User talk:Irvine22

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Irvine22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ashanda (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

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 David Eppstein, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What commentary and personal analysis do you mean? I certainly wouldn't want to be blocked from editing Wikipedia....I mean, it's not like just anyone can do it, is it?Irvine22 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding to your note. I do not routinely monitor user talk pages where I leave templated messages. Specifically, comments such as "He has a slender publication history" are problematic with regards to original research and neutrality. If judgments regarding the breadth of the subject's publication history have been made in reliable sources, these can, of course, be mentioned as long as properly weighted within the article. All such commentary must be attributed to source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. By those standards it does seem there are a number of unsourced claims in the David Eppstein article. I imagine that's why it's been tagged as unverified? Irvine22 (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would imagine so. However, in this particular case, the prevailing policy is not the one on verifiability, but the one on biographies of living persons, which specifies that such articles "should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone" and adds that "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case in point, it seems to be what the subject has published about himself.Irvine22 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The subject himself has stated that he has a slender publication history? Do you have a citation? Or am I misunderstanding you? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant the subject of the article seems to have regularly edited it. I suppose he would have first hand knowledge of himself, and in the absence of sources for most of the claims in the article I guess that's good enough for Wikipedia! Irvine22 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

The information you removed from the article David Eppstein here is sourced and neutral. The removal does not seem constructive, and the information has been restored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The "information" being a paragraph promoting the subject's website? Doesn't seem like encyclopedic content to me. More like advertising. Irvine22 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly valid information, relevant not only to an individual's biography but to the individual's field. Furthermore, it's actually quite modestly presented, given that the reference labels the website an "amazing resource", which could validly have been quoted and attributed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it would have been more effective for the subject to advertise his website as an "amazing resource". But ineffective advertising is still advertising. Irvine22 (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And this was neutrally presented, sourced text relevant to the subject's notability. If you have evidence that the subject is making COI edits to this article, you're welcome to bring that up at the conflict of interest noticeboard. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:44246271 princequeen 300.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:44246271 princequeen 300.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hi. I responded to your note, but my response (and your note) have been archived, here. If you'd like to discuss it further, please open a new section at my talk page, as I may not see comments on the archive. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

PIRA

Re your recent changes at Provisional Irish Republican Army ([1]) - please discuss these changes on the talk page if you wish to pursue them - this is clearly contentious. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 11:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, have done. Irvine22 (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

So why did you block me after I followed your advice and attempted to discuss my minor edit to PIRA on the article's discussion page? Irvine22 (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. O Fenian (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. O Fenian (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism. O Fenian (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. O Fenian (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Provisional Irish Republican Army --Snowded ^TALK 22:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. 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.

This is for violating WP:3RR on PIRA. Rd232 ^talk 22:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange that User rd232 should have blocked me from editing when I was merely following User rd232's suggestion above to discuss my minor edit to PIRA on that article's talk page! Irvine22 (talk) 22:34, 18 September 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).

Irvine22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was simply following the advice of Rd232 above and attempting to discuss my minor edit of PIRA on that articles discussion page. User O Fenian (and others) simply deleted my comments without engaging in discussion. I also see that I have been personally attacked as a "Cromwellian sock puppet" on Rd232's talk page

Decline reason:

When you created a sockpuppet account, you guaranteed that you wouldn't be unblocked. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:53, 19 September 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.

Your edit was not "minor", you edit warred to introduce it to the article, you didn't seriously try to discuss on talk, and you bizarrely edit warred on the talk page to have your comment at the very top of the talk page instead of the bottom [2]. No admin is going to unblock you, and if you don't see what you did wrong, you're heading for worse trouble. Think on WP policies such as no edit warring and WP:Consensus. Rd232 ^talk 23:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the edit was minor. However, on the question of my "bizarrely edit warring to have my comment at the very top of the talk page" I accept that it must have seemed that way. I now realize that user O Fenian had simply moved the comment to the bottom of the page, and had in fact responded to it there. I wrongly (but in good faith) assumed O Fenian had deleted my comment, and my reverts to the Talk page were because I wished to reinstate my comment and begin - as you suggested - a discussion about my proposed one-word edit to the article on PIRA, which is already excellent but could be improved. Irvine22 (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it's clearly not a minor edit in the way the term is used on Wikipedia (Help:Minor edit). More importantly it was clearly a contested edit - regardless that you think it's not a big deal, others do, so you have to discuss it. OK, so perhaps you're not familiar enough with the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and that went a bit wrong - but the various messages on your talk page should have alerted you a bit sooner to something being wrong. The block is only 12 hours. Learn and grow. Rd232 ^talk 00:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, although it seems a little unwelcoming and unforgiving towards a very occasional Wikipedian. Irvine22 (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JonnieIrvine for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I seem to be blocked even from making comments in my defense, which seems to be contrary to the principles of natural justice. Wikipedia seems to become more like a private geek-clique every time I visit. Irvine22 (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The block expires in the morning, and before then you can comment here. Rd232 ^talk 01:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no further interest in being in the geek-clique. Irvine22 (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked for 24 hours

You have been reblocked, this time for 24 hours for block evasion as shown at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irvine22. Please to not evade blocks by creating multiple accounts, as that will only lengthen and reset your block. Thank you, MuZemike 01:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing shown in the link you provided. Wikipedia seemed to have such high ideals when it started out, and now it has devolved to this. It's a shame. Irvine22 (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The investigation was archived after you were confirmed to be using a sockpuppet account. The earlier version is at this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

