User talk:Padraig/Archive3

Hidden agenda
This is disruptive, unencyclopedic and unacademic. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for behaving in a way which undermines serious work and discredits and destroys Wikipedia. 84.68.93.126 19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain
See User_talk:Astrotrain. Tyrenius 22:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Irish parliament houses
Hello. I'd like to ask your opinion on two matters regarding this template: 1. The link for "Blue Coat School" goes to a generic page; should the template link to and be included in a more specific one? 2. The template makes reference to 1600s, and early 1700s. I'm inclined to believe these should read 17th century and early 18th century (1600s referring only to the first decade of that century, etc), but perhaps you could confirm. Thank you for your input. Biruitorul 01:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen that template before I have never heard of the Blue Coat School, never mind it being a Irish Parliament, and I have never heard of the National Concert Hall being used either but its is possible as during that period 1919-21 the Dáil was underground and seldom met, and for most of its time many of its members where imprisoned.--padraig3uk 01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Irish parliament houses
It's not quite the first time you've seen it. I'm not overly well up on that period of history to be honest sorry.  One Night In Hackney 303 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Flag template
Went ahead and unprotected, as it looks like there is some discussion going on. If you intend to hold discussion somewhere other than the template talk page, please place an edit on the template talk as to where such a discussion is being held, so that everyone involved can find it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Proposal_for_warning_against_inappropriate_use_of_Northern_Ireland_flag_templates
Sorry I have learned to avoid expressing any opinion on Northern Ireland issues ,too much trouble. I was infact trying get a discussion going on WP:Flags (Gnevin 11:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Both are related issues, as it is hoped the the proposal I have put forward could be used as a basis of other cases of flags, I agree that there is a overuse of flags on WP.--padraig3uk 11:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree both are related but I made myself a promise never to get involved in NI issues again, they are beyond reason. Sorry (Gnevin 11:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

Finucane
Please change that back, until something similar to the Stronge page is in place. Thanks.  One Night In Hackney 303 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If murdered is put on the Stronge page I am gonna pop a cap in someone!--Vintagekits 00:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sfnew.jpg
Hi, I noticed that you uploaded this image and cited yourself as the creator and used the PD licensing. Apologies in advance for the scepticisim, but did you really create this image?  gaillimh Conas tá tú? 07:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you look at the image and compare it to the one used by the party the map in my one is more detailed and shows some of the loughs whereas the party one is just a basic outline map, the colouring is also slightly deeper on my one. I made them for use on another wiki, along with the RSF logo that is used here as well.--padraig3uk 07:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Flags
No problem, I'll strike my opposition. --sony-youth pléigh 09:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Padraig, I was unaware of this "poll". Shows how dodgy these things are. Thanks. (Sarah777 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

Great Fire of London
Hi, Padraig. I removed the anon's addition to Great Fire of London at the same time as you, and never got an edit conflict--weird. Anyway, thanks for reverting, but please be careful about calling edits vandalism. I think that Price stuff was more of an urban legend, added in good faith. Very little is known about how the fire started, and plenty of stories and guesses have rushed in to fill the void. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

NavBox
Yop. I think your appraoch to the nav_box is much cleaner that the big timeline. I have some comments: Since the dates are already included we could take a thematic approach rather than a chronology. Personally, I think the current UK state should be included (if UKGBI is included, why not UKGBNI?). I'd like to see Gaelic Ireland in there - I'm slooooowwwwllllyy trying to write up an article on it - since it ran in parllel to the LoI (and had more control for a longer period). I also never liked histories that just *plunk* started at 1171, like there was nothing here before the English.

I've done up a thematic version based on yours here. I know form of government is quite a week theme to choose, but maybe its also informative and less divisive.

