User talk:Traditional unionist/Archives/2007/December

Why are we rowing?
Traditional, we have no reason to be rowing? It's getting out of hand. I had not intention of it going in this direction at the off set. --sony-youth pléigh 14:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither did I. However you were a little condescending, which I do not react well to.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rightly so (you not reacting well to me being condescending). Apologies. --sony-youth pléigh 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Double check
I was a wee bit suprised by this, are you sure about it? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He's been quite explicit in the local press about this point. Watch this.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Robin Kinahan
Just created Robin Kinahan, it may be of interest to you. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats an important article. I've worked with Danny quite closely recently, he's a good guy.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pity Danny wasn't elected, he seems fairly capable; especially considering some of the Northern Irish MPs & MLAs seem quite the opposite! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a real shame. He's an excellent Cllr and would be a great legislator.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think his background, castle &c., would put the electorate off? Northern Ireland's come a long way since the Westminsters held seats! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly a castle, its just a big house! No, I wouldn't have thought so.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, ha!, I was hesitant to write "castle", although that is what it's called - tad pretentious! haha! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently it used to look a lot more like a castle, but they removed the battlements and top floor in the early C20th. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a nice place, been there a couple of times.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Ulsterman
Sir Basil McFarland, 2nd Baronet - a Senator, no less. Quite interesting actually. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And another!!! - Lancelot Curran, goodness I must be bored! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mayor of ...
I Don't know how solid a reference this is but used L for the mayor and D for the council! (I prefer the tomato to the penguins) Fasach Nua (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The tele is a unionist paper, Drew Thompson is a Unionist Mayor. Not particularly solid.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Tele is populist, but I take your point! It would however suggest it is not unreasonable that the council and Mayor use the place name differently. Given that DCC was used as a "model" of powersharing in the 1980s by the SDLP, an accommidation of this type would seem more likely than not (although that is nothing concrete). It is unfortunate minutes aren't put online! Fasach Nua (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that I don't think such a decision can be taken by the Council. I think that the City has a Major granted by a Charter.  Otherwise it could be proved that the name was changed.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I look forward to the results of the FOI requests - they should prove very useful. Publication on a council's website would certainly allay any original research fears, although, as you say, this idea may not get a positive response from the councils. Warofdreams talk 22:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
It looks to me that you will need to get User:HBC Archive Indexerbot to create the index for you. I also had a look at the possibility of generating something from Special:Prefixindex. The tool doesn't seem to cope with "/"s, and will always display everything after the first slash. This works for my talk page archives, as they only contain one /, but as yours have two, using it creates a rather unattractive repetition. Warofdreams talk 02:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

O. W. J. Henderson
If O. W. J. Henderson is how he is referred to, that's fine with me (but could we include the dots?) Given your knowledge of Unionist politicians, I wonder if you've seen User:Warofdreams/Living Stormont MPs? I tried working out how many members of the NI House of Commons are still alive - and it's more than I first thought. But many of them are no longer in the public eye, and it's probably that some I've listed are no longer alive. I'm wondering in particular about Herbert Kirk; an anon user claimed a few months ago that he died last year, but I was unable to find any related news. Do you have any knowledge as to which of those MPs I've listed are still alive? Warofdreams talk 02:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I also strongly suspect that Porter is dead, but can't find anything which actually states he is. Warofdreams talk 03:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Families
I see there is Families in the Oireachtas, do you think there's enough for Families in Stormont or suchlike? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankfully nepotism hasn't been as much of a problem here as it is in the south, I think not, but thats juts my opinion.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but there were a lot of father-son successions, and numerous examples of more than two members. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The Troubles
The Omagh Bombing was in 1998, the accepted date of the end of the troubles, so I don't see the point your trying to make.--Padraig (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was after the Belfast Agreement, which is presumably the event that leads you to believe the troubles ended in 1998.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Giving the date as 2007 gives the impression that the troubles are still ongoing.--Padraig (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not giving a date would give that impression. Also, that suggestion will disappear on Tuesday.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think giving the date as 2007, plays into the belief held by both Loyalist and republican extremists that the war still continues today. Did you see the message I left regarding the Unionist project, you only need 5-10 active editors to set the project up not 10.--Padraig (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what impression it gives, the troubles ended this summer. It may not have begun with Operation banner, but by all measures it ended with it.  WP:UNIONISM, I'm not that bothered about it at this stage of my life(by which I mean between Christmas and New Year)!Traditional unionist (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On the WP:Unionism issue the signatories have to be active editors, some of the 7 signatories haven't been active lately, one of them last posted in september, but as long as 5 active editors are still around it can be setup so the list would have to be check when the time comes.--Padraig (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On the date issue maybe we should add a footnote on the 2007 to indicate it refers to op banner.--Padraig (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

