text:
User talk:Setanta747

Archived discussion pages:
 * User talk:Setanta747/Archive1
 * User talk:Setanta747/Archive2
 * User talk:Setanta747/Archive3
 * User talk:Setanta747/Archive4
 * User talk:Setanta747/Archive5
 * User talk:Setanta747/Archive6
 * User talk:Setanta747/Archive7

Wiki Football Project
Do you know how to make an article part of the WIki Football Project? It's been drawn to my attention that Solitude (football ground) is not part of the project. Perhaps other articles on grounds are the same. Mooretwin (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland
You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland. This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikipéire
Hello,

If you spot this user in any guise, please give me a shout. I am prepared to block them. Kind regards, :) --Jza84 | Talk  00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while
Mal, just saw your reversion of my edit on the Irish people article (tricolour v st patrick's cross) from a few weeks ago. Still laughing at that one, complete with a "no personal attacks" warning. Anyways, we haven't locked horns for a while, I hope you've been well. Windyjarhead (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hullo! I see you changed the flag on that article. I would argue that Patrick's saltire has as much 'official' use (what ever that means!) as the flag you replaced it with, and is probably more recognisable. I'm not going to bother changing it though, as the one you put in is also representative of the whole of the island.
 * I'm not doing too bad - keeping busy in 'real life'!.. what about yourself? --Setanta747 (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

New project
Hi,I've started a new project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration and i was wondering if you'd be interested in joining. If not can you tell me what changes if any could be made to change your mind? Gnevin (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Gnevin. Thanks for the invite - it looks worth considering, though how workable the idea is in a practical sense I have no idea. Leave it with me. Cheers. --Setanta747 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification
WP:Arbitration_enforcement--Tznkai (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
Per Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement, I have blocked you for 7 days, as this is a second violation of the ArbCom ruling. Black Kite 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And unblocked, per consensus above. However, also per consensus above, if there are any more occasions where you use misleading edit summaries to sneak in contentious material, the above block will be reinstated.  Also (and you know this really), any use of the Ulster Banner (apart from articles on the flag itself) needs to be thrashed out on the talkpages. Black Kite 00:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, sorry - you know that inserting the Ulster Banner into flag pages is a contentious edit, and a summary of "disambig template" is clearly misleading. Also, your latest edit is yet another attempt to make an end-run around general consensus, and I have reverted it. You need to show that the UB is the current flag of Northern Ireland to include it. Black Kite 14:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

 * No, sorry - my edit comment was not "sneaky" and, as I already told you, I resent your accusation that it was. You need to show good faith and I'm starting to get annoyed by your tone. My point has been made. Drop it.
 * As for my recent edit - it is a perfectly good compromise.. not a "get around". I shall be reverting it back until the issue is resolved. -- Setanta 14:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend not to assume good faith when editors are relentlessly pushing their POV in articles. The issue is already resolved - the UB is not the flag of Northern Ireland. There is a reasonable case for it to be made in certain minor circumstances - i.e. use by sporting bodies - but to insert it into a "list of flags by country" article is purely a factual error. Since you are under ArbCom restrictions, reverting it back would not be a good idea. Black Kite 14:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What you might see as "relentlessly pushing POV" others see as attempting to improve Wikipedia. The issue is obviously not resolved, as my edit has proven. The fact is that the flag of Northern Ireland is the only flag which specifically represents Northern Ireland. The Union Jack, which is what you reverted to - notably pushing your own POV, by the way - is not the flag of Northern Ireland. It is the flag of the United Kingdom.
 * I would suggest that you are also subject to the Arbcom ruling, by the way. Reverting me in the first place wasn't a good idea.
 * I believe that including both flags or, if you like, both of our "POVs", is an acceptable compromise until the issue can be sorted out. Suggesting that the Union Jack is the flag of Northern Ireland is purely a "factual error" - thus my initial edit. -- Setanta 05:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no POV here, as you would know if you investigated my history of dealings with the Troubles. I have sanctioned troublesome editors from both sides  (i.e. ) and indeed was the person who brought the original sockpuppetry case against Republican editor Vintagekits.  You, however, do, and until you prove that the UB is somehow the current flag of Northern Ireland your additions of it to articles will continue to be reverted. This isn't by any means POV - it would be ludicrous to be showing the flag on NI as being the Ulster Banner when our very own article contradicts this. Black Kite 18:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You obviously do have a Point Of View, otherwise you would probably not have reverted my edits, made any suggestions of "factual error", or any suggestions that another editor was "relentlessly pushing their POV". I am not discussing you past actions regarding any other editors, and articles relating to Northern Ireland, nor am I going to give you (or subtract) points for your actions for or against "Republican editors".
 * I do not have a POV other than that of factual accuracy over a sense of offence by some editors on Wikipedia.
 * You have suggested that you want to engage in an edit war (by saying, "until you prove that the UB is somehow the current flag of Northern Ireland your additions of it to articles will continue to be reverted"). You are not only showing POV here by suggesting I have to prove that the flag of Northern Ireland is the flag of Northern Ireland, you are also going against Wikipedia guidelines by using Wikipedia as a source in your argument.
 * You do not seem to understand that the flag of the United Kingdom is not, specifically, the flag of Northern Ireland. I should probably tell you that until you prove that the UJ is somehow the current flag of Northern Ireland your additions of it to articles will continue to be reverted. -- Setanta 16:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you are clearly under the firm impression that you are right and everyone else is wrong, it appears pointless for me to continue to discuss this issue. Black Kite 19:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Equally, since you are clearly under the firm impression that you are right and everyone else is wrong, I could also suggest how it appears pointless for me to continue to discuss this issue. However, I am quite willing to discuss it. -- Setanta 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya haven't convinced me, that the UB is Northern Ireland flag. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly you will never accept it, GoodDay. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. -- Setanta 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

List of flags by country
Hiya Setanta. It's best to remove England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland (along with other dependencies) from that article. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to provoke more edit wars GoodDay? You really should know better than to suggest this.  -- Snowded   TALK  17:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an 'edit war' provoker. I've also mentioned dividing the article into sections. I've no control over Setanta's conduct on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would hold no one responsible for Setanta's conduct, but you are fully aware that deleting those countries flags would spark a reaction.  You do attempt to stir things up from time to time as you know, :-)  -- Snowded   TALK  18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed them once (noting in my 'edit summary', it may be reverted & that I wouldn't revert again). Ye must control ye supicions, as I'm not atempting to stir things up. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, I would accept your proposition as an equal alternative to the one I had made (which was subsequently reverted by Black Kite) as a type of compromise until such a time as a definitive 'solution' can be found. I also appreciate your attempt at compromise. Perhaps some text should be added to the introduction too, explaining that the list includes only those countries which are fully sovereign states, or what ever phrase or term would best suit. -- Setanta 05:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've not problem with having England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland in the article; as long as they're properly located (for less familiar readers out there). As for the Ulster Banner? it's not NI's flag (hasn't been since 1972). Northern Ireland has no flag of it's own (unless you count the Union Jack). Anyways, it's best you don't make edits or more importantly 'reversions' on that article. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the constituent countries being in the article either, so long as there is consistency regarding the flags the article is about.
 * The flag of Northern Ireland is most definitely the flag of Northern Ireland. It hasn't been the flag of the Government of Northern Ireland since 1973 because the Government of Northern Ireland was abolished in 1973. I think I should make attempts at compromise on the article until this issue is sorted. Unfortunately, Black Kite seems intent on ignoring any and all attempts, by me, at doing so. -- Setanta 16:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Ulster Banner is a non-starter. Northern Ireland, effectively has no flag. PS: please don't make anymore edits/revertings concerning the Ulster Banner topic; stick to the talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that Northern Ireland does have a flag - the flag of Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland's flag. As for edits or reverts to the article, I don't see that I have been restricted .. certainly not any more than your good self. -- Setanta 17:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Get a consensus Setanta. Edit warring is not the answer, never was & never will be. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's pretty hard to even think about a consensus, considering every single edit or compromise I make is simply deleted - even to the point of me being accused of vandalism! I don't recall suggesting that edit warring was the answer to anything. -- Setanta 18:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Have you been offering your compromises on the talk-page (only)? GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. As far as I'm aware, I've used a combination of being bold and discussing the issue on the talk page. -- Setanta 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Setanta, can I ask you what you think of the proposal first put forward by Matt Lewis in July at Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland. I confess I am no expert on N.Ireland, but I believe this could solve the problem of N.Ireland having no flag to represent it on wiki. I have made a comment at that article. Cheers. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Titch I'm just here to respond to a couple of messages on my talk page, but thanks for the notification. I'll be sure to look it up when I have a bit more time, later.
 * I'd just like to say for now though, that Northern Ireland does have a flag to represent it on Wikipedia. The problem is that some editors feel that they must take offence at it, and must remove it from the 'pedia because of that. -- Setanta 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AE
You are once again being discussed on AE, I invite you to comment, lest sanctions be leveled without your input.--Tznkai (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Joy.
 * So, are you indicating, by this comment, that sanctions are definitely going to be made against me if I do not comment? Would it be worth my while even commenting..? I'll have a gander shortly - thanks for the notification. :) -- Setanta 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AE Report
I have filed a report here because of you reverts and the tone on the talk page. Please read the talk page guidlines, and please be a bit more civil with editors, there is no need for your comments. -- Domer48 'fenian'  09:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I see nothing wrong with my "tone". You were also possibly in breach of the spirit of the Arbcom. Feel free to read and respond to the comments I made there. -- Setanta 15:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought
From what I'm reading, the meaning of Sinn Féin is fairly obvious to those who are familiar with the Troubles. However, remember, we're not writing articles for experts, we're writing it for someone who has no idea about the Troubles, like I was, before I got roped into all of this by volunteering to mentor someone. Providing refs, especially simple ones like this is useful to someone who doesn't know the whole situation, and helps us neutrals out.. That's why providing it is useful for us clueless Yanks who don't know jack about things.