After I was confirmed to be using a sockpuppet account but before I was allowed to make any comment in my defense? Irvine22 (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for you to make comments in your defense, since you were using a sockpuppet account, but if you want to apologize, I respect that, and you can do so here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 05:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You may not think there is any need, but I would still have appreciated the opportunity to make a comment before this summary action was taken. And I was the one being accused of something, not you.Irvine22 (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Either you're going to claim that you weren't using a second account, which will be a lie, or you're going to say that you were using a second account but had a good reason, which will be irrelevant. But if you want to comment here, you are welcome to. Just saying 'I want to comment' is a comment, I guess, but it doesn't really get you anywhere either. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 05:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It must be very handy to always know in advance what other people are going to say, as it means you can always make summary judgments on the basis of that foreknowledge. Certainly easier than according them a fair hearing, isn't it? Irvine22 (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're still welcome to comment here, if you like. You seem to have decided not to, which is fine with me, too. It's pretty late at night where I am, so I'm going to bed. Good night. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 05:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good night and good luck. (Perhaps after a good night's sleep you won't be so grumpy). Irvine22 (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Socking and moving forward

OK, two things. First, the sockpuppet investigation (noted above) determined that you and User:JonnieIrvine were the same person, and the sockpuppet account (seemingly the latter) indefinitely blocked. (If you'd rather edit under User:JonnieIrvine, let me know and I'll reverse the situation.) You may not edit under more than one account - see Wikipedia:SOCK#Blocking. Second, having committed this egregious violation of Wikipedia policy, and if you want to continue to edit constructively, it's up to you to regain the confidence of your fellow editors. How you do that is up to you, but an apology and a cooling off period (from the topics you were active on with multiple accounts) might be ideas. PS Please indent your comments per WP:Indentation, it helps readability of the talk page. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 11:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As I was not permitted to comment on the "investigation" before it concluded, I do not intend to do so after the fact. Indentation I can do. Irvine22 (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. See WP:Indentation on how to do it (colons, not spaces). Rd232 ^talk 13:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right. Thanks. Irvine22 (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What I have done, to demonstrate my commitment to constructive engagement moving forward, is make a $100 donation to the Wikimedia foundation. I made the following comment with the donation:

"Irvine22 says: This donation is to support Wikipedia's founding principles, which too often go awry in practice." Irvine22 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are lucky you are still being allowed to edit and not hunted down like some sock operators are. You raise an important issue on the pasttense thing, its best to stick to talking about this on the talk page rather than making edits to the articl and possibly getting into an edit war. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the issue of tense is important. I'm happy to wait to see how it plays out in discussion before making any further edit to the article. Looking forward, there do seem to be a number of POV problems in the article that will also need to be addressed. Irvine22 (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

lol ive not had the stomach to read most of the article, only looked at the intro in any real detail. Any issues you spot, its always best to raise them all on the talk page first, otherwise someone else is likely to just undo and it gets messy. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the page Provisional Irish Republican Army appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, we have been discussing the proposed edit on the PIRA talk page. The issue seems to be that no one can provide any sources for on-going PIRA activity. Hence, PIRA is indeed moribund. Irvine22 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you playing at? You've already chosen not to apologise for the socking, which hasn't helped the tenor of the discussion, and now in the middle of an active discussion, you make another change which you must know is unacceptable. [3] You can be blocked for edit warring without breaching WP:3RR and the thought crossed my mind. You can also be blocked or banned for disruption. Consider yourself on notice: any more unconstructive farting around on talk pages [4] or edit warring and I will block or topic ban you for an appropriate period. Rd232 ^talk 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that what you (inelegantly) call "farting around" on talk pages is actually me trying to deal with Throwaway's harrassment and personal attacks against me in as minimal and undisruptive a manner as possible. I have repeatedly directed him to my talk page if he wants to "call me out" as he insists he does. He continues to appear to want to do so on the article's talk page. Do you recommend I simply ignore his personal attacks and harrassing comments? Or should I complain about them to someone? I always prefer not to complain.

You chose to ignore my advice above about apologising or staying away; you made your bed. And those comments are not harassment or personal attacks, and characterising them that way does you no favours. Rd232 ^talk 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion they are harrassment and personal attacks. At the very minimum, they seem to be attempts to divert the discussion away from the obvious problems with the PIRA article to myself. I'm not that interested in discussing me, but if Throwaway85 is, it is my view that he should do so here. Irvine22 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are not "attempts to divert". Read WP:AGF if you haven't already. Rd232 ^talk 08:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they're more or less what could be expected- people are not as willing to work with a user who has broken the rules and seems likely to break them again. That's why the advice- it wasn't an attempt to punish you or force you to act in any specific way, just advice about how to avoid the circumstance in which you now find yourself. -FisherQueen (talk ·

Oh, I certainly don't impute such motives to you and in fact I'm quite happy with the "situation in which I find myself", which is working collaboratively to improve the PIRA article. The user who seemed to have personal issues with me is now engaging constructively, and I've left a friendly note on his talk page about how his use of a certain phrase - "to call a spade a spade" - may these days be misconstrued as an ethnic or racial slur, and is surely best avoided.Irvine22 (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

contribs) 11:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC) BTW I like your question about whether PIRA is in fact "dormant". That seems to me to be key, here. Irvine22 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Formatting on talk pages