Thanks for the compliment re: the timeline - I shoved it into the Irish states artcile, but suppose you knew that already ;) --sony-youth pléigh 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland
Sorry, I missed one of the section titles that I had intended to correct. My edit summary referred to second level section headings, not first-level, being the standard on WP, but I obviously missed one. Hopefully I've corrected the page properly this time. --Kwekubo 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: North Killiney
The tag (Speedy deletion criteria G1, is for patent nonsense.  It is specifically not for hoaxes. See "Dealing with hoaxes" for how to handle this; you can add a hoax tag; you can nominate for deletion with prod or take it to full AFD.  Since you are familiar with the area around South Dublin, feel free to tag it as a hoax and nominated it for deletion. &mdash; User: (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Padraig - you wouldn't look at the North Killiney section of my Talk Page and sort this out - I'm drowning in bureaucracy. (Sarah777 23:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Template:Northern Ireland elections
Hi. I'm afraid I've reverted your edits, as this is one of a series of standard election templates. Number  5  7  12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it misleading? Number   5  7  12:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The elections from 1921 to 1969 were to the devolved Northern Ireland House of Commons, the 1998-2003-2007 were to the Northern Ireland Assembly those between those date where to interim bodies, and these should not be listed as one list, which is why I split them up to make that clearer to people.--padraig3uk 12:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But they are all elections to some form of Northern Irish parliament, and it will be obvious from the article they link to what kind of parliament the election was for. For other countries, legislative (colonial) assemblies, constitutional assemblies and parliaments are all listed under parliamentary elections in order to keep the templates as simple as possible and let the articles do the explaining. Number   5  7  12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is nothing misleading in the template - they are all listed under "Northern Irish elections", which is exactly what they are! In the template, it is irrelevant what kind of body the elections were for. Number   5  7  12:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The alterations I made to the template is easier to follow, and easier for people to see which election is to what, and in Northern Ireland it does make a difference.--padraig3uk 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the standard election template lists them all under one section. The heading of "Northern Irish elections" covers all of them. Number   5  7  12:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. - Why do you tick all your edits as minor? Number   5  7  12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

By habit, why?.--padraig3uk 12:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a bit strange when some of your edits are quite major. I have seen editors criticised for doing the same with the accusation of trying to hide their edits (as people are less likely to check minor ones), so maybe a habit to lose! Number   5  7  12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know I don't "own" the templates, but it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to standardise, otherwise it will just descend into chaos as every article might end up with a different format and no-one will know what to do. Other politics templates (e.g. Category:"Politics of" templates are also standardised in the same way.
 * At the moment the template is in a compromise format; keeping my preferred standard layout but splitting it into your preferred divisions. Number   5  7  14:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think it matters that the template doesn't have a show/hide option, as it is at the bottom of the article so doesn't exactly get in the way. Number   5  7  15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you could just go back to the original one, which was smaller than your version! I don't think having a hide option is really worthwhile for a 5-line template. Anyway, as I said, every other country includes all kinds of parliamentary elections under one heading, why does NI have to be different? Number   5  7  15:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland
Jonto isn't interested in discussing this, him and Astrotrain are just posting POV tags on the articles because they want to protray the Ulster banner as a offical flag, which it isn't, they seem to just want to engage in edit warring rather then discuss the issue.--padraig3uk 15:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, there will be a way forward. What do you think of my compromise version? --Guinnog 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it, I added the Union Flag image to try and stop their edit warring, but they seem content to promote a POV rather then accept that the Ulster Banner is not offical.--padraig3uk 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking again at your wording: The Union Flag is the only offical flag used for Northern Ireland, as for England, Scotland and Wales, its not technically true as England, Scotland and Wales have recognised national flags, therefore the Union banner is not the only offical flag for them. I will revert your wording for now.--padraig3uk 10:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Can you describe in what way you believe the English, Scottish and Welsh flags have official status? --Guinnog 14:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I' be interested to hear this also. Additonally do the "devolved parliments" in wales and Scotland fly their respective individual national flags or just the UJ?--Vintagekits 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read this the British government when replying about the flags of England, Scotland and Wales, dosen't say that none of these are not offical only that they shouldn't be defaced and treated with respect, but in the case of Northern Ireland the Ulster Banner isn't even refered to in the reply, it just states that the Union Flag is the only offical flag there, that would imply that the others have offical status.--padraig3uk 14:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:


 * What legislation covers the definition of the form, shape and design, and any rules about the permitted use, of (a) the union flag; (b) the English flag (cross of St George); (c) the Scottish flag(St Andrew's saltire) (d) the Scottish royal lion flag (e) the Welsh flag (dragon); (f) the flag of Northern Ireland. [HL1099]


 * 18 Jan 2007 : Column WA181


 * Lord Davies of Oldham: (a & b) There is no legislation that governs the form, shape or size of the union flag or the English flag (St George's cross). There are no rules about the permitted use of the union flag or English flag (cross of St George) on non-government buildings, provided the flag is flown on a single vertical flagstaff and neither the flag nor the flagstaff display any advertisement additional to the design of the flag as explained under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. Government departments are restricted to flying flags on 18 fixed days a year in compliance with rules issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Consideration should also be given to flag protocol, which considers it improper to fly the union flag upside down and requires that the flag should not be defaced by text or symbols and should be treated with respect.


