What utter rubbish both of you - and stop trying to recruit people in a campaign against me Vintagekits. As to the edit you made on my talk page claiming that the article in the Indie is not about the IRA, all I can say is, can you read? I quote from the article directly "The IRA operation is said to be under the control of the IRA's reputed chief of staff, Thomas "Slab" Murphy, a quiet South Armagh farmer who is regarded as the organisation's financial mastermind." CreativeLogic19:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please remind you again about WP:CIVIL, no one is campaigning against you and no one is ganging up against you. I asked P3UK to have a word with you about as you didnt seem to listen to me and throught you might listen to another editor. That obviously seems to be wrong. --Vintagekits20:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work reverting vandalism here. I tried to get it protected, but my request was turned down because apparently there was not enough vandalism! I really think that wikipedia needs to be tougher on this area. It's not acceptable that people have to revert an article every day to stop it degenerating into mush.
Yeah, well that's what I argued, but I was told you need to have ten reverts a day or something. See for yourself, [1] Madness!
Jdorney11:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've nothing against that, just it was slightly too drastic for me to start splitting pages without discussion. I'm assuming you mean everything pre-1970 in one article? If anything what I'm most tempted to split off the article are the huge lists of representatives. I still think some sections need moving and/or merging, but again that's something needing discussion. One Night In Hackney30316:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lists of elected representatives could be split off into a seperate article, with just the small list of each type and number in the main article with a link to the separate article.--padraig3uk16:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the issue really is that without a source we have no way of knowing whether there is a copyright problem or not. The image might be in the public domain in Ireland and the United States (which is all we really care about here), but if we don't know the photographer, we cannot figure out if they died seventy years ago or not. We're not, in general, very good about this; a lot of media gets uploaded here and marked "Public domain" because it looks sort of old. Jkelly17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Padraig, please revert your own chanages. You know this issue isn't resolved. There are several further stages of the dispute resolution process, you can't just decide when an issue is resolved yourself. Stu’Bout ye!09:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to National Party of Northern Ireland. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.politics.ie/wiki/index.php?title=National_Party_of_Northern_Ireland in this case) 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDLor released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:National Party of Northern Ireland with a link to where we can find that note;
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:National Party of Northern Ireland with a link to the details.
Politics.ie is a wiki page also - how do you know that Padraig didnt write that page also. Additionally are you sure that pages on politic.ie carry any copyright at all?--Vintagekits15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Padraig should have probably copied it directly from Wiki - not a third party website? The patrollers can hardly be expected to look into the details of every apparent breach of copyright. (Sarah77716:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Let me explain some edits I made (and reverted) here and on the article on National Party of Northern Ireland. My initial review of the copyright policy at politics.ie led me to believe that they were asserting copyright over all contributions, such that their permission would be necessary for reposting materials here. After looking into it further, I have concluded that this is not correct. They are only asserting a nonexclusive license. So you are free to repost on Wikipedia articles you have written and posted at politics.ie. Sorry for the confusion. --Butseriouslyfolks20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. Your new text looks great to me. Good work on the article, too; I've half-meant to write it for a while, but never got round to it. Warofdreamstalk22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't work, your reversion was perfectly fine. So suppose that I make the "Flag" link not visible, and adjust the names? Would that be okay? GracenotesT § 01:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be ok in general, the major problem with all this is if we have a option for a flag at all then it will result in a edit war again as soon as the protection is removed form the article, the concencus was not to have a flag but certain editors refuse to accept that the Ulster banner is POV, as it has no offical status for the past 35yrs.--padraig3uk01:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this seems too ugly of a hack, but it would be possible to disable the flag option for Infobox Country for this article: have it not do anything. I'm not sure that that would gain consensus for inclusion in that template, though. GracenotesT § 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ulster Banner
Please do not remove this from the UK regions template. This template is used on many articles and is consistent with other templates and articles on Wikipedia. 163.167.129.12415:50, 17 April 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. Thank you. --unsigned posted by163.167.129.124 19th April 2007.
Do warnings such as this not need to be signed by someone? Ditto I would suggest for belligerent comments such as those made by 163.167.129.124 (Sarah77710:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I do apologise for omitting to sign the above warning. I note you have enlisted help here. May I ask Sarah, what "belligerent comments" I have made and when? 163.167.129.12412:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't enlisted help I was replying to Sarah's comment that she left above, why would I need to enlist help on a matter that has already been dealt with. Also considering you deleted our discussion from your talk page can you please refain from posting on mine.--padraig3uk13:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[[3]] appears to be an account created specifically to attack an active editor. And you may ask any question you wish, 163167129124, but you are wasting your time as I have no intention of discussing this matter with a twelve-digit number devoid of any editing record! (Sarah77713:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I refer 163167129124 to Wiki policy on Sockpuppets.
(1) creation of a sock puppet account is not a premise for assuming good faith. You are obviously an experienced Wiki editor, as your post just above this proves - so your current account is clearly a sock puppet.
(2) Where have I been uncivil?
(3) I described your comments and actions as belligerent; not you. I don't know who you are. That is part of the problem. (Sarah77713:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please do not assume that I am a sockpuppet on the basis that I do not use an account. I am not. This is not assuming good faith. Your attitude to me is far from civil (in fact it is belligerent) and incase you need reminding, Wikipedia is free for "anyone to edit," regardless of whether or not one uses an account to do so (or indeed your personal point of view on the relative merits or demerits of that). 163.167.129.12413:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It believe that
(a) you are an experienced editor
(b) that you appeared anonymously to engage in an edit war
(c) that 163.167.129.124 is a Sockpuppet of your usual handle (whatever that is)
Now, having made those points as clearly as I can, I will have no further exchange of any sort with 163.167.129.124. Goodbye. (Sarah77716:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