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that it's considered proper form to indent your comments with a single colon more than was used by the editor above you. When this becomes messy, it is standard to remove all indentation and preface your comment with an (outdent) tag. This helps users keep track of comments and follow the conversation. It also allows people to see at a glance where one conversation ends and another begins. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to oblige. Proper form is so important.Irvine22 (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem on one hand to hold up the democratic model of wikipedia, and then on the other to disrespect your fellow editors and wikipedia itself at every possible opportunity. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Grow up. You're acting like a teenager. It's readily apparent where your maturity level sits. Try and hide it. Make us think you're more mature than you are. When someone leaves helpful advice about making your discussions legible, don't fire back some sarcastic comment. Say "thanks" and put the advice to good use. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think if you re-read my response above you'll see that I did say "thanks" and agreed with you that proper form is important. You are imputing a "sarcastic" tone where there is none. As we used to say when I was a teenager: chill. Irvine22 (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, your attempts to be clever are not fooling anyone. It is very clear from both your response above as well as your history of disdain for your fellow editors and the site we edit that you were indeed being sarcastic. You don't seem to be catching on, so I'll say it very clearly: Stop. Your behaviour and tone is neither appropriate nor welcome. It is petulant and juvenile, and reflects poorly both upon you and the community. There is a standard of behaviour here, and you have violated it at nearly every turn. Smarten up. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If I have such disdain for Wikipedia, why would I have just donated to the Wikimedia foundation to support Wikipedia's founding principles? (BTW I am glad you have finally accepted my invitation to air your issues with me here on my talk page. The article's discussion page was really not the appropriate forum).Irvine22 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The motivations behind your supposed spending habits are beyond me. I comment only on the behaviour I have seen. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And comment is free. Irvine22 (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Formatting refs

I see it has been mentioned that you are not formatting your sources correctly, there is a gadget you can add that will help you with it, if you go to My preferences and then to Gadgets under Editing Gadgets you will see a tool called refTools if you tick the box it will add a button that helps you format your refs, best. BigDunc 14:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems like a useful gadget. Irvine22 (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You need to be aware that inserting similar edits can still count as edit warring, even if they are not identical. You are close to a 3RR warning on that basis, and there is a 1RR restriction on articles to do with the Troubles. Go and look up the Arbcom ruling if you need to. Consider this fair warning, you are now aware of that restriction, failure to discuss changes on the talk on page will sooner or later lead to a report either at ANI or Arbitration enforcement. --Snowded ^TALK 09:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, arbitration may well be the way to go with this. Irvine22 (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take note of the reactions you're getting, Irvine, and discuss edits before making them. Also, make sure you have reliable sources for changes you wish to introduce, even if the current text is unsourced. Rd232 ^talk 10:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If the current text is unsourced, should it perhaps be tagged? Irvine22 (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement, not arbitration - you are edit warring and acting against arbcom rulings on the troubles, Try and listen the advice you are getting, as it is you are heading for an extended ban --Snowded ^TALK 01:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy for my constructive, sourced and extensively discussed edits to be scrutinized by whomever. Irvine22 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. 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.

Rd232 ^talk 07:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 48 hours for edit warring at Joe Cahill and PIRA, with the block length longer than it would otherwise be because you described another editor's edit as "vandalism" in an edit summary.[5] See WP:Vandalism - good faith disagreements should never be described as that, and you should be especially careful with comments in edit summaries which cannot be changed, contested or contextualised. In addition, I'm imposing a two-week topic ban (for Ireland/Troubles-related articles - you may not edit or contribute on talk pages until 14 October), and a subsequent two-week topic editing ban (you may not edit the topic until 1 November). The ban is partly because of the disruption but mainly for your own good: if you wish to edit on this topic you can't keep antagonising your fellow editors - you need to discuss, using reliable sources, and accept the outcome of discussion. And at this point a break from the topic is clearly required, so here it is. PS I'm sure your initial reaction will be to disagree - I suggest you take some time before responding, if you do. Rd232 ^talk 07:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm quite happy to take a break and resume editing in a fortnight. (BTW you might reflect that this is the second time that you have blocked me from editing in an apparent attempt to prempt my participation in discussions of complaints made in other forums about my conduct. Is this considered appropriate conduct on the part of an administrator?.)Irvine22 (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My block of you preceded Throwaway's ANI post, as my comment there and on his talk page pointed out, and the logs prove. I also suggested to close the ANI thread, which seems effectively to have happened (and to unblock if necessary). Perhaps you might reflect on how much attention you're paying to what's going on here. Rd232 ^talk 17:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

About as much attention as it warrants, I suppose. Irvine22 (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

'Tis better to discuss, then cause a fuss. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

comment re ANI section

Without knowing how old you are, I might suggest you could claim "ageism" against the idiot too - I thought the term of invective used was something that died out along with the 1970's and blaxploitation films (Mr Tarantino excepted, of course). It perhaps should be noted that racists, in keeping with their ideological flights of fancy, are unlikely to be up to date with language usage... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC) ps. I am a person of colour, too - or are "recent European ancestory people" supposed to be transparent?