 * (c & d) There is also no legislation that governs the form, shape or size of the Royal Arms of Scotland (here referred to as The Scottish royal lion flag) or the St Andrew's cross, but the design is firmly specified in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland. The Royal Arms of Scotland can only be used by the Sovereign or Her Great Lieutenants when acting in their official capacity. The Scottish flag(St Andrew's cross) may be flown by Scots and to represent Scotland on all occasions; however, under The Act of Lyon King of Arms Act 1672, cap. 47 individuals may not deface the flag by placing a symbol on top of the flag or use it in such a way that suggests it is his/her personal property.


 * (e) There is no specific legislation about the Welsh flag design or rules about permitted use.


 * (f) The union flag is the only official flag that represents Northern Ireland. The Flags (NI) Order 2000 empowered the Secretary of State to make the Flags Regulations (NI) 2000, which governs when and where the union flag can be flown from government buildings in Northern Ireland on specified days. The legislation does not define the form, shape or design of the union flag. Flag flying from non-governmental buildings is unregulated.


 * For all flags, consideration should also be given to flag protocol, which requires flags to be treated with respect, not to be defaced by text or symbols or flown upside down.


 * Interesting. So, to sum up, none of them really have any official status. --Guinnog 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my talk page, the Ulster Banner is the flag of Northern Ireland until such time as an agreed flag is created. beano 11:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Template:Lists of Marilyns. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. — ras52 11:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

NI Parliament succession boxes
Thanks for your work on these - it makes the situation very clear. Warofdreams talk 11:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But...
It is not "incorrect" - if you would like to say "though it does not literally mean..." I would be okay with that, but in practice "we ourselves" and "we alone" mean about the same thing, so it is not a "mistranslation". elvenscout742 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Translation is an art, not a science. Since they mean the same in English (and the Irish refers to either, anyway), the Irish phrase "sinn féin" can be adequately translated as either. Therefore, to call it a mistranslation is to misuse the word "translation". elvenscout742 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Election templates
This obviously needs to be sorted out. The style and format of the election boxes was worked out over a few months and not just by myself. I'm sorry you don't agree with it, and if you really want I can create a base template with a talk page to discuss the format with others.

