User talk:Aatomic1

Welcome!
Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Fvasconcellos 16:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Unblock

 * Please settle down. I've protected this page for one hour; you'll have to wait to make any further appeals. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As the protection has expired, and Aatomic1 has gone directly back to similar abuse, I've extended the block to a week, and protected this talk page for the duration. Mango juice talk 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning
This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack&#32;as you did at User:Mangojuice, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gscshoyru 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am obviously sorry. Offending comment for the curious : Aatomic1 16:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Could Pedants please remember Headings in future?
The article Cyprian Bridge has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MastCell Talk 22:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Question from BigDunc
can you explain to me what you are asking me to note thanks, on Birmingham pub bombings--BigDunc 10:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)



Thanks for clarification.--BigDunc 10:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on talk page about the list of the dead
Could you please join discussion on talk page about the list of the dead appearing in article on birmingham bombings.BigDunc 13:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting very silly now what are you doing scouring WP looking for places to put lists of dead people why dont you set up an obituary article and you can have your fun there.BigDunc 14:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we simply use my talk page for ALL innocent victims? I'm bloody interested in them and I should be able to look them up in an encyclopedia Aatomic1 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in innocent victims too I am sure there is a page on the Paras put the names of the people murdered on Bloody Sunday on it then. BigDunc 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic1 14:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic1 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the below to the SAS article - but Consensus was to remove it

''The use of a shoot-to-kill policy has created some controversy. For instance, on 10 July 1978, John Boyle, a sixteen-year-old Catholic, was exploring an old graveyard near his family's farm in County Antrim, when he discovered an arms cache. He told his father, who passed on the information to the RUC. The next morning Boyle decided to see if the guns had been removed and was shot dead by two SAS soldiers who had allegedly been waiting undercover''. Aatomic1 14:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with what you put in there but why were they removed.BigDunc 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but you are not brave enough to remove the memorials to dead British soldiers in the very same articles are You? Aatomic1 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of the articles have not read them but I will do. BigDunc 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick look at them I cant see any memorials to the dead members of these regiments.BigDunc 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Chicken!! Aatomic1 14:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Show me memorials to dead soldiers I cant find them. BigDunc 14:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol... Show me a single memorial on Wiki... I can't find them either. Aatomic1 15:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about memorials, I'm about adding information - not deleting it. Aatomic1 15:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)..possibly in some deluded attempt to manipulate History?




 * What are you talking about you are the one who said "...remove the memorials to dead British soldiers in the very same articles are You"? I asked you where are they and then you come out with this "I'm not about memorials..." when all you have done today is tried to add them to numerous articles stop this sillyness please.BigDunc 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was using your definition of memorial. This is a  Memorial (ie a lump of stone)Aatomic1 15:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I never gave you a definition of memorial and could you please refrain from name calling. BigDunc 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please stop adding lists of the dead to articles, The list fails WP:NOT, WP:NOT and WP:NOT. Use the discussion pages on the articles to raise any issues you may have, thanks --Domer48 23:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic can you please stop adding these lists to articles without first discussing them in article talk pages and getting consensus first. Starting edit wars is not going to achieve consensus on this issue, put your case for their inclusion on the talk pages.--padraig 10:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Public Apology

 * Yeah...I am sorry... I was angry and I do not believe it to be true. I accept that I should not do it againAatomic1 21:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If that apology is for me I accept as I said the dead from any conflict should not be forgotten lets work together to come up with a solution to our differences. BigDunc 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

...Agreed Aatomic1 22:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks ...
... and insinuations, of the like you made here are not appropriate. Please don't do that again - A l is o n  ☺ 18:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

...Sorry
Aatomic1 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Necrothesp (Cyprian Bridge)
Hi. The main thing that needs changing is the structure of the article. At the moment it reads more like a list of bullet points than an encyclopaedia article. It needs to have sentences and paragraphs, not just a series of notes. At present it's not really long enough to need section headings either. -- Necrothesp 21:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

