User talk:Major Bonkers/Archive Jul 2007

Western betrayal
Please do not get too discouraged. This page was most likely created as a battlefield and for propaganda purposes, not in good faith (although the term itself does exist and was used, at least among Czechs).

Around hudredth of pages on Wikipedia suffer similarly. For most of others referenced and factual information has chance to stay intact. Pavel Vozenilek 23:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has several warriors (Molobo, SpaceCadet) and they can get /very/ aggressive. Attempts to solve this were done (e.g. Requests for comment/Molobo) but it is very slow process.


 * I am here to write articles related to Czechs and Czech Republic. Cleanup after vandals and spammers already takes too much of my attention. Getting head on with the warriors is the last thing I would spent my time on.


 * Wikipedia has certain group dynamic and that changes very slowly. If I can recommend: do not get involved in the very disputed topics at this moment. Having longer edit history adds to one credibility (I know how wrong it is) and makes one more resistant to attacks. Pavel Vozenilek 01:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: please use edit summary for every edit. It helps people who are on watch for vandalim. TIA

Your predelictions
You support an independent Palestine but do not mention a state for the Kurds? Kittybrewster 22:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * By and large, I disapprove of people killing Britishers. See Siege of Kut. Major Bonkers

Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill
Please vote. - Kittybrewster 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello
You seem like a decent chap. Just love your user name. David Lauder 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I do my best to do the right thing. God knows it seems hard sometimes!--Major Bonkers 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What Mr Lauder said. Plus, if you're a friend of Kittybrewster, you must be nice, even if you are (like me) a lawyer too.  So howdy!  Laura1822 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for yours, too!--Major Bonkers 09:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm currently not practicing, so maybe that's why he likes me! Then again, everyone seems to like most of the individual lawyers they know, yet dislike the profession as a whole. Laura1822 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like Major Bonkers too (and his girlfriend). But he may well end up on the tumbrill. - Kittybrewster 17:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wife, now. I expect I'm for the block after what I've posted on your talk page!--Major Bonkers 19:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and many thanks. Which reminds me that I want to fax or email you an extract from a book. So much to do, so little time. - Kittybrewster 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please improve Arbuthnot Road. - Kittybrewster 11:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT
Your references to English law, while cute, don't actually apply here. Please have a look at our policies, notably What Wikipedia is not (among other things, it's not a democracy), before commenting on matters of policy. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think that you're wrong, but you don't seem very inclined to listen. Thanks.--Major Bonkers 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a disappointing attitude for you to take. If you think that I'm wrong, try to explain why I might be wrong, using Wikipedia policies and guidelines to back up your argument. Using English law, for example, is meaningless, as those aren't the rules by which the project polices itself internally (and, for that matter, I'm not in England anyway). | Mr. Darcy talk 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much point in continuing this dialogue. I refer you to my original cute posting. If you exercise power arbitrarily, you'll stand to be accused of bullying.--Major Bonkers 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's been no dialogue, since you refuse to discuss the matter, despite my request that you explain to me which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines support your position. Good day. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that Darcy is the only person other than the nominator who has voted to delete Arbuthnot Road. If I were paranoid, which I am not, I might suspect his motives. - Kittybrewster 10:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble with him is that he's hiding behind the skirts of Wikipedia policy - see his first posting on this subject, above. If one turns up the documents he cites, which are written in general rather than specific terms, there is nothing in them that either prohibits or (more importantly) allows him to act in the biased ways that he does. It's all very well saying that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but that doesn't mean that it's a fascist dictatorship. I have set out twice now, once on Kittybrewster's talk page and once by reference to natural justice why any normal person would find his conduct objectionable but it's like banging one's head against a brick wall: the only response is 'show me where I'm wrong', rather than showing us where he is right and attemptifying to justify his conduct: see ignoratio elenchi.--Major Bonkers 11:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that User:Mr. Darcy has been exhibiting behavior similar to behaviors used to provoke some sort of edit war. If an edit war is not the intention, then there is plenty of evidence supporting a "bullying" allegation on the part of User:Mr. Darcy. I will notify the admins. of the situation and they'll take it from there. Redsox04 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yours
Have answered you on my Talk Page. David Lauder 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Gilmour‎

