User talk:MusicInTheHouse/Archive1

Ireland/NATO
What support is there for the statement that Ireland's neutrality is the reason that Ireland is not a member of NATO?? Wgh001 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert but I always thought that it why that is the case. Reading the Irish Neutrality page now it is clear not joining NATO is due to Ireland's neutrality and no other political reason.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What section of the Irish Neutrality page makes it clear not joining NATO is due to Ireland's neutrality and no other political reason?Wgh001 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Current policy.

Republic of Ireland Act and description of the state
Hi MusicInTheHouse

I was puzzled to see that you chosen to declare an abstention on Proposition 4 of my statement, about the Republic of Ireland Act.

Obviously, it's your right to take whatever view you choose, but I found this one puzzling. The proposition is not about whether any of us approves or disapproves of that Act, merely that it defines the official description of the state.

Could you perhaps use the statement's talk page to explain why you take that view? Have I misquoted the 1948 Act, or do you believe that some other piece of law has repealed it? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure I will do that shortly.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Demographics
Hi, on the edits for Irish people, I added the demographics of NI section as the topic itself is used on the Irish people page. Hope that's ok agus go dtig linn cinéal comhréiteach a fháil air =) --Theosony (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I looked at the diff wrong, thought you were doing something else. I self reverted, I apologise.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all, I do the same, A LOT! Sláinte!--Theosony (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your reversion (not of mine) Eire, Ireland, Ulser, etc
I believe there is a FAQ on Wikipedia for what should be used for the various Irish things (Reblic, Eire, Ulster, British Isles, etc); I find Wikipedia help almost impenetrable so I tend to edit first, with as much intelligence and forethought as I can manage, in the hope of getting someone else after to correct it if it is definitelly wrong.

I agree that it should go to discussion, and "Ireland" is definitely wrong in most cases, but this article is making quite careful distinctions (perhaps wrong ones, but they are made carefully with thought about which term to use) and you are quite right to revert it. The problem I find with "take it to discussion" is rarely does one get any discussion. So one either has to "Be Bold" and just edit away, or do nothing. It's quite astounding, as soon as one does make an edit, people suddenly (sometimes in minutes) move in to change it, yet say nothing on a discussion.

Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgot to mench topic Common Travel Area. Always doing that. SimonTrew (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but I am happy with my reversion. The use of Ireland in that article is most certainly correct. I am waiting for editors opinions on the talk page to see their opinions on the intro and so far it looks like the consensus is to change it back to the correct name of Ireland.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that the use of the various expressions is very carefully done in this article by people who appreciate the differences. If you disagree, take it to discussion, don't just unanimously change the article. I am guilty of this myself (on other articles) so am not getting on my high horse, but let's settle the terms in discussion. SimonTrew (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear me I think we are at cross purposes. Yeah I am happy with your reversion too. SimonTrew (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I have managed to cock up and send you what I wanted to send to the person making the change. Wikipedia talk/discussion I find the hardest part of the system. Deliberately I split this into separate edits so that you might spot at least one that made some sense. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dublin pics
Hi, I know that Wiki articles aren't photo galleries, but in some occasions pics needed in order to give a better idea of the city/place. However, any changes or reverses are welcome. :) Irishbud (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is special territory. Can you add it to member state of our union please? --144.122.250.130 (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No it is not a part of the European Union. A referendum decided this around the time of the Republic of Cyprus's accession.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So it has to be in excluded list like UN Buffer Zone, isn't it? --144.122.250.130 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No there's nothing special about it, it's a seperate territory controlled by Turkey and like Turkey the territory will never be a member of the EU.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Or if it is not part of our union why we include all the Cyprus in the maps of EU? However we can execute it like Greenland, in the maps of our union, isn't it? --144.122.250.130 (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not citizen of Turkey but citizen of Bulgaria/EU, I don't mind whether Turkey or NC is/will be in EU or not. I'm just trying to indicate that NC is not part of Republic of Cyprus or EU, so it has to be in the excluded list. --144.122.250.130 (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "...territory controlled by Turkey" NC has its own democratically elected parliament, so it is not controlled by another country. Before 1974 Cypriot Turks asked help from Turkey to save their lives and Turkey send them help, and they established their own country, that is all. Even Cypriot Turks control Turkey; they say: "we'll do that, give us some money", "we'll say that, come on, you can say it too", "No, we'll not hand shake with the new president of Turkey, he can **** itself."... --144.122.250.130 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re my statement at WP:IECOLL
I've split my second statement over at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration into separate sections for editors can separately oppose/support different points. Since you might not have actually opposed all point, but just one or two, you may wish to take the opportunity to change your position. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland rugby flag
We cannot use the IRFU flag as it is copyrighted, and the Irish tricolour is inappropriate as it implies that the Ireland rugby team represents only the Republic of Ireland. Happy? – PeeJay 18:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A flag is a flag, it can't be copyrighted. It is obvious why the tricolour can't be used but saying that one can't use the flag set out by the IRFU to represent the team is BS. The Ireland rugby team has a flag and it can and should be used.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The license on the flag page is wrong btw. It has one for a logo. A flag is clearly not a logo and that should be fixed rather than my edits reverted. I would fix the license but I don't know how to.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The IRFU flag contains the IRFU logo, which means that it is derivative of a copyrighted work. Therefore, the flag is subject to the same rules of copyright as the logo contained therein. Understand? – PeeJay 18:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A flag is not a logo. If you're not happy with that personally, replace the flag with []. Otherwise stop pushing some personal pov about not using a flag which is 100% the correct flag to use.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are completely in the wrong about this. There is an ongoing discussion at WT:RU about the usability of the IRFU flag, and the current consensus is that is should not be used on any page other than the IRFU page and the Ireland national team page. Other than that, it should be removed as a violation of copyright. Your attempts to plaster it all over this website are therefore being construed as vandalism. – PeeJay 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will read WT:RU and see what the story is and if I feel I am incorrect I will self revert.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

