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's James Tucton. Note that Marek69 is at the forefront of every SPI that was filed; James Tucton specifically targets him and files scurrilous SPIs, claiming to have irrefutable proof or that the IPs match (notwithstanding Marek69 is an accountcreator, IINM). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, O Fenian. You have new messages at Jéské Couriano's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

More edit-warring at terrorist incidents

It seems the revert warring won't stop there. I only reverted twice in a span of a couple of days but it seems several IPs and new users continue to undue it all. Any ideas? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[3] made on July 15 2009 to List of terrorist incidents, 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

I despair sometimes. What did you expect?

William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I despair sometimes. A disruptive edit warring and sock abusing IP is rewarded by having a productive editor blocked. When one looks at the blocking Admin, editors can rightly ask what did you expect?--Domer48_'fenian' 07:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is rather odd. Some Chinese guy and probably all of his socks have continually edit-warred an inclusion that the recent protests in China was a terrorist attack. Even admin Cobaltbluetony agrees with O Fenian. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What did I expect? Well I expected that people can see that the single purpose account and IPs are pushing the insane non-neutral point of view that the July 2009 Ürümqi riots are terrorist incidents. I expected people to see that I've tried to discuss it both on the talk page and here. I expected people to see that apart from a Chinese editor and single purpose accounts, consensus is against the inclusion of that incident, including an administrator who has removed it which I noted in my report. But don't bother looking at the real picture, let's just smear anyone who takes part in a riot as a terrorist now ok? O Fenian (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You will also note that an IP who is a party to the edit war is pushing an equally insane point of view here claiming that the 2008 Tibetan unrest (March 2008 Lhasa Tibetan Riot redirects there) is a terrorist incident, but nobody gives a fuck do they? O Fenian (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I expected that people can see that the single purpose account and IPs are pushing the insane non-neutral point of view - well yes indeed. You'll find that if people are pushing insane NNPOV stuff that it will get reverted out and the offender will get blocked, all without any need for you to break 3RR, because their edits are insane. No? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no block relating to the edit detailed just above, or reversion of the edit concerned. I gave you ample time to deal with it before replying also. O Fenian (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

the edit detailed just above - ah sorry, I misinterpreted you. I thought you were referring to the edit war I blocked you for and gave you the std spiel. I'll have a look William M. Connolley (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look. It isn't insane, just wrong (well, probably). This isn't my area of interest so I'm not going to touch it. I imagine that various folk who watch your page will care and probably do something about it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't insane?! The 2008 Tibetan unrest, or specifically the 2008 Lhasa violence is not classed as terrorism. The source does not say it was terrorism, nor do any other sources. No rational person would consider it terrorism, unless they are a pro-China zealot, it's an insane fringe view. O Fenian (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that China accuses Dalai Lama of being a terrorist! O Fenian (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that various folk who watch William M. Connolley's block will care and probably do something about it? When disruptive IP's can have productive editors blocked I despair sometimes. Will it prevent disruption no, it will encourage it, because these IP's have no intrest in the project. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nooo, you're misunderstanding. OF's edits are getting him blocked, not the IP. As for the revert OF wanted, BigDunc seems to have obliged [4]. Personally, I think the DL is a nice bloke and the Chinese are falsely accusing him of terrorism, but my personal opinion isn't relevant William M. Connolley (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: your report at WP:AIV

Consider taking your case to the long-term abuse noticeboard. AIV is not the best place to handle cases like this, especially since the offender appears to have a dynamic IP address. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 15:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Evading two blocks does not really seem like a long term problem as yet, although the editor has been disruptive for months. And what about the current problem, in that they are evading a block. Are they going to be blocked or not? O Fenian (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him or her because it's clear enough that it's evasion. The runner has a good point about WP:LTA. Whack-a-mole on dynamic IPs is a losing game. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I may prepare a report to deal with the continual problems caused by this IP editor, who refuses to listen despite many warnings. O Fenian (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Seemingly minor comment