 * See Articles for deletion/Raymond Gilmour‎- another non notable IRA member up for deletion Astrotrain 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're not going to succeed with these people. There are more of them who are active in these pursuits and who are clearly using every Wikipedia guideline they can possibly locate for their ends. I think the best we can do is stick to academic issues and edits otherwise it will be endless bickering. David Lauder 09:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There certainly seems to be a lot of rubbish about, David, most of it propagated by Kittybrewster's nemesis and not helped by certain ignorant short planks, but nil desperandum! Thanks for the heads-up, Astrotrain, I had missed this one despite my interest in the subject (as you can see on my User page). We do seem to need that special category of non-notable IRA members that has been mooted in the past.--Major Bonkers 13:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion on User talk:Astrotrain‎. It is clear people of our Ilk are now being targetted for mere discussion and exchange of views. David Lauder 10:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary
Please put in the edit summary either a summary of your text or paste in the beginning of it. Simply saying "Major Bonkers speaks (again)" doesn't give any helpful information to other editors, as your name will appear automatically by the edit anyway. See Help:Edit summary. Thanks. Tyrenius 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Kindly stop harassment of User:Vintagekits. You have twice removed his comments from another editor's talk page. This is completely unacceptable. Furthermore you have labelled them as vandalism. Good faith edits, which these patently are, are never vandalism. This is a final warning to desist from this quite uncivil behaviour. Next time you will be blocked from editing. Tyrenius 02:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an attempt to inflame a situation which I am attempting to damp down.--Major Bonkers 08:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Referring to a legitimate comment as "vandalism" does not qualify as "attempting to damp down" anything. There is ZERO justification for this behaviour. If you do it again, you'll be blocked. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks MB- I agree that his comments were inappropiate- and I think you had justification for removing them. Darcy should really assume good faith rather than agressive warnings. As for Vintagekits, he is now expanding his Anglophobic edit warring on the List of British flags article by refusing to allow the fact that the Northern Ireland flag is used by the Irish Football Association and the NI team at the Commonwealth Games; and reverting my edits on the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands page. Astrotrain 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, all other editors are removing your edits. I refuse to get into edit wars with you and there are plenty of other editors to remove your editorial insertions in that section.--Vintagekits 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologise for removing the edits; it was done in good faith as an attempt, as I have explained above, to remove a provocation which seemed to me (obviously incorrectly) to fall within WP:VANDAL. I won't do it again, so I don't need to be threatened. I feel that it is a pity that you haven't troubled yourself to respond to what I wrote, which seems to have fallen by the wayside. Now, I suggest we all repair to Talk:Diarmuid O'Neill. --Major Bonkers 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, please do not post on my talk page.--Major Bonkers 14:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is allowed to remove comments; see here. The aggressive MrDarcy might also like to have a look at WP:DBN.--Major Bonkers 12:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA
This post is extremely bad form. You have no evidence to suggest it: MrDarcy has blocked Vintagekits on one occasion. Particularly egregious is the suggestion of national prejudice. You might know which nationality someone is, but I don't and I don't suppose MrDarcy does either, and, even if he does, it is not going to be a material fact. Please WP:AGF, or, as above, the tumbril awaits. Tyrenius 23:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Józef Czapski
Hello there - and thanks for the article. Czapski's been on my to-do list for ages now (ever since we started the article on Katyn massacre some 3 years ago)... Anyway, I see you've read the Inhumane land. Too bad so few of his works were translated to English, the guy had great style, completely 19th centurish. I remember a lengthy documentary with an interview with Czapski, aired some 5 years ago. He was like a guest from the past millenia, a descendant of a completely different epoch. Just imagine an old man, sitting in a small flat and telling stories about joking Kerensky or a chatter with the tsar... Anyway, I'll see what I can do with the article, I started with adding some badly-needed references, perhaps more info will come.  // Halibutt 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do my best ;)  // Halibutt 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Suitability of An Phoblacht citations
The conversation seems to be ongoing with a view to broader participation. I've stated my position clearly and that hasn't changed. Tyrenius 01:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for yours. It just seems a bit pointless that this issue is being allowed to drift. As Stubacca says, it's a test case for citations in IRA articles (and now An Phoblacht itself) and the whole Astrotrain/ Vintagekits thing will continue until this issue is resolved. Oh well! --Major Bonkers 08:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't laugh
Your link still doesn't work! David Lauder 17:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Harrow Crest.JPG
Hello Major Bonkers, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Harrow Crest.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Major Bonkers. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 12:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My subpage
Kindly refrain from including excuses for your behaviour on there, you are not welcome to edit that page. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  13:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the box at the top of the page, where it says: "You are welcome to edit this page."--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I refer you to WP:USERPAGE, which says Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. Good day to you. One Night In Hackney  303  13:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that the page is AfD'd anyway, not that I particularly agree with that, but you might like to read your own reference a bit more clearly at WP:UP. You are using the page to criticise comments, taken out of context, that I have made and trying to deny a rebuttal. And, incidentally, you seem to have forgotten to add this fine example of canvassing.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I read it perfectly well thank you very much, your excuses are not welcome there. As it is a user subpage there is no need for you to comment there, if the information contained therein requires further public dissemination you will have a full opportunity to make your excuses then, which judging by the comments you attempted to add to my pages would be quite beneficial to you, as you might have thought of some better ones by then. One Night In Hackney  303  13:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that I don't think that there is much to be gained by continuing this exchange. You might like to read the comments of Tyrenius, above, which are applicable. Please do not continue to post on this page.--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If a user requests that his user page and/or user subpages be left alone, you must respect that! Under Wikipedia policy, User:One Night In Hackney has the right to request that you not contribute to his own user page. You may not agree with his request but, either way, it must be abided by. Please acknowledge his request. Considering your participation in a recent disruption with the admins, it would be wise to not get in any more trouble. Redsox04 23:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that you've jumped in without looking there, Redsox04: although I didn't acknowledge it on this page, I did keep off One Night In Hackney's User page.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(Reference only; Comments deleted: ; ; ).