Also, Domer is right that the behaviour could use a bit of a spruce up. It's the easiest way to get in trouble and reignite all the sniping and name calling, and quite frankly, I think you, me, Domer, everyone, have had more then enough of THAT for some time to come.

Now, Domer is right that you violated the parole on the Troubles... but this time, I'm going to let it go, because well, unlike others involved here, I haven't seen any problematic behaviour from you in a while up till now. But try to take my advice to heart about making articles useful for people like me (well, not like ME, but I think you have a clue what I mean ;) ).

Have a happy and safe Christmas season. SirFozzie (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 * To be honest, SirFozzie, I see little, if any, difference between "we ourselves" and "ourselves alone" - given the context! It seems to me to be splitting hairs to some extent. I don't see the need to litter the article with multiple citations and attempting to provide citations for the suggestion that the sky is blue.
 * I don't see any problem with my behaviour either.
 * I do appreciate what I regard as a logical approach to this case by you. I've expanded on all of these comments and more on the arbcom request itself.
 * Have a good one yourself! If I suggested that I hope you get lots of socks this Christmas, you might take that the wrong way! Although.. I actually need socks this year! :) -- Setanta 16:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That you don't see any difference between "we ourselves" and "ourselves alone" is really not our concern. That it is not the correct translations, and you added it known this dose concern us. Now when you try to add incorrect information it will be challanged and removed. Thanks, -- Domer48 'fenian'  18:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 * That you think I don't see any difference between "we ourselves" and "ourselves alone" is really not our concern. However, since you brought it up, perhaps you would care to explain the difference as you see it.
 * When you try to add incorrect information, or remove correct information, it will be challenged and removed (or re-added). -- Setanta 20:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Christmas
Thanks for the Christmas wishes, I wish you and yours all the best for Christmas and New Year. BigDunc Talk 12:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories ...
Hello. Hope you're well and that you had a nice Xmas. You nominated Category:Loyalists imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict, Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict and Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict to be speedily renamed last month. You may have missed it, but they were knocked back. If you'd still like to have them renamed - and why not? the article is The Troubles - you'd need to do a full CfD nomination. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism to your userpage
While checking to see that the illiterate's vandalism to your userpage was cleaned up, I discovered said page. You're the first left-of-center Unionist (U.K. sense) I've ever encountered. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  22:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC) (unionist only in the U.S. sense; republican only in the Irish sense)

 * It appears the IP hates us both with the same venom :) BigDunc  Talk 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Sounded like a looper to me - a real extremist! -- Setanta 10:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked II
You are blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on User:Keithgreer/User Devolution, as explained at WP:ANI.  Sandstein  18:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Just a thought, why not create your own userbox, based on User:Keithgreer/User Devolution, at User:Setanta747/User Devolution? You could use the flags of your choice, and I'd be willing to (semi-) protect it if you have concerns over edit warring? --Jza84 | Talk  19:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

After further discussion on the above ANI thread, I've extended your block to reinstate Black Kite's previous 1-week block. This was reduced on the understanding that you would stay out of conflict on 'Troubles'-related subjects, which unfortunately you have not been able to do. You can ask for independent review by using the unblock template. EyeSerene talk 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

-- Setanta 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion copied from complaint
'''As I cannot pass comment on the actual complaint, having been blocked before I was notified of any such complaint, I was not able to counter-argue or state my case. Thus, I have copied and pasted the text from the discussion below.'''

I was directed this way by an admin who refused to act due to a "conflict of interest." This user is engaging in Tendentious editing over at User:Keithgreer/User Devolution and has broken the 3RR rule, ignoring an attempts on my part to start a discussion on his talk page. (He is simply reverting those too.) The user has performed over 12 reverts on this page over the same matter and refuses to engage in discussion. He has been blocked before for this type of behaviour and has not learned to either stop edit warring or stop tendentious editing. He has also started edit warring at The Twelfth and regularly edit wars in order to push his own pov. Can he please be blocked, so that the disruptive editing can stop?78.16.30.201 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Very odd, this dispute, but has been engaging in longterm edit warring at, and has already been blocked in the past for editwarring on templates. I've blocked him for 48 hours without first notifying him of this thread, since he apparently does not want to be contacted about this. The reporting IP is likely another of the longterm edit warriors on that page; I've blocked it for 24 hours.   Sandstein   18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Looking at the edit history of User:Keithgreer/User Devolution and the contribs of User:O Fenian and the IPs involved (78.16.233.121, 78.16.36.214 and 78.16.30.201), I'm hearing some quacking. However, I'm concerned that Setanta747 seems to be unable to leave it up to User:Keithgreer as to whether or not they agree with the change to their userbox, and at the obsessive behaviour demonstrated in edit-warring over such a politically-charged subject as the flag of Northern Ireland given Setanta747's previous record in this area and their awareness of Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. I have no argument with the IP 3RR block, but I think there may be a case for reinstating Black Kite's 1-week block on Setanta747 (which was provisionally unblocked early). EyeSerene talk 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I edit from British Telecom IPs, not ones in Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Can you clarify? BT Ireland have BT ips in Ireland, and have been used by in the past. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I am not in Ireland. Given the tendentious, incorrect, and sometimes offensive Loyalist-agenda driven edits that Setanta747 makes, it is hardly surprising more than one Irish person may revert him. O Fenian (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I can confirm that O Fenian is not Wikipeire. (This is per a private Checkuser I asked for about various issues in this area) SirFozzie (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree, though being involved I won't re-instate the block myself, that needs to be done by an uninvolved admin. It is certainly actionable under the remedies of the ArbCom ruling. Black Kite 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't like modifying another admin's actions without very good reason, so I've asked Sandstein if he'll take another look at the block length. And I apologise to O Fenian for apparently putting two and two together and making five (some of Wikipeire's socks were in the 78.16.xx range though, so maybe that was the quacking I heard!). EyeSerene talk 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Could you point me to the relevant ArbCom remedy or other sanction that Setanta747 violated through his conduct? The link by Black Kite above goes to a proposed decision.  Sandstein   19:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * He is on probation according to this log, and he has also been edit warring on The Twelfth to restore his version, 1, 2, 3. O Fenian (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, the log O Fenian has linked to shows a one-year probation from April 2008, and also has two previous rv blocks recorded (for 48 and 72-hours respectively). I know I'm being lazy by not providing diffs, but ctrl+F 'setanta747' on the page will get you to the relevant posts. EyeSerene talk 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * OK, I'm from continental Europe, so bear with me: how is User:Keithgreer/User Devolution related to The Troubles? It seems to be about the UK, not Ireland. – With respect to the Twelfth edit warring, I don't think a lengthening of the block is needed at this point, but I won't object to other admins lengthening it.  Sandstein   19:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, the edit-war has been over substituting various images of the Flag of Northern Ireland into a userbox. The flag issue is politically-charged, mainly because the various flags used over the years have become associated with sectarian positions and are therefore held by some parts of the community not to represent other parts. EyeSerene talk 20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I'm not convinced that the block needs extending at this point, but if he keeps this up after it expires, then by all means.  Sandstein   20:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fer cryin' outloud, this flag nonsense again?--Tznkai (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Reblocked Setanta747 for 1 week, per the above (thanks Sandstein!). EyeSerene talk 20:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * All right, I'm still not objecting to someone else lengthening it.  Sandstein   20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to various accusations and summary punishments from above

