User talk:SitNGo

Cheaters never prosper/The end doesn't justify the means/etc
Welcome to Wikipedia.

Please see our policy on sockpuppets. Thanks. Djegan (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you edited as User:Wikipéire before? Djegan (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello my friend, hello. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but there are a few of us who were willing to give you a chance, and to pave the way for a legitimate come back to the project. (IE: not under some new obvious sockpuppet) However, this would be contingent on your acknowledgement that this editwarring, sockpuppetry and other disruptive BS is not appropriate, and not the way forward. And generally agree to abide by the flippin rules.

The longer you keep up this socking nonsense, the further away that goal gets. Ultimately this path (as you must see by now) WON'T help your cause. Not least because your socks stand out by miles.

Frankly - at this point - even measured and otherwise reasonable edits by any one of your socks will be reverted. On sight. Because anything done under the flag of deception and falsehood cannot be accepted as truth. No matter what.

Did you ever hear the phrase "cheaters never prosper"? Well, if you continue to "cheat" then no matter what you do, it won't stand. So stop bloody cheating.

(Oh. And another thing. Claiming that an MOS guideline supports your case, while shitting all over the general/user behaviour guidelines is just laughable. Besides which, the IMOS doesn't say what you keep saying it does. It's a recommendation to pipe for towns and related geographic stuff. Where ambiguity isn't a critical issue. Not everywhere.) Guliolopez (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The IMOS talk page does. The guideline hasn't been updated. This is an international page, where amiguity doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SitNGo (talk • contribs)
 * RE: IMOS. It's not a guideline then yet then is it. RE: CTA. Ambiguity doesn't exist? Now you're just fooling yourself. Do you really think the average uninformed reader is going to understand an intro which says something to the effect: "Ireland (meaning 1) has no patrolled internal borders under the CTP. Not even between Ireland (meaning 2) and N.Ireland - which is a subset of Ireland (meaning 1)." Really? Ambiguity definitely exists. It's the same ambiguity (Whether "Irish border" means the border *in* Ireland (meaning 1), or *with* Ireland (meaning 2)) is why the Irish border article was renamed. Guliolopez (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If the island of Island of ireland is mentioned in one or two spots then the article can be improved to make sure that it clear its not the country its refering to. Can you tell me that an uniformed reader will not confuse ROI to be the name of the state because of the intro? There's more than one problem here and one problem is not more important to than the other. There are two confusions going on, one of them should not be ignored, especially when its backed by fact and when one is a hypothetical issue. Articles like Northern Ireland and the Ireland island pages fair enough, but that argument doesn't override fact completely for a page like CTA. Both sides can be sorted out. SitNGo (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be right on one point there. That this can be sorted out. But not through socking and editwars. Until you *demonstrably* stop with these two "tactics" however, there is no point in discussing it. Because nobody will be bothered with a discussion where one contributor isn't trusted to work within the context of collaboration. So, as I've suggested to you before, use this latest account of yours LEGITIMATELY for a few weeks or so. Avoiding the articles or subjects that you've been too tempted to be disruptive with before. And then - maybe - you can get involved in a measured and constructive discussion on wording or context that helps address a compromise between the "official name" point and the "help the reader understand" point. Guliolopez (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can avoid socking and 3RRing and discuss issues instead no problem, however I can't promise to avoid things I'm interested in. I understand your point and I will make an effort to avoid to directly edit the "controversial" edits from the past, but will still discuss the issues if they come up.SitNGo (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur, some of your recent edits have been positive, so if you are prepared to declare the socks and ask for re admittance under supervision/conditions I would support you. But you have to go legit.  -- Snowded   TALK  14:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to go legit, I haven't edit-warred or have done any bad or misleading edits yet still blocked and reverted so if these terms/conditions were reasonable, I'd be more than happy.SitNGo (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you start by listing your various socks here and given an undertaking that you will stop creating them. That would be a gesture of good faith.  -- Snowded   TALK  14:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They've all been banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Wikip%C3%A9ire


