User talk:Logoistic

I am basically gone from Wikipedia, but am keeping the account just incase...

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Logica, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mrsteviec 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern England

Please take time to read Wikipedia:Etiquette. Mrsteviec 17:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. We all have to start somewhere and it isn't possible to know all the policies and guidelines from the outset. I hope you enjoy editing. Mrsteviec 07:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relativism article

Just letting you know I've replied in the discussion we were having on the talk page. 2nd Piston Honda 13:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, will post reply now. Logica 22:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doxbridge Tournament

Hey thanks for the note. I was being too cryptic - I was thinking whether this was actually real and notable or not, thats all Bwithh 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm not gonna claim academically or prestigiously that Durham is anywhere near Oxbridge (one or two isolated departments aside) and anyone at Durham who does so is up their own ass. But I DO think socially/culturally, in the way that the university is run, in the formals, the union society, the fact that right now I'm living in a castle with a big great hall type thing, there are a number of similarities. Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't put Durham on anywhere near the same footing, paticularly on an international basis; but equally it shares more with the time I spent with a friend at Cambridge than the time i spent with a friend at Edge Hill University ;) --Robdurbar 22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, na I was just initating discussion really, and defending the old uni; but as discussed at Talk:Durham University, I don't think its a point worth raising in the article and Im not sure how tangialbe it is... its more just a feeling. But I agree that 'Oxbridge of the north' is, more than anything else, an embarassing term. Cambridge UL has every published book in the country doesn't it? Slightly more extensive than out little thing, I guess!

Yeah, also a third year geographer, BA - which in Durham's case means a 'social' dissertaiton rather than 'physical'. Which side of the divide are you on? --Robdurbar 08:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Sands

Well as an admin the only advantage I'd have over asking another user is experience and a worringly large amount of policy knowledge. I'll have a look at it; but if you want a wider community response you can ask for a request for comment - this basically asks people to come and look at the page and see what they think about a dispute. Sometimes these work but often in a controversial article people steer well clear. However, putting through for an RFC does allow you to go to more formal dispute resolution at a later stage if something is really serious. --Robdurbar 09:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement of death of Bobby Sands in the House of Commons

Please see Talk:Bobby Sands. Fys. Ta fys aym. 21:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Sands Reverts

You have broken the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on the Bobby Sands page - please self revert to last edit or I will report you. If you wish to discuss please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28Ireland-related_articles%29#IRA_articles:_usage_of_the_word_.22volunteer.22 Vintagekits 01:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more info - [1], [2] and [3] = this is three revert by you and you come over here and accuse me!?! In my humble opinion you have only a superficial knowledge of the issues at hand here and should gain more knowledge on THIS specific subject before editing before editing it again. If you dont self revert the page I am going to report you Vintagekits 02:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These citations indicate that I reverted only THREE times, and not even then within a 24 hour period. I have explained this to the user, but he disputes this. Admin have been informed about this claim. Logica 02:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The revert where within a 24 hour and somes minutes period and therefore still breaks the 3RR Vintagekits 03:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rule states that you must make FOUR reverts within TWENTY-FOUR hours. I made three reverts outside of 24 hours. I am not guilty of anything. Logica 03:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll first of all state that I don't think you broke the three revert rule. However please note that Vintagekits would be right that we consider 4 reverts in 25 hours as breaking the rule... we're not so naive as to allow people to make a 4th revert straight after the 24 hour period is up. Equally its not a right to revert 3 times every 24 hours; but I don't think your doing that sort of thing either.

You appear to have 4 edits to the page between 12:53 29/11/06 and 01:35 02/12/06. Though these are all reverts, they occur over a ~50 hour period; given that you need 4 reverts within (or around) 24 hours to break the rule, I don't see how you could have done.

On the other hand, you are correct that Vintagekits broke it. I'll give him a warning. It would show a sign of good faith on you behalf if you didn't report it; if he doesn't break it again, then all's well. If he were to break the rule again, though, I would encourage a report. --Robdurbar 11:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really familiar with the Mediation Cabal pages but I think Vintage has edited into the correct place. If it were wrong it would probably just indicate that Vintage was unfamiliar with the format and his comment needed moving. As for the page - it does seem a little pointless to be repeatedly including volunteer when discussion over its use is ongoing. --Robdurbar 09:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage

Well I know one or two of those users and they're not all necessairily Irish Republicans, but they are all Irish. Either way, its reasonable to assume that the intention is to sway the vote, so yes, it breaks those regulations. I see you've brought it up at the mediation page; this and a warning to the user is the right thing to do. Robdurbar 10:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Bobby Sands comments

Thanks for the comments you left on my Talk Page in re: Bobby Sands. As well as your defense of my criticisms of the article on its talk page.

Have to make this short, will leave a longer reply later. Have to go get an Xmas tree with my wife!

Merry Christmas/Happy New Year.

PainMan 02:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry + Vintagekits

Well first of all, even though Vingtage's actions may seem disruptive, it is valid under Wikipedia rules, although this is a fairly recent change in empahsis. I've indicated to vintage that its his perogrative but that its seen as "bad form". See WP:TALK:

"Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil... However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings."

