If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Swimnteach (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quote: "This is a relatively unknown band but has just released their first album". My feeling is that it's too soon. Have a look at WP:BAND. If you think the article complies with that, or that you can improve it to fit, tell me and I'll userfy it to your userspace (or someone else's if applicable) and other opinions can be sought. Articles by this title have been deleted twice before (as I only found out when I'd made my decision), but the BBC bits must be an improvement. If you've got more from other sources (WP:RS) let me know. I'm always prepared to change my mind. Peridon (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS Your talk page takes rather a long time to load up - any chance of moving all that yellow backed stuff to a subpage? Peridon (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me Peridon. I already have the article in a sandbox so I will work at improving it and will ask you to review it at a later date. I will also look at archiving some of this page. Bjmullan (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
White phosphorus
Hey Bjmullan, while ordinarily I wouldn't make a fuss over a revert to allow opportunity for discussion, there doesn't seem to be a valid argument for keeping the image in the article. If the RS that's the source of the image itself calls it a cluster bomb, who are we to caption it as anything different? Unless al-Jazeera actually changes the language at that webpage where the image's from and identifies the object in the sky as an exploding white phosphorus shell, WP:BOP demands that the image be removed. I'm not challenging your revert per se, but I do think the onus should be on the editors who want the image in the article, not on those who think it should be removed.—Biosketch (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Biosketch, and I'm not challenging your revert either! I just thought it would be better in these contentious articles to give the discussion a bit more time to see if someone could come up with a better reference. If nothing happens today then either of us should revert the image. Bjmullan (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bjmullan, I noticed you've been doing some useful vandal fighting, would you like to have Rollback? If so just read wp:Rollback and tell me when you would use it. Cheers and happy editing. ϢereSpielChequers22:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Congratz, Bjmullan! Just be sure not to get caught with your pants down and use Rollback for insertions of a certain phrase by certain editors ;> As POV and annoying as those edits may be, they're not vandalism. Cheers :> Doctalk22:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what way was my edit vandalism? It's established WP:F1 consensus that we don't have flag icons or engine suppliers above infoboxes for defunct teams. That's why we've got 'McLaren-Mercedes', but 'Brabham' (no engine supplier or flag); 'Red Bull-Renault', but simply 'Stewart'. If you're finding former constructors with flag icons or engines, it's an error on those pages and you should be taking them out. Best, JonChappleTalk19:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed my restoration of a previous version added old vandalism to the article, so I'll assume it's that you were talking about. My apologies, have sorted. JonChappleTalk19:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I couldn't see where the vandalism was coming from as I looked back a few edits and was alarmed that your account may have be compromise. All sorted now so no need to apologise. Bjmullan (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ballymoney article
I think it is completly inapropriate for you to edit an article about a town (Ballymoney) in which you know nothing about and probably have never been to. As a local, i am therefore better suited to contributing to this article than you. You removed my Ulster Scots translation from the infobox, and removed the 'Local Name' aswell. Can i point out that although Newcastle in England may be known as 'The Toon', my town of Ballymoney is also locally known as 'The Toon'. I would like an explanation for your removing of my contribution.
Regards
Further Note: The 'soccer' team you are referring to on the History page is Newcastle F.C and has nothing to do with Ballymoney.
A number of points for you to consider:
1. If you made both of the edits at Ballymoney which I have reverted please consider creating a user account and read WP:SOCK.
2. Can you make up your mind on what the spelling is (Ballamoney or Bellymoney)?
3. Wikipedia has nothing to do with local knowledge but whether the information comes from a reliable source and is verifiable.
I think you should just f**k off, and stop editing articles about subjects you know nothing about. Can i point out that local names are not official, therefore a source cannot possibly be found. An example is Newcastle; it's unofficial nickname, 'the toon' appears on it's wikipedia article, yet it's not official, it's just a well known nickname. 82.132.136.195 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, i use a mobile device for my internet connections, so my IP address changes everytime i connect, so don't rely on it as a means of contacting me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.36 (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right Newcastle is widely known as The Toon and finding a reliable source for it's inclusion in Wikipedia takes a couple of seconds on google. As you seem to use lots of IP addresses it would be a really good idea to create an account. It would also be a really good idea not to tell people you have never met or know nothing about to f**k off. Have a nice day. Bjmullan (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect Bjmullan, and despite the uncouth and aggressive tone from the previous commentator took with you, he is right. Unfortunately, he has a point - and this is in part one of the negative sides to Wikipedia, or Wikipedia policy. It is not written by experts. In fact, it specifically strives to avoid experts at times. The policies are absolute and remove the danger of creating factual articles if there is no information to back these facts up (usually the Big Bad Broadband). Thus, I can understand this person's anger, though I wouldn't condone his aggressive behaviour toward you.
It is not merely the football team that is called "the toon", but also the town itself. "Toon" means town, of course, and it is sometimes called "Ballymoney toon" (as is the football club). I have no idea what how the official Ullans (Ulster Lallans/Ulster Scots) for "Ballymoney" is rendered in English, though "Ballamoney" appears to be likely.
