User talk:Traditional unionist/Archives/2007/August

Ulster Banner
I am not against the use of the Ulster banner I just believe it should be used in its proper context, such as articles like this where I used it on the template I made for these articles, or in articles dealing with the history between 1922 and 1972. Its other use in WP is in sport results for the Commonwealth games etc where the banner is used as a emblem of the team.--padraig 13:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the NI talk page is the appropriate place to continue this discussion.Traditional unionist 13:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a poll on the issue now which should hopefully point the whole thing in the right direction. There are now 5 proposals for you to chose from, though many having given their 2 or 3 top preferences. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read what I reverted hardly encyclopaedic was it.--padraig 19:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I read it, it was POV, infact the entire paragraph needs to come out in the absence of references.Traditional unionist 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Home nations nationality in NI
I think the consensus as it stands is to use something along the following:


 * Charles Stewart Parnell: United Kingdom (Irish)
 * Billy Connolly: United Kingdom (Scottish)
 * Eamon de Valera: Irish

Northern Ireland has pretty well been dumped to be decided on a person by person basis. I'd like a little more guidance on the subject. Would this be appropriate:


 * XXX: United Kingdom (Irish)
 * XXX: Irish

Or some other rendering. I've always thought "Northern Irish" to be a little clumsy as a "nationality", but that could just be my own POV. --sony-youth pléigh 08:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is a tricky situation to circumnavigate. I am only too happy to be described as Irish, my girlfriend would be quite offended!  Its difficult.Traditional unionist 12:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

FIFA 08 Page
With due respect to your opinion, (which I agree with, no NI flag on the FAI page) you don't seem to understand why I put it there in the first place. As I'm sure you are aware, Derry City FC from Derry play in the FAI League of Ireland. Now the argument is that that is the league of the Republic of Ireland, which it undoubtedly is... but look on that page for the Football League Championship, Football League One, and Football League Two. Those leagues don't represent Wales, they don't claim to, FIFA doesn't recognize them as representing Wales. But they are there because there are Welsh teams in the League and because there was a precedent established for FIFA 05 to use that and the flag of Monaco to show that those leagues include teams from those countries. Indeed in FIFA 08 the MLS has a single Canadian side so the flag of Canada is there. And I say again, if you feel that this should be changed for more then just Ireland/ Northern Ireland then it's up to you to remove all "unnecessary flags from the 08, 07, 06 and 05 articles. -MichiganCharms 18:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I'm guilty of jumping in without looking. I assumed (mainly as I have just bought FIFA manager!) that FIFA 08 will include the Irish League and League of Ireland, but I having seen the article now, I appear to have been mistaken.  I was actually talking to Vintagekits, and not you.  I also follow Toronto FC, and would be quite opposed to anyone removing the Canadian flag from the MLS entries!  You are quite right and I apologise for the confusion.  I'm off on holiday now for a week, so best of luck!Traditional unionist 22:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are using it to represent the country Northern Ireland and not the IFA league, is that correct?--Vintagekits 18:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Orange Institution
You have been reported to WP:AN3 for three-revert rule violation on the above article. Dialog and discussion is the way forward here, not constant, unproductive warring

