User talk:Conypiece: Difference between revisions

Have you at anytime been registered on wiki under another user name? regards--Vintagekits 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Elliott MLA.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Could you please stop changing references to the city of Derry to Londonderry. Please read WP:IMOS. The agreed upon naming conventions on Wikipedia list the city as Derry (unless we are talking about historical contexts) and the county as Londonderry. Ben W Bell talk 12:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Graham Little. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Belovedfreak 18:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have brought them to my attention, will will update then, thanks.--padraig 01:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of H-block song, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.irishhungerstrike.com/hblocksong.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 01:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with your comments in edit summaries, read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as you did on your edits to Lisnaskea and Lisbellaw articles.--padraig 01:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His article is on my watch list as I have edited before as are alot of the articles you are editing, my interest is Irish Politics, as for that template Harry West was a key figure at that time and that is why he is named in the template and why the template is included on his page, stop revert the work of other editors because of your own personal views.--padraig 11:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Scalpfarmer 00:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmms did I just not start a discussion? Please use real words instead of threats... Conypiece 00:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I made my complaint on the Talk Page of User:Tyrenius who is an administrator. You are welcome to support or add to it. Regards, David Lauder 07:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have breached 3RR on Gerry Adams.--padraig 16:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have breached wikipedias three revert rule on both of the above articles today. Please read WP:3RR immediately or you will risk being blocked.--Vintagekits 16:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its called people refusing to use talk pages. Ahh but at least padraig will be pleased that the calvary has arrived, lol.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conypiece (talk • contribs)

No its called you ignoring the discussion the other day on this issue on Talk:Harry West, where it was explained to you that they played a minor role in the election, you have continued to edit war since then even after failing to get consensus for your changes.--padraig 17:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got consensus to have Wests name on it? Nope. So why do you feel your opinion is more accurate that mine? How did they play a lesser role than West? Do you know what happened during that election? So please, how do you seperate 'hopers' and 'no hopers'. They are all nominated, they all canvass, they all got votes. Are their votes lesser than the 'hopers'? Really im intrigued to your thinking. Conypiece 17:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only editor objecting to Harry West being included in this template is you, and that was only after you tried to removed the template altogether from the article to which other editors objected to your doing so, you seem to fail to understand the role that templates play in linking relevent articles to events.--padraig 17:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conypiece, just read WP:3RR for me will ya. 3RR takes no account of who is right or wrong, if you breach 3RR you are deemed in breach even if it is obvious if you are 100% correct, thems the rules. --Vintagekits 17:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do pay attention padraig. TraditionalUnionist also said they felt it wasn't needed. The people in favour are you/scalp and Vintagekits and domer48, hardly neutral in the least. Oh and it was only returned when you went through my contributions list. Ah well 3 edits a day? I can work with that. Conypiece 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be edit warring (which you have already been warned about) and you would be blocked for that also. Take my advice and do yourself a favour and chill out because you are not doing yourself any favours.--Vintagekits 17:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring? Actually its called keeping consistency. If padraig wants to keep changing aticles to his pov, and then others like him do the same, I am quite happy to do them 3 reverts a day. I have tried using talk pages, but as you may have seen padraig doesn't like answering questions. Conypiece 17:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered any questions you have ask, and bragging here that you intend to continue edit warring will not do you any favours.--padraig 17:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am finished discussing with you because you obviously havent read WP:3RR as I advised. If you carry out your threat I can guarentee that you will be blocked. regards--Vintagekits 17:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padraig, once again no answers. Conypiece 17:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits, so you believe if 10 people say the crow is white then it is white? You can use them threats all you like (ironic for you isnt it, after last week!) I know and understand the 3rr, however I also know when a article is clearly inaccurate Conypiece 17:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make this clear - its nothing to do with me, its wikipedia policy not my policy, frustrating as it is at times its the policy of this place.--Vintagekits 18:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Vintagekits, I've never brought your integrity into question here. However there are certain articles on wiki with a distinct bias, and when edits are made to change that, they are quickly removed. My point is, I will remain active on them articles until the issues are resolved. Conypiece 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rr rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. If this is your intension, I suggest you reconsider,--Domer48 18:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you anything constructive to say in regards to the articles in question? In particular I refer you to the Gerry Adams talk page. If an article is incorrect I will not leave it. Conypiece 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be constructive, and offer advice. Is it your intension, that these articles can achieve Good Article status? If it is, we can have a collaborative effort, if it is not, I hope my advice is helpful. --Domer48 18:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be in depth discussion on these articles, however, currently most editors seem uninterested. By good article status, the answer is yes. My first ambition is to remove bias, however people are unwilling to change... Regards Conypiece 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the way to do that is to engage in discussion on the article talk page and state your concerns and if you get consensus then changes can be made, but you will not achieve consensus by edit warring.--padraig 18:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to achieve consensus on Harry West? Why did you constantly edit then? Conypiece 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your disruptive edit warring, I have temporarily suspended your editing privileges. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not re-add copyright violations to this page. The templates say "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue". Scalpfarmer 23:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained the whole idea of the referencing. Please do pay attention. Oh and im not going to let this article slip either. Conypiece 23:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conypiece you can be blocked for removing that template, only a admin is allowed to remove it.--padraig 23:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the public domain means? Oh and inregards to the template, I didn't see it. Doesn't worry me too much. This is a non issue to me. Conypiece 23:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in the content, just advising you not to remove those type of templates from articles.--padraig 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conypiece, This comment is unacceptable. Referring to editors as members of a paramilitary organisation is completly at odds with the co-operative manner editors should work with each other. Consider this warning that if that sort of language is repeated, administrative action may be taken against you. Instead of gloating over the blocking of another editor, you should be realising that it was exactly the sort of language you are using that got Vk into the position he is in. Rockpocket 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing that comment, with my apologies, because (amazingly to me) WP:IRA is a valid redirect to the Republicanism Wikiproject. I find that remarkably distasteful, and was under the impression you were using it as a derogatory reference. Nevertheless (and that redirect is a good example) the combatitive tone between editors relating to the northern Ireland conflict has got to stop. WP is not a battleground. Please, adopt a more civil tone with editors you are in conflict with, as it will help ensure a more productive outcome. Thank you. Rockpocket 19:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Regards Conypiece 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have ask you to keep your questions on the article talk pages, stop posting messages on my talk page everytime you do, this is not a instant message service, post on the relevent article talk page and I will reply there when I get around to it.--padraig 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming more and more obvious that you do not want to be taking part in that discussion, and its pretty obvious why. However you decided to revert, then you have to explain your actions. I can see by your contributions list that you are on wikipedia pretty much all day every day, therefore you have plent of chances to reply. And if I have to constantly remind you to answer, then so be it. My intentions are clear for everyone to see. Conypiece 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not obliged to answer any of your questions, I have up to now answered every question you asked, because you either fail to understand things or simply just refuse to accept anything that doesen't suit your own POV, dosen't mean I or anyother editor have to continue to explain the same thing over and over again. If you want to make claims on an article then it is up to you to provide WP:RS to support those claims, until such time as you do so then this discussion is pointless.--padraig 21:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are obliged to explain (correctly) why you revert. You have failed to do so. And no you have not answered all my questions, here are the ones I am waiting on;