I'm tempted to say "right on, brother"! (I am person of mixed-race, born and raised in Northern Ireland, now living in the U.S.. Here I have to open my mouth to get funny looks. Back home, the funny looks came before I ever spoke! Irvine22 (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

Crazy Like A Fox, or just a Vagabond of the Western World? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, no, "Vagabond of the Western World" would be my dad. Back in Belfast, I myself was known as "Chocolate Orange", for reasons you may surmise. Irvine22 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Have a better one! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2

BTW I think your comment over at the ANI was pretty much spot on. Although I would say that. I'm also impressed/amazed you evidently waded through all that interminable verbiage (much of it mine) at the PIRA talk page. And they say I don't discuss?Irvine22 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Sands

Ya need an equally varifiable source, supporting a suicide finding. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a statement by the Northern Ireland Office is pretty verifiable, I should think. Irvine22 (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Having conflicting sources doesn't help matters, as they in effect make each other 'un-reliable'. This is a 'grey' topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Snowded has a point, the coroner has to be considered to have had no political pressure. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The coroner is part of the N.I. courts, which are under the Northern Ireland Office. Irvine22 (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you proove (via a source), the coroner was politically biased in his findings 'or' that he was under political pressure to rule 'non-suicide'? GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the very source BigDunc posted indicated that the coroner had changed his findings after pressure from Sands's family members. Irvine22 (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The onus is on you, to proove it. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't read BigDunc's source for you. It's linked from the article talk page, have a look!Irvine22 (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Read it & yes, religious reasons are likely behind his death being declared 'no suicide'. IMHO it's suicide, but my opinon doesn't hold any weight. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we agree that it's suicide. I'd go further and say that what Sands did back then was similiar in kind to what suicide bombers in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere do these days. But somehow I doubt there would be consensus for that to go in the article...Irvine22 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There would be no consensus for it to be added to the article because it is not similar by any stretch of the imagination.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A good number of contemporary moral philiosophers have made the connection. Irvine22 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am curious - which ones? --Snowded ^TALK 13:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as well. Pray satisfy our curiosity and tell us which contemporary moral philosophers have made that connection.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps me? Well maybe not. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Google "Bobby Sands" and "suicide bomber" - amonsgt the dross you'd expect are a good number of peer-reviewed academic books that make the connection, as well as journalistic articles in reputable newspapers. Irvine22 (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I did, and found a lot of books on the history of terrorism. Of the ones I had read (which was a reasonable number) none of them make the connection, in fact some of them make a clear distinction. So do you actually have any examples or were you just assuming based on one google search? --Snowded ^TALK 17:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You must've missed this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=hxeOowf9UBQC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=%22bobby+sands%22+%22suicide+bomber%22&source=bl&ots=mCYL3ILGAd&sig=4f6z6oKLdOO-6vCmUlrKWqM8aVQ&hl=en&ei=ugzZSqWODobSsQPmu5WxCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=%22bobby%20sands%22%20%22suicide%20bomber%22&f=false Irvine22 (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? The snippet you found with a google search (I assume from the above you haven't read it) says that hunger strikers and suicide bombers are examples of ethical ambiguity. Very good point that I agree with. It doesn't support your statement a above I am afraid. Want to try again? --Snowded ^TALK 06:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. It clearly makes the connection between suicide bombers and hunger strikers, saying that both turn their bodies into weapons. My point is therefore made. Irvine22 (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Logical error. A involves C and B involves C does not mean that A is the same as B. A verifiable quote from the book itself might help understanding your point, given that the snippet available on line is only a sentence can you provide the full quote here? --Snowded ^TALK 06:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not the same thing - it's similar, as I said above. And moral philosphers, like Professor White, have made the connection between Sands and suicide bombers, like I said above. And a full couple pages of the book are online, including the full and in context quote about how both hunger strikers and suicide bombers use their bodies as weapons - have a read. Irvine22 (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

On the basis that any use of sources by you is to be encouraged I did spend some time trying to hunt down the pages. I did finally find track down the author to a Jesuit University in Nebraska, but I couldn't find the pages which are available, so the link would be appreciated. From what I can see he is talking in that section of this book about the virtue of courage and whether different types of sacrifice (Japanese soldiers, suicide bombers, hunger strikers) can be deemed to possess it. You also make the strong claim above that events were "similar in kind", however the history of hunger strikes is in the main part of the tradition on non-violent protest, whereas suicide bombers are somewhat different. --Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, White's at Creighton University in Omaha - I visited there (the college and the town), very nice place. Jesuits in the U.S. at least tend to be a hoot. The link is above, surprised you missed it. Irvine22 (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The link only leads to a snippet not to "pages" --Snowded ^TALK 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it leads to pages. Irvine22 (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't eat, then you die. If the choice not to eat was made my Bobby Sands, then he is responsible for his own death. In other words... suicide. It really isn't rocket science, but I guess some people need to get out more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.253.133 (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he comitted suicide. But, it's not that simple, when religious/political stuff is involved. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppets

It appears you were found guilty of sockpuppetry, in the past. That's a big 'no no' with me. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I can't be responsible for your attitudes. Irvine22 (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Irish criminals

Hello Irvine22. I have reverted a number of category additions you made, because there were lengthy discussions that concluded with the consensus that these should not be added. Instead a series of subcats were created and added to individuals that were imprisoned on terror related offences during the Troubles. I left you addition to the Slab Murphy article, however, as his problems with the law were not terror related. That said, I'm not convinced "Foo Criminals" is the best cat for anyone; a more specific cat relating to the actual charge (people convicted of Foo) appears to better satisfy verifiability and neutrality policies. If you would like direction to the previous discussions, do let me know. Rockpocket 06:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we'd have to say that Murphy's problems with the law are both terror-related and of a general criminal nature.

