User talk:Traditional unionist/Archives/2008/March

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.

On my talk page you said that the test for wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. Why then do all refrences to the UYUC website's home page (we'll be back soon with a new website), a fact easily verifiable with the reference I supplied, continually get deleted?Buggerhed (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now provided a refrence for both the time period of the young Unionist site's suspension. In light of this, I expect this information not to be deleted again.

On the subject of verifiability, I note that the current "Senior Officers" of the organisation are not verified. If no refrences are added, I shall delete this section Buggerhed (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Iain Dale comment is therefore removed on the basis it is a blog itself, and can therefore not be trusted as a website Buggerhed (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done a fair bit of research on VUPP. They'd 24 candidates elected in 1973 of which 8 joined the UUUP and 3 became independent unionists. McCammick wasn't one of the defectors and if you look you'll see he also contested the 1977 elections as a VUPP candidate [1], making it highly unlikely that he was in the UUP. Valenciano (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello TU. I just wanted to refer you to my comments on Sarah's talk page. I don't see much "harassment" going on, but as you should know by now pointing the POV-finger at editors talk page on this subject tends to escalate things rather than diffuse them. There is now a decent level of discussion on the article talk page, please keep it there rather than revert-warring with Sarah, as you are both close to WP:3RR. Thanks. Rockpocket 01:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's great to see another of the FOI requests fulfilled! I hope that my changes are suitable. Warofdreams talk 03:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your editing has been raised at WP:TER. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:TER was closed as not meriting a separate page, and the complaint was moved to WP:AE. I've closed out the report at WP:AE. It would be appropriate to continue discussing the sourcing issue on the article's talk page, if anyone still has concerns. GRBerry 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ulster Scots is a dialect of Scots spoken in some parts of Northern Ireland."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ireland#Ulster_Scots Do you agree with the above statement?Eog1916 (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but thats no reason to add verbosity to the title of that section. It doesn't say "The Ulster Scots language" now does it? There is no reason to change the title of the section.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Um.. TU, you haven't caught up with past events, have you? Email me. There's some things you oughta know. (Quick version, Alison has turned in her mop and checkuser status, I'll explain more if you want) SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Alister is this not the UK Anthem? Northern Ireland most frequently uses "God Save the Queen" at events associated with the British tradition, and the Irish national anthem Amhrán na bhFiann ("The Soldiers' Song") at events associated with the Irish tradition. Additionally, "Londonderry Air" ("Danny Boy") is a popular cross-community anthem.Eog1916 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am moving checkuser cases all around, all should be back in a few minutes, but I fear I lost one of your edits in the process. Can you double check then? Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Its an archive anyway isn't it?Traditional unionist (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 100 hours for yesterday's - rather lame - edit-war over Edward Haughey, Baron Ballyedmond. The block is not so much for the 3RR violation itself - a relatively trivial manner - but for the sheer folly of the edit-war. Next time you find yourself making reverts over something that irrelevant, for goodness' sake please go here and get the page protected. Moreschi (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats utterly excessive and the justification is "lame". Request the template be placed so I can appeal.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Given your previous 3 blocks for edit-warring, 100 hours is reasonable and I'm a good deal less inclined to be lenient. You know the rules, and also that edit-warring, particularly petty edit-warring, is just not on even if you don't violate 3RR. The "template" is {{Unblock}}, which you need to place yourself. Moreschi (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[2] Nothing over 31 hours.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC) [3] Nothing over 24 hoursTraditional unionist (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2008 (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/2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It's taken almost 24 hours for an admin to get around to this, after which a curious 100 hours has been deemed appropriate for an instance where I inadvertently broke 3RR. I apologied for my mistake on the report (which I wasn't given the courtesy of being informed of) The dispute in question has now been settled, and the world has moved on. A block may well be justified, but 100 hours is excessive, particularly given the flippant, disrespectful and unbecoming rationale offered by the blocking admin.

Decline reason:

3RR is one of the few really firm rules we have here. I suggest using some of the time you have while blocked to read up on our policies, and to ponder the futility of edit-warring. — John (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (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.

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/2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

perhaps I wasn't clear. I am not appealing the block. My argument is that the term is unjustifiably excessive, and without precedent that I can find. There is no sense of natural justice here, the punishment emphatically does not fit the crime. Request a third opinion.