...cheers I'll put it on my to do list Aatomic1 21:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Attacking other editors
Hello Aatomic1. This edit is not acceptable ....
 * Firstly its not true and thus a misrepresentation...
 * Secondly, it is entirely irrelevent to the discussion at hand...
 * I note you have already been warned...
 * Subsequent to Vk's blocking, the culture of tolerance for such behaviour in articles relating to the Troubles is rapidly dissipating.
 * If there is any repeat of the ...comments you have ... been warned about, then I will issue a block... please take this opportunity to consider adopting a more collegiate tone with fellow editors.
 * Also, you have been a contributor to an ongoing edit war over the addition of lists of victims on various bombings. I do not know the background to this disagreement...
 * If consensus cannot be reached on a talkpage, then you should
 * open a WP:RfC or
 * request external mediation


 * reverting three times a day is disruptive. Please stop.

(Aatomic1 Precise of Rockpocket Warning) 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the warning. I'm sorry you wasted your time  Aatomic1 18:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been blocked for 1 week for your third violation of WP:3RR and for continued edit warring at Birmingham pub bombings. I'm not sure what else to tell you that has not be outlined above - you must work with other editors instead of simply re-adding your changes.  Kuru  talk  02:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The worst storm in British history
FYI 1703: The worst storm in British history --Michael C. Price talk 10:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cork examiner?
Sorry for reverting that last edit; I've just started being a Recent Changes vigilante, and I quite frankly had no idea what a "Cork Examiner" was. It looked specious to me.

Just for the sake of curiosity; what IS a "cork examiner?" And "orangeism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrExtreme (talk • contribs) 12:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work
Just dropping you a note to say well done on adding content to the Rome Rule article. If this had have been done by editors instead of the arguments on the talk page about if it was notable or not I would not have put it up for AfD. Pat on the back. BigDunc (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL I think this is the first complement that has EVER been left on my Talk page. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * ...Not one for over a year and then two in one day!! Aatomic1 (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cnut the Great
I see you reference these points. Does this reference state ditectly that Canute did not have any hegemony? I have directly contrary evidence. Maybe you see this statement out of context. In the Encomium Emmae the Encomiast has Canute as king, not only of England, Denmark and Norway, but also Britannia and Scotia. See M.K Lawson's Cnut: England's Viking King. Britannia is the latin name of the Island we now call Great Britain, and Scotia is the latin name of Ireland. I think this proves it. There is also the additional evidence of the campaign in the Irish Sea, and the submission of the kings in Strathclyde, amoung whom was Echmarcach Ragnallson, a Ghall Ghaedil king of Dublin and Golloway.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. This really is quite a fiasco. I did put in one of my reverts I was just doing it. I sent a message to Bardcom saying this. Then another revert was the cause of a glitch and I was thrown of for a bit. Then you add this reference. Ahhh. It a right convergence of edit conflicts here.

The addition is to the Other Dominions section. It will be done today. I am glad of this kick forward as I have been looking at the article with some doubts of its fullness, and cant see how I did not realise this was something lacking. Maybe I did at some point and forgot. Ive been trying to get the Conquest of England bit right for quite a while. I will be adding some references to this too. I just need to find time to read my texts again and slot in all the information properly.