But can it really be the case that terror-related offenses aren't considered crimes on Wikipedia?Irvine22 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

When I say "terror-related" I mean he was not specifically charged or imprisoned under specific terror legislation, unlike the others. Whether we consider terror-related convections to be criminal isn't really the point. The issue is the describing someone as a "criminal" has less value than describing how/what/why they did what they did. Thus sub-cats such as "Republicans imprisoned on charges of terrorism" is much more useful - from a categorization standpoint - than "Irish criminals". There is also the BLP issue. Stating someone as having been "imprisoned on charges of terrorism" or "imprisoned on during the Troubles" is verifiable and objective. However, describing someone as "a criminal" reqires some synthesis ("he committed a crime, ergo he is a criminal") which has potential BLP consequences. Finally, by creating these specific subcats we were able to circumvent the disruptive tit-for-tat addition categorisations such as "prisoner-of-war" and "criminal" that were being used to further a political position. Ultimately, this went through a formal process and !vote at WP:CAT, so there is community consensus behind it. I hope that clarifies matters. Rockpocket 17:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the others were all charged under specific terror legislation - certainly Tom Williams wasn't. He was charged with and convicted of good old fashioned murder. But the balance of your argument seems to weigh against the entire category of Irish criminals, which category currently includes Martin Cahill, amongst others. In fact, you seem to be arguing against any category with the word "criminal" in it. But the fact is Wikipedia currently uses such categories. And yes, a commonsense definition of a criminal is someone who has committed a crime.Irvine22 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have ever edited the article on Tom Williams, therefore I was not including him when I referred to "the others". I'm not familiar with him, but if you say he was convicted of "good old fashioned murder" then I have no reason to doubt you. My argument is specific to the individuals convicted and/or sentenced under scheduled terror legislation in the UK and Ireland. These were the ones that were specifically discussed and agreed on. Independently, yes, I personally don't see the value of most categories with the word "criminal" in them - but there is no consensus (as far as I am aware) to rid the project of them completely. Rockpocket 00:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Williams, like the subjects of most of the articles I added to the category in question, is dead. How does BLP apply? Irvine22 (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly BLP does not apply to the deceased. Of those relevant to this discussion, half were BLPs, however. it's worth noting that the consensus opinion did not discriminate between BLP and not-BLP, it's that basis I made the reversion of all to whom it applied. Rockpocketet 04:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, so BLP is a red herring. It's the "consensus" that says there are no criminals in Ireland.Irvine22 (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you constructed that particular straw man, not I. The consensus agreed there was a better solution to categorization for certain individuals. That's all. Now, I'm happy to direct you the previous discussions, if you would like to learn more. You are invited to open furthers discussions there. But otherwise I see little in this dialogue that is constructive. So I'll bow out now. If you require more from me you are welcome to ask on my talkpage. With best wishes. Rockpocket 05:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do direct me to the previous discussions. I accept the invitation to open further discussions there. Thanks!Irvine22 (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine - there are a series of conventions surrounding terrorism (not just in Ireland) to avoid edit wars and factionalism. At the moment you seem to be challenging those conventions by constantly moving the targets of language change (as you did with Bobby Sands). If you want to change the conventions then you should do so in the apporpirate forum, it cannot be done by stealth. That just wastes eveeryones' time and creates needless tension. --Snowded ^TALK 04:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, I'm glad to see you use the "t" word - I had been under the impression that in the world according to Wikipedia there were no terrorists, or criminals. (Now, that's a world I'd like to live in. Unfortunately, it's just not real).Irvine22 (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not answering the point I see, just deflecting --Snowded ^TALK 04:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to challenge the conventions in the appropriate forum. Just point me in the right direction. Irvine22 (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

and to stop your disruptive editing while that discussion is taking place, and to abide by the result? --Snowded ^TALK 05:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not engaged in disruptive editing so I can't stop. But discussion is always a good thing. Irvine22 (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You are very close to ending up with another ANI report, but I suppose you realise that anyway. A quick use of the help option will give you access to various wikipedia discussion areas. Exploring them will do you the world of good. --Snowded ^TALK 05:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So which of the discussion areas is the appropriate one to challenge the convention that there are no terrorists or criminals in Ireland? Irvine22 (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, hunting them down will do you the world of good. It will mean that you have to read various policies etc. I hold out the hope that the process will improve your behaviour --Snowded ^TALK 05:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the relevant forum is some kind of a secret hangout of the geek clique, why even bring it up? Irvine22 (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

⬅If it was, I wouldn't --Snowded ^TALK 05:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Pat Doherty

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pat Doherty, you will be blocked from editing. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding his nickname is hardly vandalism. Irvine22 (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But you are forgetting, that in the crazy,mixed-up,plastic paddy world of user:Domer48 and his cyber-SinnFein mates, "disruptive editing" means "stuff they disagree with". Keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.221.138 (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL yes I have years of experience with the type. I fully intend to keep on keeping on. Or, to put it another way - No Surrender!Irvine22 (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please. If you're gonna make a comment, 'sign-in'. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Report

I've reported your disruptive editing here. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Block and notification

Following a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, I have blocked you for edit-warring at Francie Molloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Because of your prior history of edit-warring, I have set the duration to 1 week.