I believe I have satisfied the overbearing policy requirements to add this fact to the article, with an article in the Toon's local newspaper online - the Ballymoney and Moyle Times. I will leave the link here and edit the article as necessary. If necessary, you could add the citation yourself at a later date if anyone else objects to this simple, but not globally known, fact. --81.135.29.171 (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I did look myself before removing it but was unable to find an RS. FYI I have moved the last paragraph above to the Ballymoney talkpage for future ref. Bjmullan (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took your advice, and created an account. Can i say that finding an Ulster Scots translation of 'Ballymoney' on the internet is quite difficult, and the only reference i have is an Ulster Scots Booklet that i received in the post. The translation is either 'Ballamoney' or 'Bellamoney', i cant remember which, but i will continue to search the net for a source. Regards Bmuni (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just changed that link style for you, Bmuni (there is no references section on a talk page usually). Take care, and remain civil mate. ;) --81.135.29.171 (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've now reverted three times on the darts article. Plase self revert your last one I'll be quite happy to continue the discussion and try and achieve some agreement/consensus on this one. WizOfOz (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
James accept my apology. I didn't even know I had done it until I saw your message. One of the dangers of view WP on an iPhone when you have rollback. Bjmullan (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Not strictly a 3RR but I've asked for a review at the 3RR noticeboard. WizOfOz (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Article Carlingford Loughfalls under WP:1RR per the notice at the top of the Article Talk page. All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
All articles related to The Troubles, 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 WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.--Domer48'fenian'14:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply demanding someone to "get consensus" first on the talk page is just not in itself a valid reason to revert an edit. Wikipedia would collapse if it worked on that priciple. The proposition of a reasonable 'consensus' (and what is that with this?) is so difficult on BI with 1RR, that the articles may as well be permanently frozen. People either won't engage in it any more, or they state that they are happy with the 'status quo' (sometimes for no other reason given than 'stabiliy'), while others fall into various arguments which go nowhere.
And all the while, nothing properly supports the article being so conclusive (ie "it is controversial") regarding the term in Ireland - and it only takes "can be controversal" to make it a reasonable statement. I've honestly never seen any evidence (beyond the select texts) that suggests that most people in Ireland care as much as a number of the regulars on Wikipedia. People would naturally expect evidence of widespread controversy to be unmissable for Wikipedia to even suggest it is there. Sometimes sources have to be verified properly to make sense of their context, decide upon their quality, ascertain weight etc. Of course it is very hard to prove a lack of something in the 'infinite space' Wikipedia operates in, and the 'burden' in the BI arena always seems to be to actually remove something rather than to properly support it. Esp with 1RR in place. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like it or not or whether you believe it doesn't really matter as reliable sources has shown that the term is controversial so please take you edit to the talk page and get consensus rather than trying to convince yourself and others with your edit summary. Bjmullan (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bjmullan
I see in the 'Donald Macintyre' article that you have changed 'Londonderry' to 'Derry' "as per WP: MoS". I originally put 'Londonderry' not 'Derry' in the article because that was how it was stated in his 1976 book.
I can only imagine that for somebody like Macintyre, from the mainland in the 1940s who served there and wrote about it in the 1950s, long before things like the 'Troubles', BBC guidelines, Guardian pronouncements, Wikipedia pages and so on, had no knowledge of the different spelling of the city's name. (He probably couldn't have cared less either).
As I said, I was merely following the reference.
Regards RASAM (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries RASAM. The Derry/Londonderry issue has been going on for centuries (since 1613). On Wikipedia the city is known as Derry (the common name and the one used by the majority of the people from the city) and the county is known as Londonderry. Happy editing. Bjmullan (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refactored comment
Hope my intervention hasn't made things worse. Just trying to keep this collegiate. If you revert I promise I'll keep the fuck away. Agree with your sentiment though. RashersTierney (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Rashers, if de Valera for all his faults (and they were many) can't be label Irish then what hope anyone? Keep up the good work. Bjmullan (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Domer if that was the case I could change lot's of the quotes for County Londonderry to Derry and lots of the Derry to Londonderry. This is one compromise that seems to work. Please just leave it. Bjmullan (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm not misrepresenting the source here. Just post up were we agreed to compromise on our policy on Verifiability and were it says we can misrepresent a source. Like I said, I support IMOS, and I'm not going to fall out with you over this. --Domer48'fenian'21:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this edit related to Northern Ireland. The rest of the table consistently uses the template {{nb|COUNTRY}}. If you want to fix the Northern Ireland issue, please address it by fixing that template, not making the table inconsistent with the rest of the article. --LauraHale (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see someone else has already fixed it by using nb|Northern Ireland|union. I wouldn't want to modify the template because any article relating to Northern Ireland Netball before 1972 would use the Ulster Banner which is a bit like the example that is given at the template page for South Africa nb|South Africa|1928. Bjmullan (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting BTCC Results
Bjmullan I decided to delete them because I created the Championship results tables with the race results included and also because I thought we didn't need them anymore and would save space on the pages.
