User talk:WilliamHanrahan

The split was minor that is fact not POV, the reference supports that, would you like me to provide one from Ed Moloney as well, I attended that Ard Fhéis and the colour party waiting outside was bigger then the number that walkout, I also spoke to Raurai and Daithi outside the Ard Fheis and they were disappointed that so few had walked out.--Padraig (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Minor" reflects a point of view. "Small" would be more appropriate. When you were talking to them after the walkout, did O Bradaigh and O'Connell say that the split was minor? The people who left PSF for RSF were known Republicans, many of them prominent, including people elected to office; this contributed to the poor showing of PSF in the next local southern election. O Bradaigh rejected a VP for Life position, the same thing that was given to Joe Cahill (and perhaps J.J. McGirl, can't remember) -- was Cahill a "minor" figure? If Gerry Adams, for whatever reason, would leave Sinn Fein tomorrow, and he was the only one to leave, would that be "minor"? No, of course not. What happened with RSF is that the founders of the original organization walked out. The numbers MAY have been small, but they were significant. That's the point.


 * minor reflects fact, and yes they expressed disappointment that only a small number of those that voted against the motion walked out, I also voted against the motion. The numbers do count, and not all the founding members walked out, many of them stayed with Sinn Féin, and some of those that did leave also left RSF within a short time afterwards.--Padraig (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop edit warring on articles such as Gerry Adams the issue is discussed in the talk page whichmakes clear who Adams is speaking on behalf off, if you wish to add to that discussion there please do so. I should warn all articles relating to the Troubles are subject to an arbcom ruling and anyone edit warring can be placed on 1RR per week probation.--Padraig (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop accusing people of edit warring. If something is clear, then it will not be edited. It is also impolite to threaten people. --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Accounts of the period indicate" is hardly referenced material. If there are such accounts from neutral sources please cite them. "From the perspective of each side, it was the other side who "split" from the legitimate organization" - again no referencing material, simply hearsay. Coolavokig (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC) --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Fair enough. See "The numerous faces of the I.R.A." This Week, May 29, 1970.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding your edit to Ruairí Ó Brádaigh.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive'  18:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The information is relevant, see the additional information concerning the statement ending the campaign. The statement, largely drafted by O Bradaigh, refers to it as the Resistance Campaign. Further, the statement is relevant because the IRA was criticized, wrongly, for blaming the campaign's failure on Northern Nationalists. This was a misreading of the statement, as indicated in the citations added.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert when new information was added? You are deleting relevant information that includes references. This is not point of view.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on Ruairí Ó Brádaigh. You may resume editing after the block expires but continued edit warring will result in longer blocks without further warning. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally unfair. --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What's unfair? You were warned. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 11:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not engaged in an edit war, but was trying to prevent an editor from using original research to justify his reversion of my edits. Wikipedia states,

"Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences."

One Night in Hackney states, "Sources get things wrong and make mistakes. GOOD editors are capable of noticing when sources have made a mistake and compensate accordingly, BAD editors are not and make a mess of articles by blindingly adding incorrect information" and adds later, "I even proved Bell contradicted himself...". Clearly One Night in Hackney is conducting original research, as what he describes is "original thought." He provided no citation to a source indicating that Bell was mistaken, only his own "proof." Who is he, or I, or you, to unilateral make such an assessment -- he might be right, but it's original research.

The Wikipedia pages also state, "It is important to realize that in contributing to Wikipedia, users are expected to be civil and neutral, respecting all points of view, and only add verifiable and factual information rather than personal views and opinions."

One Night in Hackney has not been civil or neutral on this talk page or in responding to my edits. I have added factual information, direct quotations, only to have them deleted. When I attempted, in my last edits, to merge his point of view and mine, those edits were also deleted.

If there is to be only contributor to Wikipedia articles on items related to Irish Republicanism, and that contributor is One Night in Hackney, supported by ONIH's friends, then Wikipedia should advertise that and be done with it.