As for the sockpuppetery. If you have a valid case for using sockpuppets - as you seem to - then that's fine. My advice to you would be to go through all the accounts you use linking to a similar message that explains why you use them, replacing Vintage's template. You could use this, but even better would be a repeated message of your own chosing linking to User:Logica e.g.

This account is a legitiamte sockpuppet of User:Logica. Please direct any messages for this account to User talk:Logica

You could also leave a note expalining why you use sockpuppets on your user page.

Oh, and if you need to create a new account, do so. Your old user page etc. could be moved to your new one. --Robdurbar 08:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Vintagekits

Um, as far as I know, that tag you are placing is only to be used by admins after a request for checkuser has proven sockpuppetry. Would you mind pointing me to the checkuser results? Jefferson Anderson 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vintagekits Logoistic 21:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I also understand that:

1) Such a tag is to be placed only if the user is blocked.

2) It should only be placed by an admin, and

3) Once the user is unblocked they may remove it at will. Wikipedia does not "brand" editors who formerly used sockpuppets unless they continue.

I think you could get blocked for either harassment or even WP:3RR if you continue. Jefferson Anderson 21:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sockpuppets are not banned from Wikipedia as long as they follow the rules, that is to say they do not carry on with the editing campaigns of banned users and that they do not try to make out that an issue has more support or opposition than it already does. Nothing you have said here supposes any bad faith on the part of Vintagekits.--Edchilvers 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are both misinformed. Placing the sock puppet template on the suspected (or confirmed) puppeteer's page is a part of the process. I also find this revelation rather ironic after all the whining about WP:AGF after I suspected this individual of using sock puppets, wholly independent of this issue. Coincidence? - WeniWidiWiki 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you stick for calling me a sockpuppet earlier today as that was and "abusive" sockpuppet and was cross editing with me - there is a big difference between a legitimate and illegitimate sockpuppet as Logoistic well know as he has over 5 known socks--Vintagekits 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "socks" are there because I couldn't access my account, so edited from an unregistered IP. My IP changes everytime I log on. You make it sound illegitimate. It is not. You know this. This is bad faith, again, bordering on personal attack. As Robdurbar pointed out, they are LEGITIMATE sockpuppets. Logoistic 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you point out me bad faith?--Vintagekits 22:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have brought up the issue of my sockpuppets here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#Vintagekits_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.C2.A0.C2.B7_logs.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_user.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_log.29) as if they were illegitimate - that I only "admitted" to them after you told me, as if I was guilty of something. Let's just keep with the issues at hand - you deleting a legitimate message that you have an illegitimate sockpuppet. Logoistic 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So me point out the you have sockpuppets is bad faith but when you do it it isnt! and my sockpuppets are illegit but yours are legit! right it get it now - thanks for clearing that up!--Vintagekits 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:DownDaRoad canvasses for your cause and comments on the mediation discussion. My sockpuppets were used because I couldn't access my account, hence why I had to get a new one in the end. When on the mediation discussion I also made it clear I was Logica. You did not. You had no legitimate reason to create the account - you could have done all these things by your own account. Logoistic 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not canvassing from my alternate account - a NEUTRAL messege was sent to approximately 50 users - approx 50/50 with opposing views - the reason I sent it to them was to raise awareness of the mediation and to get others involved as it seemed that the same 4 editors were the only ones posting on the issue. the is a big idfference between a legit and illegit sockpuppet - you should know as you have now admitted to have over 5 of them. A little balance and perspective please--Vintagekits 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why not use your Vintagekits account? Also, why use the account to comment on issues on the mediation page? Logoistic 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I did not want them be swayed by MY opinion on the issue and wanted them to see it through fresh eyes--Vintagekits 22:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but commenting like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage&diff=98472436&oldid=98468028) on the mediation page cannot be explained in this way. Logoistic 22:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One short neutral remark that that was mistakenly left whilst I didnt realise I was still logged in as the other account is really pushing your bad faith towards me, anyway that single edit is only seeking clarification and not putting forward a POV of my own (thankfully!)--Vintagekits 22:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puppetmaster tag

Please see this archived AN/I discussion about the puppetmaster tag. Jefferson Anderson 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, interesting. It begs the question, then, why is the following text at Wikipedia: Sock Puppetry:

"The original or best-known account of a user that operates sock puppets may be tagged with Sockpuppeteer. If the sockpuppeteer has at least one proven sockpuppet, tag the user page with Sockpuppeteerproven instead."