Also, I see you have been removing the flag from everything related to Northern Ireland, saying it doesn't have an official flag. In fact it does: the Union Jack. According to the British Embassy, "The only official flag of Northern Ireland is the Union Flag". Number  5  7  19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the Ulster Banner which is not an official flag of Northern Ireland, you are correct that the Union banner is the only official flag but it is not an regional or national flag as is used for England Scotland or Wales, and represents the entire UK.--padraig3uk 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, if you want to take up my offer of creating a talk page to discuss the whole election template issue, let me know, but don't bother threatening me with being reported. Number   5  7  20:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that there are three editors for keeping the flags and two against, this means that either (a) there is a consensus that a flag on each line is the better option or (b) that there is no consensus for change to the current model for these templates. Number   5  7  08:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As two of those editors are the creators of these templates and are reverting all attempts by other editors to improve the templates that is not concencus, but a case of yous implying ownership over them, and you can continue this debate on the Template talk:Irish elections page. --padraig3uk 09:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Who the editors are is irrelevant. Also, please don't WP:Canvas. I'm sure I can find editors to come and contribute on my side too. Number   5  7  09:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbhutnot
The bank this person person founded existed since 1833. Organizations with such a long history are considered notable, so it would make sense to have an article on the founder. I have no opinion about the other family members (apart from the ones who are actually a baronet, as I thought the person in this AFD was). - Mgm|(talk) 18:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet
The article, as there were previously James Matthew Stronge's should include his full title. Unfortunately I've made a typing e'rr, as I'm prone to. Can you fix it; the article heading is now under Strogne I believe. --Counter-revolutionary 19:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Counter-revolutionary 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Politics of Northern Ireland
Hi Padraig3uk, The reason I took out all the elections/members for the Northern Ireland Assembly from the template is because generally historic elections and legislative make-up are not included (otherwise it could become a very big template!). These pages are already linked via the and  templates. I thought it was best to keep the template to interlink the current make-up of politics in Northern Ireland, what do you think? « Keith t·e » 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This Template is about the current political setup, the Assembly so I think we should include them, I have also done the same with the template I created for Template:Politics of Northern Ireland 1921-72, and plan to do the same for the interim period of 1973-1986, as they also include links to the members elected.--padraig3uk 19:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Joseph McGarrity
Do you want to have a go at sorting it out please? I'd asked for some help with it from one editor prior to finding out it was a copyvio, as I lack source material for it. I'll have a stab at it otherwise.  One Night In Hackney 303 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'am a adminstrator on that site, and a number of articles here were cut and pasted from there into wikipedia.--padraig3uk 06:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of that. The question is what can be done with that particular article? I don't know how much source material is available, but I'm thinking a better article than that can be written?  One Night In Hackney 303 07:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Its possible that the same editor posted both articles, but as far as I'am aware it isn't, as thats not the username he uses here, I will post a link at present on them to the politics.ie article, and will check with the editor there if he posted them here.--padraig3uk 07:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland
I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but I'd suggest you discuss this on the article's talk page, and if you are going to change it, at least be consistent and change it in both places it appears in the article. Gwernol 14:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree about facts vs. interpretation, but in this area the facts are far from clear: there are differences between official and common uses that we need to recognize. While the flag of Ulster may have a different official status from other flags, its not clear to me exactly what its use in the article should be. Again, this deserves a discussion on the article's talk page so that a consensus can be reached. Gwernol 14:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of minor edit flag
I notice that virtually all of your contributions are flagged as minor edits, including quite a few places where you are involved in edit wars. This may well be an unintentional consequence of however you typically edit Wikipedia, but in any case can you make sure that this flag is only set where the edit is not controversial? It's probably not intended as such, but it could be construed as a disingenuous attempt to slip edits in undetected. Per Help::Minor edit, "reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor". — ras52 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I Just checked 'my preferences' and it was turned on by default, I have unselected the option.--padraig3uk 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. — ras52 16:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland II
I see your still ignoring the discussion in the talkpages and restoring the un-official flag.--padraig3uk 14:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're the one ignoring the discussion on the talk page. With respect, perhaps your time would be better spent writing original content rather than continually engaging in edit wars without first reaching consensus. 163.167.129.124 16:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will continue reverting you until you stop what you are doing or reach a consensus. I am more than happy to engage in a discussion, -- 163.167.129.124 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, keep it up, but I will not let this go. Why do you keep deleting User:Vintagekits message without responding to it..? My message is in your history and deleting it shows you have read it. 163.167.129.124 10:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you not stop yappin for just two minutes eh! And while your at it sign up for an account cos I am not going to take you seriously until you do!--Vintagekits 10:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fathers Rights-Responsibility Party
They tried to register but are not actually registered. "Not a registered party, although this is a bone of contention for the group which has applied for registration but claims it has been 'denied' this." - Irish Times, Saturday, May 19, 2007, Page 8.

Also, the same article states the the 'People Before Profit Alliance' recently registered as a political party but not in time to feature on ballot papers. Snappy56 13:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "However, candidates representing groupings such as the People Before Profit Alliance, the Fathers' Rights Responsibilities Group and the Immigration Control Platform will appear on the ballot papers without their groups' names as these groups have not been registered as political parties." From the article you linked Irish Times Snappy56 13:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to add both People Before Profit Alliance and the Fathers' Rights Responsibilities Group into the template then go ahead, I wont' revert. I assume they will be properly registered after the election. As for you comment on PBPA being a front for SWP, I couldn't say as that would be POV! ;-)
 * Also don't add in the Immigration Control Platform (aka the Irish Nazi Party) as they have not applied for political status (source is same IT article). Snappy56 13:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I like your new userbox!
oh yeah! ;) --Vintagekits 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I nicked it from you, and made a slight improvement.--padraig3uk 17:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist Party
Your citation is dubious at best, since virtually every other recognised authority (see Nationalist party talk page) lists the party as 'Nationalist Party' that appears to be a mistake on the part of Longman. Valenciano 12:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The term Nationalist Party was in common usage when refering to them, just as provisional and official Sinn Féin was used in relation to those parties none of them ever used the name officially though.--padraig3uk 12:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You wrote on my talkpage : "There is no concencus to change the name of the party or merge the articles, so don't edits links ontil such time as that is sorted"


