User talk:De Unionist

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". [1].

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)

The verification needs to be as specified in the guideline WP:Terrorist. Directly attributable and specific. Labelling the IRA as a terrorist organisation, and then someone as a terrorist due to membership isn't sufficient, we need a direct attributable source specifically about the person in question.Canterbury Tail talk 13:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok..will work on it after I get back from the States, so will have to wait. --De Unionist (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So yes the question still stands, if you are a new user why did you call me Mr Bell? I'd like to assume good faith here. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So others can refer to you as that but I cannot. You only have to refer to the logs. --De Unionist (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW Ben this log for eg. [2] It doesn't take much working out when editors call you Ben regularly. Seems there is a lot of paranoia about this weather. --De Unionist (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that it is any of your business but I like to review the historical opinions of any editors that cross my path. You can find out a lot about editors by reviewing their early work! --De Unionist (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL RashersTierney (talk) 14:16, 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)

Personal attacks

Please stop. Comments like this only inflame things and are considered a personal attack. Talk in a reasonable way to editors, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 14:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Maybe, just maybe you can suggest that the perpetrator stop it FIRST! --De Unionist (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, edits like this are not acceptable. If you continue to attack other editors you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 15:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP Wikipedia Policy

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Tfz 13:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder which is unnecessary. --De Unionist (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

This is your final warning for disruptive editing. You have been pointed to guidelines, and many editors have spoken with you with regards to your edits about terrorists and terrorism. Edits such as this one are pure POV, unencyclopaedic and not helpful to the project. If you continue to make edits in this vein, without discussion and community consensus, and continue to redo them against the discussions taking place, then you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 15:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

By 'many editors' I take it you mean the usual suspects, namely, O Fenian and BigDunc whom I have already complained about and who contine to stalk my edits.

I would much like to know which part exactly is WP:POV because this is all taken from offical reports and commentary by the NI Authorities and even Republicans themself? It is obvious that by reverting my entire edit that certain editors are expressing their own bias in the article and simply reverting for the sake of it. Are you aiding and abetting this concerted attempt by certain editors to censor certain Irish articles because that is what it certainly looks like? --De Unionist (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, lets just break down the one paragraph.

Earlier on that fateful evening, IRA gunmen had been to the home of two Tynan families and, holding them captive, they took their cars and drove off in the direction of Tynan Abbey. Up to a dozen heavily armed terrorists, dressed in paramilitary combat uniforms, were involved in the operation, with the leader, James Lynagh a ruthless serial killer from Monaghan, who was shot dead by the SAS in the Loughgall shoot-out in May, 1987. Just before 9.45pm, the terrorists bombed the heavy front doors of Tynan Abbey and burst in on the two men. They opened fire with an assortment of high velocity weapons.

• "Earlier that fateful evening" - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid newspaper
• "Up to a dozen heavily armed terrorists" - again, this is your opinion that they are terrorists
• "James Lynagh a ruthless serial killer" - again opinion
• "who was shot dead by the SAS in the Loughgall shoot-out in May, 1987." - irrelevant to this article, but some may agree it's fine to be in
• "They opened fire with an assortment of high velocity weapons" - implied by having gunmen and shootings

In addition this sentence doesn't even make sense "Several gun attempts were made by the IRA in the early 1920s, using the nearby Monaghan border as cover,"

So you continue to put labels of people as terrorists, despite people asking you to talk, pointing you to relevant guidelines and policies, and not just once but continually. Inserting such POV into an article once is once thing, but then reinserting it following its valid removal is another.

And no I'm not "aiding and abetting this concerted attempt by certain editors to censor certain Irish articles", and there is no concerted attempt by other editors to censor articles, but to build an encyclopaedia. This is a neutral encyclopaedia, not an anti-Republican atrocities soapbox, and not a pro anyone website. Canterbury Tail talk 22:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for taking the time to reply so soon. I have just come home and only had a quick review of todays edits.

What do you want me to call these people, I would have thought that the term 'terrorist' in this specific case fiited the bill exactly. They are not sunday-School teachers on an outing, they were cold blooded killers, terrorists out to reek havoc and revenge. I would have thought that the term fitted perfectly on this occasion? Do you not think that this is getting just a little bit silly now when we have an example of paramilitaries exercising terror over a community and we are censored to the extent where we cannot say so?

It certainly appears that Wiki has become an Irish Republican soapbox and I am by no means the first over the last several years to say so.

