User talk:81.187.71.75

January 2010

Welcome!

Hello, 81.187.71.75, 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:

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! Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 20:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City of Derry Airport

As long as you took the pictures or they were available elsewhere on the Internet under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported licence. This Flicker photo is an example of that, although it uses the older 2.0 licence, however, somewhere like airliners.net appears to have no free images. Also you would need an account to upload the pictures and the best place to upload them would be at Wikimedia Commons then all the other projects would have access to them. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 20:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will have a colleague take them and upload them from his account next time he is in the area. cheers. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Binevenagh

Can you please refrain from changing the spelling of Binevenagh to Benevenagh in the article about Limavady. As I have already pointed out this is the spelling that is WIDELY used by such organisation as the Government, Google etc. Therefore your argument that this is a local name is wrong. If you check out the article relating to Binevenagh you will see that it does for completeness make note of the Benevenagh spelling. Bjmullan (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh..so google says..... The correct name of the mountain is Benevenagh...note the BEN dimwit! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the following links for proof that people other than google call it Binevenagh ...

The Northern Ireland Forestry Service: http://www.forestserviceni.gov.uk/index/forests-in-northern-ireland/forests-in-the-east-region/binevenagh-forest.htm
Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland: http://www.causewaycoastandglens.com/Portals/2/walkroutes/walk14.jpg
The BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blueprint/offthebeatentrack/binevenagh.shtml
Countryside Access & Activities Network for Northern Ireland: http://www.walkni.com/Walk.aspx?ID=176

Bjmullan (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be getting it, just because other organisations have fallen into the trap set by Google doesn't make it correct. Don't believe everything you read on the web. The mountain has always been properly known as Benevenagh FOR OBVIOUS REASONS! DOOOOOHHH --81.187.71.75 (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Ordnance Survey has been around just a little longer than Google ... 1747, maybe it was them that set the trap? Bjmullan (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I found this article on WP:3O. Wikipedia's official policy is that all information must be verifiable by a reliable source. Including a user's first-hand account in the article constitutes original research and is prohibited by Wikipedia. Unless the IP can provide a source using their preferred spelling, it should remain "Binevenagh." I would also like to remind the IP user to remain civil on Wikipedia. Personal attacks on users such as this are strictly prohibited. Mildly MadTC 14:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ordnance Survey is often wrong in relation to place names.
But the local Council and others refer to it by its proper name Benevenagh
Limavady Borough Council: http://www.limavady.gov.uk/visiting/activities/16/18/
NI Government: http://roadimprovements.roadsni.gov.uk/limavadybypass09-05.pdf
Planning Appeals Commission: http://roadimprovements.roadsni.gov.uk/limavadybypass09-05.pdf
Limavady Planning and Development Services Committee: http://www.limavady.gov.uk/filestore/documents/minutes/310505-road-service-consultations.pdf
The Irish Naturalist 1914: http://www.jstor.org/pss/25524261
Travel In Ireland: http://tyrone.travelinireland.com/tyrone/history/history.html --81.187.71.75 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link mentions the forest owned by the Forest Service who spells it Binevenagh and the second and third (being the same) could be used against your opposition of the use of the word Derry as they also use this term. The fourth mentions a name of a street (Benevenagh Drive) and not the mountain. The last is regarding freshwater shells and I doubt if the person was referring to the mountain. Bjmullan (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously cannot read because the name used is Benevenagh. Everyone knows that the streets in Limavady where named Benevenagh are named after the mountain.
I do not oppose the name Derry when used appropriately. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. O Fenian (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shame!

I was told about you and your pro-republican tendencies towards dribble. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 15:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your agressive input is unwelcome. You I understand are a political activist with your own agenda. Don't make threats to me O Fenian. You know very well that there is no Irish name for the village so stop making waves or I will report you for disruption. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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.

