User talk:Traditional unionist/Archives/2007/October

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In terms of the constitution of Ireland the tricolour was the flag for all Ireland, additionally the flag is used by nationalists and republicans in the O6. Please stop removing it unless you have a source that proves otherwise.--Vintagekits 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The constitution of Ireland has nothing to do with this, as it was ignored. The flag should not be there. Te tricolour has never been an official flag of Northern Ireland.Traditional unionist 21:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither has the Ulster Banner, shall we remove that as well.--padraig3uk 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That flag used to be an official flag. The tricolour never has. That is the critical difference.Traditional unionist 22:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats not true according to the former Art. 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution.--Vintagekits 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Which were illegal, unenforceable and recognised by no member of the international community other than the republic of ireland. It has never represented Northern Ireland.Traditional unionist 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"illegal" - please prove that. It represented NI in the same way as the UJ does - as a constituant.--Vintagekits 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It was adopted at a time when there was no legal legitimacy to do so. It did NOT represent Northern Ireland to anyone other than Nationalists. The international community rejected artciles 2 and 3 until their obliteration.Traditional unionist 22:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets deal with facts not opinions - it was legal in terms of the new republic - that is undenible, now can you prove it was illegal. As for "international community rejected artciles 2 and 3" - please provide proof.--Vintagekits 22:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to when the Ulster Banner was the offical flag of Northern Ireland, as it was solely used as a goverment banner and never had any civic status.--padraig3uk 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But there was no right to form a new republic, British rule legally prevailed until 1949. Of course that didn't matter as internationally the Republic was accepted as independent. Equally, internationally articles 2 and 3 were rejected. Proof is that the UN never invaded to enforce the Irish constitution.Traditional unionist 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the difference? By your definition the Union Flag, Cross of St Andrew continue ad neuseum are not 'civil' flags.Traditional unionist 22:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference is they are recognised by the British Government as having civic status, the Ulster Banner is not recognised by them, nor was it ever given the status as a civic flag for Northern Ireland, the only status it had was an Government banner only.--padraig3uk 22:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No flag is recognised by the British Government as having civic status.Traditional unionist 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit reverted the removal of referenced material, which was explained in the edit summary.--padraig3uk 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It was in places misleading, and in others wrong.Traditional unionist 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The NI flags issue seems abit hypocritical on Wikipedia. If I take Traditional Unionist (user) for example, here campaign for the Derry article to be renamed Londonderry as Derry is not the official name of the city/county, yet you also campaign to see the use of the Ulster Banner as the flag for Northern Ireland on Wikipedia? You state it is a defacto flag, yet defacto is not fact and thus the northern ireland flag is not shown on wikipedia as it has no official status, sure it is used by the northern FA and some sporting organisationss to represent the north, same as Derry is used every day by sporting organisations (GAA, Derry City FC) and the people of Derry to represent the city/county!! Should I accuse you of double standards in this regards?--  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You have broken 3RR on Orange Order please self revert your last revert, and unreferences are removed from articles, so either provide references or stop edit warring.--Padraig 14:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I will be reporting you and BigDunc for that incident. It is clear that it was your intention to tag team to force me to break 3RR. That is certainly breaking the spirit of the rules.Traditional unionist 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I ask you to to self revert so you wouldn't breach 3RR, You have made 4 reverts, there is no tag team, BigDunc is correct in removing un-sourced claims which have been tagged for a number of weeks now.--Padraig 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

His editing and requesting for references (and subsequent pruning) was highly selective in places, making the article POV.This damages wikipediaTraditional unionist 14:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Un-sourced claims damage WP, if the material can't be sourced then it dosen't belong in the article.--Padraig 14:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not as simple as that.Traditional unionist 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Orange Institution. 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. . (Note that I had intended to issue this warning at the same time as that to User:BigDunc). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get this mess sorted. Ok - you're way past your 3RR block limit as a result of that spat with Dunc this morning and then with Padraig. However, I'm not going to block you as things seem to have moved on. The others will get a similar warning. It looks right now that yourself and ONiH are working through it with both of you providing cites and not just revert-warring blindly. I'm going to keep watch on how things progress and if there's any revert-warring on either side, will take appropriate measures. Take things easy! - Alison ^❤ 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, to try to resolve the impasse I have suggested an approach which I hope that editors might find useful to help to resolve the content disputes over the article Orange Institution: see Talk:Orange Institution#Moving_on.2C_starting_discussion. I am not a mediator, let alone a one-woman arbcom, so this is only a suggestion, and it may be that editors can find a more effective approach. However, I'm keen to see some progress towards settling those disputes, so I would be grateful if you could read that suggestion and see if it helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