Anyway. Im not sure where we will stand after my addition. If your point hinges on the lack of mention of Canute in the articles you state though. This is no surprise. It was a hegemony, not a direct lordship, over the subject territories. It was also over in something like 5 years. The main evidence is the submission of the non-English, shall we say, kings of the British Isles.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss this on the discussion board? Or maybe come to an understanding privately. It seems you feel strongly on this. I agree is is wrong to say Cnut was conqueror of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. He was vastly more powerful than these cultures though. This is why it was a hegemony, rather than a territorial sovereignty.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. No, I didn't mean to remove that. Sorry! I have references dealing with Canute and Ireland/Scotland/Wales/etc, there's a fair bit in Woolf's Pictland to Alba and Hudson's Viking Pirates and Christian Princes. I also have the Hudson paper Lawson refers to on p. 102 and various other odds and ends. I'll try and add something. Again, apologies. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow you really want to be difficult here dont you. I think your additions are out of line with the article. They appear to be out of context, or at best oversimplifications. I cant actually believe you just cut and paste a bunch of quotes over more thoughtful writing. I will revert these. You certainly want to bring down the acievement of Cnut. I see these are all M.K. Lawson quotes too. Maybe if you find proper context for them they will fit better. There is nothing not said in the article in these, and alot unsaid. Dont you think this is irresponsible? My intentions in this article are to shine light on the little known facts of this man. It is a biographical article after all. It must be dealt with with scrutinty rather than unsrucpuliunesses. I want to tell the facts. You seem to want to keep the shadow on this man's achievements.

Your first quote seems to consider these must be lies. Does it not occur to you a letter of a king to his people may be more reliable than anything. It would be foolish to pretend you are somthing you are not dont you think?

The second quote is actually contrary to other things Ive read of Lawson. Not sure what to say. You cannot simply apply it to Cnut's entire life and suppose it means he did not achieve anything, though. Most irresponsible!

Not sure what the point of that is, I suppose a quote. The previous was better anyway. More thoughtful.

And the final quote just sweeps away everthing else.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A good idea. If there's anything you need more details on, drop me a line and I can scan excerpts or copy them out. I can also send you that Hudson 'Cnut and the Scottish kings' thing if you email me - either use the "e-mail this user" link or just send it direct to my wiki user name at gmail dot com. There's an article on the reputation of the battle of Clontarf by Clare Downham here and various Ireland & Viking related links here. The "Viking Ireland—Afterthoughts" one by Ó Corráin is interesting. As for this, I'm not sure exactly what it is. I'm all but certain it's by Ó Corráin - it reads like his writing and some of the phrases are recycled in, or from, his article on Ireland in The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings - but I'm not sure where it was published, if at all. Unfortunately, for anything after Clontarf and before the Normans, there seems to be little enough on Ireland, let alone Vikings in Ireland. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is clear you operate under alterior motives here. I cannot say I dont either I suppose. Although your attempts to bemuddle the intro confound my sympathy. I have made every attempt to reach an amicable conclusion, yet you childishly resort to slights against me, my references, and now my subject matter. IT is almost a joke, unless I did not consider this so serious as it is. You desire you discontectualise the conetent of the article amuses me for its transparancy. First you overwrite a section of the intro, with a totally out of context Lawson quote, bring in a shaky reference I wager hinges almost entirely on the map in the atalas, and now attempt to attack Cnut himself, with yet more half points, basicly out of context. I can Im sure find references to finish your, 'but his empire did not survive him' stuff, with 'but this does not detract from his achievements' stuff. This would surely be childish though dont you think? Not only do you degenerate the facts, you now want to degenerate the article too! Why? Why? Why?

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of any deletions. I cant recall any non grammatical amendment either.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I never, you found a way to be difficult again. I think though you can only be wrong as your opinion 'substancial' tries to turn England into the British Isles is erronious. It is a broad term applicable in light of the evidence, and the fact it is quite clearly not meant to mean kingship, only overlordship. It is not I think a weasel word by the looks of the example. This Wiki-thing seems to be a counter for the statement of opinions, of single side points seen from two sides, as fact (not acceptable even if it is with a reference). I really cant see the validity in this context. Can you enlighten me?

Do you mean the reference I state is contradictory to a reference of yours. If so please be so kind as to quote it in its specific referral to Cnut and the fact his dominance did not ever reach beyond the English borders. I have made every effort to note the uncertainties of the extent of this 'overlordship of the British Isles', in fact now only with the use of 'lordship over substancial part of the British Isles', yet you insist on the denial of my references, and the capability of myself to be objective. Maybe you can offer a more (or less) appropriate word? I suppose your alternative will be unsubstancial?

I will be happy to offer one. My previous suggestion I think. Considerable? If your alternative for this is unconsiderable!?!