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * They didn't step over the limit; you did. They were warned as soon as I was aware of the issue whereas you took it too far. Please read WP:3RR to understand what went wrong here. Note also that some of the POV-pushers on the other side of this inane war have also been blocked - I'm an equal opportunities blocking admin, and would have blocked ONiH just as quickly - A l is o n  ☺ 15:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Post-script comment, I misinterpreted the above comment at the time, apologies.Traditional unionist 08:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, who are you to decide when rule breaking is good, and when it is bad? The rules must be applied equally or not at all.  It is utterly unjustifiable for you to make a judgment call on my actions that is any different to anyone else's.  I have not paid particular notice to any slant on your edits in the past, and am not suggesting anything untoward, but am suggesting that it is inappropriate for someone with an Irish background to have gotten involved in this incident.Traditional unionist 15:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * AND ANOTHER THING - it is unreasonable for two users to tag team in an effort to avoid breaking WP:3RR. This was a clear example of a team of nationalist editors pushing nationalist propaganda onto wikipedia, they clearly communicated in order to do this.Traditional unionist 15:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You're all at it. Now quit making snide allusions to my background - A l is o n  ☺ 16:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is suggesting that you MIGHT be a nationalist snide? I don't think so.  So are you going to block other rule breakers, or is your opinion more valuable than the rules?  Your edit to ONiH's user talk page also suggest something untoward.Traditional unionist 16:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Now point out the rules and the other rule breakers and I'll happily deal with every one of them - A l is o n  ☺ 16:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you continue making personal attacks, including accusations concerning a person's nationality, your block will be extended. The block is clearly justified. Please refrain from edit warring in future. Tyrenius 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet others continue to vandalize wikipedia with nationalist propaganda with impunity. Suggesting a conflict of interest may exist is now a personal attack is it?  Thats interesting.Traditional unionist 18:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That, curiously enough, is what the "others" say as well. Work that one out. Using someone's nationality against them is very much a personal attack. Tyrenius 21:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not using anything against anyone. I'm saying that it is possible that I didn;t get a fair hearing, as there may have been a conflict of interest.  I get the feeling I'm not getting good faith assumed here.Traditional unionist 21:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling you are not assuming good faith here. Here's what I now suggest, which is far above and beyond the norm. I will now paste up another unblock template and request yet another admin review this. Preferably an entirely uninvolved one. That way, you get a third opinion - A l is o n  ☺ 22:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that. Thank you.Traditional unionist 22:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, not that I want to get accused of engaging in personal attacks or anything, but you doing this kinda defeats the purpose.Traditional unionist 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a good job I endorse it, so you know it is nothing to do with admins' backgrounds. Tyrenius 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, anyone fancy tackling the issue of nationalists tag teaming to avoid 3RR while pushing their pov?Traditional unionist 22:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Stay tuned for the ArbCom case - A l is o n  ☺ 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) While I don't doubt this admin's neutrality, I sincerely wish it had been someone else :/ - A l is o n  ☺ 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets just forget the whole thing. It's clear that the issues are not going to be looked at, and nationalists will continue to add POV statements to Irish political articles. Frustration at this obvious bias that is emerging very steadily to wikipedia will cause many more cases like this, so theres not much point in trying to push this obvious case of rule bending by nationalist editors (not necessarily admins)Traditional unionist 22:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The people you "oppose" say exactly the same thing. Are you aware of Requests_for_arbitration/Great_Irish_Famine/Proposed_decision and Requests_for_arbitration? Tyrenius 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not, and to a large extent they prove my point. There IS a campaign of POV from a group of nationalists, and I seem to have been caught in a campaign by two of the nationalists involved who are not currently blocked.Traditional unionist 08:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your point was that there was bias and these things are not addressed. This proves your point is wrong, so please don't make such accusations in future.  There is POV pushing from all sides on everything - as well as good neutral editors.  It's up to you to choose which you are going to be. Tyrenius 09:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My edits are neutral - please do not make such accusations in future.Traditional unionist 09:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not aware of making any accusations, only pointing out choices available to all. Tyrenius 09:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that I was making any accusations either, but it didn't stop me being accused of it.Traditional unionist 09:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits made whilst my block
User:Domer48 has not technically broken WP:3RR but my reading of the rules allow him to be blocked as he has broken 3 reverts in 36 hours, despite a discussion on the talk page, which he was ignoring yester as well. I can't formally report due to my block.Traditional unionist 11:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Th Young Unionists page has also been vandalised by Lisburn Road, which I cannot fix as my block was 48 hours and not the standard 24.Traditional unionist 12:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC).
 * There is no "standard" block time. Blocks, by definition, are meant to prevent disruption and as administrator, a 48 hour block was highly appropriate here. A number of your colleagues and adversaries got similar block times for their misdemeanours. Re. Young Unionists, I'm not seeing any vandalism in the diffs of that new editor. Can you point it out, please? - A l is o n  ☺ 12:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Young Unionists do have a branch affiliated to QUB, the info provided in the edit summary is wildly out of date, and the names of officers now displayed are all well known members of Sinn Fein.Traditional unionist 12:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've no expertise on that stuff but have left a message on their talk page asking for their rationale for that change. We'll see what happens ... - A l is o n  ☺ 12:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Google evidence says you're absolutely right. Reverted. - A l is o n  ☺ 12:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanksTraditional unionist 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)