With regard to your revert of 2005 British and Irish Lions tour to New Zealand, consensus has been decided, in that it has been decided that the IRFU flag should not be used except on pages where it is deemed to be "Fair Use". The only discussion now is as to what flag should be used in its stead, if any. – PeeJay 18:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are contradicting yourself. You say there is an "ongoing discussion" and then to suit you, you say its already decided. Wait! Stop pushing the thing that you think is right for one minute.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not contradicting myself. The discussion regarding my current actions is concluded. If you want a flag, fine; find one that we can use, but do not continue to replace a copyrighted flag. – PeeJay 18:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read the talk page and I have come to the conclusion that there is no consensus for what you are doing. It is mostly you driving for the removal of the flag and there is certainly not widespread consensus for its removal. The discussion is ongoing and I recommend you wait until everything is decided. If there really was consensus for its removal there would be someone other than yourself removing it. The "consensus" seemed to kick in when you decided that you would start removing them all, all of a sudden.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what, it's actually irrelevant whether there is consensus for this or not. The use of the flag is against copyright LAW. This isn't just a case of some guy coming along and saying "Oh no, we can't be having that, now can we." Wikipedia could get sued for overuse of the logo, and the whole point of Wikipedia is that it is a free encyclopaedia. So back off before you get reported for the unnecessary addition of copyrighted material. In fact, I may just report you for that right now. – PeeJay 18:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not addition the flag has always been used on Wikipedia. Stop trying to Wiki-Lawyer you way to make your way seem right. Consensus has not been decided yet and consensus is one of the pillars of Wikipedia.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Seem right"? What I am doing is right. Just because something has been in place for a long time does not make it right. Slavery was in place for a long time, too, and look how that turned out. Revert yourself please. – PeeJay 19:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will self revert as soon as it clear to me that it is consensus on Wikipedia to remove it because of its copyright issues.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You really are a dense individual, aren't you? Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia. In order for it to remain as a free encyclopaedia, it does not need to pay license fees, court fees, etc. to cover the rights to post copyrighted images in its articles. To quote WP:COPYRIGHT, "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." Since the copyright to the IRFU flag does not belong to any of Wikipedia's users and permission for its use outside of Fair Use has not been granted by the IRFU, the flag must be removed on sight. – PeeJay 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the flag issue. PeeJay is correct,part of the flag is subjected copyright and as such can only be used in WP:FU cases. The only such case which has been made, was made by me for the IRFU page Gnevin (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the offending remark. – PeeJay 19:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, would you care to revert yourself, MITH? – PeeJay 19:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"British" Isles
You did three reverts I see. Rules don't apply to you? Sarah777 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course they do. I wasn't trying to insert something without consensus though was I? ℳĩл ɗн