Additionally, I would draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles and advise you that if you continue to disrupt articles within this topic area then you can expect to be placed under an editing restriction.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} CIreland (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'll take a break and resume editing in a week or so. A tout a l'heure.Irvine22 (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Prior discussion on Categorization

Hello again, Irvine22. Above you asked me to direct you to the previous discussions about categorizations? Well, it was quite some time ago now (back in mid 2007!), so everything is archived, but you can read some of it here and here. If would would like to open this for more discussion, I would suggest choosing once central venue and notifying all those who were involved before. Consensus can change, of course, bit I would suggest it will not on this occasion. Rockpocket 02:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But it should be fun. Irvine22 (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Pat Doherty. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. O Fenian (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit was blatant vandalism. O Fenian (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it was information about Doherty's Glaswegian heritage. I mean, listen to him talk. Look at the guy. With his rasping Weegie accent and wee pale creased face, he belongs in Glasgow like an onion in vinegar. Irvine22 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you're not banned, afterall you were confirmed as having used a sock, just last month. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you don't understand. Irvine22 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Enlighten me. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that I can. Irvine22 (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Snowded explained it to me. I guess he was more cooperative, eh? Now, I can begin to trust you. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If Snowded explained it then he knows (or cares) more about the matter than I do. Irvine22 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's possible. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine, first you started baiting the Irish, now it's the Scots. You are rather like an unskilled matador waving his red flag, yet looking for a place in which to take cover when the bull finally loses its patience and charges. I'd advise you to stop with the snide, unfunny comments.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As a person born in Belfast and raised there and in Glasgow it would be strange indeed if I wanted to bait the Irish or the Scots, as I consider myself Irish and Scottish.Irvine22 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Indents

Howdy, would ya indent your posts correctly? That way discussions on public pages, won't end up way over to the right after only a few posts. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A-ite. Irvine22 (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PIRA disarmament section

I hope the redraft is going well. If there's anything I can assist you on, feel free to let me know. In the meantime, I would again caution you to heed well the feedback you have received on this matter. Your cause (and that of wikipedia) would be much better served by the submission of an includable draft than by that of a biased, POV paragraph.

If you have decided that the project exceeds your current means, then I will attempt to draft a new paragraph in a few days' time. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I put a wee paragraph up on the article's talk page. Have a look, dive in, redraft...all input is welcome. Irvine22 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good starting point, but I'm curious as to why you would attempt to include that quote after it was already identified as problematic. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it is a clear statement of the IRA's position on decommissioning at the time of the Belfast Agreement. Irvine22 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

1RR

As you are well aware, 1RR was placed on Troubles articles. Your conduct is noted here. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for a WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES 1 revert-rule violation. Please see this Arbitration Enforcement thread for details. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is not tagged as Troubles-related, or as subject to 1RR. My revert was to remove an advertising link to a firm of non-notable solicitors. My understanding is that removal of advertising links is not in any case subject to reversion rules. Also, why haven't you placed an appeal of block field here? I would certainly like this to be reviewed. Irvine22 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 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).

Irvine22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Not sure this is the correct field, as the blocking admin didn't provide one above. Anyway, the article in question is not tagged with the Troubles-related template agreed in a recent ANI discussion on this very topic. Also, my understanding is that simlple removal of advertising links, which is all I did here, is not subject to revert restrictions, but rather akin to protecting the project from vandalism.Irvine22 (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

At this point in the discussion, I am going to formally decline this unblock request. The blocked user was given ample opportunity below to answer some concerns which may have lead to his unblock, but per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, he refuses to accept that the article he was edit warring at is about The Troubles. Rather than concede to his mistake, he repeatedly holds to the WP:WIKILAWYER stance that the non-existance of a tag makes him exempt from following the restrictions he should have had every reason to know about. I see no reason that this user intends to modify their behavior in any way that would make an unblock justfied at this point. Jayron32 02:46, 2 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.

That's okay. I'll pick up where I left off in a week or so. I tend to take the long-term view, in this matter as in others less trivial. Pip! Pip! Irvine22 (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Picking up where you left off, would be inadvisable. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Most inadvisable. Irvine, why don't you heed the good advice of others?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to decline outright, but the claim that you didn't realise the article was related to "The Troubles" seems disingenous at the least, since Pat Finucane (solicitor), the article in question, mentions The Troubles in the second sentance. Also, per WP:ELYES, official websites of the subject are generally accepted links, and this link looks like the official website of this solicitor's firm. Seems like a valid link to me. But, most convincingly, is the fact that you are keenly aware of the sanctions against Troubles-related articles, and you kept reverting this article, rather than attempting to discuss the link in question. To claim that it must be tagged as a "Troubles" article explicitly seems to be WP:WIKILAWYERing. --Jayron32 03:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that User:Rd232 has created a Troubles-related tag template, which is supposed to go on articles covered by this restriction. I have had a concern for some time that this restriction is unreasonable if we are simply supposed to guess which articles are covered. I did in fact attempt to discuss the link on the article's talk page, and the discussion had been quiet for days before I made the deletion. I disagree that the business page of a firm of solicitors is an acceptable link. It's clearly advertising, and adds nothing to the understanding of the subject - as opposed to, say, the website of the Pat Finucane Centre, which is also linked from the article's page and with which I have no problem. (BTW I read WP:ELYES and it says that links to websites that primarily exist to sell products or services are unnacceptable. It seems clear to me that the website of this non-notable firm of solicitors exists primarily to sell their legal services.)Irvine22 (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Except, there is no guessing here. The Troubles is mentioned in the second sentance of the article; it isn't like one has to work hard to figure out if this is or isn't covered. And editwarring rules aren't written with exceptions for being right; the correct course of action would have been to have a discussion about the link in question rather than to repeatedly remove it. --Jayron32 05:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the correct course of action would have been discussion, and that is the course I followed by initiating a discussion on the article's talk page and waiting several days for comments before removing the advertising link. Other editors did not seem to want to engage in good faith, as indeed Rd232 noted in the discussion on the Request for Enforcement. Further, my understanding is that removing obvious advertising links is akin to protecting the project from vandalism, and hence not subject to the various revert rules? Irvine22 (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit of a double standard. BigDunc is apparently allowed to revert twice in two days, edit warring on the article of Patrick Pearse, because he doesn't like the fact that the article subject is an "Irish person of English descent".[6] Yet Irvine is blocked for the same kind of thing? Lets have a bit of consistency across the project. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't make such foolish comments Yorkshirian, maybe you cant read but I will explain to the slow learners it is 1 revert per day I made two edits in 2 days, that is not the same as breaching 1 revert per day, do you understand now how it works? BigDunc 11:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22 is well aware of 1RR since they have been an active participant [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] in this ongoing discussion here were this issue is outlined, and to suggest therfore that they were unaware of it is very disingenous.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes - that is the discussion in which a Troubles-related tag is proposed to be added to articles covered by this restriction. Thanks, Domer48. In any event, my understanding is that removing obvious advertising links is not covered by revert rules. Irvine22 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22 is fully aware of the issues, and this fits with a past pattern of attempting to game the system. Given that the last ban was for a week, the only surprise is that this time it was not for longer. --Snowded ^TALK 13:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree Irvine knows about 1RR and their attempts to pretend that