 * This I will be happy to do but I would also ask that you reciprocate, as despite Damac pointing out to you that the Nationalist Party term was used, you have continued to change references to Nationalist Party to National Party. Valenciano 17:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The British Isles
The use of the term "IONA" is disputed so stop adding reference to it. 84.68.67.13 19:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop putting messages on my user page, you are vandalising WP, please refain from doing so.--padraig3uk 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, I have now protected Template:British Isles - I'm not amused. Sort out your issue with 84.68.67.13 by discussion, not with constant edits to this widely used template. Continue on other templates and you will be blocked. Thanks/wangi 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for protecting the template, could you please restore the IONA disputed terminology banner on the template that he was removing.--padraig3uk 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not getting involved in any content dispute... Or "the wrong version" has been protected discussions. Discuss the issue, widen it out to related articles and wikiprojects and get the input of other editors. I'm not trying to be an arse here, just it is trying to see those constant reverts and things going back and forward. As I said, widen out out the discussion and get consensus among a larger group of editors. I guess Mr IP is User:163.167.129.124 too... /wangi 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He has refused to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article and is now engaged in vandalising my talk page dispite being ask not to post there, He is doing this because I put a warning on his talk page for breaking WP:3RR and one for continuing to vandalise the template page.--padraig3uk 21:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Discuss it with other users on relevant talk pages then, invite involved parties to that discussion. Get consensus for adding that addition back in and I'll unlock the page. By following this path you have real consensus to show support for the inclusion of the text. Thanks/wangi 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wangi, it is not fair to castigate Padraig over this issue, The IP editor was requested to discuss the issue on a number of occasions and reverted 10 times despite a number of editors trying to reason. Sometimes new IP editors can not be reasoned with. I dont think anyone tried to bite him either as is shown from the warnings and attempts to discuss.--Vintagekits 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The text has been included in the template for months, until this user started removing it, I didn't put the text into the template I was just reverting his removal of it without discussion.--padraig3uk 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I'm really really not trying to be a pain here... But there's nothing on the template talk page, likewise can't see anything much on the user's talk page before stern messages and warnings. Get consensus for linking in IONA (why in the table header? shouldn't it be in the table body?). Similar behaviour led to the United Kingdom regions template being protected, so perhaps going down the same road on this template wasn't the correct way to do it? Work with new editors, and assume good faith - agreed that it can be trying at times. Nothing's lost if a link to IONA is "missing" for a while so a amicable solution can be reached. /wangi 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Vintagekits 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

UK
Please stop removing the Northern Ireland flag icon from the UK article. You took the matter to the talk page and the consensus was to leave as is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not the flag of Northern Ireland, and I don't need concencus to remove false information and POV from articles.--padraig3uk 19:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll just get yourself blocked and eventually banned if you act without consensus here.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You should read the rules of WP, concencus is not require to remove false information and POV, the Ulster banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland and is only used today by Unionist/Loyalists, it cannot even be flown for government building in the north, wishful thinking on the part of one part of the population dosent make it a de-facto flag, when it is rejected by a sizeable minority in a divided community.--padraig3uk 19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The word is "conSenSus", not concencus.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have gotten down as low as pointing out speeling mistokes then I rather think that you has lost the argument. regards--Vintagekits 22:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

NI flag mentioned in Essay
Padraig, were you aware of this? --sony-youth pléigh 22:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasnt aware of it - but it sums up the current positon very well and should be enforced vigorously.--Vintagekits 22:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was it was one of reasons I proposed putting a notice on the template.--padraig3uk 23:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/3RR
Hi Padraig Could you take a look at the stub Britain and Ireland and the talk around it. I'm reverting vandalism and being accused of 3RR. Need a second opinion. (Sarah777 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Template:Constituencies in the South West 1918-1945
Just incase you didnt get my response on my talk page: Thankyou. To answer your question before the war, Bournemouth was in Hampshire, rather than in Dorset (where it is today), so I was providing a small note for people who thought it might have gone missing. But if it isnt necessary then you might aswell remove the note. Jammydodger 14:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

1981 Hungerstrike
Looks hideous. One Night In Hackney 303  09:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on template talk page. If you want to make a case for the different template feel free. One Night In Hackney  303  19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

