User talk:Mooretwin/Archive 10

Please don't WP:Bite
I try my best. Please don't bite Flag of Northern Ireland: good grief - shocking schoolboy grammatical errors Gnevin (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not new? It's tongue in cheek. Relax. Mooretwin (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you bite me do I not bleed? :). Awe lost in translation no probs. Didn't think it was your style I thought you may of been having a bad day. Gnevin (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, just a bit of light relief. Mooretwin (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing
Mooretwin, regarding your recent addition to History of Sinn Fein, could you please please provide a reliable source which verifies this information? Thanks, --Elonka 17:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have one to hand for Mac Giolla. I can check for others. Do I have your permission to add it into the article, or will I be banned for edit-warring?
 * J. Coakley and M. Gallagher (1999), Politics in the Republic of Ireland: Third Edition. London:Routledge. Under a list of "Leaders of Political Parties 1922-99", as a footnote under "Democratic Left": ''The party to which the Democratic Left deputies belonged was originally Sinn Féin; it became Sinn Féin the Workers' Party in 1977 and The Workers' Party in 1982. Six of its seven deputies left in 1992 to form Democratic Left. The original party had been led by Tomás Mac Giolla (1962-88) and Proinsias De Rossa (1988-92). Mooretwin (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that article. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Sorry Mooretwin, it was an honest mistake. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at Gaelic Athletic Association. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.  Sandstein  22:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Template amended: to be precise, you are blocked for violating arbitral sanctions, not for editwarring.  Sandstein   11:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an arbitration enforcement block as explained in this AE thread. I will lift the block (or any admin may lift it) if you agree to abide by a complete topic ban from any content and discussions related to the Troubles for these three months. Independently of the block or ban, your one revert per week probation in that topic area is also indefinitely reimposed.  Sandstein  22:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Further reasons for unblocking

 * 1) The editor with whom I am alleged to have been edit-warring - User:Gnevin has supported my contention that I was not. (Also here.) Mooretwin (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Sandstein's block was made based on factual error. He said:
 * "Elonka's wrong advice that "partial reverts" are allowed is immaterial; moreover, the second revert was not partial: it re-added all the content that the previous editor had removed but added another reference, which is not the "attempting to find a compromise" that Elonka would have allowed."
 * This is not true. It can be seen that the edit in question involved changing the text, not simply restoring it, when you look at the text that Gnevin removed.
 * Gnevin's concern was that the reference to the text which he removed doesn't back up the claim that In particular, sports associated with British origin are particularly frowned upon . My response was to amend the text so that it no longer said "sports associated with British origin are particularly frowned upon", but instead said "sports perceived as having been "imposed" by the English are particularly frowned upon", which was supported by a reference which I also added.
 * I then explained my edit at the Talk page, and there followed a dialogue, and further edits, which eventually resulted in consensus. This is not edit-warring: this is how Wikipedia works.