Because they left the Republican Movement, when they refused to accept the decision by the IRA Army convention, to call a ceasefire and engage in the peace process, then then went on to create a new separate republican movement containing the RIRA and the 32 County Sovernity Committee who later became the 32 County Sovernity Movement.--padraig 16:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC) By leaving the Republican Movement I assume you mean the SF/IRA? Once again you have said that SF/IRA are the sole members of the movement. Now by going by your (inaccuate) definition of Irish Republicanism, peace loving democratic etc, then why do you not accept Fianna Fail to be part of the movement? Also one more question, according to your definition once again, are RSF part of the movement? After all they left long before 1998. Oh and have you saw this page Republican Movement (Ireland). Either that entire article is wrong or you are. Conypiece 16:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh and please do pay attention, I have added around half a dozen sources. You have as of yet failed to provide any. (remember to answer the questions on Adams' talk page)... :) Conypiece 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Irish Republican Movement pre-1986 consisted of:

Irish Republican Army

Sinn Féin

Cumann na hBan

Na Fianna Eireann

various prisoner welfare groups

• Irish Repubican movement post 1986

Irish Republican Army

Sinn Féin

Na Fianna Eireann

various prisoner welfare groups

Another Movement was formed after the Decision to recognise and take seats in Leinster House, this was called and consisted of:

Continuity Republican Movement

Continuity Irish Republican Army

Republican Sinn Féin

Cumann na hBan

Na Fianna Eireann (Continuity)

• Irish Repubican movement post 1998

Irish Republican Army

Sinn Féin

Na Fianna Eireann later replaced by revamped Ogra Shinn Féin

various prisoner welfare groups

Another Movement was formed after the Decision by the IRA to continue its ceasefire and endorse the peace process this was called and consisted of:

23 County Sovernity Movement

Real Irish Republican Army

32 County Sovernity Committee - later renamed 32 County Sovernity Movement

Na Fianna Eireann (Real)

On top of this you also have the:

Irish Republican Socialist Movement

Irish National Liberation Army

Irish Republican Socialist Party

None of this groups are connected to each other in any fashion.--padraig 22:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links backing up all of the above? Why do you think then the CIRA RIRA RSF still refer to themselves as part of the movement, ,RSF Easter Message? Also why do you find it alright to refer to a Continuity movement, when there is no such thing, yet you dismiss the term Provisional Sinn Fein when that is a used definition? Conypiece 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is the name they called themselves when they formed just like RSF choose their name when they were formed, as for links Tim pat Coogans The IRA ISBN 0-00-653155-5 or Ed Moloneys A secret history of the IRA ISBN 0-141-01041-x or Richard English Armed Struggle The History of the IRA ISBN 0-330-49388-4 or Brendan O'Brein History of the IRA any of these will help you understand the difference between each group. When RSF etc refer to themselves and the Republican Movement they are refering to there own grouping only no-one else.--padraig 23:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never disputed that they all saw themselves seperate. I already know the differences betweens the various Irish Republican groups, however to claim one group is the spokesman is a false statement. I have used this example many times before, but you must not have understood. Ian Paisley is the leader of the largest Unionist group in NI, however by no means can he be regarded as Unionisms/Loyalisms sole spokesman. My point is simple PIRA & RIRA, two completely seperate organisations that see themselves as part of the (Irish) Republican Movement. One dominates however it does not represent the entire movement. Oh and CIRA don't claim to be in a Continuity Republican Movement. When RSF are talking they have as much right to consider themselves part of the movement as anyone else. Conypiece 23:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll never get an answer out of Padraig that is inconvenient to his agenda. You'll remember what happened here.