Blocked
The tolerance for personal attacks and incivility in re Kittybrewster's pages isn't infinite, you know. Even though I'm probably one of the slowest wiki admins to be persuaded to hand out blocks for personal attacks, I have blocked you for 24 hours for this disgusting comment. I ask you to please have a little decency. Ask yourself if you'd like your friends and family to read that choice post of yours. If not, why should we as a community put up with it? Why should the editor you attacked? Bishonen | talk 18:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC).


 * And, perhaps, why should I be expected to put up with the page to which it refers and egregiously attacks me? And why are there Wikipolicies WP:FUCK and WP:DICK?--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How pious of them! At least you'll have an evening off! --Counter-revolutionary 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FUCK and WP:DICK are not wikipolicies... they are just essays.--Isotope23 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you know it's possible to request that the block be lifted? I'm not saying what Bishonen | talk identified as a WP:NPA is acceptable but I noticed you've been editing Wikipedia for over a year and have never been blocked. I've seen worse attacks go unaddressed, or simply given a warning. I find it disconcerting that the unilateral action of one offended admin resulted in a block without prior warning.


 * Again, I'm not in favor of your comment but I'm even less in favor of the kind of action Bishonen | talk has taken against you. If you're interested see Template:Unblock. Anynobody 02:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Views have been expressed on your conduct here Giano 07:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

'''As the dog returneth to his own vomit... .'''