 * 1) Elonka, in imposing the probation, expressly said that "partial reverts" did not count. The edit in question was a partial revert, and (as above) Sandstein was wrong to say that it wasn't.
 * 2) If Elonka was "wrong" in saying this, as Sandstein claims, I cannot be held responsible for that. Mooretwin (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Sandstein closed the case and imposed the ban far too quickly, before there was sufficient time for others, including Gnevin, to comment. Mooretwin (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Your probation breaching revert was made at 21:29 on 7 February, when the related discussion looked like this. The history shows you made no attempt to discuss and find a compromise prior to reverting, all the discussion was after edit warring. O Fenian (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gnevin disagrees. Why do you actively seek to get fellow editors banned? Mooretwin (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He can disagree as much as he wants, the facts speak for themselves. Any purported agreement was not in place at the time you reverted, there was no discussion by you as to whether your edit would be acceptable prior to making it. I decline to answer your question due to the obvious bad faith contained in it. O Fenian (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the facts (thanks for the links) demonstrate that Sandstein was wrong to say that "the second revert was not partial: it re-added all the content that the previous editor had removed but added another reference". Because the second revert altered the text (modifying it to address Gnevin's issue with it) as well as adding a reference. And no-one, least of all me, has said that an agreement was in place when I edited. There is nothing wrong with changing text in an iterative process with a view to achieving consensus. That is what Wikipedia is all about. (As for bad faith, yours is demonstrated by your actions today.) Mooretwin (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "There is nothing wrong with changing text in an iterative process with a view to achieving consensus.", oh I agree, with the proviso that there is something very much wrong with reverting twice in less than a week when you are under a one revert per week restriction due to being on probation. When you are in that situation due to your own actions, the sensible course of action is to discuss with a view to achieving consensus. O Fenian (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever the merits of the individual case, the tedious refusal to accept consensus on Sinn Féin, the forum shopping on other related sites etc. etc. All needed some action.  Three months is a bit harsh but without some general assurances from Mooretwin of a more collegiate attitude I am not inclined to support any unblock  --Snowded  TALK  06:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As you know, there was no consensus at Sinn Féin, until the early discussion was archived, and consensus was "imposed" based on the views only of recent editors. The antics at that article, where a group of editors combined brazenly to overturn WP:RS, were quite something and my conduct in continuing to engage in discussion on the Talk page was entirely reasonable and justifiable. Contrary to what you say, once the consensus was "imposed" I did accept it. Your other allegation of "forum shopping" is quite incredible. Under the Arbcom Troubles remedy, in order to prevent edit-warring, editors are encouraged to take disputes to third parties. When I do this, I get further accusations! Mooretwin (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You were in a minority of one for several weeks and refused to accept it. After a poll was taken you disputed the participation in the poll saying that other editors had been scared off.  You then raised exactly the same issue on another article.  You were not discussing matters on the talk page you were simply asserting the same position again, and again, and again.  I suggest you take the 90 day voluntary block and use it to restore some balance.  I had to take an ArbCom 90 day ban from editing Ayn Rand related articles (although it did not come with a block and I could engage on the talk pages).  It certainly helped restore my sense of proportion about getting locked into disputes about minor issues in an attempt to make a wider point.  I commend it to you.  There comes a time in Wikipedia where its best to accept that you have gone too far, take a step back, gain perspective and move on.  --Snowded  TALK  06:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't just dismiss views of editors that you don't like because they haven't expressed them within a certain number of days. The conduct of you and others at Sinn Féin in conspiring to set aside policy in order to impose a POV, openly and brazenly ignoring or dismissing sources, and also turning it into a personal issue against me, was "going too far", and I and other editors were perfectly within their rights to challenge you. I, and other editrs, have every right to challenge POV at other articles, too - done properly via the Talk page. And don't try to misrepresent this as me being "in a minority of one" either on SF or any other article. Mooretwin (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should pay attention to the comments of RockPocket below. There was no conspiracy, it was not a personal issue until you stubbornly refused to accept a consensus position in which you were in a minority of one over an extended period of time.  I am not misrepresenting you - go back to the poll you forced and tell me how many people supported you?  --Snowded  TALK  07:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the unblock request at WP:AE. If you would like to contest the arbitration enforcement block, you need to seek a clear, substantial, and active community consensus, as noted in the decline above. You can seek to obtain such consensus by preparing a Sanction appeal below and asking another editor to copy it to WP:ANI or WP:AE. Or you can appeal to ArbCom.  Sandstein   07:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't address all the points. You impose a draconian sanction on someone for edit-warring when I wasn't edit-warring. You say I broke probation, yet under the terms explained to me, I did not. You reward a group of editors who actively seek to have fellow editors (whom they perceive to stand in their way of imposing their own views on articles) banned from the encyclopaedia. Ask yourself - honestly - whether you think your behaviour is reasonable. Mooretwin (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the editwarring template is inaccurate, sorry; I've fixed that. You are blocked for violating arbitral sanctions, not for editwarring. The probation matter is addressed in depth on the AE page. I am not interested in the possible motivations of other editors (see WP:NOTTHEM); if they have violated any applicable sanctions, they may also be reported at AE.  