 * I'd be delighted to stop using them, using just one account is what I want to do.SitNGo (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the things that has continously dogged the whole issue is the sockpuppets. Rather than discussing the issue, instead its turned into smoke and mirrors. Good faith editors on both sides think they are making progress, building relationships, teasing out the issues; only for a big stinker of a sockpuppet to sabotage the whole issue. Sockpuppets will accomplish little except isolating people who broadly want what they want. Djegan (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipiere has proven countless times, he can't be trusted. I've no desire to support his reinstatement. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. How can we be expected to work with and give good faith to an editor who has time and time again broken the rules? An editor that has created a number of sockpuppet accounts for the purposes of slyly and sneakily getting outcomes they want? Djegan (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said to GoodDay, if you do not wish to cooperate and wish to get rid of me, you know what to do, you've done it before.SitNGo (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to British Isles
You are now making broad changes to the British Isles article some of which are mislabeled - taking out a whole referenced paragraph is more than tidying up. Image moves were good, possible some of the OR around history should go (other editors may revert you there). However the two I have reverted are controversial and are pushing the limits of your agreements above. -- Snowded  TALK  18:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just being bold, the section was too long and complicated, I just removed what I thought had little to do with the actual name. If you disagree fine. The notice at the top of the article is there for a reason.SitNGo (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For editor without your history that would be a reasonable statement. However given your disruptive history as a sock puppet on all matters British/Irish you need to be far more circumspect.  See GoodDay's comment above to illustrate this.  It only takes one report of sock puppetry for this ID of yours to be blocked instantly.  So if I were you I would edit with care, be seen to consult on the talk page first and generally be very careful.  You might want to ask for a mentor (would be an indicator of good intentions on your part.  -- Snowded   TALK  18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, though I have no idea what that entails, so I can't say anything on that.SitNGo (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This account should be blocked, Wikipiere's sockpuppet #21 (and counting). GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's how you feel, well then you know what to do.SitNGo (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, oppose your re-instatement. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have no idea then get someone to mentor you, but I begin to doubt the wisdom of suspending belief about your incorrigibility. -- Snowded  TALK  18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll sit on the fence for the moment. I will probably be reported pretty soon by GoodDay or some other editor, so I do acknowledge that mentorship is a good concept for me getting back on track. But if this account isn't going to be here tomorrow, then I won't proceed into anything yet.SitNGo (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Report you? no (not my style). But, should you get re-instated (which is beyond my control)?, you'll have to earn others trust (again). GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. DDStretch   (talk)  18:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd hardly call it vandalism now, where is the evidence of that?SitNGo (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not gonna earn others trust, that way. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just supported some of your edits on British Isles on the talk page - best for you to let other people defend you in the first place when you are doing good work. You are going to get a lot o suspicion and some provocative comments.  If you try and avoid reacting to those it would help.    DDStretch (I think) is not referencing all of the edits but the early ones (see my rv)  -- Snowded   TALK  15:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, I've been blocked by Jza84. Hmm.SitNGo (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have just put a comment asking him to think again. Strongly suggest you do not react, but let me see what I can do.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All I did was revert an ip back to the stable version. I'm heading out now anyway, I'' be back in a few hours and see what happens.SitNGo (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was nothing to do with that edit. It was implementation of policy on sock puppets.  Look (and you can see) I am trying to work out a possible way forward.  The best thing you can do is stay out of this for a few days.  Any new IP addresses which look remotely like you or protesting the way you have been treated here is likely to make things worse.  If you want to talk to me off line by user page has an email linkage.  I'm not promising anything but I will try (and I realise that I may be being very naive in doing so).  -- Snowded   TALK  15:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The best thing Wikipéire can do is stay out of the name issue indefinitely. Sorry but too much time and good faith was extended in the past on this issue. No one person is going to bully the rest of us into an "Ireland" solution or tinker with articles and subdue the rest of us. Djegan (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Look Djegan, I suffered under his multiple attempts to make the welsh language unofficial and to reduce the status from 'country'. You disagree with him over Ireland.  Fine.  He is a sock puppet, he has been blocked (but not banned) and if he comes back in it will be with lots of conditions if Arbcom will agree.  I've never felt bullied or subdued however, but each to his own.  -- Snowded   TALK  16:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are obviously a man with a forgiving nature Snowded. My first instinct is to disagree with your suggestion to give him another chance, but then why not? I see no harm in telling him this is his last chance, and if he doesn't go along with any restrictions put on him then it's goodnight Wikipeire. Jack forbes (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG
The policy also says Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables, infoboxes or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand. I changed golfer's nationality section, as golfers are typically representing their country. It also says Never use a flag for birth or death place, since doing so may imply an incorrect citizenship or nationality. That implies that using it for nationality is fine. Since these are golfer infoboxes, these are the "sporting nationalities" of these players, as constantly reinforced in typical golf coverage in the media. I don't see prohibitions on this usage at all, and all golfer infoboxes have used flags in this sense for a long time. I do not see a policy prohibition against this at all. Can you please revert them back? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And the policy quite explicitly says flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or sporting nationality, which is what these are. Golfers do not have a national team or squad.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It also says "discouraged" not "forbidden". It is typical in golf coverage to use flags to indicate a golfer's country; this is one case where I feel they should be allowed.  I do not see any assumption that the flags (when indicating sporting nationality) are forbidden from a sporting infobox.  That is a recent change as well... it may have meant to be a clarification of policy but that part would be a large change, and contradicts existing practice.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinately
I've blocked you again for evasion of your ban. You're very easy to spot, so don't do this again please. --Jza84 | Talk  15:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My apolgoies Wikipiere
I mistakenly thought you were banned from Wikipedia. You're not banned, but rather indef blocked (as a Sockpuppet Master). When I'm wrong, I admit it - I was wrong on this issue, sorry. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize GoodDay. I've done a lot more wrong then anything you've ever done. ;) At the moment it doesn't matter what label they apply to me; I still can't edit......SitNGo (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that constrained response.  I've been having some conversations and despite discouragement would still like to do something.   I will put a proposal up later today or tomorrow (I have to fly back from California and may not get time before I have to head off for the airport).  -- Snowded   TALK  10:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * California? It's good for some! Thanks a lot for your efforts, I do really appreciate them; if indeed also confused by their contrasting nature with say Matt's actions. Anyway, don't worry about it, enjoy your remaining time in the sun. I'll survive.SitNGo (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward
OK I have thought about it and have some suggestions. So bullets below