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh the irony, the axe grinder who cries murder strikes their own blow (or should I saw weasel words). I still dont think substancial, nor considerable were weasel words... maybe if out of context... I thought they sinply meant real). Now though you advance your own weasely word, 'firinges of England' vs other part of 'the Britsh Isles'. Can you really not accept the truth? This seems to be your own research, I assume, without references. Can you really say Cnut's overlordship was not felt anywhere other than the borders of England?

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Report
Just out of courtesy you are mentioned here. BigDunc (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the report above, I've blocked this account for revert-warring and violation of the 1RR/week probation. Please do not revert other's contributions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock
Two points. One this is not related to The Troubles

Two The issue of Biographies of living persons

Per here see relevant red section

''One of the complainants was Dr Pat Muldowney, an academic mathematician and amateur historian, whose complaints to the BCC had included the program's failure to include any footage of an interview recorded with him. In correspondence with RTÉ, he had described the Pearsons as 'Amish from Hell', as 'extreme mercenary types driven by insatiable desire for land and money' and as 'threatening terrified women and children with firearms'. He wrote of the Pearsons that 'apart from their grasping and bigoted qualities, they were rather unremarkable people, best forgotten about'. ''

This is unreferenced and certainly highly contentious - Pat Muldowney, himself, has contended these facts at Talk:Killings at CoolacreaseAatomic1 (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly seeing this as being well within the remit of your Troubles probation, Aatomic1, given that the original probation terms were quite broad and that this article certainly falls within scope - A l is o n  ❤ 21:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aatomic1, it's a pity that you didn't discuss the issue on the article's talk page, or at the very least read my comments there. The quotes there are all referenced to a reliable source: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/unfounded-claims-about-killings-1230002.html, and WP:BLP does not require the removal of contentious material unless it is unsourced.
 * Furthermore, your earlier reverts used edits summaries denying that Muldowney has a COI, yet now you claim that there is a BLP issue. You can't have it both ways -- either he is not a part of the article's subject (in which case there is no COI), or he is part of the subject in which case there is a COI. Either way, you could have discussed the point rather than edit-warring. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is where I have raised the issue] Aatomic1 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions
As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 16:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Kingdoms of Ireland
Hello Aatomic1. I liked the mapr of the main Irish kingdoms you inserted at Airgíalla, but I was wondering if you considereed showing Airgíalla at its maximum extant? Fergananim (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Finance Act 2005


The article Finance Act 2005 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Useless stub, states general knowledge with no specific reference to 2005

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fayenatic (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles Lambart, 1st Earl of Cavan


A tag has been placed on Charles Lambart, 1st Earl of Cavan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Banner talk 16:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by which changed the wording  of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Lucas Dillon, 6th Viscount Dillon
Dear Aatomics. You created this article on 15 April 2007. In 2009 user Tryde blanked it and changed it into a redirect page pointing to the Article Viscount Dillon and user Ironholds endorsed this by undoing the reversal by user Rms125a who described Tryde's action as vandalism. The result is a circular redirect as the entry for the 6th Viscount on that article points to the mentioned redirect page. I find that makes a poor impression, so I have tried to recreate a page similar to what you had. However, I am a novice in Wikipedia, a foreigner, 2nd-language English speaker, and lack the needed expertise and experience. I am a bit afraid that the recreated article might not pass the test of notability and other standards. The article is also a bit short: only 314 words of readable prose, which is a size for a stub, not a start. I wonder what you think about it. Eventually you might want to propose the article for deletion or perhaps correct, improve and expand it to reach the required standards. You seem to be an expert on the Dillons as you created most of the Dillon biographies in Wikipedia. With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:History of Christianity in Wales
Template:History of Christianity in Wales has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Roger Lambart, 13th Earl of Cavan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger Lambart, 13th Earl of Cavan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Roger Lambart, 13th Earl of Cavan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Pilaz (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Maguire Seven for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maguire Seven, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Maguire Seven until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)