 * Firstly, may I state what a waste of time this bullshit is.

 * Since when were unregistered editors included in the Arbcom? I believe there is precedent for ignoring warring by anon IP editors.

 * Presumably of course, this unregistered editor has also been blocked from editing as they have effectively shopped themselves for engaging in edit warring. Or is it the case that the squeaky wheel gets the grease as per usual?

 * Regarding the actual edit war, let's be clear on the facts: KeithGreer created a template which was identical to the one I had enhanced on his user page. I created it as a favour to him, knowing what kind of graphic he would have preferred. I stated in my edit summary that if he didn't like it, he could freely change it back. Note that I suggested he could change it if he didn't like it. Another editor then came along, deciding they didn't like it, and decided to revert the work I had done for Keith. I naturally reverted it.
 * Since then, User:O Fenian and this unregistered editor with the IP addresses 78.16.36.214 and 78.16.30.201 have engaged in edit warring over the user page.
 * The sole purpose of the unregistered editor has been to edit war over this user page (look at the IP's contribution history), which they extended to, again, solely articles I had edited. Anyone with a bit of wit might suspect that the whole reason for the existence of this unregistered editor has been to create hassle for one registered user - namely myself. The unregistered editor obviously has experience of Wikipedia, considering knowledge of policy and procedure so this does not exempt the unregistered user from the same punishment doled out to me regarding edit warring. In fact, this is more evidence that the unregistered editor had a specific goal in mind. This might be considered entrapment - not a game I am given to playing.
 * Admins will notice how quickly another involved editor was to 'discover' this complaint made against me.
 * While there appears to be discussion above with regard to the banned editor Wikipéire - something I had been suspicious of myself, by the way - it appears to have been dismissed by SirFozzie. It is not beyond the realms of possibility of course, that the unregistered user has changed address or changed ISP. Neither is it beyond the realms of possibility that the unregistered editor is a sockpuppet of some other past or present editor with a similar wish to remove all references in Wikipedia to the flag of Northern Ireland.
 * In fact, almost every edit I have made in the past few weeks on Wikipedia has been reverted by the same three or four editors. I have tried engaging them in dialogue and I'm often simply ignored or team-tagged.

 * With regard to the unregistered user's initial complaint, may I remind them that there is precedent set for removing comments from one's own user page. As for the accusation of refusal to engage in discussion, that is entirely incorrect: the unregistered user is perfectly aware of edit comments, yet his only contribution to 'discussion' on the issue with regard to KeithGreer's user page is to ignore good faith and accuse me of vandalism and "misleading edit summary". On the other hand, I have given my reasoning with the following edit summaries:
 * Initial edit summary: "changing the left hand side flag - change it back if you prefer"
 * "[..]we'll leave that up to Keithgreer to decide" (after User:Ιρλανδία suggested that a flag was "incorrect flag to use")
 * "rv unexplained revert" (after a revert by User:Barryob which offered no explanation)
 * User:Ιρλανδία claims I offered no explanation to begin with, although I'm sure KeithGreer would understand perfectly - thus my explanation to his second revert of "rv: If you do some research, you will find that this version would most likely be this editor's preferred version"
 * Again, User:Barryob reverted, presumably simply because he dislikes a particular flag, and no other reason
 * Note that not one of the users involved in the content dispute on KeithGreer's user page have ever used the template he created (which was changed 'by the back door', as it were).
 * Note also that User:Ιρλανδία has been identified as one of the many sock puppets of User:Wikipéire.
 * Note that after User:Ιρλανδία has been identified and blocked as a sock puppet, the next revert other than the one by User:Barryob is by a user with a similar IP address (User:78.16.233.121) as the unregistered editor who made the complaint against me, just over two weeks later. He also complained initially to User:Jza - the admin who appears to have blocked User:Wikipéire's User:Ιρλανδία account.
 * Note that User:78.16.233.121 edit to the only other article edited by that IP is similar in agenda to the many edits made by User:Wikipéire - that of changing any instance of "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland" in Wikipedia articles. Check out the contribution histories of any of User:Wikipéire's puppets. At least one of the puppets has communicated on my talk page in a similar manner as the unregistered editor here.
 * A week after we last see User:78.16.233.121, User:O Fenian appears, to take up the disruptive mantle.
 * The buck then passes to this unregistered editor, User:78.16.36.214, whose dynamic IP seems to have changed recently to 78.16.30.201, and who remains unblocked and to edit.

EyeSerene: I would like to know if there was a time limit specified regarding Black Kite's former action against me that specifically suggested to you that you can feel free to extend this block. Because of this charade, I have wasted considerable time in compiling yet another appeal which will presumably be ignored by admins who couldn't be arsed to use common sense, as per usual.. I also have several web tabs open and I can't find the original Black Kite action against me.

Sandstein seems to suggest that he was not convinced that the block needed extending, yet you extended the block anyway. Why was this?

I don't take kindly to your accusation of "obsessive behaviour", particularly in light of the fact that there is so much in Wikipedia I have simply given up on due to the obsessive nature of others and the sheer weight of numbers and solidarity shown. Given the evidence I have presented and the time periods involved, I'm pretty sure I would come out on top with regard to having a more 'normal' and relaxed attitude. I would remind you of a need to not provoke others by calling them names, as is policy in Wikipedia. As an admin, particularly one who has clearly not been able to see the full picture and apply common sense, you should surely adopt a more moderate tone and attitude.

Besides all that, the original arbcom thing against me was a shambles, and I've as yet to come across an admin who is willing to spend the time to investigate that case and get the action revoked.

 Sandstein:  Your decision not to inform me prior to your action ignores good faith and fair play. This is just not on. How many times have we ignored disruptive unregistered users who continually repeat their actions and cause edit wars? I'm not the only one to have suspected that this unregistered editor, whose sole purpose seems to have been to edit a specific user page of KeithGreer, is a sock puppet of a banned and highly disruptive editor. I certainly have reason to ignore the disruptions, but I don't think that gives you good cause to make a judgement to not pre-inform me about this action, based on your assumption that I "do not want to be contacted". That is simply shocking behaviour and surely not one that any self-respecting, unbiased admin should hold.

What is your rationale behind blocking the unregistered user's dynamic IP for a mere 24 hours, as compared with my own 48 hours?

O Fenian: May I remind you of Wikipedia's policy of NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. I have no "Loyalist agenda" and I find your accusation both "incorrect" and offensive. Do not judge others by the mote in your own eye.

Tznkai: Yes - I can't believe it either. So obsessed are they by it, that they will continually monitor and create edit wars even on user pages in order to have this particular flag removed from Wikipedia.