Brief history: On my return from holiday, last week, I discovered that another editor, One Night In Hackney had posted a User page which criticises my conduct and alleges that I am part of a concert-party aimed at articles substantially edited by him. During May 26h., I tried to add comments to the page and then had a discussion with him, above, which closed the matter between us. The following day, I posted links on the Talk pages of the other alleged conspirators, one of whom is David Lauder. The entire correspondence with him reads as follows:

==Discussion involving you== ''You might be interested in the discussion on my 'Talk Page', here, which indirectly involves you. It is disappointing that the author has not notified you himself. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)'' ::Yes; the image of a dog licking its own balls comes to mind.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)''
 * ''Seen all that. Out of context, of course, in every sense. In addition its dredged up from some time back when we were all wrapped over the knuckles then. It seems he wants people perpetually punished for not agreeing with him or for voting on the same pages. I'd hate to list all the AfD and other pages he and Vintagekits collaborate on. But thats all right. Regards, David Lauder 10:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The metaphor is supposed to represent a self-indulgent act which gives great pleasure to the participant but which others view as embarrassing and repulsive.

The next thing I know is that some random Admin has popped up, blocked me, and disappeared again, reappearing on the Administrator's Noticeboard waving my scalp around. The diff link on the Noticeboard refers to the last post only, and a number of commentators on the Noticeboard immediately agree with the view that it is a WP:NPA.

I pause here to point out that either the Admin herself, or I (before I was blocked), could have blanked the comment, perhaps with a warning on this Talk page. I would have been perfectly happy to have done so myself, because I like to think of myself as reasonable and because the post was not intended as an attack; had I wished to criticise One Night In Hackney I would have done so on my own Talk page discussion with him. (As it is, David Lauder had the sense to blank the discussion in any case.)

Anyway, that said, I reply as follows to those who have posted comments here:

Bishonen I hope that I have demonstrated that we're at cross-purposes. Frankly, however, you've made no attempt to engage with either myself or One Night In Hackney or to resolve the dispute between us. You might just as well have blocked one of us at random.

Counter-revolutionary Thank you for yours. You're the dog's bollocks!

Isotope23 Point taken, for what it's worth (I had initially understood Bishonen's complaint to be with the vulgarity of the metaphor rather than her seeing it as an attack). !vote discussions increasingly resemble a mass outbreak of Tourette's syndrome.

Anynobody Thank you for yours. I note you seem to have had rather an unpleasant discussion with Bishonen yourself on the subject, and I should like to thank you for your interest and understanding. I have also had a look at your User page, which I found very interesting and would like to comment further on your Talk page in due course. To answer your point, I did see how to request an unblock, but as the block was only for 24 hours, and the ground had anyway been cut from under my feet by Bishonen's posting on the Administrator's Noticeboard which had garnered approval for the block, it seemed like a waste of time. I also dislike complaining to Admins about other people's behaviour; it just seems a bit wet to me (and I don't do it myself).

Giano Firstly; thank you for the link, which I would otherwise have missed. Secondly, an apology for this post of mine (on the Administrator's Noticeboard): ''Giano - Sympathy is limited. The contentious nature of the page in question was twice pointed out to you by me and I also requested that you calm down; there's no need to post the same thoughts across 3 different forums. Nobody appointed you Arbuthnot-finder General and, like it or not, Wikipedia works by consensus not on the basis of who shouts the loudest. You should also, perhaps, review how you have described members of Kittybrewster's family before complaining about personal attacks made against you.'' You interpreted this as hostile, whereas actually I was (incredibly) frustrated. The ambiguity in tone is my fault; and I'm sorry that you felt wary about posting here. Thank you for not rising to the bait. Thirdly, another apology, because I see that Kittybrewster has taken down his biographical information, so you are probably unaware that he suffers (badly) from Parkinson's disease. However, at the risk of being a bore, please give him some space.