 * Clearly you were supporting such an insertion with your warring edits. Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know why we're even having this conversation. I'm on the same side as you! Even though I'm new I know you can't insert new text into the intros of popular pages without having gone by the talk page first. ℳĩл ɗн  21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt you are new, maybe in the Lazarus sense! Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I used to edit as an ip before I got an account if thats what you mean!?MusicInTheHouse (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers! PARANOIA is my middle name :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements
MusicInTheHouse please show me were it was agreed to close the submissions, and were and when editors were notified of this discision? We were all asked to contribute, and notified of the project. -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The inadequacies of the moderators is not a reason to be dragging this whole thing out. I mean you had so long to make another statement yet you waited until there was some room for confusion.It's bad practice on your part and has nothing to do with me.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Participants were not notified of the deadline! Having been given notification of the project, its reasonable for active participants to receive notice. Please WP:AGF which has got something to do with you. Now were is the discussion were it was agreed to close, because I can't see it? -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Flag
I'll ask WT:RU Gnevin (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Grand.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Holy Thursday
Yes, consensus was established in the past. Please see previous discussion. More voices are needed in order to confirm a move that is deemed acceptable. Until then, we will have to rely on previous consensus. Please see my comment on the talk page. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:British Isles
I note that you reverted my edit. Perhaps you would like to comment at the above where it had previously been discussed. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Folens and British Isles
Hi Music. Why did you amend my reference to Folens on the grounds that a citation was required? The citation was in the two links already given, had you checked them. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't spot it in the second reference. You can reinstate it.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Will do so when the page is unprotected (if that ever happens). Skinsmoke (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Kiev or Kyiv
There are two competing spelings of the Ukrainian capital. One has a native Ukrainian origin - «Kyiv» (reads as Kyїv) another one is former colonial Russian «Kiev».

We have a newspaper http://www.kyivpost.com/ Jed Sunden is the Publisher and Brian Bonner is the Chief Editor. Both of them are native English speakers.

I do realize that this part of Wikipedia is English. But using of either Kiev or Kyiv - depends in the ideology. Those who use «Kyiv» - support the Ukrainian fight for the real independence. Those who use «Kiev» - vote for the return of USSR or any otherform of the Russian Empire. --Perohanych (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but use of one or the other has no higher political meaning in the English language. I am supporting the current English language title to be used on Wikipedia. Kiev is what is used in English and Kyiv is the native spelling. If the article is moved then you can input Kyiv wherever you like.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

British Isles naming dispute
Hi MITH. I originally agreed with your proposed move of the "names through the ages" section in British Isles but having now looked at the effect I note the following; anyone who is interested in this aspect of BI history now has to go to an article called British Isles naming dispute. Much of the moved section has nothing at all to do with the so-called dispute, so I'm now a little uneasy with this. An option would be to have yet another article - British Isles naming history or something similar. What are your thoughts on this? MidnightBlue  (Talk)  19:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it tied in nicely to the naming dispute page as it gave a history on the names. It's why I made the proposal. In regards your idea, I doubt editors would want another forked British Isles article but I could be wrong. It could be put on the History of the British Isles page but I think the current status quo is best. But if you raise your concerns on Talk:British Isles then other editors may agree with you.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Butcher's apron
The term "Butcher's apron" is perjorative and as such should not be a straight redirect to the subject it insults. To do so is akin to having nigger as a redirect to African American. Options are an article in its own right, or propose it for deletion if you feel it doesn't merit one. In the mean time I'm reverting it to the change I made, with the addition of a stub tag. Maybe someone will come along and expand it. MidnightBlue  (Talk)  21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Rockall
Hi, MusicInTheHouse- I'm leaving this message as a result of a request at WP:EAR following an apparent editing dispute in which you were involved at Rockall. The party of the second part has asked to discuss the matter at the talk page, where I hope you'll contribute.