 * All this action has done, by the way, is to make me more angry and more determined than ever, and less and less confident in the Wikipedia itself. God alone knows what this systemic bias and incompetence has done for other articles throughout. If Wikipedia wants me to play games, then perhaps that is what I should do. Is this the effect you would like to have on prolific editors of long-standing?

 * As per usual, of course, because others have whinged and played, articles in need of improvement are now destined to remain inaccurate or biased . This system is biased in favour of the person who makes a complaint.

 * May I add that, although User:Helenalex was involved in recent content disagreement in an article relating to this block against me, I found him or her to show a willingness to be communicative, to attempt compromise and to listen. Feel free to compare the dialogue between Helenalex and myself with the lack of dialogue from the unregistered IP etc.

 * Finally, I'd like to request an admin act on my behalf in any action that is necessary to defend myself against this abuse in the next week, whilst I am currently unable to do anything other than edit this page. I don't know how one goes about flagging down an admin, but I'm sure another admin would know and can place a suitable 'advert' for me in a suitable place. Cheers. -- Setanta 12:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Setanta, as suggested above, why not simply create your own box with the flag that you want in it an save all this hassle - you dont want to end up like me and banned from editing any "Troubles" articles for up to two years! Save yerself the hassle and worry mate and create a new box. regards --Vintagekits (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 * FYI - the original block by myself was on 15 November. (It's actually still on this talkpage).  After the discussion at WP:AE, I unblocked you with a warning not to use misleading edit summaries, nor to edit-war over the Ulster Banner. Black Kite 15:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Response from EyeSerene
 * I hope Black Kite has partially answered your question as to why I felt it was necessary to lengthen the block. Essentially I felt that, by edit-warring in such a single-minded way (if I can use that instead of 'obsessive'; I meant no offence by the word and apologise that any was caused), you had breached the conditions that Black Kite placed on your early unblock and were also in breach of the arbcom ruling re Troubles-related subjects. That, taken with your previous 48- and 72-hour edit-warring blocks, seemed to merit something more significant than another 48 hours. There was also some cross-communication between Sandstein and me (you can piece it together if you look at their talkpage), and a little resulting confusion towards the end of the ANI thread, for which I again apologise. I understand that Sandstein's reluctance arose from an unfamiliarity with the NI flags issue, causing them not to realise that the subject was Troubles-related and falls under the relevant arbcom ruling.
 * The IP was also blocked, as you'll see from the ANI thread, although for only 24 hours (a standard 3RR block). Although I think wikipeire sock activity is quite possible I can't confirm that, becuse I don't have checkuser access.
 * With the greatest respect, as an experienced user you should have known better than to let yourself get drawn into such a pointless and unproductive edit-war, and one that you must have known was going to rebound on you. At the first sign of trouble you could have taken this to various places - WP:RFPP, ANI, an admin's talk-page, etc. By choosing to hit the revert button, you brought this on yourself. I'm very tempted to delete the userbox entirely, per WP:UBX (Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.), and things are further complicated by KeithGreer's apparent departure from Wikipedia. However, I'd suggest that Vintagekits suggestion above makes sense. Create one yourself, in your userspace, and if it gets altered stick to one revert and request page protection. EyeSerene talk 19:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 * EyeSerene: with regard to "edit warring in such a single-minded way" - no more so surely than the instigators of the 'war' when they (remember - not a one of them actually use the userbox) took exception to the favour I did for a fellow Wikipedian. Again, while you may have toned down your language, your intent and direction of blame remains the same. Remember - I created the edit, in good faith. The three or four editors, none of whom ever used the userbox, who reverted my edit appear to have instigated the edit war.
 * As far as Black Kite's delayed sanction is concerned, I have not been guilty of "misleading edit summaries" (I'm not sure that I was guilty of that particular accusation, in the first instance, as a matter of fact). So that leaves the idea that I have created an edit war in relation to the Troubles. I was not aware that KeithGreer's userpage was within the remit of the suite of articles related to the Troubles on Wikipedia. You seem to have chosen to believe that this is the case, however. Who am I to question a mighty admin who will often defend their decisions at all costs.
 * As for the unregistered user, surely you can use common sense, together with the information I provided above, to easily determine that the user's IP is dynamic and that it has changed very recently. In fact, it seems to have changed with rather prudent timing, giving the unregistered user the opportunity to get in one last revert after I had been blocked at his request. Can you not see the gaming that has taken place here?
 * With respect to you as well, as an experienced user and administrator, is it not possible to apply common sense to this case overall and see the repeat pattern which ALWAYS, without fail, ends with those who would place themselves in the position of my opponent getting their way? Dig deeper and look for the pattern of intransigence, solidarity and gaming. I am less interesting in whining, whinging, wikilawyering, reporting and crawling to teacher than I am in attempting to improve this site and its articles - including balancing articles.
 * As far as KeithGreer's userspace goes, I'm sure that when he comes back he can determine if he wants to keep the enhancement I made (and feel free to determine for yourself, by the way, which option of graphic you think he might prefer, with a little investigation).
 * The userbox is not inflammatory or divisive, so you would not have grounds for deleting it. That a userbox gives a particular political ideology is not actually the issue. The issue is that a small, but active, minority of editors are determined to exclude, as much as possible, any reference to or images of the flag of Northern Ireland from Wikipedia. You pointed out yourself how "pointless" and "unproductive" this edit war was... and I had actually proceeded (to revert to the version I had created) on the basis that a friendly gesture to a fellow editor would be completely ignored and NOT made such a big fuss out of. The obsessive nature of those determined to eradicate a certain flag image from Wikipedia is surely highlighted by this particular case. What other possible motive might any of the editors involved have for reverting other than that they do not like it? As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia suggests that this isn't good enough reason to delete material. It is surely illogical then, to suddenly support the opposite of what Wikipedia has suggested.
 * I thank you for taking the time to read through what I have said here. I appeal to you, however, to read through again and examine carefully what I have said and the various links I have given to support my case, and reconsider after you take some time to digest the information. Cheers. -- Setanta 15:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