And, finally:

One Night In Hackney I apologise if you saw the comment in question as hostile to you, and I refer you to my explanation (or 'excuse', as you would no doubt have it) above. I note that you have not made political capital out of the situation (or if you have, I haven't seen it), and that, as far as I'm concerned, is to your credit. (And I'd still like you to take down your page.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to take the page down, but while allegations such as this are being made it would seem appropriate that background information on the dispute is available. You may or may not have seen this conversation where I attempted to find some sort of resolution to the dispute, and withdrew from any dispute when it became clear that it could not be simply resolved. To the best of my knowledge I have not edited any Arbuthnot related articles or engaged in any discussions pertaining to them since, in particular the merger of the article about Kittybrewster himself. So I was somewhat perplexed to be accused of harassment and stalking a couple of days ago, especially when Kittybrewster seemed to be quite amicable in the discussion linked above. I am here to improve the encylopedia, and have little time for these squabbles as they are not constructive. One Night In Hackney  303  15:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In answer to yours, I hadn't seen the conversation that you link to, which seems eminently sensible as a first step. You are already aware of my slightly different take on the situation [|here]. I point out that although the 'vendetta' suggestion was made by David Lauder, he's also on record, above, as saying that the history of this dispute is all water under the bridge. For my own part, although I emphatically deny being or acting as part of a concert-party, I can see how you might have reached that conclusion. The AfD procedure is rather brutal and I apologise for the sometimes brief or brusque comments that I have posted in these discussions which have clearly rankled - they certainly were not intended to annoy. With the current hue and cry over Kittybrewster's edits there seems very little point in trying to resurrect your proposal for the forseeable future.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Major Bonkers,
 * I have noticed that your 24-hour block has been applied and has run it's course. I do want to clarify some misunderstandings that you may have with the culture here at Wikipedia. As far as reporting unruly users, that is a measure taken by responsible Wikipedians to ensure that the site is not being tarnished by vandals, misused, etc. Wikipedia was created for an educational purpose. It is not a chat room, an "online billboard", a journal, but a site created to educate viewers about topics of importance. Topics that pages should be based on must be worthy of such recognition (e.g. private businesses would be an example of what not to put on Wikipedia). Reporting an unruly user is not an obligation but is greatly appreciated.


 * I would also like to offer you a tip of friendly advice. Despite your own personal interpretations, comments made like the one that caused the previous incident is very much inappropriate and is not tolerated throughout Wikipedia. I do, on the other hand, wish to praise your apology to the offended user and also I would like to express appreciation for your explanation. But, putting the explanation aside, the comment alone is very unacceptable and is the probable cause for the amount of disruption and concern. If you do not want such a commotion in the future, please refrain from making such comments on other user pages!


 * If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to post them on my talk page. Redsox04 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome Major Bonkers (talk) . I hope my hypothesis that you might have missed the unblock option didn't come off as patronizing. I'd really like to agree with Redsox04, but the fact is what is appropriate depends on who happens to read whatever's being disputed (in this case the offensiveness of an image of a dog...).


 * To give an idea what I mean, around the end of Feb or early March another editor wrote a rather pointed but unusual and actually entertaining response in the form of what many would call a personal attack. The quote was literally lol funny to me, and was my first "flame" on here.


 * I put it on my user page as an example of how easy it is to shrug off a WP:PA if one realizes the PA itself is meant to make the recipient feel bad because the sender is angry (probably because of the strong nature of a point the angry editor can't argue against) and thus the PA should be taken as a measure of the effectiveness of one's argument.


 * Realizing that everyone has bad days, I chose not to identify the editor who made the comment and thus avoid any ridicule of that person. The editor saw it and insisted I place the whole conversation on my talk page to give context, the only problem was during the whole conversation his general tone was the same as the original PA and therefore only served to make him look worse. Long story short, he posted on WP:ANI and a sysop removed the quote from my page. What was funny though to me is the complete lack of anyone involved to say something about the comment itself or the fact that nobody else knew the editor's identity until he himself drew attention to it.