Sandstein   11:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "arbitral sanctions" weren't violated either. When put on probation, I was clearly advised that "partial reverts" were not included within the 1-revert-per-week. Yet you punish me in draconian fashion for taking this advice in good faith. Other editors who have breached probation have not been given such extreme punishment. As for reporting other editors, how can I do that if I am banned? Mooretwin (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As for getting a community consensus, how can I achieve this when I am banned from the encyclopaedia? Mooretwin (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not banned, just blocked. See my advice above.  Sandstein   11:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Banned or blocked, two different words but they both mean I can't edit, and therefore it's impossible for me to seek a community consensus. Even, if it were, I guess with three editors conspiring against me, I'm never going to achieve it anyway. But those editors are free to edit while I am given an outrageously disproportionate ban. Mooretwin (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are willing to agree to a 90-day topic ban from Troubles articles and their talkpages, you could be unblocked, and then you could participate on the noticeboards as to whether the topic ban should be lifted or not. --Elonka 02:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you propose such a draconian punishment for me, when - for a lesser crime - you imposed a much more lenient punishment on Domer48 (a 1-week block) - an editor who engaged in a campaign of harassment against you? How do you justify such clear inconsistency of treatment? Lifting the block in return for a "Troubles" topic ban is already an option under Sandstein's sanction, so your proposal changes nothing. A Troubles topic ban is not reasonable, as it would prevent me from continuing my work to update and add entries relating to the NI Parliament - none of which have ever been contentious. And given the ridiculously-wide interpretation of Troubles-related, I wouldn't be surprised if edits on NI football (another of my topics) wouldn't be included. I would be a fool to accept such a sanction and risk a further inadvertent or unwitting innocent transgression - especially with O Fenian, BigDunc and Domer48 following me around waiting for me to trip up. So I may as well accept the full ban as accept that "compromise". Mooretwin (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If instead of a topic ban it were to be a ban on only the contentious articles, what do you think would be a good way of identifying the scope? --Elonka 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. You imposed probation and explained the terms. According to those terms, I didn't break the probation. So why are you supporting any kind of punishment? 2. If there is a punishment, why are you suggesting punishment of a different type to that you imposed on Domer48 for breaking the same probation? 3. I don't see how a ban on contentious articles would work. How would "contentious" be defined? The indefinite probation, a further element of Sandstein's outrageous sanctions, is also completely draconian and unjustifiable and would be impossible to comply with. Mooretwin (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Elonka choose to ignore the request I made on her page, I dont like AE and I stated this to Elonka when she started back with all this AE rubbish as you get no consistency in the blocks just depends on who you get, some get blocks others don't. This is why I posted to Elonka for consistency. But saying that I don't think the probation on you or Domer has any basis, it is for edit warring and in Domers case no diffs were shown despite requests and I dont recall any shown for your alleged edit warring. Another point I want to make is that your continued blaming of everyone around you is not helping, and not saying you want my support, but it makes it impossible for me to when you keep blaming me on your actions. Feel free to revert if you want. BigDunc  21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Mooretwin). Your edit was a borderline revert, which may be interpreted differently by different administrators. Some feel strongly that it's a revert, some that it isn't, and some just say that it's borderline. Aside from the administrators who have participated in the AE thread thus far, I've also spoken off-wiki to some other administrators, and the interpretations are pretty similar, meaning that opinions are coming down on both sides of the fence. As for what was or wasn't done with Domer, my recommendation is to drop that line of inquiry, because anything that makes the situation more complex isn't helpful. This is about what you did, not what any other editors may or may not have done. My honest advice to you right now, is to drop the belligerence. A conciliatory tone will serve you much better right now, than all this finger-pointing. Instead the wiki-culture tends to look favorably upon those who can acknowledge mistakes, and show an ability to learn from them. For example, instead of attacking administrators with accusations of "outrageous" actions, "ridiculous" interpretations, "campaigns of harassment", and other emotionally charged language, how about trying a different tack, like saying, "Oops, sorry, I can see it was a borderline revert. My mistake, it won't happen again.  I promise to be more careful in the future." --Elonka 01:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do think Elonka has a point here. What Domer did or did not do, and how he was treated isn't really the issue here. The issue is what you did or didn't do, and whether the administrative consequence is justified.
 * As I pointed out to BigDunc, its time that this destructive relationship between you guys to stop. You were put on the same probation. Because one of them was blocked for reverting, a couple of them reported you for the same thing. Now you've been blocked, you feel you should get the same treatment as Domer. Tit-for-tat. By linking your fates in this way, you have put yourselves on a path towards mutual assured destruction. And its getting to the point, for you and Domer at least, where someone will press the red button on both of you. The logical conclusion to this that when one gets indef blocked, the other will find themselves there soon after. Therefore every block on you is one closer to an indef on him, and vice versa. The best things for all of you would be to all agree to just back off from each other.