4 June 2007
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists of Marilyns Mediation Cabal
Consider yourself summoned DBD 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers
Hey there, thanks for the tip. Ryannus 14:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, no
I'm not wrong, I stick to what sources say. Tell you what, instead of being an edit warrior, why don't you improve articles to the extent I have? If you want to carry on this way be my guest, I'm sure I can find plenty of other things to do with my time.... One Night In Hackney 303  21:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I give you about five sources to point out your error you refused to accept them, I don't want to get into a edit war over this but your source was incorrect, as I have proven to you.--padraig3uk 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Mc prep page
I started a page here for ya. Get stuck in. Remember the Irish republicanism project stand for quality not quanity!--Vintagekits 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sinn Féin logo
Please stop reverting and discuss first. – Ilse@ 11:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville
Thank you for your contribution on the above AfD. Your time and effort is much appriciated. regards--Vintagekits 01:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of the Ulster Banner
Can you go here before I lose the rag and get banned for life from this place.--Vintagekits 00:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image
All fairuse images need a rationale. If you want to keep the image add one. It doesn't need a generic fair use tag if it is using the DVD cover one (as this is already a fair use tag for specific purposes). The DVD tag specifically states that the uploader should provide a rationale. Astrotrain 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:24.203.217.170
I don't think he means banned. He means blocked, and the block for User:Laderov has expired. He should log on with the user name, but technically no offence, unless he's pretending to be two different people. Tyrenius 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hi
I know your point on talk pages wasn't aimed at me, since I've been on holiday and not editing for 2 weeks :). Just thought I'd explain anyway.  PS - When you leave a message on my talk page am I supposed to reply there or on yours? beano 11:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flags issue
Hi Padraig3uk. I see we disagree on whether all or some sports teams representing NI use the UB. I invite you to discuss this in article talk. See you there. --John 04:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again Padraig3uk. You asked me to have a look at Northern Ireland flags issue and specifically at the behaviour of User:Astrotrain. I had a good look at the article history and it would seem you've both been edit-warring over the same two versions. When I tried to make a compromise version you reverted me. I thought your contribution to the article talk was less than constructive too. Rather than complaining about the behaviour of other editors, you could in future try to make suggestions there towards building a consensus. That way lies collegiality and harmony. As a contributor to the article myself, I would never take administrative action should it become necessary, though I trust it will not. You may nonetheless consider yourself warned for edit-warring. Please, take your own advice and take it to talk the next time, as I am trying to do, rather than reverting. Thanks. --John 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I also ask you to check his breach of 3RR on another template which you didn't seem to do.--padraig3uk

(copied from my talk)
 * You give him a warning for edit warring on the NI flag issue, but ignored Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations where he has done the same, and breached 3RR.--padraig3uk 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's right, and I warned you too. Please use talk rather than reverting in future. WP:AN3RR would be the place to report the 3RR case; I don't have time to investigate it at the moment, especially if you are in a hurry. Best wishes, --John 04:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied text ends)

Sorry, I assumed you would have watched my talk page as well. --John 06:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi padraig3uk. Thanks for your message on my talkpage. I'll have a look at the incident later today when I have sufficient time to spend on it. I certainly looks like there has been edit-warring from a number of parties. In the meantime you should make a 3RR report, as John suggests, at WP:AN3RR and a patrolling admin will deal with it quicker. Rockpock  e  t  17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations
Hi. You asked me to look at an instance of 3RR on this template by User:Astrotrain. I had a look and it looks to me as if neither one of you has technically breached 3RR on the template, but both of you have edit-warred back and forth over the same two versions of the template. I can see nine attempts by you to remove the flag from the template since April and only five posts from you on the talk page. The ratio should be far the other way. As an experienced wikipedian I am sure you do not need me to tell you that edit-warring is bad, irrespective of strict breaches of 3RR. You must take issues like this to the talk page or to centralised discussion. You must not continually revert your preferred version. Instead you should strive towards consensus and compromise in discussion with other editors with whom you disagree. As I see you have been previously blocked for 3RR, I will consider this your absolute final warning for edit-warring. The next time I see you edit-warring, I will ensure you get a long block. Please let's not go there.

If you disagree with my assessment of the situation please feel free to file a report at WP:AN3RR and another admin will review it.