 * The rules here are very vague, and people are imperfect. The site is supposed to work like Redsox04 described but it does not, I found solace in understanding that and trying to remember that everything said on here anywhere can be found by other users. Anynobody 05:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Point
Obviously the School of London and John Wonnacott merit articles, so please do create them. Tyrenius 17:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha! I recognise a poisoned chalice when I see one! Had I but world enough, and time... .--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And I. Tyrenius 08:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are some more: Jeffrey Camp, Winston Churchill (as artist), Lionel Leslie (which would link in with Churchill), Lionel Edwards, John Lessore, George Denholm Armour, Sarah Raphael (which would link in with Frederic Raphael), Michael Sandle, Emma Sergeant (which I think I'm right in saying would link in with Adam Zamoyski).--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also Barry Flanaghan and Craigie Aitcheson.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Voytek
Done :)  // Halibutt 08:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fop
Could you please help out on the Fop article, regarding the silly image of a "modern fop" which is just an example of vanity on horseback! --Counter-revolutionary 11:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you either paste the offending picture into another suitable article, possibly wanker using the same 'show me where I'm wrong' logic displayed by the poster, or alert an Admin. One for Tyrenius, perhaps? I'm sure that he's sensible enough to determine the difference between a fop and a wanker.


 * PS: Before anyone gets het up about my reference to 'wanker', the reference is humourous and not offensive (although have you seen that picture? What is the man thinking of!) --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is humourous! Thanks. --Counter-revolutionary 13:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See vainglory! --Counter-revolutionary 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good for you, but I suggest that you take it down after a while; remember WP:POINT.--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine someone else will get there first. --Counter-revolutionary 14:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tyrenius and One Night In Hackney! Finally something that we can all agree on! I've tagged the image as being both non-notable and suitable for speedy deletion - I suppose this is what one does(?). Let's get rid of it as soon as possible! Talk about 'a disgusting image'... .--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! --Counter-revolutionary 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your kindness
Very decent of you to award User:Kittybrewster a barnstar. It is good that someone else appreciates his countless hours of constructive work on Wikipedia. David Lauder 09:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, makes a change from his vanity articles. One Night In Hackney  303  09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to locate a barnstar for explicitly offensive contributions. David Lauder 09:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For yourself? One Night In Hackney  303  09:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for yours, David. You've probably already found the page in question at Barnstars. I agree with you that there has been a danger that the very good work that Kittybrewster has done has got lost in the general hubbub and rush to judgment. In this case, it was particularly nice to be able to award a barnstar that I had first proposed, and some kind fellow had actually gone to the trouble of drafting up. I'm not sure that much is added by the rest of the contributions... can't we just let bygones be bygones and move on?--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your contribution on Talk:John Arbuthnott, 16th Viscount of Arbuthnott‎. I have responded further to my detractors there. Is it not amazing how so many people on WP seem to be sitting around just waiting for the opportunity for a fight? I despair. I just wish I was as perfect as some of them. David Lauder 18:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Many thanks
You're welcome! Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Glitch
You omitted the end of the "commenting out" code at the end of the DYK template. I've had to reinstate last two user names manually, as it signed my name for them otherwise. If you want to comment, do so here. I'll watch this page. Tyrenius 09:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. It's nice to see Astrotrain and Neale Monks on the Talk page without having to check the history section! I hope that you are refreshed after your Wikibreak. Thank you again.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still trying to start it! Tyrenius 12:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 15:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For the Patience of Job barnstar. If you ever again see "a slight tone of peevishness" creeping into my edits, please feel free to tell me, I'm not too big to be told off. If you mean what I think you mean, there are special reasons for my peevishness which I won't go into on-wiki. Best regards, --John 22:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for yours. You're doing a remarkably thankless job in an exemplary way; frankly, I'd have lost my temper ages ago. I certainly don't think that you've got anything to apologise for (quite the contrary). I've been watching the situation for the last three or four months, in which you have collected a lot of abuse and no public support, and felt that it was about time that someone gave you a pat on the back. Anyway, I'm probably labeled now as an 'Admin-toady'!