 * Of course, you can't control how Domer et al behave going forward, but you can control how you do. It would serve you much better to disengage yourself and leave them to their own devices. Accept you may have reverted, if only in error, apologize for your accidental transgression and suggest a way you can continue to edit while convincing editors that you have learned from this incident.  Rockpock  e  t  03:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very frustrating that Elonkas hasn't directly addressed the points that I made. But first, let me make it clear:
 * I did not intend to break the probation - I managed to abide by it for 86 out of 90 days! The edit I made was not a deliberate contravention of probation, it was not a belligerent edit, it was a constructive edit, and I do not consider that it broke probation as per the terms of the probation explained to me. If I had known that it was going to be interpreted as breaking the probation, I would either not have made the edit, or I would have self-reverted after I realised. And obviously, if probation continued I would not intend to break it and I would make every effort to comply with it, as I did before. That goes without saying.
 * If an administrator imposes a probation, and explains that the probation to the editor in question, it seems to me reasonable for that administrator to stand over her decision and explanation. I expected Elonka, therefore, at least to acknowledge that she had advised that "partial reverts" were not covered, and take that into account when suggesting an alternative sanction. I do not consider it to have been "belligerent" to raise this - it seems entirely reasonable to me. The response, however, has been disappointing.
 * In imposing a sanction, it is clearly in the interests of justice (and of the credibility of the admins) that they impose similar sanctions for similar offences in similar circumstances. It is entirely reasonable of me to expect Domer and I to have imposed on us similar sanctions, given that the terms of our probations were the same, and the (alleged) breach of those terms was the same. Again, I do not see it as "belligerent" to point this out, and I would expect any reasonable person immediately to understand the inconsistency. It is, in fact, unreasonable to expect me not to point this out in my defence!
 * I have never accused any administrator of a "campaign of harassment" as Elonka has alleged. Ironically, I referred to a campaign of harassment against an administrator!
 * In summary, I would have expected that Elonka had a responsibility (a) to address the point about the terms of the probation in the first instance; and (b) even if she feels that she cannot stand over those terms, recommend a proportionate punishment that is consistent with other punishments given out for the same offence. Given all the hassle thus far, I would be prepared to accept (b) without further complaint.
 * Finally, I think it is understandable that any person will be angry at others, if those others appear to have been seeking to get him blocked from the encyclopaedia. I made that point in my defence, because I do not think that it serves the encyclopaedia well, if such conduct is seen to achieve a result. As Rockpocket says, it is likely to encourage tit-for-tat behaviour and mutually assured destruction. I had hoped that administrators would take this into account when considering the AE request. Clearly, that did not work, and I do not intend to pursue this any further, either directly with those editors or indirectly.
 * I hope this makes my position clear, which I genuinely believe is a reasonable position. Mooretwin (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Block reduction
Per discussion at AE, your block length has been decreased to one week, and will expire on February 16. Probation is also reduced from "indefinite", to a simple extension of 3 months, and will expire on May 9. Terms of the probation are the same as before: "Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert." Please let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 18:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted and thank you. Mooretwin (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Best not to remove paragraphs from discussion page
It is probably best not to remove someone else's paragraphs from a discussion page. See this edit. Thanks Pma jones (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't realise I'd done that. It was a mistake. Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. I was initially annoyed, but then I guessed it was a mistake.
 * Pma jones (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for a truce
This is straight off the top of my head; if people don't like the idea I won't pursue it. You will be editing again from tomorrow, and presumably you'll want to get back to those articles you have an interest in improving, but if the wars just break out again on multiple fronts, at best it will mean that nothing is actually achieved, and at worst one or more people will be blocked again. My suggestion is this: what if you, on the one hand, and Domer, BigDunc and O Fenian, on the other, agree on 'spheres of influence', where you will not revert each others edits or engage in fruitless arguments on the talk page? Your 'sphere of influence' might include, for instance, NI politicians and and NI football articles, while their 'sphere of influence' might include Sinn Féin and the GAA. Where you could not agree whose 'sphere' certain articles would come under, perhaps you could agree on an independent (and willing) 'referee' who would divide them equally between you, either randomly or according to some express criteria. That would mean each of you abandoning the struggle to make certain points on some articles, and in return being free from harrassment on the others. It would not mean giving the other a licence to do what they please; it would be understood that apart from settling issues that were already under dispute, there would be no wholesale editing of articles to give them a completely different slant. What do you think, could it work? Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting that I agree to restrict myself to articles about football and obscure, dead Northern Ireland politicians, while Dunc 'n' Domer (and you, of course) get to edit the juicy stuff? Forgive me if I can't take that seriously. (Is there a reason why you put this suggestion only to me, and not to Dunc 'n' Domer? If anyone needs to call a truce, it is not me - I did not patrol the encyclopaedia to identify anyone's edit history or report anyone to AE.) Mooretwin (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thought that might be your attitude. Never mind.  Consider the suggestion withdrawn.  Scolaire (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was hardly a reasonable or fair suggestion. Mooretwin (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Mooretwin is being harshly treated with blatant bias and pressure from Irish Republicanism WikiProject members who seem to be as always as thick as thieves ganging up on stand-alone editors who don't agree with their bias, whilst they impose their bias on Wiki articles. Every arguement i've seen on articles to do with the Troubles, with Northern Ireland, its politics etc. with nitpicking over everything that doesn't agree with a particular viewpoint seem to come from this group or people who you can tell from their profiles share the same ideals. So are we to sit idly by whilst inaccuracies and biased input from certain sections that goes contrary to factuality are imposed on Wikipedia? Maybe we should call this site Republicapedia. Mabuska (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oxford United F.C. (Northern Ireland)
No problem, I note that the templete for Mid-Ulster Football League includes Oxford United Stars. Is this an error ? Djln--Djln (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Must be. Hadn't noticed that. I'll fix it. Cheers. Mooretwin (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Might be an idea to think of better name for the Mid-Ulster team in order to avoid further confusion. Perhaps disambiguate by county or city they play in.Djln--Djln (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I think the problem is that there is no stub for Oxford United, but there is one for Oxford United Stars. If one of us writes the stub, then we have two separate articles, and surely less scope for confusion? Mooretwin (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed templates on NIR stations
Wouldn't it have been quicker to put in a citation to the NIR timetable than spraying around citation needed templates for people to clean up? Stifle (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Merging Belfast wards into one article
As you've edited a number of these articles, I'd appreciate your thoughts here. Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland
An article that you have been involved in editing, Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I believe this may be of interest to you. Mabuska (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!
Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I understood that you're an Irishman (I wish I can visit your wonderful country some time soon and enjoy Irish music live!), so can you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country, music and language! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Robin Jackson
Thank you for tweaking the Robin Jackson article. Unfortunately very little is known of his life until he joined the UDR in 1972. I have provided inline citations for every allegation and claim made against him. Most of the claims as regards killings, etc. are made by John Weir, the Pat Finucane Centre, the Hidden Hand programme, and the Justice Barron Report. I don't honestly think the article contains any weasel words.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not after your edits. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How does it look now? I have brought up an issue on its talk page, and I'd like your input. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin, thank you for your comments on my talkpage. As regards the Republican sources: these all are covered by reliable sources such as the Barron Report, Joe Tiernan, McKittrick's Lost Lives, etc. We need to include them to give proper balance to the article. I need your opinion on one matter. I have many source which say that the Glenanne farm was owned by former RUC reservist James Mitchell. As he is believed to be still living, albeit in his 80s or 90s, I am reluctant to use his name in the article. He has denied knowledge that his farm was used as a UVF arms dump. What are your feelings on the subject? I personally think his name should be left out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeanne, I can't accept that those sources are reliable. I'm not suggesting, however, that all the information currently supported by those sources be removed from the article - but rather that the information be attributed to, e.g. the Barron Report. The credibility of the article is seriously undermined when one looks at some of the references. As you are familiar with the material, is this something that you could look at?
 * Re. James Mitchell, I agree that his name should be left out as there may be legal issues in naming him. Mooretwin (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed some of the Troops Out Movement refs. Under the References section I replaced it with the Barron Report (2003). The other articles give their sources as Weir, Tiernan, the Barron Report. I'll see what I can do later about linking more to the Barron Report.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The eirigi and McPhelimy references remain of concern. Mooretwin (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the highly-biased eirigi with a Kevin Dowling article from the Independent. As for McPhelimy, I mentioned in the article that his book is banned. I also added a quote by Jackson himself that the Barron Report said he made when he was charged for the Patrick Campbell killing in 1973. This adds balance to the article, so it doesn't look like we're a court of law trying him ourselves!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Page titles
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Pat Sheehan (politician) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Pat Sheehan (Irish republican). This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Neil Lennon
Care to explain your claim that Neil Lennon was not "forced" to retire from soccer because of threats from loyalists? The cited source has the word "forced" in its headline, it says "Death threat forces Lennon to place family feelings first." When is a forced retirement not a forced retirement? The article goes on to say "I can't put them through this every time," the Celtic midfielder said yesterday. "My parents are pretty distraught. I've a tiny wee daughter, who knows nothing about this at the moment. I've thought long and hard about it and decided I probably won't be going back to play for Northern Ireland. I've enjoyed my career at international level but it's time to say that enough is enough. I can't keep putting the people I love through this every time."