 * My thanks to the above admin, Trusilver, for taking the time to go through the evidence I have compiled. While I agree I may have problems in the past with regard to communication, I had made a concerted effort in the last year or so to ensure that I followed procedure with regard to communication on talk pages and through edit summaries. This appears to have made no difference. So I essentially disagree with the admin, with respect, in regard to this particular incident. The complaint was made, by an unregistered user who may or may not be a sockpuppet, over the issue of an edit to an editor's userspace page.
 * If the facts are considered carefully, along with the policy regarding edit warring, one can see that reasonable explanation was given, by me, for the initial edit. No reasonable explanation was given for any of the subsequent reverts by the other three or four editors involved and no attempt was made, by them, to communicate their reason for reverting my edit. In other words, they did not follow proper procedure while, so far as I was aware, I was. So, as far as I was aware, any consequences as noted above, I had probably assumed would be carried out against the intransigence of editors who offered no explanation and did not follow Wikipedia policy: I had assumed that common sense might be applied.
 * Note that Wikipedia policy specifically states reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring;.
 * I had initially made the change to the user's page as a favour in good faith. Note that Wikipedia policy specifically states good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Yet this is the very rationale under which my edit was reverted. Note again, where policy states A content revert intentionally reverses changes made in good faith by another editor, rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve the dispute. Again, I cannot see any other rationale behind the reverts by other editors to this particular page than I don't like it. Where is the accountability with regard to that?
 * Further, no warning was given in this instance. While I am obviously aware of the policy regarding edit warring, as the policy itself states, "edit-warring" is a concept about which reasonable people may disagree. It then states, administrators must warn users in good standing before blocking them for edit-warring.
 * The policy states that experienced editors should be "encouraged to seek dispute resolution should discussion be insufficient to resolve the issue." No such attempt was made by any administrator.
 * The unregistered user is afforded protection by the fact that a) they made sure to sneak in last-minute reverts prior to any punishment being given, though after they had complained; b) they have the advantage of not being subject to Arbcom to to their anonymity provided by their dynamic IP address; c) they may continue to cause edit wars throughout Wikipedia in relation to these articles without fear of the consequences (unlike a registered editor whose history, good or bad, is available for all to see).
 * I believe that the unregistered editor is fully aware of all of this and more, and that they were gaming the system with pure, irrational intransigence, as evidenced by the complete lack of rationale shown by the comments in their edit summaries on the affected page.
 * Once again, and possibly the most damning evidence I have to present here, is the very raison d'être of the unregistered user was specifically to block the editing efforts of one specific editor - myself. A quick look at the edit history of the IP, barring one edit from months ago which was probably made by a completely different person, will confirm this without a doubt.
 * I would consider this to be the most serious offence in regard to this case - a person whose sole existence on Wikipedia is to intentionally frustrate one specific editor's efforts to improve the Wikipedia community and the articles presented. This is based specifically, quite obviously, on the unregistered editor's personal political ideology. While each of us, as individuals, have our own political ideologies and particularly in areas of contention this may attract a lot of perhaps needless and useless debate or argument over time, this is not the sole intention of most registered editors. It certainly is the case with the unregistered user who made the complaint - complaint and edit warring campaign motivated solely by their obvious dislike of a particular editor based on political viewpoint.
 * So yes - while I may be quick to point out the faults of another editor, the improper behaviour of the particular editor who lodged the complaint and disrupted Wikipedia so well, goes to the very heart of why this editor is being punished. In essence, they appear to have won the game they were playing, and no administrator seems prepared to accept the very obvious facts. Perhaps I am not very good at presenting them. Hopefully at least one admin will be able to see through the smoke-screen and consider the facts I have presented here, and will be willing to work with me instead of simply taking the easy route of working against this most foul and crude editor with an edit warring history. -- Setanta 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Further response from EyeSerene
 * Setanta, I agree with most of your assertions (and always have). You were clearly being baited, the IP editor(s) have gamed the system to some extent, and I have no reason to disbelieve your assertion that you were the target. However, the reason you were blocked too is that you allowed yourself to get dragged in to their game by edit-warring yourself. It's your unwillingness to acknowledge this that seems to be the sticking point, and this is why no-one has yet accepted your unblock request. I'm happy to accept in good faith your assertion that you made the original change to KeithGreer's userbox with his knowledge and permission, but as I pointed out in my earlier post, there were a number of alternative courses of action you could have taken once your edit was reverted (also see WP:BRD), none of which would have resulted in sanctions on your account. I understand why you feel unjustly singled out, but until you accept that the IP was only successful in their disruption because of the nature of your response, I don't think we're going to get anywhere. Established editors are held to higher standards of behaviour than anons, because they're expected to know how Wikipedia works and to lead by example. Admittedly talk-page discussion over the initial reversion may not have helped in this case given the probable nature of the IP's agenda, but it should have at least been attempted and would have explicitly demonstrated your good-faith and reluctance to edit-war. To clarify the immediate issue: unblock requests should address the specific behaviour (ie your part in the edit-war) that led to the block; what an unblocking admin wants to see is that you understand why your response to the IP's undoubted bad behaviour was also a problem, and that you won't react the same way in the event of similar provocation in the future. I really hope this helps to point you in the right direction, because I believe you are a benefit to Wikipedia and don't wish to see any good editor excluded from the site. EyeSerene talk 10:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * EyeSerene, thank you for acknowledging and humanising this procedure - I appreciate both that and your willingness to engage me in dialogue and explain your position (as an admin etc) further. You have given me food for thought and I will go away and think about what you have said. For now, I will leave you with the thought you have brought up yourself: that WP:BRD would note have worked and, in fact, was attempted by me in the edit summary. It had also been attempted by me in the past with regard to, for example the template Template:IrishL (see that template's talk page). You can see, in that example, that no progress has been made and that intransigence has won out. I am not given easily to playing games and, in fact, resent them, due to being of a straightforward and honest nature.
 * It seems to me that editing has become a pointless exercise because I, quite obviously, have those editors (registered and unregistered alike) who are lined up and watching, ready to play that game and complain.. resulting in yet another block on the victim and another pointless discussion about it which never satisfies. While this is confined to these articles relating, in any small way, to the Troubles, it seems that this is extending to issues which I wouldn't naturally assume to be regarded as controversial (and certainly aren't regarded as such in the place in which the Troubles actually took place).
 * With the above paragraph in mind, I'm sure you can appreciate how much effort it can be for a volunteer such as myself to make a single, even innocuous, edit.. and how unattractive that prospect can be. I don't want to get into discussions for pages and pages about whether or not the sky is blue just because an editor doesn't like the colour blue. I especially dislike this oppressive assassination campaign in which unregistered and anonymous persons of dubious connection can come in and (ab)use the system against me. What it suggests to me is that I would be better off being that person - the anonymous, dynamic assassin, playing a Game and slowly having my will done, to the detriment of Wikipedia in terms of quality of articles and time wasted by otherwise reasonable people.
 * I didn't register an account here with a view to understanding all aspects of policy and strictly adhering to it at each and every turn. I joined in order to add to Wikipedia in terms of style and content. Others more experienced or more 'powerful' can worry about cleaning up anything I have not executed quite correctly, while I do my best to apply what I have learned, of course. Not long after I joined, I underwent somewhat of a baptism by fire when I became involved in a dispute with a now-departed admin. I learned from that experience and certainly became friendly enough with the admin. The dispute itself was quickly and amicably resolved with a combination of capacity to learn on my part, willingness to be patient and teach on the part of the admin, and compromise and imagination on the part of us both. Since then I have had other run-ins which have been sensible and quickly resolved by either compromise or by either myself or the other party accepting the validity of the other's argument.
 * I appreciate, obviously, that there will be times when dispute cannot be avoided in one of the areas of my personal interest, given the nature of diametrically-opposed political positions, propaganda and certain intransigent attitudes. Given the very silly rationale behind reverting the edit I had made to KG's userspace, I had not considered it to be a problem. As Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I had thought that common sense might prevail over a strict adherence to written policies or guidelines.
 * So, with a situation whereby a good faith editor is punished (even for being provoked) and the perpetrator gets away scot-free, thus necessitating much time discussing the occurrence and making presentations (not to mention your own time taken to respond), thereby removing any possibility of adding to the site (a 'privilege' which is already extremely restricted due to a shaky arbcom, wiki-stalking, the reverting of almost every edit you make, and a veritable war of attrition), I am again feeling extremely jaded. I'm even left wondering if typing these few paragraphs is worth anything. In fact, in the last few months, this (along with the debate on the name of the Republic of Ireland) is probably the biggest input I've made.. reflecting both how difficult it has become and how demotivated I have become.
 * I have said before that this issue is bigger than simply an 'edit war'. Yet that is what it is constantly reduced to. And every single time, the progress the victim sought is reverted, whether that progress is 'right' or 'wrong'. Now one way of breaking out of this cycle is to remove oneself from it. I strongly believe that this will end up being the case for this particular editor, as it has been for others and that, due only to systemic bias, those who are intransigent and determined who are in the greater number will win this particular 'war'.
 * Make no mistake - while it is not a war I had intended to get involved in, it is a war. You know what kind of war it is. The moderates, and I include myself amongst them, haven't the stomach to keep going over the same old battles over and over and as a result, Wikipedia will end up showing a very one-sided version of events full of generalisations, suppositions and errors. -- Setanta 11:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * You make some very pertinent observations on the way Wikipedia can be hijacked by those with a specific viewpoint; countering this requires the sustained efforts of editors who are willing to compromise, work within policy and refuse to respond to provocation. Unfortunately in this instance your momentary lapse of judgement made you the 'bad guy' too, and WP:3RR is seen as a bright line. Clear violations will almost always lead to blocks regardless of what else has gone on.
 * I do believe Wikipedia is gradually coming to terms with dealing with persistent POV-pushing; it's taken time, and there have tragically been many good editors lost along the way, but there's far less of a tolerance for such behaviour than there once was. I'm also involved as an admin in watching over some of the Balkans-related articles (as you can imagine another highly politically-charged area), and a zero-tolerance approach to disruption, backed by WP:ARBMAC, seems to be working reasonably well. However, until as a community we come up with a better way for dealing with users with an agenda, every so often editors are obliged to jump through the hoops of dispute resolution even though they strongly suspect, as did you, that it's a pointless exercise. I appreciate that you have discussed your edits (per Template talk:IrishL), but again there you've been reverting (as have others) while discussion - however apparently fuitless - was ongoing. Dispute resolution lists some measures to help resolve such disputes; reversion is never one of them ;) Incidentally, for now I've removed the image from the infobox completely until talk-page consensus can be reached. I have also reverted KeithGreer's userbox back to the original version and protected the page; I suspect this won't entirely please you, but it puts us back to the default position and in KeithGreer's absence is the only fair remedy I can think of - should they return and wish to comment, I'm happy to make further changes in the light of that. EyeSerene talk 13:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene this is not just about KeithGreer's userbox. There was also the breech of AE sanctions on the Sinn Féin article limiting editors to 1RR, in addition to Setanta personal sanctions of 1RR. We also had a breech of both AE Sanctions on The Twelfth, on the issue of the flag, they know full well its a no no. As pointed out by Black Kite "all Troubles editors should know by now that edit-warring over the Ulster Banner is a guaranteed way to get yourself a short holiday from editing." Tznkai nailed it when they commented above "Fer cryin' outloud, this flag nonsense again?" Now on the catch cry of Tag Teams provide DIFFS that show that editors are tag teaming, not just that disagree with you. As one edtor has been warned about this accusation, Setanta you need to be told also. -- Domer48 'fenian'  14:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I "need" to be told fuck all by the likes of yourself, Domer: why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? I consider the tone in your reply above to be caustic, aggressive, patronising and unecessary.