JamieS93 01:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jamie, you have just made my point. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my opinion on the talk page and it shall not be changed. Please respect any comments from an editor responding to a WP:3O request. Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose being Welsh you have a lot in common with other Celtic tribes. Naturally, you miss the point apparently being myoptic too. You are welcome to your opinion which just happens to be wrong. So much for civilised debate! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civilised debate? Do you consider calling me a dimwit; suggesting that I was mad; saying that another editors input was crap and the another was short-sighted is civilised? Think again. Bjmullan (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why not debate it rather than reverting every edit. Any idiot can do a revert! What are you scared of? --81.187.71.75 (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page User talk:O Fenian has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Connormah (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, just maybe if he would refrain from annoying everyone else with his sock mania! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again for block evasion

There we go. Much better. Have a nice day. SirFozzie (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Betcha he'd have something to say about it if he could edit his page, wouldn't he, Fozz?? (snerksnerksnerk) HalfShadow 01:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do and here [[1]] --81.187.71.75 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 17:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

This is victimization...pure and simple

Decline reason:

Yes. That is correct. You are attacking Wikipedia, using a variety of usernames and ips. But we have made it clear that we do not wish to be your victims any longer, and so, no, I will not unblock you to continue 'victimizing.' FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

This is victimization...pure and simple. A group of editors continually revert my edits in relation to anything anti Irish Republican. It is very clear that these editors are not abiding by the spirit of the project but are out simply to promote their own propaganda and agenda. I was only on a matter of minutes and was attacked almost immediately by two of them. One has taken to acting like a troll and following me around every page, it is very obvious what they are up to. Fisherqueen is one of those offenders!

Decline reason:

No valid reason to unblock has been given; and your edits suggest you will continue to act as if Wikipedia is a battleground should the block be lifted. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

--81.187.71.75 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fisherqueen being a non partial administrator I call on another impartial and independent administrator to review this! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetie, if you're claiming that you are not User:The Maiden City, then you don't want to let people know that I'm following you around. I've never interacted with this ip before. Remember, you know me from other accounts that you've used? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetie, you are as bitter as the rest of them. My colleague told me all about you before you get carried away! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Sweetie, you have an unhealthy interest by your own admission! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting your edits are anti-Irish Republican in nature? GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You disappoint me GoodDay, if that is all you have to say better shut up. I support anything anti Irish Republican and am not afraid to say it, not like the pro IRA cowards we have on here pretending to be something else. LOL --81.187.71.75 (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; you want to keep to one story. You already said I'm 'following you around every page'. You, not someone you know. Did you forget already? It's bad enough that you're trying to avoid your block, but you're not even any good at it. It's embarrassingly easy to re-block you and revert your edits with every new account. How much longer do you think you'll need, before you accept that you're not going to be able to accomplish your goals here? I'd like to mark the date on the calendar, with a little heart. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fisherqueen, could it be maybe that you are nothing but a sockpuppet for another wellknown troublemaker and have been lucky so far. I certainly know that you collude with those others behind the scenes and it is only a matter of time before your time comes, just like Musicinthehouse another sockpuppet of the Republican faith. I have no doubt that your smugness will catch you up in smart style in due course. Your exploits are very evident for anyone who takes the time to examine your edits. As for troll Bigdunc, well that idiots exploits speak for themself!!--81.187.71.75 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RBI, FisherQueen. Remember the "I" part; don't encourage them. Tan | 39 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Tan. BigDunc 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Wikipedia are well within their rights to file an abuse report with your ISP. Keep it up and this just may happen. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threats are what you people are all about and I hope all genuine users will take note! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judge Robert Lamberton. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article and resubmit when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. avs5221 (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again..

This time for two months for evading your ban. SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What ban is this then if I may ask? --81.187.71.75 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have never been banned thus I cannot be deemed to have evaded one. Your logic astounds me as does your arrogance. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and the article was created.

  • The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
  • Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
  • If you would to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Slon02 (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Slon02, maybe this could be the start of something good. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I know that you can do constructive edit here on WP. So why not take the advice above and register as a user and enjoy this place and also believe your own statement and let it be the start of something good :) Bjmullan (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has had plenty of accounts (and these ones too), all blocked for things like sectarian vandalism, point-of-view pushing, edit warring, threats, abuse and so on. O Fenian (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O Fenian I know all of these things, IP has been abusive to me in the past but I'm bigger than that and I hope you are too. Bjmullan (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're back again...

I've blocked this IP, for six months this time. SirFozzie (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shame :( I thought that you too could be bigger. I think that you have something to offer WP and I hope that in the coming months you will have time to think about it and change your ways. See you in Decemeber.... Bjmullan (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]