Why do you think he "chose" to retire? Felt like a spontaneous change of career? The article also reference multiple threats from loyalists, hence is not "only" one threat as you claim. I think you should revert your edit. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He chose to retire because of the death threat. No-one forced him. The Irish Football Association wanted him to continue to play. Better to keep it factual by saying he retired following a death threat, rather than bringing in misleading or ambiguous words. Mooretwin (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Come again? "He chose to retire because of a death threat" but "no-one forced him?" How does that work? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * From what you've quoted Eamonnca1 it looks clear that Neil Lennon made a personal choice to retire. Threats where a deciding factor behind it but he jumped. Mabuska (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Forced, in a context like this, is typical of the type of phrase that journalists will use, but which is probably not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Journalists will use such metaphorical terms to add an emotional twist to the fats: an encyclopaedia should be more strictly literal.  He retired from international football, citing the threat(s?) as (part of?) his reason for doing so.  Kevin McE (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely. You explained it better than I did. The text says the result of the threats was that he retired. Mooretwin (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

FoI
I noticed your edit at Flag of Ireland, and all i can say is that it will get reverted by one of the usual suspects due to being undiscussed and will start a whole who-ha in the talk page. Any check of the articles talk page as you should well know as you've particpated on it in the past will show that there has been discussion and arguements over it already and nothings changed. I'm all for Republic of Ireland but in cases where the IMoS isn't as concrete a reason as we'd like, and where there has been arguements and heated discussion about before - it should always be discussed beforehand and a consensus gained. Mabuska (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD Mooretwin (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