 * For "all Troubles editors should know by now that edit-warring over the Ulster Banner is a guaranteed way to get yourself a short holiday from editing", read "anyone who attempts to insert the flag of Northern Ireland into any article that mentions Northern Ireland, other than articles on football, is bound to be dismissed as a loyalist".

 * After all, what 'recognition' could a republican ever give to the flag of a country s/he refuses to recognise to begin with. Except, of course, when said flag (or country) is shown in a bad light (in this case, attached rather dismissively in inaccurately to Loyalism - ie. Loyalist terrorist pricks).

 * As EyeSerene points out, discussion on the issue has been fruitless and those with their agenda continue to get their way (I can tell the state of various articles without even having to look them up, including the IrishL template... uncanny, eh?). I have no stomach for this 'dispute resolution' any longer - I am not a "Troubles editor" - I am just an editor.

 * Admins and fellow Wikipedians would do well to note my conflict resolution record with other editors on issues not relating to (what is loosely described here as) 'the Troubles'.

 * This latest block on me was farcical. There is no consistency in Wikipedia. There is far too much Wikilawyering. Non of that is for me. I do appreciate EyeSerene's logical approach to the matter however. -- Setanta --90.210.214.15 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Request assistance
As I am currently blocked, as per above, I would like to appeal to an admin who has some time to spare and who might be willing to offer help with regard to the above block and, more importantly, with another unrelated and intricate matter. Thanks in advance. -- Setanta 07:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. You will need to do another unblock request to get the attention of an admin. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 08:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland flag in Northern Ireland article
Hello,

Please could you take a look at my edit here. I feel this is a reasonable compromise edit, but is being reverted without proper discussion here.

Regards 89.217.188.221 (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Military history of the peoples of Britain
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Military history of the peoples of Britain, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process  because of the following concern:
 * Orphan page

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ''' M I T H  16:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

RCC or CC
You took part in Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3 there is a new requested move see Talk:Catholic Church --PBS (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Where was ya?
Holy smokers & jumpin' junipers, where've ya been all these weeks? I remember meeting ya before, but can't quite remember where. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Shea Campbell
I have nominated Shea Campbell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Shea Campbell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve-Ho (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Terrorism - Welcome Back!
Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Hi
When I first dabbled in Wikipedia some weird transient user puzzled me by claiming I was 'Mal' talk. Meant nothing to me then, but now maybe it had something to do with the troubles you had. Anyway, it's still a weird place here at times. Regards.--Flexdream (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Marillion discography
Just wanted to let you and hope you don't mind that I used some parts of your Marillion discography for the article Assassing. --Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland
User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Setanta747/Northern Ireland during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge
Hi, at The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Setanta747


text:
Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park

Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park in Cornish, New Hampshire, preserves the home, gardens, and studios of Augustus Saint-Gaudens (1848–1907), one of America's foremost sculptors. The house and grounds of the National Historic Site served as his summer residence from 1885 to 1897, his permanent home from 1900 until his death in 1907, and the center of the Cornish Art Colony. There are three hiking trails that explore the park's natural areas. Original sculptures are on exhibit, along with reproductions of his greatest masterpieces. It is located on Saint-Gaudens Road in Cornish, 0.5 mi off New Hampshire Route 12A.

History
Saint-Gaudens purchased the property in 1885 at the urging of Charles Cotesworth Beaman Jr., a friend and New York City lawyer, who had purchased the nearby Blow-Me-Down Farm (now also part of the historic site) and established it as a summer residence. He called it "Aspet" after the town of his father's birth in France. Saint-Gaudens established a studio, and produced work here every summer, and lived here year-round from 1900 until his death in 1907. Beaman's summer estate was a center of activity of the Cornish Art Colony. After the death of Saint-Gaudens' wife Augusta in 1926, Aspet was transferred to the Saint-Gaudens Memorial, a non-profit organization, established by Augusta Saint-Gaudens in 1919. The Memorial ran the property as a museum from 1927 until it was transferred to the National Park Service (NPS) in 1965. The Trustees of the Memorial continue to support the preservation and development of the park and to provide public programming.

The estate was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1962 and administratively listed on the National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 1966. The Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site was authorized by Congress on August 31, 1964, and established on May 30, 1977. Besides a portion of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, this is the only NPS site in New Hampshire. The NPS later acquired two adjacent properties associated with Saint-Gaudens and the Cornish Art Colony, which were formally incorporated in the National Historic Site in 2000. In 2010, an adjacent property known as "Blow-Me-Down-Farm", formerly owned by Charles Cotesworth Beaman Jr., was donated to the NPS by the Saint-Gaudens Memorial, a non-profit operating partner of the Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park. The John D. Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, signed into law March 12, 2019, redesignated the national historic site as a national historical park.

Description
The centerpieces of Aspet are its main house, built 1816–17 with Federal styling, which underwent a series of alterations by Saint-Gaudens, with design work by George Fletcher Babb, and the Little Studio, also designed by Babb and built in 1903–04 to replace earlier studios. The grounds are landscaped with hedges and terraced gardens, in which reproductions of works by Saint-Gaudens are displayed. The gardens were designed by Saint-Gaudens and landscape architect Ellen Shipman. The grounds also include an outdoor room, the Pan Grove, a collaborative design of Babb and Saint-Gaudens, featuring an 8-foot by 4-foot green marble pool set in a birch grove with a statue of the Greek god Pan.

Artists-in-residence
Saint-Gaudens has had a sculptor-in-residence since 1969, the oldest continuous artist residency in the National Park Service.

American sculptor Lawrence Nowlan was an artist-in-residence at Saint-Gaudens for five summers from 1995 to 1997 and again from 2001 to 2002. He received his first major commission to design the Wildland Firefighters National Monument while working and studying at Saint-Gaudens.

The 2023-2024 Sculptor-in-Residence is Davis Fandiño.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park


text:
Yilmaz theory of gravitation

The Yilmaz theory of gravitation is an attempt by Huseyin Yilmaz (1924–2013; Turkish: Hüseyin Yılmaz) and his coworkers to formulate a classical field theory of gravitation which is similar to general relativity in weak-field conditions, but in which event horizons cannot appear.

