User talk:78.16.60.78

Edit warring in the name of Consensus building? How oxymoronic!
I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this - given that previous attempts to try and talk you out of your counter-productive, disruptive, socking, block evading and SPA-sticated ways have fallen on deaf or ignorant ears. However, the whole point of WP:CON is that if a disputed change is to remain stable, the editor who wants to make the change needs to open a discussion on it, agree a compromise or acceptable approach before implementing. This totally backwards approach you are taking (with socks, editwarring, etc) may give you the impression that you are "successful" in the short term, but - ultimately - your changes will be reversed until a solution - which is based on consensus - is met. This is why the WP:CON guideline exists. Because it has long since been recognised that the behaviour you are engaged in will not work. Why you think your approach is any different or special is beyond me.

Anyway, this approach you have taken - to work your way through the "what links here" list for the Republic of Ireland article, and pipe-link every single reverse reference (without consideration to context) is NOT at all in the spirit of about 10 different mores of this project.

The main thing you seem to be missing with this nonsense is that in a lot of cases, the very WP:IMOS norms you pretend to be upholding, specifically deals with GEOGRAPHICAL contexts. (Towns and the like)

You may have noted that in some of the edits (by your now 10 strong IP/meat sock farm) have not been reverted - because (by accident) they happen to meet the spirit of this. Like the:
 * Irish nationality law article which deals with the island as geographical whole, or
 * List of flags of the Republic of Ireland which includes content that spans the geographical whole, etc.

Other edits however have been reverted (and will remain reverted unless CON is reached) because they deal with concepts not falling under this geographical guideline. For example:
 * Courts of Ireland needs to be very clear on the jurisdictional boundaries of the court system, and not leave any ambiguity that NI/UK law doesn't apply here - and vice versa.
 * Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland needs to be very clear that there is no overlap in the governance of this state and the UK
 * Irish Defence Forces needs to be damn clear that the Irish Army is not on manoeuvres through Fermanagh - and vice versa the British Army in Cork
 * etc. etc

Again, I'm not sure why I'm bothering trying to explain this to you, coz you're obviously more interested in making your ill-advised WP:POINT - without consideration to the WHOLE PREMISE of this project as an informative/educational/research tool. Until you grasp this, and actually follow the guidelines set down on Consensus building (instead of throwing it around like some kind of oxymoronic license to edit war), then you'lll just be wasting your time. Guliolopez (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What you are saying strikes of WP:FORUMSHOP. At Talk:Republic of Ireland it was agreed to pipelink ROI. That is the consensus and was a compromise. Note am I not piplinking where clarity is key, such as ones that specifically give quite a bit of weight to the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland. For example Irish Defence Forces saying its the forces of the country called Ireland is not confusing. Next you'll be saying that we can't use the term 'Irish' as it's misleading! And to respond to your message left on Alisons talk page, I would love to do this all properly, but there are users such as Matt Lewis who has despised me even when I did things normally. So that is not going to be an option. To get back to the start, the consensus is to pipelink, I'm not crazy and on some crusade, where its obviously misleading and not in context I won't be putting in the name of the state, put on pages that deal solely with matters that take place within its borders then the consensus has to remain.UncleFisty (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are about 10 things awry with the above. I will pick just 5. Firstly, FORUMSHOP is a guideline which speaks to the practice of shopping around until you find the guideline/POV which suits your case. This is what you are doing - not anyone else. Secondly, using FORUMSHOP as an excuse for avoiding building consensus and engaging in editwarring instead, is the biggest pile of BS ever spouted. ("I can't build consensus because it will take too long"). Thirdly, there was no evident consensus in the most recent discussion on the talk page you mention to do what you espouse. What there was (as noted) was acknowledgement that pipe-linking might represent PART of a compromise in some cases. But it was specifically noted that care and consideration would be needed when applying changes. And that possibly further consensus building on a new IMOS was required. Fourthl, you clearly couldn't give two hoots about "doing things properly". If you did (as noted above) you would have created a new username (ONE bloody username - not 15) and operated within the mores of he project. By opening that CON discussion on IMOS that was decided was required. Instead however you decided to engage in this crap. And finally, in your note that "some editors have it in for you" you fail to realise that the REASON for this is not because they disagree with you - rather because you blatantly show total disrespect for other editors, and the mores of this project. It is you who closed the doors on "doing things properly" - NOT anyone else. So. As much as I have been willing to try and help you through this (for going on 6 months now) I have to finally say this: "BUGGER OFF!" If, as you admit above and as evident from your socking/warring/disruptive crap, you don't feel you can operate within the accepted practices of the project, then I no longer have time for you. As this project clearly is not for you. So bugger off and let the people who ARE willing to work within the guidelines to do so. Guliolopez (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Wikipéire (6th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)