TU, I do believe you have been you have been cyber bullied by a group (including Fozzie and Alison) but the article now has a higher profile. I have faced similar from a different perspective, and it is horrible to be told to calm down when you are in the right but I have learnt that good editing is a marathon not a sprint. The article may not be right today and you may have been unfairly stitched up as the villain but that will not always be the case. Aatomic1 15:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're putting it slightly strongly, but it is all very frustrating.Traditional unionist 15:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh please! Be careful how you throw that b-word around. I'm certainly not a bully and seriously resent that accusation. I went against popular opinion yesterday and didn't block TU, where it would have been a lot simpler if I had - Alison ^❤ 15:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats where I think that comment is a little too strong. I'll be back tomorrow for more fun and not working.Traditional unionist 15:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• chuckles* I hope you don't think I've been bullying.. just trying to explain things. SirFozzie 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If Tu does not think it is the case with him then it isn't. Aatomic1 15:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

{deindent) Hi TU, may I just pop my head in to say that I am pleased to see the start of some dialogue at Talk:Orange Institution ... but I'm a little concerned that you haven't been very active in that discussion. As Helenalex has pointed out, there are references available for many of the points you have been making, and there is a lot of room for agreement. Domer48 has produced several references, and made several proposals for changes to the article, and I hope that you will find time to engage with them.

The article has been protected for a week to give editors time to discuss the issues on which they disagree, without any ability to edit war. It's up to you whether you join in those discussions, but I think it's only fair to point out that it would probably not be regarded as a good form of collaboration for anyone who hadn't joined in those discussions to object later to changes made as result of them. The admins involved made a decision not to impose blocks to give the editors involved a chance for dialogue. I still hope to see that chance being used to help produce an article which all sides feel fairly reflects the variety of deeply-held views on the subject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

TU I’m very much hoping you are going to engage constructively in this discussion. On the Twelfth, your last contribution was less than helpful, and lends more to the obstructionist approach adopted in the past. I’m more than willing to compromise on this article, all I request is referenced opinion, and not just yours. So please meet me half way on this, and between us all we should be able to produce a balanced article. --Domer48 19:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just created John Milne Barbour but you're library may be better than mine on this area. Also I can't find dates for his terms of office. Thanks. --Counter-revolutionary 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your comments on Talk:Orange Institution: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My comments come no where close to damaging the community when we see what the Nationalist vandalism tag team have just gotten away with. Wikipeida has been damaged by the sectarian POV that has just found its way between the rules.Traditional unionist 12:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you think of other editors' contributions, you are required to discuss your concerns in a civil fashipn. If you have concerns, do the research and produce references to support your position, but it it is not acceptable to simply revert things with which you disagree. You have been warned often enough about this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit-warring on the article Orange Institution. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Traditional unionist/Archives/2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I added a tag to the article as it was written as if it were an essay. This tag was removed without good cause, so I replaced it, twice.

Decline reason:

The other editor gave a good reason to remove the tag, namely, that you couldn't explain why the tag was needed. Your action in trying to force the tag to remain there is disruptive. As the others suggest, if you see something wrong with the way the article is written, please work on improving it. Be specific about what statements are not neutral, try to fix them, and if you feel something specific is out of balance, discuss it. Seeing as you've had plenty of warning about this, I think the block is appropriate. When you return, try to work with the other editors; Wikipedia is not a battleground. Mangojuice^talk 15:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were warned about this before the article Orange Institution was protected nearly 2 weeks ago, and since then you have been repeatedly asked to discuss the article at Talk:Orange Institution and to provide references. It's up to you whether or not you want to engage in those discussions, but having failed to provide references and to participate substantively in discussions to seek consensus, it is even more unacceptable than usual to engage in an edit war.

On this occasion, I have only blocked you for 48 hours (although other admins may choose to lengthen the block, and I will not object if they do so). However, if you resume edit-warring when your block expires, the next block is likely to be for longer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

when do we find out the outcome of this proposal, I'm eager to get to work! --Counter-revolutionary 13:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Righto, you may be interested in Sir James Andrews, 1st Baronet. --Counter-revolutionary 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Be careful with your reverts and getting into edit wars, but at least you tried to engage in discussion which saved you from a block. --Stephen 15:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)