Yilmaz's work has been criticized on the grounds that:

 * his proposed field equation is ill-defined
 * event horizons can occur in weak field situations according to the general theory of relativity, in the case of a supermassive black hole
 * the theory is consistent only with either a completely empty universe or a negative energy vacuum

It is well known that attempts to quantize general relativity along the same lines which lead from Maxwell's classical field theory of electromagnetism to quantum electrodynamics fail, and that it has proven very difficult to construct a theory of quantum gravity which goes over to general relativity in an appropriate limit. However Yilmaz has claimed that his theory is "compatible with quantum mechanics". He suggests that it might be an alternative to superstring theory.

In his theory, Yilmaz wishes to retain the left hand side of the Einstein field equation (namely the Einstein tensor, which is well-defined for any Lorentzian manifold, independent of general relativity) but to modify the right hand side, the stress–energy tensor, by adding a kind of gravitational contribution. According to Yilmaz's critics, this additional term is not well-defined, and cannot be made well defined.

No astronomers have tested his ideas, although some have tested competitors of general relativity; see Category:Tests of general relativity.

title: Yilmaz theory of gravitation


text:
Wait 'til You're Older

Wait 'til You're Older is a 2005 Hong Kong fantasy comedy-drama film produced and directed by Teddy Chan and starring Andy Lau.

Plot
Chan Chi-kwong (Howard Sit) is a young boy who lives with his father (Felix Wong) and stepmother (Karen Mok). He blames his stepmother for the suicide of his mother 3 years earlier and continually runs away from home. One day, while walking to school, he meets an eccentric old man (Feng Xiaogang) in the park who accidentally pours a magic potion he has created down a drain. The next day, a huge tree has grown from a seedling in the drain. Kwong goes to the man's house and steals the potion, falling and breaking it as he tries to run away. Some of the potion enters a cut in his hand, and the next day he wakes up to find he has grown to the age of 20 overnight. Kwong (Andy Lau) is thrilled that he has become an adult and is able to finally run away from home without being recognized. As he gets older each day, he learns more about being an adult and about the situations of those around him.

Cast

 * Andy Lau as Chan Chi-kwong
 * Howard Sit as Young Chan Chi-kwong
 * Karen Mok as Tsui Mun
 * Felix Wong as Chan Man
 * Cherrie Ying as Miss Lee
 * Gordon Lam as Vice Principal as Chow
 * Chim Pui-ho as Bear
 * Jacky Wong as Billy
 * Feng Xiaogang as Bum, the drifter (special appearance)
 * Li Bingbing as Kwong's mum (guest appearance)
 * Chapman To as Policeman (guest appearance)
 * Kristal Tin as Policewoman (guest appearance)
 * Nicola Cheung as Miss Wong (guest appearance)
 * Simon So as Jack, the basketball team captain
 * Joe Cheung as Joe
 * Lee Yee-man as Beer lady

title: Wait 'til You're Older


text:
Wild Bill Hickman

William Adams "Wild Bill" Hickman (April 16, 1815 – August 21, 1883) was an American frontiersman. He also served as a representative to the Utah Territorial Legislature.

Early life
Hickman was born in Warren County, Kentucky. When he was four years old he moved with his parents to the Missouri Territory, two years before Missouri statehood.

Latter Day Saint
Hickman was baptized into Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1839 by John D. Lee. He later served as a personal bodyguard for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Hickman was reputedly a member of the Danites.

In April 1854, Hickman was asked by Young to go to Green River and establish a ferry under church ownership. Hickman found the area to be overrun by ferries, along with a growing uneasiness between Mormon ferrymen and mountain men. Instead, Hickman established a prosperous trading post at Pacific Springs near South Pass, 26 miles east of Green River. Hickman was appointed sheriff and county prosecuting attorney, assessor and collector by Judge Appleby in 1854 at Fort Supply, twelve miles south of Fort Bridger. In August 1854, Hickman was elected to the Utah Territorial Legislature for the area of Green River.

On February 8, 1856, Hickman, along with Porter Rockwell, and at the request of Brigham Young, carried the mail from Independence, Missouri, to Salt Lake City. Porter Rockwell carried the mail from Fort Laramie to Salt Lake City, and Hickman from Laramie to Independence. The trip took Hickman nearly four months to complete. Hickman was involved in the Aiken massacre of five travelers in 1857 when he killed Horace Bucklin under direct orders from Young.

Hickman was an important figure in the Utah War. He torched Fort Bridger and numerous supply trains of the Federal Army.

Beheading of Old Elk
Hickman was part of the militia that carried out genocidal acts against the Timpanogos during the Battle at Fort Utah. They were under orders to kill all the men and take the women and children captive. General Daniel H. Wells had Antonga Black Hawk lead a segment of the militia, including Hickman, up Rock Canyon to attack those who were trying to escape. They found the Timpanogos chief, Old Elk, dead in one of the teepees. According to Hickman, Jim Bridger had offered a $100 reward for Old Elk's head. Hickman chopped off Old Elk's head and brought it back to Fort Utah. There, he hung Old Elk's head by its hair from the walls of the roof. Dr. Blake saw the head, and ordered more heads to be chopped off. Around 50 heads were piled in boxes for two weeks, next to where they kept the prisoners. They were then delivered to Salt Lake City. Some ghost stories have circulated about the victims' ghosts haunting Rock Canyon.

Excommunication and later life
Hickman, a practicing polygamist, was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1868. Shortly thereafter, nine of his ten wives left him. According to his autobiography, Hickman's excommunication followed after his many attempts to defame Brigham Young and other members of the Church, as well as his many acts of violence and committed murders.

Around September 1871, while under arrest for the murder of Richard Yates years earlier, Hickman wrote an autobiography in which he confessed to having committed numerous murders (possibly 70 or more.) Years later, his autobiography was given to J. H. Beadle, who published it under the sensational title Brigham's Destroying Angel. It's unclear how much of the account is factual and how much is exaggerated, but in his confessions Hickman implicated Brigham Young as being the one who ordered Yates's murder, as well as most of the other murders to which Hickman had confessed. Federal law enforcement authorities at the time gave Hickman enough credence to hold off charging him with any murders so that he could be a material witness in a case they were attempting to build against Young. During this time, Hickman was held at Fort Douglas, where he was guarded by the military, because federal authorities believed Hickman needed witness protection from a perceived threat by the Danites.

Nothing ever became of the case against Young due to lack of evidence. Hickman, who had struck a deal with federal law enforcement to testify against Young if he were ever to be brought to trial, was never convicted of the crimes to which he confessed, although he lived the remainder of his life as somewhat of a pariah, selling pencils for money and living in a shack. All of his wives but the first left him.

Family
Hickman had ten wives. He married his first wife, Bernetta Burchartt on 30 August 1832, second wife was Sarah Elizabeth Luce, married on 30 January 1846. Third wife was Minerva Emma Wade, married on 1 May 1849. Fourth wife was Sarah Basford Meacham, married 18 August 1850. Fifth wife was Hannah Diantha Horr, married 11 September 1853. Sixth wife was recorded only as an "Indian woman" and seventh wife was Sarah Eliza Johnson, married to both women on 28 March 1855. Eighth wife was Mary Lucretia Horr, married in March 1856. Ninth wife was Martha Diana Case Howland, married 2 November 1856, and his tenth wife was Mary Jane Hetherington, married in 21 June 1859. Online genealogical records of the LDS Church show he fathered 36 children. Another source lists 39. Hickman was the grandfather of Mormon metaphysical and inspirational author Annalee Skarin. Hickman was also the grandfather (through Minerva Emma Wade) of the Mormon and Western artist Minerva Teichert. His is also the great-great-grandfather of speculative fiction author Tracy Hickman.

He died in Lander, Wyoming in 1883.

Hickman was re-baptized by proxy into the LDS Church on May 5, 1934.