 * You have to stop all edits under any name or IP without exception until you are officially permitted back in. Any sock puppets, IP addresses etc in use no matter how sensible and I withdraw all support.  If you have an edit you think is critical post it on my talk page and I will make it for you if its not vandalism/edit warring.  If you have used an IP address or other name since 26th September please confess it now don't leave it to discovery
 * You need to write some sort of explanation of why you have created over 20 sock puppets and ignored constant warnings. There has to be some reason for this and without one its going to be difficult
 * You would need to accept a mentor for a period of time who would check edits etc.
 * You would have to agree to not editing on sites where you have a record of disruption - ie re-establish a reputation first.
 * You would have to acknowledge that this is a last chance

If you are happy with that, and provide the explanation then I will post a request to Arbcom and attempt to get support. I am just another editor so I can make no promises. But I am prepared to make the attempt. -- Snowded  TALK  09:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to weigh in and conditionally endorse that plan. Also, you'll be regularly checkusered for a while, a la Vintagekits unblock, I can guarantee that happening, too - A l is o n  ❤ 09:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse proposal also. Guliolopez (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delayed response, it appears Jza84 altered my ban so I couldn't even edit my own talk page! That plan seems fine by me. Just one or two questions on what exactly it entails. So I can't edit where I have a record of disruption? Does that include talk pages too; say if a new consensus is being proposed? Am I starting a fresh on a new account or do I have to go back to a previous account? I am also wary of what happened with this account happening again; ie just blocked on site for previous actions irrespective of the current situation. I am happy with the clauses and will embrace them, but if you could clarify a bit more so I know exactly what I can and can't do. Again thanks for going out of your way to construct a proposal to get me back editing.213.202.131.35 (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that a change to various defaults took place which would have prevented you from editing on your own talk page: nothing positive that Jza84 would have had to do at all. My reading of the conditions is that the talk pages of articles associated with your vandalism/sock-puppetry would also be included, and I would also add that as sign of good faith, I would expect you to embrace steering well clear of all the articles, their associated talk pages, and perhaps even the project pages directly concerned with topics covered by the articles on which you have engaged in sockpuppetry/vandalism so far. So, you shouldn't press this point from now on at all. In other words. You would be on probation and you would be allowed to edit only articles that are quite separate and unconnected with your previous actions. That will allow us to see whether you can sustain the role of editor well away from previous areas where you stirred up so much trouble. I imagine that eventually, after proven abilities to be a well-behaved editor, you may be cautiously allowed to return to some of the areas linked with articles which you behaved badly on before, but that would all depend on your proven and demonstrable change of behaviour. The rest of the consitions seem straight forward. If that is the reading, then I would endorse the suggestions. However, I do not think I could if you were allowed to have any editing contact with any of the areas you were active in before, at least for the time it took to prove to us that you have reformed. DDStretch   (talk)  17:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * : Hopefully you can see there is good will here but its fragile.  Just to clarify, I think you have to agree to edit under a single name, no IPs.  Critically we need you to make a statement here which explains just why you generated 20 socks and what is now different which will give us confidence it won't happen again.  -- Snowded   TALK  20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My sock history.
 * Ok so I started off at User:Melvo but after a few months I setup a completely new account User:Wikipéire as I wasn't happy with my previous user name. I hadn't edited much previously so I didn't see it as a problem. I edited perfectly ok up until a vote on Talk:Republic of Ireland. Stupidly I went back to my old account to register an additional vote. I was banned for this. I still wanted to edit and felt I much to give so I setup a new account under the name of User:Pureditor. I also setup an alternative account under the name of User:Mulacho to edit the article Editors as I knew a certain editor would be patrolling its pages in order to get me banned, as he percieved me to 'have wasted a lot of his time' on Welsh issues. After posting on the admins noticeboard, I was automatically check usered and banned for this. At this stage I felt hard done by as I felt bureaucracy overlooked my edits. I still felt that there were many issues that needed sorting out - especially the inaccurate use of the British colloquial name of my country which I felt was misleading throughout Wikipedia. I then setup many accounts to avoid the block and continue to edit. After continious blocks it became clear that me socking was of no benefit to Wikipedia as it wasting everyone's time. It was obvious to those involved that I needed to start a fresh and do things by the book if I wanted to improve things. I now acknowledge what I did was wrong and I need to edit only using one account.213.202.131.35 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks I will draft something and put it forward. In the mean time patience don't edit.  -- Snowded   TALK  21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to point out that Wikipeire is still blaming others - Matt Lewis, Jza84, "a certain user" (somehow guilty by name - a game he is playing here imo - hardly contrite). This 'rehabilitation' is surely against policy.