Decline reason:

Sorry, but given your prior history of edit warring, this is a pretty standard block, and IMO, justified :( — krimpet✽ 22:56, 25 March 2008 (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.

I'm afraid I can't find any evidence of such an excessive block being "standard", perhaps I could be enlightened with examples?Traditional unionist (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC) [4] This shows just how utterly unjustified a 5 day ban is.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello TU, I'd recommend you serve the block. Consider it a forced Wiki-break - 100hrs will go by quick. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd happily serve a fair block. 5 days is not a fair block.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can get it repealed. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Traditional unionist. I was surprised to see such a long block applied, especially after you had apologized. However, please note that it is normal for longer and longer blocks to be used if the same violations are repeated. Eventually some users are blocked indefinitely. In the message in which you apologized, you said "I wasn't counting." Although you apologized, you said nothing to inspire confidence that you would behave any differently in future. Here's a suggestion which I hope you find helpful. I don't know whether you're allowed any more unblock requests or not, but if you try another unblock request, you might want to focus your unblock-reason on apologizing again and trying to convince the unblocking admin that you're going to try harder and actually change your editing practices to avoid 3RR violations and editwarring in general. Arguments that the block was unreasonable (in length or in any other way) come across as a lack of remorse and may tend to be unconvincing coming from you. By the way, by my count 100 hours is 4 days plus 4 hours, not 5 days. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The block expires at 2am UK time, making it a 5 day ban.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, in my experience, 100 hours is harsh without precedent, unless harassment or abusive behavior is involved. Which it isnt. This is a power tripping admin who used his blocking power to whimsical excess, without proper thought of natural justice.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "without precedent". You've had two previous 48-hour blocks for editwarring and 3RR. Moving up to 100 hours seems a normal progression. I think I've seen cases where someone was blocked for 24 hours a number of times, and then was blocked for a week.

I should have mentioned in my previous message that, although I was surprised when I first saw the one-hundred-hour block, nevertheless, when I wrote my first comment above, after reading the information on this talk page about the block, I considered and still consider that the block is reasonable and justifiable.

Editors are supposed to exercise self-discipline and to collaborate. Editors are not supposed to editwar, nor to take calculated risks of occasional blocks, not ro rely on others to warn them of 3RR violations (unless they've never heard of the rule).

Re "lame": at first glance, giving this as a reason for the length of the block may seem "lame" itself. However, actually it makes sense. If you were ignoring the 3RR policy in order to accomplish something apparently important, it might have been understandable if not necessarily excusable, but editwarring over something that looks trivial to many people makes it look as if you don't consider the editwarring and 3RR policies very important. Seen this way, it seems to me a very valid factor to consider in deciding on the length of the block.

You might be interested to read my advice to another user who was blocked, and an admin's thoughts on enforcing the policy against edit warring. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I shan't be editing disruptively, and I haven't thus farCurious Quentin (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what is incorrect in the details - except the "extra-territorial" bit, which all depends on your view of articles 2&3! I would have simplified it though: "People from Northern Ireland are British and Irish citizens on the same basis as people from any other part of the United Kingdom or Ireland respectively (e.g. by birth in the UK/Ireland to at least one parent who is a UK/Irish permanent resident or citizen, or by naturalisation)." There's no need for all of the rest of the clutter about Irish nationality law no more than there is need to go into 1982 about UK nationality law.

Dates for Irish law are as follows:

• 6 December 1922: everyone resident on the island of Ireland is declared an Irish citizen (this only applied to those alive on that day, no citizenship law existed in the Free State again until 1936, it didn't matter in those days)
• 1936: Those born in C26 are Irish citizens, those born in C6 to a father who is an Irish citizen (see 06/12/22) are Irish citizens
• 1956: Those born in C26 are Irish citizens, those born in C6 are Irish citizens on making a personal declaration
• 2001: Those born on the island of Ireland are Irish citizens (this is retroactive)
• 2004: A referendum allow the 2001 legislation to be modified so that one parent needs to be Irish (this brought the Republic in line with the rest of Europe and closed the loophole that was being exploited by non-national residents in the UK to claim European citizenship for their children by travelling legally to Northern Ireland to have them, thereby they became Irish citizens).

(Aside from this these was citizenship by descent, before 1984 - I think - this was unlimited, after then it was capped at three generations back.) --sony-youth^pléigh 20:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)