I am now blocked from editing even though he used the "f" word and called me "ignorant". Talk about blaming the victim.... WH--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also see the "discussion" page for the article on Ruairi O Bradaigh. It ends with this, "Well it's not going back in this one. One Night In Hackney303 04:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)" This, too, seems entirely counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. What the editor, One Night in Hackney, is saying is that even if I can provide a source supporting my point that O Bradaigh does not refer to the event as the Border Campaign but as the Resistance Campaign, One Night In Hackney will not allow it. Is this allowed under the rules of Wikipedia? As it is, I've provided references from the newspaper of the organization led by O Bradaigh and these are dismissed. Either One Night in Hackney cannot handle the research of other people, or he's motivated by some political POV. Either way, it should not be allowed.

I've tried to be reasonable. It does not work. How do I ask for higher help in resolving a dispute?

Thank you.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

2.

OK, I'm still learning. Thanks for the advice. --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jayron32, your help will be welcome here. How do I appeal to a higher level authority on an editing dispute? Thank you.

WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility at Talk:Gerry Adams
Please choose your words more carefully here. You're treading very close to a block for incivility/harassing other users. Please stop baiting One Night in Hackney and use a more constructive tone. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  03:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
You have been from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.
 * This is entirely inappropriate commentary and amounts to harassing and baiting another user, combined with loads of similar edits in a row right beforehand. If you can't follow the WP:CIVIL guidelines, you'll be looking at longer blocks from here on out. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  04:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am being punished because an editor, One Night In Hackney, edits my edits and then, when questioned, refuses to answer my questions. Instead, he asks questions, I respond, yet he ignore my questions. This is unfair.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I invite a neutral third party admin to review the talk page history and examine the number of edits in a row attempting to goad the One Night in Hackney into responding. I'm not sure what type of response you were expecting other than luring him into a fight. He may very well have gone offline. Also please notice that the baiting continued after my warning about incivility above. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  04:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I missed the warning. Thank you for taking a look. My frustration was high. There is a general pattern here. This editor, ONIH, reverts my edits. When offered evidence/citations in support of my edits, s/he dismisses the evidence and tries to change the subject by asking a question. I answer the question and follow up by asking why s/he ignored the evidence provided. S/he will often then ask more questions, trying to change the subject, but will not answer the direct question. It's a delaying/dodging tactic. As it is, this editor has been uncivil with me, has engaged in edit wars, and I have never sought to have the person blocked.... Thank you again. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PS - please take a look at the talk page. I refer to J. Bowyer Bell as "IRA historian"....  ONIH gives me grief for this, asking, sarcastically, "I'll make it simple - what makes Bell an "IRA historian" and Taylor a "journalist"? One Night In Hackney303 03:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)."

But, take a look at the Wikipedia entry for J. Bowyer Bell. It appears that ONIH created the page, and there are many edits attributed to ONIH in the history. The entry includes, "The Troubles began in Northern Ireland in 1969, and Bell's The Secret Army: the IRA 1916-1970 was published the following year, and was one of the first detailed histories of the IRA along with The IRA by Tim Pat Coogan which was also published in 1970.[3]" So, ONIH refers to Bell as the author of a detailed history of the IRA. His question was baiting me and then he runs to get me blocked. --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention to remove content. In fact, it appears that someone removed content from my edits, which included a citation. Moloney was voted Irish journalist of the year, and there should be a link to his book, A Secret History of the IRA. Thank you for the note. WH. --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Help
helpme Could someone help me here? There is an article I created, titled, A Secret History of the IRA. An editor, One Night In Hackney, appears to have it out for anything I do. The article has been tags with OR and as a peacock. He continues to delete important information, including the fact that the author of the book, Ed Moloney, employs primary sources in his research. It's quite frustrating to have made an important point only to have it removed. One Night In Hackney is doing this because the he evidently does not like the book, which reflects his own POV. Any help will be appreciated. Thank you. WH--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The tags look as though they were correctly placed. You need to include more reliable sources to verify what information you have and establish the book's notability. As it stands, the article seems to exist solely to promote the book; it provides very little information about the book itself. If you still have questions, continuing to discuss them with Hackney is probably a good idea. The tags aren't there to harass you - they're there to alert you and other editors as to how the article could be improved. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If I didn't like the book, why would I tell you to write an article on it? And as I've said repeatedly on the talk page, there's many reviews of the book (which you've linked to), so write the article from what the reviews say not your own opinion of the book. It's a 500+ page book, so instead of an editor picking out bits of the book they think are important, we need to defer to parts reviewers think are important. One Night In Hackney  303  01:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, it helps to hear from others.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)