GAA
Care to talk? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Your addition to Gaelic Athletic Association has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. O Fenian (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? What addition? Mooretwin (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you revert this addition since not only is it copyrighted but it is also a 1RR breach. O Fenian (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Explain how it is copyrighted, please. Do you mean because the text mirrors that in the source? That can be overcome by rephrasing. I shall self-revert in the meantime. Mooretwin (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eamonn reverted before I got a chance to self-revert, although he too is in breach of 1RR. Mooretwin (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He may not have been aware of it, he is now thanks to my message. The removal of copyrighted text would be exempt anyway, since changing one or two insignificant words does not significantly change the "copy-paste" of the text in question. O Fenian (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He's made more reverts than that, but let's leave it. As for the "copyrighted" material, quotation marks or paraphrasing can overcome that. Mooretwin (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

GAA
Please undo your last two edits to the GAA page. We have not finished discussing this. To use your own turn of phrase, "take it to talk instead of edit warring." --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We're making good progress, via the discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

MLA articles
Hi Mooretwin. Just a problem on some of the new MLA articles: in a couple of articles, for example David McIlveen, when you are pasting the "who was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly" line, the date is 2001, rather than 2011.Also, they are technically BLP articles, so at least one reference, and of course ideally more than one reference, should be added.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 11:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to correct any mistakes. They are only stubs at the minute - the idea being that full referenced articles can be created in due course. Mooretwin (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but just be aware that some of the more zealous newpage watchers might just tag the articles for deletion with the Blpprod template as unreferenced BLPs without checking for sources themselves and before you (or someone else) get around to adding sources. FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 18:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye, I see a zealot has done as you suggested. How tiresome. Mooretwin (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm, yes and no. The version of Paula Bradley you created said she was elected in 2001, for a constituency called Antrim North (it's not called that either officially or unofficially) and that she succeeded Ian Paisley Junior. It lacked even basic details such as the fact that she's the current Mayor of Newtownabbey. All that info isn't really hard to find or reference. Even stubs need more than just X is a politician in country Y, especially in these more BLP aware times. The one on Gordon Dunne for example doesn't even mention the fact that he's one of the longest serving North Down councillors. Valenciano (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, more than happy for mistakes to be corrected, and stubs turned into articles. That was the idea. No need for the tiresome business of AfDs. Mooretwin (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

MTKing
Mooretwin - you're never going to get rid of this guy now. He will stalk you forever - so dear help you if you create any more stubs - although I have an idea, create some GAA club stubs and sit back and wait for him to AFD them and watch him end up with the Irish equivalent of a fatwah!! He is an American who likes to mix it on subjects he knows absolutely nothing about using guidelines (not rules mind you) as a cudgel to get a rise from people. He is intent on imposing his narrow view and systemic bias of the world through his weapon of Google - if it is not in Google it is not worthy. I see no evidence of any credible content addition anywhere in his edit history - enough said. Oh block this IP if you want - it will never be used again. Cheers! (I'm p***** off with his antics elsewhere by the way and giving up on this project, his second victim in recent time as far as I can see - just deleted my watchlist, so no point responding.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.85.113 (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cricket
Sorry about the deletions, sorry I couldn't be of more help. I think those AfDs were a bit harsh and more sources could have been dug up given a bit more time, even if it meant straying beyond the web in search of sources. I think that google has become too much of a standard by which people judge notability. Plenty of things exist which google has never heard of. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they were only created within the last few weeks as stubs - the whole point of which is to allow people to add to them. Oh well, at least the deletion campaign has made two editors happy. Mooretwin (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hasn't made me happy, as my message which you have removed inferred. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you. Sorry. Mooretwin (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cooperativeinsurance158.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Cooperativeinsurance158.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Liam Neeson
Do you honestly believe the edit you made is correct to the above article and that he is American. Mo ainm ~Talk  21:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The BBC says he is. I've no reason to doubt them. And even if I did, my personal view would be irrelevant, because I am not a reliable source. Mooretwin (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the best you can do? An infobox is used to allow an editor to have a quick look at what is in an article, this now says he is American, come on do you really believe that is correct? Would it not mis-lead any editor looking for information on him? Mo ainm  ~Talk  22:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I do believe it is correct. I've no reason to doubt the BBC article. I don't see how it can be misleading if it is true. Mooretwin (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say he gave up any previous citizenships which under US law he can retain. Therefore he should be marked down as dual citizenship.  --HighKing (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I quickly found about three articles saying he took American citizenship. The same articles are pretty clear that he self describes himself as an Irishman. In the absence of a WP:RS that says he had British citizenship then it should be Irish in the infobox along with American. --Eamonnca1 TALK 02:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But Mooretwin isn't talking about citizenship, his edit claim that Neeson is an American national, nothing else. Mo ainm  ~Talk  07:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