1. he wasn't aware that this article is about the Troubles
2. and that he was removing spam

are to say the least disingenuous. BigDunc 16:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is not tagged as being under the ArbCom restrictions on the Troubles, as was discussed in the ANI discussion. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. Domer48 kindly linked to the relevant discussion above. And the link I removed was clearly inappropriate under WP:ELYES as it is to a website that exists "primarily to sell services". Irvine22 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

1RR again

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Irvine22. O Fenian (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Template:Gblock See my commentary here--Tznkai (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your commentary is most amusing. I do seem to be "really irritating" some people. I'm relaxed about that and about your block. (Soon I'll have a block history to rival Vintagekits and I've never used the "c" word even once! LOL!) Arrivederci!Irvine22 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see you've a calm & cool approach. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

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 Stage Irish, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What commentary and personal analysis? The only edit I made to Stage Irish was to add Seán Mac Stíofáin and Barry Fitzgerald to the "See Also" section. Irvine22 (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That is commentary and personal analysis. It is only your opinion that Seán Mac Stíofáin and Barry Fitzgerald are relevant to Stage Irish, and therefore not appropriate as a see also. Rockpocket 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can probably find sources referring to them as "stage Irishmen". Irvine22 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's one for Barry:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb161/is_2_27/ai_n29419821/

That doesn't necessarily make it appropriate for a WP:SEE ALSO. For example, one could find lots of sources referring to certain individuals as "terrorists" but it would be entirely wrong to list one of them as a "see also" in that article. In general, individuals as an example of a description, should not be linked. Rockpocket 21:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no individuals as "see alsos" as a general rule, then. Irvine22 (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say, yes, when the subject of the article is a description, state, condition or identity that could be applied to individuals. There my be exceptions I can't think of at the moment, though, so please don't take this as an invitation to remove them all. Rockpocket 00:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Perish the thought. Irvine22 (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Irvine. Ya should be discussing your 'proposed' changes at History of the United Kingdom, before implimenting them. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Good day, GoodDay. The major change to the section title has been discussed on the talk page, and consensus seems to have been reached. Irvine22 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to let the 'others' decide on that. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, what were you thinking of here? Please don't do anything else like this. Thanks. --John (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of improving the article. Needs it. Irvine22 (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you see what you did wrong? --John (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I used the word "informer", however qualified, to describe hapless victims of sectarian murder including an eighty-two year old man and two teenage boys, thus playing into a disgraceful post facto rationalization for their murders. Irvine22 (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. So you acknowledge that it was an unhelpful and deliberately disruptive edit. Next time I will take you to AN/I with a view to seeking a long block for you. Please edit with that in mind. --John (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying here that using the word "informer" in the Dunmanway Massacre article is unhelpful and deliberately disruptive? If so, why do you appear to be arguing for the inclusion of that word on the article's talk page? Irvine22 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you didn't understand what you did wrong. Please review the diff I started with, actually reading it. Then comment further if necessary. --John (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland

I'll leave it to any number of editors to revert your tedious edit on Scotland. I really suggest that you attempt to reform otherwise its going to end up with a ANI case for an extended ban. --Snowded ^TALK 02:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You might not like the fact that Scotland is a country within the U.K., but as the article points out it is, and that means Scotland's de jure national anthem is that of the U.K. - God Save The Queen. Irvine22 (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are going to find very much support for that position. Oh. and everyone is agreed that Scotland is a country within the UK by the way, that is not the point. I will be interested to see if you persist when UK editors wake up in the morning and revert what is a foolish piece of editing. --Snowded ^TALK 03:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am quite persistent. Irvine22 (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice

You are clearly not stupid, Irvine. Therefore it is obvious to me that the edit summaries you take the time to write for many of your edits are knowingly and purposefully provocative, not to mention some of the talk page rhetoric of the last few weeks. So here is the deal: If you continue to make content edits that are counter to talk page consensus, couched in provocative language, and revert war to keep them, I am going to go to Arbitration enforcement and seek probationary restrictions on your editing.

If you have been following this area recently, you will be aware tolerance for disruptive Trouble's related editing is at an all-time low. You might also be aware that the last few editors sanctioned have been, shall we say, of a nationalist persuasion. Human nature, being as it is, tends to seek balance. Therefore I anticipate another admin would have little hesitation in putting you under sanction, given your recent editing record.