I'd also like to suggest to you that you refrain from citing WP:BRD as a rationale for making a second or third revert in a row; to new and inexperienced users, that can seem like process abuse and comes off as rather hypocritical to be sure. While not having looked over the matter myself, I'm in no position to judge which version is "the wrong version", but I think it would have saved the second user a lot of frustration if you'd taken the little extra effort to start a discussion and give a better explanation of your position than an edit summary permits. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm giving you a courtesy notice that if you revert the changes to Rockall I will block you for at least one week for violating 3RR. The discussion must continue until consensus is reached.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I know. I did get your first warning and all I've done since is discuss on the talk page. What are your thoughts on the notability of the section as per my points on the talk page?MusicInTheHouse (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will reply there in a little while. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

FAI International Selection
I notice you added a list of key internationals to this article, what criteria did you use to select these games? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't add them. I reinstated them. Their deletion would have to be discussed on the talk page.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will remove them, and I think you should either find a criteria, or get alterations made to WP:CONSENSUS or Verifiability to support your position before you add such material Fasach Nua (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No once its stable its up to you to prove otherwise.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:CONSENSUS is clearly for you to WP:PROVEIT, the official policy states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.", as the editor who restored this content, I would ask you to add your evidence or revert your edits Fasach Nua (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * After going over it I see you're right.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, one step closer to Featured article :oD Fasach Nua (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Flag
Hi, I notice you have altered my edits to the flag of Irleand. I am unsure of how to describe the status of the Irish Republic, whether to use current or past tense. I know there are a spectrum of views on the issue, for instance the GAA flys the flag of the 32 county republic, not the 26 county one. Is there a slightly more ambiguious form of words that could be used, and allow the reader to make up theri mind? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry whats the issue? The Irish Republic existed between 1919-1922. The country called Ireland now exists so it is the current flag of Ireland and the former flag of the Irish Republic. Wikipedia is not here to acknowledge minority views such as someone ignoring the reputable facts above. ''' M I T H  14:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt consider the GAA a minority group Fasach Nua (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't either, but their view doesn't match the majority of the population of Ireland and so therefore is pure POV. ''' M I T H  14:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

about other people's comments
Why can't we change other people's comments while the editor has dyslexia meaning the spelling isn't always perfect? HMR 14:23, 04 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's Wiki policy that you can't change other people's comments. It's also bad practice to slate someone's spelling, especially as the editor is dyslexic and is trying their best. Their comment is understandable and doing what you did in the way that you did it wasn't beneficial to anyone. Please just try and empathise in future. ''' M I T H  13:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Constituent country
Hey MITH, I expanded the constituent country page to include other states. Have I saved it? Cheers, Night w (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you have! I'll close the merger discussion. ''' M I T H  13:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

McGeady
Well done for reverting vandalism. Remember to warn vandals though. You can use the templates here. Best wishes, --John (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do revert a lot of vandalism. I forgot to warn on this occasion, I use twinkle so that does it for me. ''' M I T H  13:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

British Isles
Hi MITH, you really should put forward your point-of-view at Talk rather than just blindly reverting. Reverting to a "stable version" is meaningless in a wiki environment. You've been asked in the edit summaries to offer you veiws but have not yet done so. MidnightBlue  (Talk)  17:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a point of view other than the fact something should not be inputted until it has consensus. ''' M I T H  18:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Frankie Boyle thing
n't follow. That's the episode of a TV show where he says he released it. I'm not sure what exactly you want to find. It was independantly published and copies are scarce, so it's not like you could find the actual book online, save for a few blogs. Which I'm sure don't count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Van Dyke is AIRWOLF! (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

re: mods
responded on my talk page. --Xavexgoem (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi there. I just noticed your signature, it is really big. Would you please change the font size to not to exceed the size of the surrounding text, as our guidelines specify? Regards  So Why  11:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem will this size do or is that still too big? ''' M I T H  11:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest removing the size= altogether, because otherwise your signature might make problems for people scaling the text to a higher zoom factor and/or those using different OS/browsers/mobile phones/etc.  M I T H   still looks good and readable but it avoid the "sticking out of the crowd"-phenomen which some people do not like and/or associate with editors who wish to make themselves look more important than they are. Regards  So  Why ''' 12:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok I removed the size. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.  M I T H  12:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No harm done, thanks for changing it. Happy editing :-)  So Why  12:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Defunct national football teams
I was just very close to blocking you for engaging in the edit war at this template. You can participate on the talk page, but I don't want too see more reverts. Rettetast (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For reverting vandalism? That would have been a gross error on your part. It's not a content dispute if it breaks the appearance of the template. I was not aware of any dispute nor of any consensus. My reverts were completely good faith.  M I T H  10:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I trust your good faith and that was why I did not block. I don't know how you found the template, but there was a firm warning on the talk page against edit warring. You stepped in a made a revert in an ongoing edit war. When the other party inserted a template to flag what he means is wrong with the template you revert that too on technical gronds. All this without using the talk page. And for the record. You were not reverting vandalism. Please read WP:VAND again. Rettetast (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW. I mentioned you at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Rettetast (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Military history of the peoples of the British Islands
I have removed the prod tag from Military history of the peoples of the British Islands, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! I feel there is still some discussion on naming and or content to go before a consensus, if it is possible, can be reached.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