It's not a good idea to label edits like this as reverting WP:Vandalism. While the edit you reverted may have been inaccurate, perhaps POV, and maybe even unhelpful, it doesn't come under the category of "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." It may seem like a small point, but if there is a counter-revert (or several) it makes a big difference. You can't be blocked for reverting obvious vandalism, and it's an exception to the 3RR. Also, labeling someone's edits as vandalism tends to piss them off, and if their edit was made in good faith, probably not a good thing. Otherwise, keep up the good work on finding those IP socks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Given the fact that it was his 3rd attempt at the same edit over a number of weeks, and given the history of warnings on the anon IP talk page, I believe a vandalism warning is appropriate. --HighKing (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the history, which you may have done, you'll see the same edit was previously made by the IP (not for the first time), and I reverted it and added a source, and corrected some information to match the source. Therefore to see my edit reverted, and unsourced and possibly incorrect information added, I do view that as borderline vandalism. There's a back story to his Irish heritage, see this for example where another fighter calls him a Plastic Paddy. What matters at the end of the day is that he considers himself to be Irish American, and as it's reliably sourced it should stay. Do you not think it would be quite ridiculous to have an article about a fighter who calls himself the "Irish Hand Grenade", and for the article not to say he's Irish-American but just American? You will get the rabid British nationalists on forums (do a search, there's plenty of them) saying that he's not Irish-American because his parents weren't born in Ireland, but what does that matter? How many African-Americans have parents that were born in Africa? I'd suggest the majority of them don't, since the slave trade is long abolished. While at the end of the day it might not fit into one of the neat pigeonholes that are on the page you linked to, it's a decidedly unhelpful edit and should be treated as such. O Fenian (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken and even if not, not worth arguing over. I've seen too many good editors blocked for reverting what they thought was vandalism under 3RR, but upon examination wasn't considered vandalism. Just trying to be helpful - not issuing any warnings or anything. Toddst1 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for reverting your edits

Could you explain your edits on the talk page of the article The Troubles in Rosslea--Notedgrant (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No I could not. The article says "Incidents in Rosslea during the Troubles resulting in two or more fatalities", which is the agreed standard. The additions did not meet this standard, so they were removed. O Fenian (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation --Notedgrant (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

ArmaLite and ballot box strategy

Hi. Could you explain the revert to the Armalite and ballot box strategy -> ArmaLite and ballot box strategy move? The company uses a capital L. It's a brand name. I understand that most sources use a lowercase L, but that seems to be a weak reason to me, more like that most people don't realize the L is supposed to be uppercase. Are you preferring the more popular convention to the more correct one? --Merovingian (T, C) 04:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). I can understand the logic in ensuring the company is at their preferred style, but when it comes to articles that are essentially non-company articles such as this one, I believe in deferring to our own guidelines and how sources deal with the name and I have never seen a single source call it the "ArmaLite and ballot box strategy". Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see this:

Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable.

and so shall defer to you for the call, as one who is better-versed in this topic. Thank you for the clarification. --Merovingian (T, C) 00:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi O Fenian, would you mind casting your eyes on these edits to Lisbon

Looks suspiciously like our old friend, but I'm not sure(?) A second opinion would be appreciated :-)

Cheers -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely possible. In addition to the images there's a text dump from Santa Maria de Belém into the Lisbon article which is something he does quite often. Identically named account also created at Commons which is usual as well. However due to the possibility of it actually being a Portuguese editor I would recommend a checkuser looks at the case rather than the usual "it's him, let's just block him" way it is done normally. There is actually an identically named account on panoramio with many uploads seemingly just of Portugal, one I quickly checked was uploaded in December last year so it could be a genuine editor. O Fenian (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it could be a genuine editor, so I will keep an eye on the account for a while. We don't want to accuse an innocent newcomer, after all. Although some of his edits (and summaries) [5], [6] aren't quite so innocent. Thanks for you're help. - Marek.69 ^talk 22:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How many times have I posted there already.. O Fenian (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the save operation took a while judging by the timestamp. Toddst1 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there redlink Fenian! I see yet another Irish editor is visiting ANI. What did YOU do? Was it that name? I don't think we've met before but I'd say you are in for a troubled Wiki career! Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. An administrator protected the IRA page, ignored evidence that the page was wrong, declined my edit request on incorrect grounds, refuses to fix the page despite it being wrong and so on. And he's English, need I say more? O Fenian (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You better not! Sarah777 (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cambodia

Hi, I'm an italian wiki user and I'm working on our Cambodia's article. I've seen on the article "Cambodia" this your edit:

On 22nd December, 2008, King Norodom Sihamoni signed a Royal Decree that changed the municipalities of Kep, Pailin and Sihanoukville into provinces, as well as adjusting several provincial borders.

Can you tell me where you listened/read/saw this information? Please, I need it.--Lorelorelore (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, O Fenian. You have new messages at 86.133.101.139's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I do?! O Fenian (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[7] Toddst1 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC comment yet again

If you wish to file a complaint against me then please see WP:ADMINABUSE. I've reworded everything as neutrally as possible and broke the sections up to accommodate your whinging. Your continued disruption to the dispute resolution process will not be tolerated. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)