As I mentioned before, I think your are perfectly capable of appreciating the problem here, and therefore, capable of rectifying it. Rockpocket 03:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide - what's the word - diffs for these problematic edit summaries, so I can see what you mean? Irvine22 (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a sample for you. This type of edit is unacceptable, and the edit summary just makes it obvious you are being deliberately provocative rather than stupid. Either way, do it again and you are going down. --John (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking? What's at all provocative about that diff? And I'm "going down" am I? Is that your Mr T impression? (I used to love The A Team and all.) Irvine22 (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Playing dumb is not a strategy that will work for you. Feel free to try it of course, but it disappoints me that you do not use your obvious intelligence to cooperatively improve the project but instead prefer to try to provoke other users. Your call, but I know exactly what is going to happen next if you continue. --John (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Look I understand you're fae the East Coast and that, but even taking that into consideration I'd expect you to be able to at least attempt to explain how inserting God Save The Queen in place of "none" in a field titled the national anthem (de jure) of Scotland is at all provocative. It seems to me it's nothing but absolutely accurate, esp. as the other cheesy wee songs that get outings at Murrayfield and so on get a subsequent mention in the article as de facto anthems. If you'd rather issue threats couched in cartoonish language, that's your perfect right (and probably your natural inclination, given your provenance in the Lothians). I always prefer to engage on the substance of an issue, so I do. Oh, and one question: Hearts or Hibs?Irvine22 (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Entertaining as your banter is, I prefer just to leave you with this link. Ask yourself, honestly please, whether that is what you are consciously doing, as that is how it comes across to others. --John (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Och, away. Uncivil? Promoting hatred? That's not me at all. I don't hate anyone, not even folk from Edinburgh. Have you really been following my edits at all? (And it's Hibs, isn't it?) Irvine22 (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you had bothered to check the talk page you would have found mention under frequently asked questions and a brief search of the archives would have found your questions answered. To put it simply, GStheQ is the national anthem of the United Kingdom, not its constituent countries, although it is defacto in the case of England. Again a search of the various talk pages would have shown you the discussion or this, or you could (having been reverted) raised the matter on the talk page. You are more than aware of WP:BRD and your provocative summary statements as well as your comments above indicate that you are paying no attention to the advise of several editors that your overall behaviour needs to radically change if you are to avoid something more substantial than your regular enforced short breaks. --Snowded ^TALK 04:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, you are mistaken about the status of God Save The Queen and I look fwd to engaging with you on the question on the Scotland talk page. However, I dispute that I have made "provocative" summaries and I would ask you to provide me with an example of one you find so. Irvine22 (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not from Edinburgh and have lived for some years in a locale many thousands of miles from it. My opportunities to follow and attend association football matches are thus highly limited. I have no strong preference between Hearts and Hibs, nor between Rangers and Celtic. Hope that helps you to see me as neutral in this, which I truly am. --John (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to hear you're not from Edinburgh. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But I live in Southern California, and you're up North. So how neutral can you be? Irvine22 (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Probation

Because of ongoing edit-warring at Troubles (UK)-related articles, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies, your account is now under official probation for the next 90 days: "Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert." --Elonka 05:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is the set of articles in question? Troubles? Or UK? And can you provide diffs of the supposed ongoing "edit warring"? Thanks! Irvine22 (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The scope is defined as, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." As for edit-warring: [14][15][16][17] --Elonka 06:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. The examples of supposed edit warring you are giving are related to Scotland, not Ireland. Is it your contention that the Scotland article is somehow Troubles-related?Irvine22 (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but these were Troubles-themed edits. As Elonka probably isn't all that familiar with the mind-set, this story is probably all she needs to read to grasp the wider cultural context. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what was a Troubles-themed edit? The clarification that the de jure national anthem of Scotland is in fact that of the U.K.? How precisely is that related to the Troubles? (And when you graduated from St Andrews - assuming you did in fact graduate - and they got to the bit of the order of ceremony entitled "national anthem", which tune did they play?) Irvine22 (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) The issue of Scottish settlers in Northern Ireland is most definitely Troubles-related, as is the case of editors from Troubles-related articles overflowing a dispute to edit war on other articles. Plus that you (Irvine22) were repeatedly reverting edits at the Scotland article, but without engaging in discussion at the talkpage. If you continue with this kind of behavior, your account access may be blocked. To avoid this, please try to edit in a more collegial manner. Avoid reverting, and instead engage in discussion at article talkpages, and work to build consensus on how to proceed. This will help to ensure a more pleasant editing environment, and improve article stability in the longterm. --Elonka 06:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Snowded and I reverted the same number of times. And I'm still not clear how a dispute over whether God Save The Queen is in fact the national anthem of Scotland has anything whatsoever to do with "Scottish settlers in Northern Ireland"? Where did I make any reference to them? Irvine22 (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

West of Scotland unionism is a Troubles related issue, and I'd say your general edit pattern puts those edits to the Scotland article in that category. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This gets ever more surreal, and you're responses ever less credible: where did I refer to "West of Scotland unionism" or "Scottish settlers in Northern Ireland" in my edit to the Scotland article? I simply inserted the name of the actual de jure national anthem in place of the field that said "none", which was and is quite incorrect. (And you didn't graduate then?) Irvine22 (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Elonka was concerned (as I was) about your edits at Dunmanway Massacre, as discussed above? In any case I support this probation. Nobody should be making careless, provocative or gaming edits on any article even vaguely associated with the Troubles right now. --John (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there you are, John. Perhaps you can explain to me how the question of what precisely is the national anthem of Scotland is "even vaguey associated with the Troubles"? Or indeed how the accurate information I inserted into the Scotland article constitutes a "careless, provocative or gaming" edit?Irvine22 (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)