I will reply to your specific comments tomorrow --De Unionist (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

taken from my talk page

The truth stinks usually where Ireland is concerned. Unfortunately, censorship and the inadequacy of Admins to counter it has become the norm. Have a nice day. --De Unionist (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no censorship going on on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a bastion of republican sympathies or siding with any particular side. Wikipedia is neutral. Unfortunately a lot of people don't see that, they just see that because their particular viewpoint isn't upheld it means Wikipedia sides with the other side. If you want to see how pro-Republican Wikipedia is, have a look at the Republic of Ireland article, the British Isles, County Londonderry etc. Basically it isn't. What is happening here is that Wikipedia isn't siding with your viewpoint, and as a result you are seeing it as having the opposing viewpoint which isn't the case. Again I'll reiterate, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia, based on verifiable facts and a neutral informative standpoint. We are not here to make readers think what we want them to think, to push an agenda, to censor or to point fingers. If you have difficulty with the guidelines and policies and wish to continue pushing your viewpoint then maybe Wikipedia is not the place for you. Canterbury Tail talk 12:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh you are so blinkered and so wrong, PC gone mad! Wikipedia is very biast and I am beginnning to see why. You are obviously afraid to stand up to the disrupters simply because they are establihed users who have never been challanged too much. To reiterate to you, I am not pushing my viewpoint as you put it, merely reporting the verified and established truth about murderers for example. You unfortunately are only too happy to maintain the status quo and, well, frankly your attitude is very disappointing. --De Unionist (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you see it that way. And BTW I'm quite willing to stand up to whom you call the disruptors. Several of them in fact that you keep naming have been blocked by myself in the past for various reasons. While their editing in this situation isn't stellar, it isn't disruptive as your editing patterns have been. As said before you are welcome to come back to Wikipedia after your block has expired, but leave the baggage at the door. Canterbury Tail talk 12:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no baggage as you put it, you simply are afraid to stand up for the true facts, something you are always bleating on about...and as far as sheep go...well, thats another issue.

It is a pity that the project can be wrecked by a few usurpers.--De Unionist (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Again you are welcome to return, or even appeal this block if you feel it is unjustified. Remember verifiable facts, not labels and viewpoints. The points made above stand and you never responded to them. You don't have references for all these facts you keep talking about. If you can find valid references to support these facts, and don't come down to placing labels on people and trying to make others think as you feel they should think about a topic, then there is no reason they can't go in. However you keep mentioning these facts, these labels but provide no evidence to back them up just your viewpoint. Canterbury Tail talk 12:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 2 weeks due to continued disruptive editing, breach of the three revert rule, canvasing and continuing to push your own point of view on articles. You are welcome to return to Wikipedia when your block expires, however if you continue to edit in this pattern you may be blocked for a longer period of time. Canterbury Tail talk 12:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think you have a clue..do you know what WP:canvassing is? The key feature is that you have to attract support for you own POV, directing an editor to an article which they could be interested in is NOT canvassing. get a grip, pandering to the mob mentality is quite obvious here? --De Unionist (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, as far as canvassing is concerned maybe you should have a look at the e-mails between certain editors and certain Irish forums where canvassing is going on 'behind your back' and has been doing so for a long time. You only need to look at the logs to see who is pushing their pro-Republican agenda constantly. You can count them on one hand but I am wasting my time because you haven't the will to do anything about it. Speak to you soon. --De Unionist (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Again sorry you feel that your viewpoint isn't being fairly represented on Wikipedia. However, neither is theirs. Contrary to your belief pro-Republican editors do not run Wikipedia, do not succeed in their agenda etc. In fact pro-republican editors have, historically, been much more likely to be permanently banned from Wikipedia than pro-Unionist due to their editing patterns. Oh and if you want to see pro-nationalist editing, go have a look at Macedonia, makes Ireland and British Isles look like a summer picnic. Canterbury Tail talk 12:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

True the canvasing was a friendly notice, and generally I have no issues with it other than the fact you only put it on the talk pages of editors whom seem to have a similar viewpoint to yourself. Anyway that wasn't why you where blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ben, you know only too well that I was blocked because I am not afraid to repeat the truth, the truth according to police reports and the IRA itself. Why are you so afraid to do the right thing?--De Unionist (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you where blocked for failure to abide by Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and for pushing your POV in an anti-republican stance not a neutral one. Again you failed to provide support for your edits, continued to push a POV against consensus and advice. And anyone is quite welcome to review my edits and decisions, I have nothing to hide and everything is a matter of public record. BTW my name isn't Ben, that is a pen name. Canterbury Tail talk 12:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you haven't bothered to look at my edits. each and every one is accompanied by Formal Verifiable links but hey, who cares...just part of the game eh?--De Unionist (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is quite obvious from the latest comments on your own Talk page just who is doing the stalking! At least I am open and above board with my contacts, not like some! --De Unionist (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually looked up the meaning of Murder as distinct from Killed?..maybe you should and then come back to me. --De Unionist (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Murder is according to your own project, the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide. Does this help? --De Unionist (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether you're correct or not in that area is irrelevant due to the disruptive edit warring and violation of the three revert rule, that you are aware of. Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh so now I may be correct. Please make up your mind. Every point I made was backed up by verifiable links from Formal Sources and some even corroborated by the terrorists themself. Your block is simply pandering to the mob! --De Unionist (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether you are correct or not has no bearing on the fact you where editing warring and violated the three revert rule. And there you go throwing labels around. What sources corroborate this information? What sources say they where terrorists? This is the point I'm trying to tell you, you cannot just use words like that without the proper attribution as terrorist is a POV word. Why not killers, or thugs or gang? Why terrorists? Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Norman Stronge

Hi De Unionist. Thanks for asking for my input on your edit. I can see where you're coming from, but I can also see problems with meeting Wikipedia standards:

"fateful" I guess would be regarded as an unencyclopedic word.