 * And thank you for my (first) Barnstar. I'm not sure that it's really warranted. I suppose I'll have to go and do some productive edits on HMS Lutine rather than skulking around in the background!--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia
No. I have concluded that if I post as kitty... people will track my postings and vandalise in various ways. Incivility, rudeness, accusations of bad faith, etc. Bad game - no point. I am editing occasionally under several different names. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's rather depressing that you feel that way, although I can quite understand why. In retrospect, it's a great pity that your proposal for an Admin to come and mentor your contributions came to naught and there was a sanctimonious feeding frenzy instead. Perhaps things are slowly getting better: I think that John has done an excellent job (/Job!) and there seems a general determination to crack down on the incivility, which can only be welcomed and is slowly bearing some results (...I hope). I also hope that those remaining outside the Community Enforced Mediation - be they on either side - will be isolated; frankly, articles such as Robert Nairac and the Irish Famine need work, and it's only because we are frightened away by the inevitable abuse that we don't dare improve them. Suggestion: why don't you get John to keep an eye out for you? He seems to have come along after the witch-hunt and therefore doesn't have any baggage. Anyway, I think that you, me, David Lauder, Counter-revolutinary, et al, are the old enemy - we've all learned our lesson and keep well clear - and there seem to be a whole load of new enemies now!--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am John. If I am not, then I have been watching his contributions with appreciation. In any event, my recommendation to those who have been targetted and vilified is that they reincarnate. :) - Kittybrewster  (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Disappeared
Yes, it would be useful to have such a category. It is a shame that the Troubles on wikipedia are presented by only a Republican viewpoint. Astrotrain 11:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, is there yet anything to counter the Wikipedia project Irish Republicanism? --Counter-revolutionary 12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a direct reply to the comments above, Counter-revolutionary, but as a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here.If you have any questions on what it would entail, please do not hesitate to ask SirFozzie on his talk page or via email

Best wishes in your endeavours to make this a better encyclopedia!... Gaimhreadhan  • 06:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Blimey, I almost missed this message, Gaimhreadhan. Add new messages at the bottom of the page, please! Anyway, I've signed up, for what it's worth - frankly I've given up editing IRA-related articles on the basis that it's not worth the trouble. There seem to be some conspicuous absences from the list as it stands!--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Too busy to sign up at the moment. --Counter-revolutionary 13:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Actually...
Certainly an interesting collection of perspectives there!

The Telegraph article was well worth a read. I find Northern Ireland a very difficult subject to get my head round. I have strong opinions on parts of it, and I don't even live there! My friends from Northern Ireland I know are very unhappy with those two at the helm of devolved government.

I'm not going to say anything much more. I'm close enough to trouble here on wiki as it is, which I think just shows how easy it is to get in trouble here. But I find some of the uses of wikipedia with regard to the subject rather objectionable. I'm not convinced really that wikipedia is a worthwhile project for me to spend my time on.

Subtle and American certainly don't belong in the same sentence (I hope I don't get a civility warning for that!). In all American films the goodies are always American or Irish, and the badies nasty Englishmen. This was reflected by the huge funding of the IRA by the Americans a couple of decades ago.

Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for yours. I don't hold up much hope for the 'peace process' either, which has seen the moderates (David Trimble and the SDLP) isolated and annihilated, and such doughty peaceniks as Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley in charge, God help us!