Finally let me assure you that I will treat everybody equally here. I am fed up with the negative tone and bickering on Northern Ireland-related subjects and am determined to do what I can to improve things around here. Be warned. --John 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins of an Irish Nationalist disposition
If you find them please let me know. --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus  16:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your protection of Template:Northern Ireland infobox
Hi Tariqabjotu, I'm not sure that your protection of that template is all that useful. When I first separated the infobox out of the main article (Northern Ireland) as a single-transclusion template, the intent was to keep the main article unprotected for other non-infobox related edits, while the dispute on the infobox played out. However, since the main article is currently unprotected, editors are able to create their own versions of the infobox and put it in the main article, completely bypassing the protected template. This has already happened. My attempt at dispute resolution was a failure. I think the proper course of action is to reverse my work and put the infobox code back inline into the main article and protect that instead. Thanks, Andrwsc 21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That might work. Perhaps this should be presented to WP:ANI for more feedback, however. appears to have been disruptive with flags in a lot of places. --  tariq abjotu  22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I comment on this, firstly Andrwsc, you did created a seperate template to allow the Northern Ireland article to be unprotected, something I agreed with, and also something I did myself in the past if you care to check through the edit history over the past 6 months, on that occassion the template was nominated for deletion by another editor involved in the dispute on the flag issue.


 * The template you created this time you didn't protect when you created it, dispite being told it would need protection to prevent an edit war, you then allowed one editor to reinsert the flag, and carry out 7 reverts in a 48hr period, before you protected the template and give that editor a warning about edit warring dispite the fact they had broken 3RR and should have been blocked from editing, yet you failed to revert the template back to it original state.


 * There are a small group of editors trying to use WP as a soapbox to promote a particular political POV on Northern Ireland the flag issue is only part of that they are also pushing the notion that all Northern Ireland people are Northern Irish as a ethic group or nationality, this is completely false as people in Northern Ireland can either regard themselves as British, Irish or with duel British/Irish nationality, Northern Irish is a Unionist creation.


 * I believe that WP should present the facts of the political situation in Northern Ireland, in this the Official Flag is the Union Flag, not the Ulster Banner. I also have no objection to the use of the Ulster banner in its proper context, when dealing with the period of 1921-72, I even used the Ulster Banner in this Template:Politics of Northern Ireland 1921-72 template I created to deal with the government and elections of that period, nor do I object to its use when dealing with sports people that identify with that flag or play in the commonwealth games under that flag.  But I do object with their attempts to protray the Ulster Banner as representing Northern Ireland and its government today or since 1972.--padraig3uk 02:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would second that, Padraig has done more than most to resolve this issue, I would assert that it is the actions of that we need to be looking at as I believe the he creates the problems regarding this issue on many pages. --Vintagekits 02:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Padraig's creation of a second template to avoid the protection for Template:Northern Ireland infobox says enough. --  tariq abjotu  02:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A second template in my opinion is very necessary and has been discussed for some time on the Northern Ireland talkpage - I again see this as a great effort on his behalf to resolve this issue. --Vintagekits 02:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to see where that was discussed. --  tariq abjotu  02:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, here is a good start and linked to threads either side.--Vintagekits 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That thread has nothing to do with this template. --  tariq abjotu  02:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Look on the Talkpage of the Northern Ireland article and the archives of that as well, also on Andrwsc talk page, I ask him before I created the template to revert the edits made by User:Setanta747 who was edit warring and made 7RR in a 48hrs period, back to the version he first created to enable the main Northern Ireland article to be un-protected, when he refused to do this I ask him if I created a new template to restore the template would he protect that, he didn't respond to my question, therefore I went ahead and did it as for WP:Bold. So my creation of the second template wasn't to avoid protection, but to restore the original template that the creating admin should have protected in the first place.--padraig3uk 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (removing indent) did not violate the 3RR because he was reverting sock- and meatpuppets. The template was obviously a bad idea and an attempt to circumvent the protection; Andrwsc not responding to your comment within thirty-six minutes is no excuse for seeing that as acceptable. --  tariq abjotu  03:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If Andrwsc had protected the template in the first place then would not have been able to edit war on the template, we did tell Andrwsc that a edit war would start if it wasn't protected, as for  reverts he wasn't reverting socks and meatpuppets he was edit warring against editors trying to stop him altering the template against the consensus agreed prior the current debate.--padraig3uk 04:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * was clearly reverting sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets, as the history shows. Whether (s)he was reverting against consensus (and I'm skeptical there was one) is irrelevant here. --  tariq abjotu  04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)