User talk:Brixton Busters

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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Vintagekits 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Feel free to improve articles over here
--Vintagekits 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Hi. I see you have been edit warring on Tom Williams (Irish Republican). Please be aware that the policy WP:3RR exists to prevent this kind of destructive conflict, and that it emphatically does not entitle you to make 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Please take any future conflicts to talk and discuss civilly towards a consensus. Thanks. --John 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Take it handy
Hi ye, left a message on the admin noticeboard, came across posts on this subject. Do not know what effect it will have. Do not mind the editor john, you edit away. Just reference and back up all you work. If you want to stop them in their tracks ask them to back up their work with a reference. You take care, may take a few day off myself, have a pain trying to remain calm and polite. We will see how it goes. Regards --Domer48 19:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

W. Frank
BB, please at least cut the guy a little slack here. It's a difficult time for him right now. Also, I'd been unaware that you were rapidly blanking talk page comments (such as this). It's your perogative, of course, but it's useful to note that another admin has also recently warned you re. this editor - A l is o n  ☺ 16:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that there is more to the "blanking" than meets the eye, I continued the discussion here for reasons explained therein. Brixton Busters 17:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "I am of the opinion you would have been better served at least making a cursory investigation [..] Had you taken a few minutes [..]"', etc, etc' - your latent aggression knows no bounds, it would seem. Try to assume some good faith on the part of others here. Blanking your talk page comment, while leaving other, older ones looks suspicious in the extreme, don't you think? How long will my comments here last? Also note that User:Rockpocket does not have "documented history of abusive sockpuppetry''", and his comments were needlessly removed from here - A l is o n  ☺ 17:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was trying to be polite. It seemed to me that he had not looked into the matter thoroughly, as was evident by his comments. I was actually trying to cut him some slack. My comments regarding sockpuppetry were not directed at Rockpocket, but the editor who started the thread in question. Brixton Busters 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "I was trying to be polite" - I disagree. "It seemed to me ..." - which is where my call for WP:AGF comes in. "My comments regarding sockpuppetry were not directed at Rockpocket" - indeed, but you used the thread title as an excuse to excise the conversation in its entirety. - A l is o n  ☺ 18:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am struggling to comprehend this right now. If Rockpocket had looked into the matter thoroughly, he wouldn't have left the message he did on my talk page. So I was assuming good faith that while his intentions were well meaning, for one reason or another he had not investigated thoroughly. Brixton Busters 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You never assumed for a second that maybe he actually had investigated it thoroughly. That's not too difficult to see here. Furthermore, there's the matter of blanking his (valid, IMO) comments - A l is o n  ☺ 18:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK then. Let us just assume for a second he had investigated it thoroughly. What possible reason could he have for saying "I suggest you make a check-user request" if he had checked through my contributions and seen that I had already asked for a checkuser? Brixton Busters 18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So ... to de-digress for a second; the blanking of his comments here?? You seem to be consistently avoiding this - A l is o n  ☺ 18:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I explained on his talk page; I found the nature of the thread title to be incorrect and accusatory. I do not believe in edit other people's posts on talk page (I think it is against a guideline), so my only alternative was to remove the entire thread. It did not make sense to remove the first comment and leave the reply to it where it was. I copied Rockpocket's comment onto his talk page and continued the discussion there. Brixton Busters 18:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And excising peoples' comments en masse is not "edit[ing] other people's posts", no? - A l is o n  ☺ 18:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And this conversation is going nowhere. Point made, now back I go to other stuff - A l is o n  ☺ 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not as such. If someone has left a specific header, I consider it bad form to change the header. Rockpocket endorsed my removal of comments if I wished to do so here. If I had removed the comments without reply I could understand this more, but I discussed the matter with Rockpocket and it ended amicably. Brixton Busters 18:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I shall bear your comments in mind for future though. Thank you. Brixton Busters 19:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

M62 coach bombing
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. - A l is o n  ☺ 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A bit unnecessary, we've come to an amicable compromise already. Brixton Busters 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case
User:SqueakBox has filed Request for arbitration and you are a mentioned party. Kittybrewster  (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Go to this page, and edit it to your opinions. Dr ea my \*/ !$!  16:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, but please hurry up. Dr ea my  \*/ !$!  16:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, please go to this page check it, and then, on my talk page, confirm that I have the basic gist of what was written. Dr ea my  \*/ !$!  11:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened
Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I missed your comment
Hello BB. I just wanted to apologise for not replying to this thread, as I completely missed your, and sebsequent, comments. As it happens there was little more I feel I could have done at the time without checkuser support, though your evidence further solidified my belief that you are probably correct. Anyway, I have taken the opportunity to present this evidence at ArbCom - hopefully they will see fit to carry out a checkuser and get to the bottom of the issue. Rockpock e  t  19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is ok. I was not sure if you would be willing to take any further action, but I was not sure how best to proceed. I think it is best if ArbCom deal with it as you suggest, and I have made mention of it there. Thank you. Brixton Busters 17:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Farewell
Computer is broken at home, and do not know if or when it will be fixed. Thank you to those that were nice to me whilst I was here, and I hope my boys stop the Spaniards pushing their POV on Mairéad Farrell‎. 26+6=1, bye. Brixton Busters 08:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Last page
Please go here when you are finished putting your full information here, and in the first link, put only 5-7 sentences. I would like it concise. Dr ea my \*/ !$!  21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Could I ask you to add a bit here to move the process on ? Love & Kisses Aatomic1 13:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed
The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that ''[a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given''. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Daniel  08:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Meediation 4
You can go to this page, and talk about it. Dreamy §  19:33, 2 November 2007 (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 16:43, 17 November 2009 (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)  21:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)