 * I'm afraid that you seem to be a new editor, and it's sad to see you discouraged. This controversy has been going on for a year or so, and it must be difficult for you, as a newcomer, to find your feet. Admins and other editors are supposed to cut newcomers some slack - see: WP:BITE - but the issue is so tender that you might get caught in the backlash. My best advice is just to be very careful about how you phrase things and go out of your way to be as polite as possible - under no circumstances react to provocation. (Personally, I also think it's a bit wet to complain to Admins about other editors, but plenty of people seem to do it - you'll have to make your own mind up about that, I suppose.) I got some very good advice, which I pass on: always remember that everything that you post on Wikipedia can be seen by simply clicking on 'User contributions' (see the 'toolbox' in the left hand margin), and it's very easy for individual postings ('diffs') to be taken out of context (which is part of what happened to me - see above). Finally, it might just be simpler to avoid Irish articles for the next couple of months!


 * SirFozzie is determined to crack down on incivility, which, actually, is long overdue and it's unfortunate that you've blundered in just at the wrong moment. And however bad you think the IRA articles are now, you should have seen them a year ago - oddly enough, much of the cleaning up was done by a republican-minded editor, who has now retired.


 * Finally, I did come across a very nice American editor and - I hope you don't mind - I'll try and get him to drop you a line. They don't all think they're John Wayne, you know!--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds sound advice to me. I've certainly felt SirFozzie's wrath, so much so that I archived my talk page, which was probably a bit wussy of me. I probably will back off from any Ireland-related articles until I'm a more confident wikipediarer (if I ever am).


 * I also think it somewhat wet complaining to administrators. But I am guilty of having done so myself, primarily because a user (hope I don't get in trouble for saying that! I bet he watches everything I say) was complaining about me when I actually had a lot more to complain about!


 * The incident above you mentioned looks pretty bad. It's sad that some people seem to be out to get others, waiting for them to slip up even slightly. But I suppose that's unavoidable on a big site like this.


 * I've already had three warnings now. One was because I described someone as having stronger anti-british sentiment than that of democratic principle. Another was because I added the Royal Anthem to Australia without reading the talk page (which I realise was a mistake but, but perhaps a bit heavy-handed on the admin's part). And more recently SirFozzie on my terrorist-sympathiser/POV-pusher jibe. I don't think that was particularly unacceptable, certainly not so much for SirFoz to use caps to emphasise 'completely', but if that's wiki rules...


 * I added a neutrality tag thing to an article which was extremely POV, thinking that that was the appropriate course of action. Alas 'a user' demanded I state why the article was POV and that it was up to me to fix it. This was upheld by an administrator who removed the tag. However, it did have the desired effect in drawing some attention to the article, despite only being up a couple of hours.


 * I'm sure there are some very nice people on here, even Americans. Maybe I don't look in the right places for them?


 * Thank you very much for all your advice. You've been most helpful and morale-boosting. Any 'barnstars' (whatever on earth they are) you get are most deserved!


 * Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for yours. Lots of us have had a spot of bother with a User as well, so welcome to the club! Probably best to stay well clear until you find your feet, and don't worry too much: your beginner's mistakes are made with good intentions, not malice, so you should get away with them!


 * You can find out about Barnstars at WP:BARN and its related sections. In fact, you are already eligable to award yourself an award: see WP:SERVICE. Unfortunately, the rest you have to work for!


 * I'm afraid that you've jumped in at the deep end, and one of the things that Wikipedia is not good at is mentoring newcomers. I suspect that your warnings, which come in a template form, were seen by you as rather brusque and unhelpful, not really pointing you in the right direction. Don't let it get you down: just remember that everything you post is capable of being restored/ recovered (and might be used against you). If you do as you would be done by, you'll be fine. Find something you're an expert in and start posting; it'll become clearer as you go on. Good luck. --Major Bonkers (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help. I agree that I have jumped in to the deep end, now I've added the royal anthem to Australia which might cause some trouble. But tough. They should've contributed to my comment on the talk page (those who did were in favour). They did have 'consensus' before but it was clearly phoney and simply to undermine a fact that they may not like - definitely not in the spirit of wikipedia. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! (I've tidied them both up a bit.) Good luck!--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)