3 rr report
I have made a 3rr report here. Please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have seen that Domer edited disruptively. I am at a loss as to how you feel I should have dealt with this differently to how I did?  Am I being blocked for protecting wikipedia?Traditional unionist (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is not protecting Wikipedia. Rather, it is destructive. Here are some explanations of why. I have also blocked Domer for his edit warring. In the future, you should pursue dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have seen the tag team tactics used to push users over the limit, yet you blocked me. You have also seen my reasons for using my wording, and domers total lack of justification for his reverts.  I fail to see how I have acted improperly.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why have I not been afforded an appeal?Traditional unionist (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can appeal by posting on your talk page and an uninvolved admin can review the situation. FWIW, I have commented on Domer's block on his talk page and basically, the same applies to you here, IMO -  A l is o n  ❤ 22:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I was perfectly reasonable, giving full and adequate reasons for my edits. Another user disagreed and with no rational reason reverted.  Yet I have been blocked.  Natural justice really is a serious issue here.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They gave their reasons - "rational" is your own POV-word, and is neither here nor there. Right now, your best option is post an unblock request, as suggested, and an uninvolved admin can review the situation. I'll stand clear of the request - A l is o n  ❤ 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I wondered when tweedle dumb would make an appearance.Traditional unionist (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Im sure you dont need to be reminded to be civil and not to attack other editors. BigDunc (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your evidence for this alleged incivility?Traditional unionist (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Above statement regarding tweedle dumb unless you know someone called tweedle dumb im sure your your comment is derogatory. BigDunc (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is everything I do about you?Traditional unionist (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that an implication that the comment was directed at me because I didn't think it was considering your UUP support im sure you know plenty of charachters like both Mr Dumb and Mr. Dee. BigDunc (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very mature. WEll reasoned and well argued.  You're truly an asset.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Go raimh maith agat. BigDunc (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Troubles
Traditional unionist, I notice you've been edit-warring over there with User:Sarah777. Now, of all articles, this one definitely comes under the auspices of the Troubles ArbCom case. Please be careful here - you know the rules! She has similarly been warned - A l is o n  ❤ 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was reverting vandalism. The issue was under discussion, Sarah is not immune from discussion and consensus.  I will not be lectured for taking that action.  She was wrong and I was right.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's always the way with these things, TU. Tread carefully on a Troubles article, is all I'll say, and she absolutely needs to do the same. Describing her edits as "vandalism" will not help your case. At best, it is a content dispute - A l is o n  ❤ 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you describe these edits? Trying to circumnavigate consensus by arbitrarily altering the article to your own POV?  Sarah is the problem here, not me.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alison, this issue was being discussed on the talkpage long before Sarah got involved, she was also part of those talks, therefore she shouldn't have edit warred on the article at the same time as the discussion was ongoing.--Padraig (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. It seems you were right, TU, and she was editing against consensus. Tsk. My apologies for doubting you - A l is o n  ❤ 23:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Dogs learn from experience.  I like to rate myself above a dog.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed the ultimatum you've been thrown. Very entertaining.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Tempted as I am to add you and just about everyone else on all sides to the probation list, it's not about to happen. More's the pity :) - A l is o n  ❤ 02:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Londonderry North_Yorkshire
I have started a discussion on the dispute on the talk page  and suggested a compromise wording to take account of both viewpoints on it would this wording be acceptable to you.--Padraig (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiclous about the "The Troubles" page
Why is Sarah777 continously throwing up this fit of a argument, I mean I am not Unionist but their was 3 differnt sides in the troubles. I feel Sarah 777 is overly baist to her opinion and breaking the NPOV rule on Wikipedia. is there anyway of reporting this as vandalism?

(Paddy (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
 * See discussion above! I was about to leave a message on Alison's talk page when I was blocked.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to remove the box! It is accurate and useful as it is.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)