Legacy

 * East Hickman Canyon, Tooele County, Utah
 * East Hickman Canyon Road, Tooele County, Utah
 * Hickman Canyon, Piute County, Utah
 * Hickman Creek, Tooele County, Utah
 * Hickman Knolls, Tooele County, Utah
 * Hickman Natural Bridge (Arch), Capitol Reef National Park, Wayne County, Utah
 * Hickman Pass, Tooele County, Utah
 * Hickman Pasture, Wayne County, Utah
 * Hickman Spring, Wayne County, Utah
 * Indian Hickman Canyon, Tooele, Utah

Works

 * Brigham's destroying angel : being the life, confession, and startling disclosures of the notorious Bill Hickman, the Danite chief of Utah, Geo A. Crofutt, New York - 1872

title: Wild Bill Hickman


text:
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area is a 70000 acre national recreation area administered by the National Park Service in northwest New Jersey and northeast Pennsylvania. It is centered around a 40 mi stretch of the Delaware River designated the Middle Delaware National Scenic River. At the area's southern end lays the Delaware Water Gap, a dramatic mountain pass where the river cuts between Blue Mountain and Kittatinny Mountain.

More than 4 million people visit the recreation area annually, many from the nearby New York metropolitan area. Canoeing, kayaking, and rafting trips down the river are popular in the summer. Other activities include hiking, rock climbing, swimming, fishing, hunting, camping, cycling, cross-country skiing, and horseback riding. Worthington State Forest and a section of the long-distance Appalachian Trail are located within the area, alongside numerous waterfalls and historic sites.

The region, known historically as the Minisink, was inhabited by the Munsee at the time of Dutch and French Huguenot colonization in the late 17th century. The national recreation area was established in 1965 ahead of a dam project which would have flooded a large region north of the Water Gap. Over 15,000 people were displaced as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers acquired land for the reservoir. The controversial project was ultimately canceled in 1978 and the land transferred to the recreation area.

There are efforts as of 2022 to re-designate the area as a national park, the first in New Jersey or Pennsylvania.

Description
The recreation area includes parts of Sussex and Warren counties in New Jersey, and Monroe, Northampton, and Pike counties in Pennsylvania. The Appalachian Trail runs along much of the eastern boundary of the park and is maintained and updated by the New York–New Jersey Trail Conference. The park offers historical and cultural sites including the Minisink Archaeological Site, Millbrook Village, and the arts center in Peters Valley and rural scenery approximately an hour's drive from New York City. The park has significant Native American archaeological sites. In addition, a number of structures remain from early Dutch settlement during the colonial period. Outdoor recreational activities include canoeing, hiking, camping, swimming, cycling, cross-country skiing, horseback riding, and picnicking. Fishing and hunting are permitted in season with valid state licenses.

The area is also noted for its many waterfalls. These include Buttermilk Falls, the tallest falls in New Jersey at about 90 ft, and Raymondskill Falls, the tallest in Pennsylvania at about 150 ft.

Delaware Water Gap
The namesake feature of the recreation area is the prominent Delaware Water Gap, located at the area's southern end. The Delaware River runs through the gap, separating Pennsylvania's Mount Minsi on Blue Mountain, elevation 1461 ft, from New Jersey's Mount Tammany on Kittatinny Mountain, elevation 1527 ft. The gap is less than 1000 ft wide at river level and less than 1 mi wide at the ridge line. The river is about 350 ft wide at the gap.

The gap has long facilitated transportation across the ridge, with Pennsylvania building the first road through the gap in 1793. Today, I-80 occupies the eastern side of the gap, while PA 611 and the Pocono Mainline of the Delaware-Lackawanna Railroad runs through the western side.

Minisink
The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area incorporates much of the historical Minisink. The Minisink (or more recently "Minisink Valley") is a loosely defined geographic region of the Upper Delaware River valley in northwestern New Jersey (Sussex and Warren counties), northeastern Pennsylvania (Pike and Monroe counties) and New York (Orange and Sullivan counties). The name was derived by Dutch colonists from the Munsee name for the area. While the term "Minisink" is not used often today, it is preserved because of its historical significance in the early European settlement of the region during the American colonial period and as an artifact of the early "first contact" between Native Americans and early European explorers, traders and missionaries in the seventeenth century.

History

At the time of European contact, the Minisink was inhabited by Munsee, the northern branch of the Lenape. The area's first European settlers arrived in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries and were Dutch and French Huguenot families from colonial New York's Hudson River Valley.

Tocks Island Dam project

The Delaware River is prone to floods—some resulting from seasonal snow melt or rain run-off from heavy rainstorms. However, record flooding occurred in August 1955 in the aftermath of two separate hurricanes (Hurricane Connie and Hurricane Diane) that passed over the area within the span of one week. On 19 August 1955, the river gauge at Riegelsville, Pennsylvania recorded that the Delaware River reached a crest of 38.85 feet, or 16.85 feet above flood stage.

A project to dam the river near Tocks Island was in the works before the 1955 floods. But several deaths and severe damages resulting from these floods brought the issue of flood control to the national level. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed the construction of the dam, which would have created a 37-mile (60-km) long lake between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, with depths of up to 140 feet. The area around the lake would be established as the Tocks Island National Recreation Area under the oversight of the National Park Service, to offer recreation activities such as hunting, hiking, fishing, and boating. In addition to flood control and recreation, the dam would be used to generate hydroelectric power and provide a clean water supply to New York City and Philadelphia.

Starting in 1960, the present-day area of the Recreation Area was acquired for the Army Corps of Engineers through eminent domain. Approximately 15,000 people were displaced by the condemnation of personal property along the Delaware River and the surrounding area. An estimated 3,000 to 5,000 dwellings and outbuildings were demolished in preparation for the dam project and subsequent flooding of the valley. This included many irreplaceable historical sites and structures connected with the valley's Native American and colonial heritage.

Establishment of the recreation area
In support of the Tocks Island Dam project, Congress authorized the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in 1965. The area was intended to encompass a narrow strip of shoreline surrounding the reservoir, in part to make the project more cost-effective.

The dam project was embroiled in controversy, engendering strong opposition from environmental groups and embittered, displaced residents. Due to this opposition, the unavailability of funding for the dam, and a geological assessment revealing the dam would be located near active fault lines, the federal government ultimately decided to abandon the project in 1978. The lands acquired were then transferred to the National Park Service and added to the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.

Recent history
The recreation area is currently facing major under-funding. Deferred maintenance costs total over $161 million, with an annual $6 million routine maintenance cost.

In November 2021, a proposal was introduced to redesignate the recreational area as a full-fledged national park, which would make it the first such park in Pennsylvania or New Jersey. Local Sierra Club chapters have supported this proposal, claiming it would help to improve the Recreation Area's infrastructure and capacity for tourists.

Superintendents and regional affiliations
Previous and current superintendents of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area include:
 * Peter DeGelleke, 1965–1973
 * James McLaughlin, 1973–1979
 * Albert "Amos" Hawkins, 1979–1988
 * Richard Ring, 1988–1992
 * Roger Rector, 1992–1997
 * William Laitner, 1997–2003
 * John Donahue, 2003–2017
 * Sula Jacobs, 2018–2022
 * Doyle Sapp, 2022–present

The park is currently a part of Interior Region 1 of the National Park Service. It was originally a part of the Northeast region, and later the North Atlantic-Appalachian Region.

Notable sites within the Park

 * Brau Kettle
 * Brodhead Farm
 * Callahan House
 * Cold Spring Farm Springhouse
 * Dingman's Ferry Dutch Reformed Church
 * Metz Ice Plant
 * John Michael Farm
 * Military Trail
 * Nyce Farm
 * Schoonover Mountain House
 * Capt. Jacob Shoemaker House
 * John Turn Farm
 * Marie Zimmermann Farm
 * Van Campen's Inn
 * Raymondskill Falls
 * Zion Lutheran Church
 * List of waterfalls of the Delaware Water Gap


text:
Marcel Fillion

Joseph George Leopold Marcel Fillion (May 28, 1922 – May 15, 1998) was a Canadian professional ice hockey left winger who played in one National Hockey League game for the Boston Bruins during the 1944–45 NHL season, on March 18, 1945, against the Montreal Canadiens. The rest of his career, which lasted from 1940 to 1954, was spent in different minor leagues. Marcel is the brother of Bob Fillion.

title: Marcel Fillion