Thanks Matthew for the reply. Why don't you consider becoming a registered user? We all keep an eye out for unexplained IP edits. Bjmullan (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pub
Carry on an edit war if you want, but be aware, I didn't add British Isles, I just put right the incorrect British and Irish Isles, now isn't there somewhere that it says no one should remove or add BI in the way you're doing? Van Speijk (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than removing messages from your own talkpage, or putting message here why don't you discuss this at the article page? Bjmullan (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As well as providing shite references elsewhere you can't count. I have done one edit & 3 reverts. You on the other hand have continued to ignore BRD. Good night. Bjmullan (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BRD also applies to the SPA IP making POINTy changes across Irish biographical articles. Please don't threaten to report me. I've replied at my page. JonCTalk11:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have supported using the "location" box only in the discussion on the article's talk page. I'm not going to trawl through the history and see when this latest country/region/municipality stuff was added, but I can't see anything on talk that agrees with it. JonCTalk06:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Survey for new page patrollers
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello Bjmullan/Archive 3! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
I declined the CSD on it, especially after the last source was added from the Astronomy and Geophysics Journal (in a Harvard University website) that discussed the earthquake in passing mention. The earthquake may or may have not happened, but as long as it's discussed in reliable sources, db-hoax doesn't qualify. Secretaccount23:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I do realize the length of time (3 weeks) since you made that post but due to the probation it is incumbent on me (or another sysop) to remind users of appropriate behaviour in this topic area. Furthermore if you do have concerns about pov pushing in this area do report them--Caililtalk23:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a virtue. Maybe you should wait until someone returns to Wikipedia to even see your response before leaving threats of "noting" their behaviour. Mabuska(talk)16:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Talk page guidelines state The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. And what is the third exception outline below Mabuska? ... Personal Attacks. I did not go against talk page policy. Bjmullan (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry about that. The C rating was more just because I was in a hurry than anything. It was more like a place holder than anything. Since you brought it up though I'll come back and give it a more thorough review ASAP. Hopefully no harm no foul.
Reference added to Turquoise. Funny how you singled out that particular part of the article. You quote "I don't like it". That's a bit rich coming from you - you who most assuredly doesn't like British Isles. I suggest you stop your POV pushing in this area. It will cause no end of trouble. Stick to cars and we'll all be better off. I'll make one more point about British Isles - nowhere in Wikipedia, nor anywhere else that I can find, does it say that the use of "British Isles" must be inclusive of at least Ireland and GB. So please don't use excuses such as "not in Ireland" for deleting the term. If something is in England etc. then that's good enough for British Isles to be used in some circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommonPAS (talk • contribs) 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a couple of weeks ago I noticed the article was missing a pic, so I overcame my laziness yesterday and went there to take one - and when I want to upload it, I find out you beat me to it with more or less an identical one by just a few days! How dare you? :D --Thrissel (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
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).
A very unfair and harsh block. I have edited here for several years dealing with difficult subjects and editors. This IP was clearly warned by me and I have not broken any rules. Far from gaming, I tried to engage the IP and even suggested that they register as a user but to no avail as there continued to revert. If I was gaming the system I would have first reverted their last edit before reporting them. Bjmullan (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Unfortunately, this is an arbitration enforcement block; this means that no administrator can lift it without the blocking admin's consent, ArbCom's written authorisation or a clear consensus of uninvolved editors. SalvioLet's talk about it!23:09, 21 February 2012 (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.
I'm not going to rule on the unblock request due to my lack of full familiarity with WP:TROUBLES, but my assumption based on the wording of Template:Troubles restriction is that reverting IP edits, especially ones that introduce a problem to the page (i.e., replacing a blue link with a red link), qualifies as something that would be exempt from 1RR and not subject to a block. --Kinut/c22:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't see it, you're article was reviewed for GA article status. Good news is it didn't fail. Bad news it didn't pass. I didn't do the review personally but you can read the reviewers comments here. If there is some way I might be able to help you with the article I'd be willing to be try. Good luck! --Sabre ball t c 01:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a bloody nerve. You should read some policies yourself then you might realise that there's nothing wrong with editing without an account setup. I haven't got an account yet, but I will be doing shortly. Its obvious my ip identifers are from the same person and I can't control my ip address at any one time. It may change again when I save the note to you. Then you mention original research, and I've now read up on it. I think here you are taking to p*. You cliam that to use British Isles as a description for Great Britain and Ireland is original research. What tripe. Its just another name for the same thing. You might have a problem with it but I don't and nor do most other right thinking people, so I'm putting it back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.100 (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You seem to think ip's don't count. Well I've got nesw for you, they do. Their edits are as valid as yours. And don't be stupid! You say reverting an ip with a disruptive history. Its a shared ip, as well you know, so its not my history, so button it. 212.183.128.100 (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an least the third IP account you have used in the last couple of days. This time this account has a history of disruptive edits. May I suggest that you register as a user before doing any further edits. Also please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks you. Bjmullan (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