 * I've just read that section. There is no agreement at all for the changes you made. LevenBoy (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Read some other editors comments It was agreed to trim it. If you have particular problems with the removal of some of the text then post it on the talk page and we can discuss it for it being put back in. It's just a trimming of the sections it's not a big deal.  M I T H  12:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Selected response. No, you're the one promoting the changes, so you put your preferred text on Talk. That's how it's been done up to now, so please continue. We can alll then see precisely what is being suggested. LevenBoy (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think generally too much is being taken out. I'd prefer most, if not all of the content to remain, but worded more concisely. However, the Talk page is now very long and our previous discussion is some way up it and maybe not being noticed. Why don't you put a brief note at the end of the Talk page pointing people in the direction of the discussion, or put your preferred text at the bottom and ask for fresh opinions (at the very least I'd like to see the Lions renaming still mentioned, as you noted). If you get no other views then go with it - people will have had their chance. Thanks. LevenBoy (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A note on blocks
Blocks are preventative not punitive. With the editor indicating that they recognise their mistake and giving an undertaking not to do it again this block has now become punitive. It should have been lifted after the first request. Reverting a clearly disruptive editor is not vandalism. -- Domer48 'fenian'  11:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor there who denied my request was not an admin but a newly created account. How odd. Was that a sockpuppet of the disruptive editor? I hope a real admin comes along and decides to unblock me.  M I T H  11:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Under our blocking policy blocks are preventative not punitive. To continue the block after your undertaking is just being punitive.-- Domer48 'fenian'  11:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not too familiar with the blocking policy but I thought something like that would be the case. Would you be so kind as to contact an admin so that the block be reviewed?  M I T H  11:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What your doing is the right thing, put in your unblock request and it is then picked up by an Admin. Blocks get issued very quick, unblocks not so quickly. -- Domer48 'fenian'  12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 admin response in 18 hours is kind of pushing it though? I'll wait, but its a bit frustrating regarding the circumstances.  M I T H  12:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That's not the worst of it. You now have a block on your block log. If you get into difficulty again, an Admin takes one look at your log says to themselves you’re an edit warrior and issue a block even quicker. I'd fight the block on the grounds that the Admin did not even check into the situation before issuing the block. You have a disruptive POV warrior using IP's, they create an account and continue their disruption and get an editor blocked. Reverting a disruptive editor is not a breech of the three revert rule. Reverting on this occasion was not a content dispute, it was reverting vandalism. -- Domer48 'fenian'  12:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Domer, say what you like about the cicumstances, but it wasn't vandalism, it was a simple content dispute. LevenBoy (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I rarely recommend unblocks, but would in this case. I don't think that reverting edits of a single-purpose POV/troll account should be classified as edit-warring. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding the circumstances. However, you are an admin, if you support my unblock, can you not go ahead and complete the action?  M I T H   13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been in similar circumstances; it's an easy mistake to make. For touchy topics like this, it's best to use a little extra prudence and going through the official channels for dispute resolution first. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input and actions.  M I T H  14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. -- Domer48 'fenian'  14:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I hope that you don't get blocked yourself now for your "bold" actions at Ireland. They are factually correct but I doubt many editors will agree with your changes.  M I T H  14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD, if editors disagree there is always the talk page? However just reverting like this and this without providing any rational is just disruptive. Yeh see the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and having restored material they must now explain why. -- Domer48 'fenian'  15:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop
Disruptive editing at IFA Premiership, IFA Championship, Scouting Ireland and Irish nationality law. Take your issues to the Talk pages and stop edit-warring. Mooretwin (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are removing tags, inputting text without consensus and breaking wiki policy by ignoring WP:ICONDECORATION. It is you who is the disruptive editor.  M I T H  11:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have raised your disruption here. Mooretwin (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)