On the id page of the US passport the field is "Nationality: United States of America". There is no separate field for citizenship, and in fact no reference at all to citizenship on the page. When one undergoes naturalization in the US one takes on US nationality. One becomes fully an American. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the US Government is really using "nationality" as a synonym for "citizenship". It's the wrong use of the word. Neeson is a US citizen. Mooretwin (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is correct insofar as "Nationality" means "belonging to a nation" either through birth or through naturalization. It doesn't imply any rights or privileges normally extended to citizens.
 * Sorry? Being a US "national" means being a US citizen, and thereby enjoying the rights of US citizenship. Mooretwin (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So when Neeson underwent naturalization in the U.S. he acquired U.S. nationality and now "belongs to the nation" that is the United States, right? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He's a US citizen. Mooretwin (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was always under the impression that that's exactly what the nationality field in the infobox is for. It says he's Irish ethnically in the lead. JonChapple Talk 08:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not Irish either, he's British. GoodDay (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Describing yourself as an Irishman doesn't automatically mean you have Irish citizenship, and anyways if your using the nationlality parameter to refer to ethnicity then obviously you couldn't put in a citizenship such as British as then your confusing the nationality parameter with an ethnicity and a citizenship. Two different things.  Neeson was reported as now being a US citizen.  He is still also of British and/or Irish nationality.  He may no longer be a British and/or Irish citizen, although we assume he is since it's a reasonable assumption with nothing to state the contrary.  --HighKing (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly think it's stupid calling him simply American. Mabuska (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

@HighKing: ''It doesn't say he gave up any previous citizenships which under US law he can retain. Therefore he should be marked down as dual citizenship.'' - That would mean dual British and US citizenship - I didn't include British as I assumed it would be deleted by the Britanniphobes. Mooretwin (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

@Eamonnca1: ''The same articles are pretty clear that he self describes himself as an Irishman. In the absence of a WP:RS that says he had British citizenship then it should be Irish in the infobox along with American.'' Being an Irishman is not the same as being a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.

@Mo ainm: But Mooretwin isn't talking about citizenship, his edit claim that Neeson is an American national, nothing else. You couldn't be more wrong. WP:BIOMOS says the "nationality" field relates to citizenship. Mooretwin (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've said on numerous occasions in the past, the fault lies with the bio template - for example, citizenship isn't the same as nationality and it's pretty dumb for the template to make that mistake. Equally dumb to be held hostage to a broken bio template if it misrepresents facts.  So if I understand what people are saying above:
 * Ethnicity=Irish
 * Nationality=British/Irish
 * Citizenship=British/USA
 * Place of Birth=Northern Ireland
 * What a palaver! --HighKing (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't alone in confusing nationality with citizenship. It's a common mistake - including on the part of the Southern Irish and UK states, viz. Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act and British Nationality Act. (Also, it would appear, the US Government uses "nationality" to mean "citizenship".) Mooretwin (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion really should be taking place at the relevant TP, but since there seems to be a number of considered views already here, I'll add my 2ps worth. Neeson adopted US citizenship as a very deliberate and personal gesture following the support he received on the death of his wife. That should be acknowledged in the infobox. The 'infobox person' allows for a distinction between 'Nationality' and 'Citizenship', notwithstanding the narrow legal interpretation of those terms in the US. I don't see why this edit was reverted, and still think it most closely alligns with the references. His 'Nationality' can be debated further,or indeed other 'citizenships', if people have the inclination. RashersTierney (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All US citizens hold US nationality. What you suggest would be to make a distinction that is without basis in law or fact.Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not making a distinction 'in law or fact'. I'm applying a parameter to reflect the source. RashersTierney (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't see the problem with the edit you linked to above which simply states his citizenship is that of the U.S. Problems arise if people want to go beyond that and make a wholly artificial distinction between his citizenship and nationality. U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals, always and in every case. (Although not all U.S nationals are also U.S. citizens!) Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In US law, what's a US national? Mooretwin (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Nedd Cricket Club


The article The Nedd Cricket Club has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced article about a non-notable cricket club. Fails both WP:CLUB and WP:CRIN.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names
There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCombinding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mid-jjb-irish-cup-logo-1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Mid-jjb-irish-cup-logo-1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC
I've raised an RfC for Talk:Kingsmill_massacre to get some outside opinions. --Flexdream (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
The edits you made on the 1989 Jonesborough Ambush article look good. There is such a plethora of information on the killings because of the Smithwick Tribunal. I know there are plenty of people on both sides of the border who are squirming at the moment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They were merely presentational in nature. Mooretwin (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