 * Also a couple of facts: User Melvo was made over a year before Wikipeire was made - he is misleading you already in saying a 'few months', and he left out User:Petitpois as an early sock - not to mention his IP-use to cheat consensus, very often on the Editors article (a minor indie band). The question is: did he feel 'hard done by' as an Irishman over the many edits to a minor indie band, that he habitually used socks and IPs to make work for him?


 * The whole "OK.." paragraph by him is unconvincing for me. Also, I'm not hugely happy with Snowded being an advocate for him, simply as he doesn't in my eyes deserve it.


 * It is up to people here if they take my advice and experience forward. If I didn't chase him as I did, he would have a number of settled user accounts now: and he always used his socks in combination to gain consensus, not just in sequence upon discovery of an old one. It is hard to uncover a sock account that has built people's trust. It does seem that Wikipeire was mostly the 'OK, that one is discovered - so I'll start another' type - but I'm not so sure it's always been that way, and what would have have done with all the Ovlem accounts?


 * So much for his apologies here too - I haven't seen one, and I object to the subtle deflection of guilt upon myself here - the main person who has chased him down.


 * Admins are effectively putting a dysfunctional user into a place of power imo, it would seem because they are worried about the abuse he can cause. I haven't seen any great edits. The weakness in the logic here is that if we knew he was 'over' the socking, we wouldn’t have to offer him this deal, as he would simply stop socking. This deal is simply to stop him from socking more. But IMO it will feed his ego, and he will carry on building accounts, and try and push at the 'safety net' of being under a monitor. And we are aking for a lot of patience - when was he ever a patient editor? His first edits as Wikiepeire in Feb 08 were to pipe-link Ireland – he’s done it ever since, no matter what's been put in his way. He seems the very oposite of patient, and that is pretty clear in his unapologetic response above.


 * Without people like myself around prepared to put in the work into looking at possible socks, you can easily miss his new socks too. It isn’t as easy as people think to catch them (a lot of work must go into it) - especially if they start by editing on unrelated topics, and build up that trust. The occasional 'scan' of new users doesn't strike me as much help if Wikipeire simply ups his game on how he prepares his socks.


 * By the way - he's also done things like counter-accuse me of sockpuppetry (on the same accounts) to deflect from himself - do those kind of sins get lost amongst it all? It seems to me they do.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, if you can provide the proof in the form of diffs, etc that SitNGo has withheld information in the formation of this request, then I would certainly change my mind to ask that he or she person is not reinstated in even a limited way, as he or she will not have been fully open about the extent of disruption that he or she has caused before. Consequently, I would see no reason at all to even begin to trust him or her.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would change my attitude to Matt, although issues of ego, lack of contriteness, accusations of various types are not unusual in established editors (I can think of several examples) so that of itself would not be enough. My editing has been somewhat restricted by issues at home the last couple of weeks but I pan to put the case forward shortly.  Overall my view is that if we can rehabilitate editors we should, just as we should put up with intemperate outbursts from others as long as they do good work most of the time  -- Snowded   TALK  07:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Proof of Wikipeire's falsehoods in his SITNGO statement above:


 * I shouldn't really have to be made to do this: Wikipeire (as SITNGO) foolishly said above it was a "couple of months" between his User:Melvo and User:Wikipéire accounts. It was over 15 months. This is his first edit as Melvo on December 12, 2006, and this is when he created Wikipeire on February 23, 2008. He also said he "I edited perfectly ok up until a vote on Talk:Republic of Ireland." but 9 days after creating Wikipéire he socked as Melvo with this - and it was not an "additional vote" (nor were the ones near to it). I can't actually see where the "vote" he refers to is - so maybe that was another sock he's thinking of? I've always said I felt he had another sock going on around that time, made some time before Wikipeire. Either way, he is not even bothering to be honest with you, when given your open attitude he actually could have been (for the time being anyway).


 * To say Wikipeire's lack of contriteness (actually no apology at all) and his poorly-toned accusations here "would not be enough" to distrust him on alone is ludicrous - he has 22 socks and a load of deception behind him! He can't even start to apologise, and he can't stop from being trollish.


 * If he was obsessively placing Republic of Ireland back from a piped 'Ireland' - would you be doing this for him Snowded? I've asked you that before, and it is no small point - you are entitled to be biased if you genuinely feel he was doing a service, but I am also entitled to bring it up as a clear bias. I'm against the ROI as a title too - but the piping was misleading people about Ireland given the current identically named island article - and hugely disruptive to Wikipedia - esp as people were trying to move forward on the issue while he was pissing around, sock after sock. He was a total pain in the arse to those people like myself trying to make a stable basis to work on. I wonder what you think I must be thinking about all this. He has seriously upset people up way beyond the point where they sould be forced to give him a new AGF after all the lawbreaking.


 * He's just not you editor you want him to be. When established as Wikipeire, he used Melvo in April to claim that Scotland is not only not a country, but is not even a nation - that is the kind of editor he is. You should save yourself the time of looking for great edits – despite what Gullopez is supposed to have said - there aren’t any. I've been through him more than most - he makes edits you agree with, or edits you don't. There are no 'great' ones. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, I stand by all my comments above. The only thing I will add is that as you well know he edit warred with me on several issues (Wales as a country, Welsh as a language).  So you can't say (as you have implied) that I am acting in favour of some agenda.  To be honest I find this sort of snide comment as irritating and unproductive as this multiple sock puppeteer.  I live with it due to the quality of the editing work that you do, and the same tolerance was behind a willingness to see (under strict conditions) if we could redeem this particular editor.  It was worth a try. -- Snowded   TALK  21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you didn't leave the offer 'open' to him, I wouldn't have repeated that! I have to put this to rest. I can't understand why you are so keen to have him brought back. It will make him harder to bring to task - and if that happens, we will only be back to square one, with all the man hours wasted in between. Neutrality (by which I mean lack of prior involvement) is really needed for an undertaking like this anyway. My point is not over an 'agenda' - it is that any opinion of Wikipeire (his unlawfulness aside) is bound to depend on a bias for or against his edits. He is simply that kind of editor. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Matt, I don't agree with your last sentence. It might be how you see it, but not me.  I had hoped we could get him into a single ID, and with control, he would have learned that its better to be a productive editor.  We could also show that its perfectly possible to have strong opinions but stay legit (you would be a good role model there).  Either way, its not to be but when he is ready I will remain open.  -- Snowded   TALK  22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Snowded while I have very much appreciated your support, I have now decided to not go through with this mentorship and I formally announce my retirement from Wikipedia. I have realised even if the mentorship goes perfectly, I will not be able to change a thing with my future editing. While there are a few good eggs, there is just too much POV and editors who have big egos with little knowledge pushing forward their inaccurate point of view. Bureacracy and POV seem to be more important then giving accurate facts for the world to read. I am going to go read proffesional encyclopedias now. There, Ireland is a country not referred to by a colloquial inaccurate name, there, the British Isles will be just an occasionally used term to refer a group of geographical islands with no political rubbish included, and there, Scotland will be called a constituent unit of the UK with no misleading info suggesting its an independent country. Wikipedia has a terrible name for being wrong and inaccurate. I tried my best to change it and I could ignore all of you and try to continue but there's no point, it will continue to be wrong. Wikipedia is a failed project and I have now realised I should put my energy elsewhere.213.202.138.140 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your call and the offer remains open. Personally I think the Wikipedia sorts itself out over time but better to be honest about what you find possible.  -- Snowded   TALK  12:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See User:CroatiaShoes, sock #22, and counting. Time for a community ban, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How can you 'formally retire' when you are 22 times indefinitely banned? You have gone nowhere of course. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)