"terrorists" is not accepted in Wikipedia. I think you're supposed to use "gunmen", "assassins" or something similar. There might also be a question mark over "heavily armed".

"Ruthless serial killer" is definitely POV, even if it's correct (which I expect it is).

So overall, there are a few problems, so I would have another go and see what response it attracts. Cheers, LevenBoy (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see from the above you've been blocked. Are you going to appeal? Might be worth a try. LevenBoy (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with "murdered"; it's absolutely accurate, much more so than "killed", but no doubt in the massive library of Wikipedia policy someone will have stated that it's not encyclopedic. LevenBoy (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never appealed before and to tell you the truth I can't be bothered to learn how as it is all a bit pointless if a so-called encyclopaedia project is going to be censored by pro-Republican bullies! --De Unionist (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Block Change

Upon consideration I was too harsh with the block, as a result I've changed it from a 2 week block to a 1 week block. Canterbury Tail talk 12:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Should there not be a template placed on this page to allow De Unionist to appeal against the block? LevenBoy (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Canterbury and Leven, very busy at the moment so maybe leave it for a week for the dust to settle. Appreciate the efforts. It is so gratifying to get genuine assistance instead of being criticised by others. --De Unionist (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Query on recent Sockpuppet block...copied from PeterSymonds Talk Page (copied text in bold)

Hi there. I'm just curious about [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Maiden_City this sockpuppet block]]. I don't see on there the evidence to support these two editors being one and the same. Maybe it's just me, but they had completely different editing styles and MOs. One was obsessed with changing references to Derry to read Londonerry, the other completely different. Just wanting to ask why you believe them to be the same user. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 21:03, 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? The soapboxing about Martin McGuinness was present as The Maiden City, as was soapboxing about numerous other things. While initially The Maiden City was exclusively focused on the Derry/L'derry dispute, post unblocking this broadened out to various contentious Troubles related edits, very similar to De Unionist's. 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) 21:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Kettle and Black come to mind! --De Unionist (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I was going solely by the evidence and contributions, which looked strong enough to block. Nevertheless, if the archiving clerk disagrees, we'll bump it up to checkuser attention. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, there is one law for new editors and another for the hardened troublemakers. --De Unionist (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems it is not in order to issue a warning anymore or any chance to appeal...more like do as I say, not do as I do! --De Unionist (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

O Fenians Warped logic?

According to O Fenian, who accused Blaggards22 of telling a 'filthy lie', he didn't by implication accused him of being a 'filthy liar'! Warped reverse logic indeed! [3][4] --De Unionist (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

...and note his latest rants on his Talk Page. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! [5] --De Unionist (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits - Why isn't this foul-mouthed editor blocked?

It seems that I have proved myself right yet again....one law for me another for the troublemakers.--De Unionist (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page

De Unionist has now been blocked from editing even his own talk page due to obvious abuse. Canterbury Tail talk 17:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Very disappointing

Sock-puppetry? De Unionist? One can never trust you again. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked. What else can I say? De Unionist was sometimes abusive but I didn't think that we were dealing with a sockpuppet. Madness --FF3000 · talk 20:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

He was back with another sock Ulster and proud who couldn't keep the sectarian bile in and abused myself and another editor. Also been indef blocked. BigDunc 20:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Email

Please stop sending emails to myself about perceived injustices on Wikipedia, and on every edit made by some other editors that you now appear to be stalking and have a grudge against. If you continue to do so you will be blocked from sending emails as well. Canterbury Tail talk 17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Do I get a mention? *whistles innocently* O Fenian (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the interested parties can guess who they are. ;) Canterbury Tail talk 17:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

RIRA

It appears that O Fenian is engaged in a concerted attempt to censor information relating to convicted terrorists and in particular, the self-confessed former second in command of the RIRA. O Fenian's motives are somewhat obvious since he has consistently edited articles in favour of Republican terrorists. I have no doubt that his conduct is contrary to Wikipedia policy on naming such terrorists given that several reliable sources have been given. --87.114.85.253 (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the above ip is a sockpuppet of blocked vandal The Maiden City. Any concerns regarding other editors contributions should only be handled according to WP policy and guideline, and not assumed allegiances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)