GAA
I suggest you self-revert on this article, since I very much doubt the SOPA blackout will be counted as time between reverts. Mo ainm ~Talk  12:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Course it will. It's one revert per day; time didn't stand still when Wikipedia did. JonC Talk 12:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Review
I've drafted a new UDR intro section for review. If you have any comments you can leave them on the page: link Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

1RR Violation
Your actions have been raised here.-- Domer48 'fenian'  20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to see you're still stalking others and telling on them whilst contributing absolutely nothing constructive to this place yourself, Mr 48. That you appear to have completely given up being a Wikipedia editor, instead taking it on upon yourself to become some kind of odd freelance Troubles 1RR-Gestapo, really warms the cockles of the ol' heart. Shine on, you crazy diamond. <font color="#004225">JonC <font color="#F28500">Talk 23:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for filing a patently bad-faith, disruptive AE report, compounded by this comment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)  Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Topic ban
Per the consensus of uninvolved administrators in this AE thread, you are banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, broadly construed across all namespaces. This topic ban may be appealed at AE after six months, and every six months thereafter. You may also make an appeal of this ban immediately after the imposition of the sanction, per WP:AC/DS, and may appeal the ban to the Arbitration Committee at any time. T. Canens (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * British baronets???? Mooretwin (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a heads-up, MT: the Troubles restrictions are very wide-ranging, and, contrary to the name, actually have very little to with The Troubles. You're going to need to stay away from anything to with Northern Irish nationality full stop -- no changing the nationality of anyone born there -- because the vultures are already circling and they'll make sure you get blocked for even longer. <font color="#004225">JonC <font color="#F28500">Talk 11:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cricket updates
Hi, are you going to source these updates of yours, eg: to Saintfield Cricket Club? - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The source for which teams are in which division is on the relevant league page. Mooretwin (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll probably revert your edits until you get round to fixing them, per WP:BURDEN. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Appeal
In response to your email, there are two ways you can appeal the topic ban: While WP:AC/DS also allows you to make an appeal to me, it is my personal practice to not entertain such appeals when I was acting on a consensus of administrators. T. Canens (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To WP:AE: Follow the procedures set forth in Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
 * To the Arbitration Committee: You may make a request at the Amendments page, following the instructions there, or directly email your appeal to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

I couldn't be bothered. Mooretwin (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding to your earlier post (since removed, so feel free to remove this as well), you can follow the above steps once your block expires, or you can make your statement here and ask somebody to copy it over to AE for you. You can appeal the block itself directly to me (since it was not imposed as the result of a discussion; I can't promise I'll unblock you, but I will hear you out), to AE through the same procedure as above (again having comments copied over to AE from here), or to ArbCom at the email address Tim posted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, the ground for my appeal against the two-week general ban is basically that I am being punished twice for the same offence: a two-week general ban and then an indefinite topic ban; each imposed by a different admin for the same offence. This seems unjust: the first ban should have been lifted when the more severe ban was later imposed. (I'll consider separately whether or not to bother appealing the topic ban, so please consider this strictly only as an appeal against the first two-week punishment. Thank you.) Mooretwin (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello? Can you take this forward? Mooretwin (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have to use a specific unblock template. Not sure how though. Or email the Arbitration Committee. <font color="#004225">— <font color="#004225">JonC <font color="#F28500">ॐ 11:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Roe Valley F.C.


The article Roe Valley F.C. has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence of notability. Unreferenced.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cloudz 679 20:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rasharkin United F.C.


The article Rasharkin United F.C. has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unreferenced and orphaned article which does not assert notability.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cloudz 679 13:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Dunloy F.C. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dunloy F.C. 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/Dunloy F.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Cloudz 679 08:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Iveagh United F.C. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iveagh United F.C. 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/Dunloy F.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Cloudz 679 08:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Kilroot Recreation F.C. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kilroot Recreation F.C. 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/Dunloy F.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Cloudz 679 08:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Crumlin Star F.C. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crumlin Star F.C. 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/Dunloy F.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Cloudz 679 08:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Broomhill F.C. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Broomhill F.C. 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/Dunloy F.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Cloudz 679 08:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Immaculata F.C. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Immaculata F.C. 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/Dunloy F.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Cloudz 679 08:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Rasharkin United F.C. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rasharkin United F.C. 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/Rasharkin United F.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Cloudz 679 12:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Mooretwin in your summary on the article page you said it met the criteria of being eligible to participate in the national cup, where as the criteria is All teams that have played in the national cup, so if you can find a ref for thier previous participation it would be good enough for keeping. Murry1975 (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * HighKing found one. Murry1975 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:North West Senior League members
Category:North West Senior League members, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Leinster Senior League members
Category:Leinster Senior League members, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)