On a more constructive note, I'd welcome your input on the discussion page of this sandbox essay. W. Frank talk ✉  18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be an answer above maybe not what he wanted to hear but I too have asked a question of Conypiece and got not reply yet he bombards padraig for an answer while giving me none.BigDunc 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect, Big Man, but even I have difficulty understanding you from time to time. Can you take the time (at least 40 minutes) to pose a precise question and I'm sure Conypiece will give you an honest answer (unless, of course, WP policies and guidelines make an honest reply problematical)? W. Frank talk ✉  18:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a simple question any fool could follow not that I am calling anyone who edits these pages a fool. But who are Irish Republican Dissidents? Easy really. BigDunc 18:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was 4 (not 40) minutes - so no banana.

It's not for me to answer for Conypiece, but I can see you're impatient.

Ummmmm - Any member of the "Irish R(r)epublican M(m)ovement that disagrees with your particular "Team"?

Do I get a banana? W. Frank talk ✉  18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your finding it hard to understand me take off your blinkers and who are "my team" you keep saying this paranoid rubbish what the hell are you talking about? BigDunc 19:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No reply from pagraig, no surprise there.

• BigDunc my not so alert friend, please do keep up, I answered that question which you refer to OVER TWO FULL DAYS AGO. A simple apology would be appreciated. :)

• W.Frank , thats an excellent creation. So true yet so complicated to get it worded in a way that gets the point across completely. Well done, you should notify as many admins as possible. Also I was thinking about how about making some sort of Wiki Project on Unionism within Britain, sort of in contrast to the WP:IRA brigade. It would keep together a number of key articles that need close watching. Any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conypiece (talk • contribs) 00:03, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I know this may come as a big shock to some folks, but I actually believe in creating an unbiased encyclopaedia. I think that small units are best in a genuine democracy like the Swiss cantons. In so far as the Scottish nationalists seem to have avoided (so far at least) the nastier religious and nationalistic stereotyping and the contemptible romancing of violence and martyrs that "the team" strive to glamorise and air-brush, I would not consider myself a "Unionist" of any ilk. What is needed on Wikipedia are more independent and rigorous minded editors like yourself that can summarise and explain all significant and sourced points of view on a topic - even though those sources may be contrary or even deadly to their own personal stance.

The provos are relatively unique in having combined a nasty dose of self-delusion with increasing electoral success. Mind you, the NSDAP probably looked like an unstoppable combination in 1938, too.  W. Frank talk ✉  00:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits in which you may be interested. - Kittybrewster (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are having problems with Padraig, who is also edit warring on List of British flags, Template:British Flags and Template:UKFlags. I wish he would discuss issues on the talk page rather than continuing to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Astrotrain 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion on the talk pages try using them before edit warring.--padraig 20:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotrain, I know! He edits, then when you ask him questions on talk pages he runs away! Ah well, if you're having problems getting him to answer you on talk pages a quick reminder on his user page normally does the trick. Thanks for your attention on Harry West. He hasn't got a leg to stand on there, there was a massive discussion in regards to that issue. Conypiece 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to talk to him, as he generally just repeats the same irrelevant point over and over again (as above). I've tried to reach consensus by compromise on issue with him, but he ignores attempts to resolve disputes and continues to edit war which is disappointing. Astrotrain 20:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conypiece any questions you have ask have been repeatly answered, Astrotrain when you start providing sources for your claims then maybe this can be resolved until then your claims are WP:POV and WP:OR, but as per usual you fail to do so, so continue to edit war and be disruptive.--padraig 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conypiece, please do not get into an edit war on someone else's talk page. If someone is removing your comments from their talk page, it's understook that they have acknowledged and read it (they may not agree with it, but they have read it.) SirFozzie 23:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... for 48 hours for intense revert-warring on the Harry West article. And your compadre has received same, you'll be pleased to hear. So much heat and energy expended and nothing achieved. - Alison ☺ 00:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Harry West. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Alison ☺ 00:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is obvious that you are one of the folks fueling an edit war on articles such as the one that you've just been blocked on, I've added your name to the Vintagekits ArbCom case here, as an involved party. If you wish to make a statement, or protest your involvement, post here while you are blocked, and I will see it placed on the proper page. SirFozzie 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tireless and until now unrewarded work towards achieving NPOV on wikipedia. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]