...if a user can do what he wants with his user pages. Yet I have also come across several vandals who have been given more warnings for removing the original warnings - as if they wen't allowed to do it (which makes sense as how are other users going to know that they have been given a lower level warning before without trawling through the history of edits). The whole point of the sockpuppetter tag is surely to inform other users - the same with warning messages. We'll see where it goes with the admins. Logoistic 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is used by admins when the user is first suspected of sockpuppetry. There is a formal process at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets which involves filing evidence of sockpuppetry. If that process is followed, the tag is used and must stay on the puppetmaster and sockpuppet account for 10 days. After ten days they may be removed. They stay on blocked accounts, but don't have to be left on the user page if there is no decision to block the account. Jefferson Anderson 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and on the removal of warnings... most warnings are on the talk page. not the user page. That's a whole different kettle of fish. Jefferson Anderson 23:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this is "suspected sockpuppetry". It seems that it is not clear what the policy is in putting the sockpuppeteer tag on a user page for a proven, illegitimate sockpuppet. Logoistic 23:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine navy

See the POV psuhing from our old friend at Argentine Navy, SqueakBox 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cant be POV if backed up with sources, I am just looking to balance out the blatant British bias--Vintagekits 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it more English language bias, actually. See my point on the Falklands War talk page. Logoistic 00:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That, Vintage, is not a true statement, SqueakBox 00:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you the links mate!--Vintagekits 00

30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias is a strong word, Vintage. Please do not bandy it around - highlight specific points you disagree with. Logoistic 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I think it's worth a mention in the Falklands War article, but it is a fact (see the google hits) that "Falklands War" is the more commonly used term in English language sites. Thus, an English language wikipedia should refelct this. Therefore it would be unwise to mention the term in other articles. Logoistic 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Falklands should be given promience over Malvinas as the most common term but Malvinas is widely used in English and this is not shown--Vintagekits 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"widely used" needs sources. My google search shows 35,300 hits for "Malvinas War". Substantially less than the 511,000 for "Falklands War". Agreed it should be used in some articles where it is notable, or whether the particular context demands it, but this doesn't mean changing all terms to "Falklands/Malvinas War". Logoistic 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your new userpage box!

I had to laugh!--Vintagekits 02:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on just for you. Logoistic 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you know if we come off ceasefire! lol!--Vintagekits 02:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post on my user page

That's what the talk page is for. Posting anything on someone's user page is a form of vandalism. Thanks for taking this into your consideration. Jefferson Anderson 22:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good of you for removing the list, though. And certain things are allowed - Wikipedia:Sock puppetry states that a sockpuppet/sockpupetteer tag is allowed. So it isn't vandalism when someone does that legitimately! Logoistic 00:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to an article

Have you ever actually added to an article?--Vintagekits 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. Please be clearer. Logoistic 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without means to disrespect, I notice that you get involved in a lot of arguements but dont ever actually seem to add anything to Wiki in terms of material.--Vintagekits 19:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since starting on Wikipedia I have found myself moving away from adding content to articles to try and attain a neutral POV in articles that are already written. This has been a time-consuming task, and left little or no time for me to add to articles. I am happy doing this, however, as I am trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, particularly against POV vandals. Logoistic 19:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:"I am trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, particularly against POV" really!?!?!? --Vintagekits 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. This is another example of a personal attack against me. Please refer to: Wikipedia: assume good faith and Wikipedia: no personal attacks for more information. Logoistic 19:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make me laugh - stating "really" is assuming bad faith and a personal attack all roled into - interesting perception!--Vintagekits 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume good faith, and take that as a compliment. Regards. Logoistic 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use my talk page as a forum

Logoistic, you and Vintagekits need to stop spamming my talk page with your own comments to each other. I don't feel any need to get into this issue with you. Please don't involve me. Thanks.--C J King 20:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to a claim made by Vintagekits there. Please excuse any 'spamming' of mine. Logoistic 20:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits

I was not actually talking entirely in reference to myself. I have had few direct confrontations with him until last night and his actions towards me have been uncivil but not directly rude. I have however noticed him being so to other users on numerous occasions. If I have overstepped the mark then I will apologise and withdraw my comments. I rarely get involved in such debates and should not have done so here. I simply found his attitude frustrating and aggresive and allowed myself to be drawn into what is obviously a fruitless debate.--Jackyd101 10:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El chulito

Why are you trying to twist things against me instead of condemning the action of El chulito. You have really gone down in my estmiation over this.--Vintagekits 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as you breaking Wikipedia policies continually, El chulito is right. You can't expect to get away with this kind of thing. El Chulito's changing of Volunteer to member was wrong as far as our interpretation of the mediation is now (see talk on Shyam's page for request for clarification on this), but you've more than made that clear. Logoistic 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Begley

Did you read Begley's discussion page for a reason why I deleted numerous POVs ("non-sectarian republicanism"; Glenbryn Estate)? Please do so; it has more to do than the Member/volunteer conundrum.New identity 14:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been autoblocked...

Who on earth put a block on the whole of the University of Cambridge network????

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 131.111.8.102 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Yamla 19:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diarmuid O'Neill

Do not remove references - it is vandalism - those references are required to support statements in the article - if you do not put them put in I am going to report you.--Vintagekits 01:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those references did not refer to the information you claimed in the article. They were nothing short of misleading, and reprented a bad edit at best, and deliberate fabrication at worst. Moreover, many of those references are unreliable. Please do not wrongly accuse of me of vandalism. Please read: Wikipedia: Vandalism and Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information. Logoistic 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations without checking your facts!!!!!

Try getting your facts right - I revert El Chuilto previous post see here--Vintagekits 00:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I hold my hands up on that one. It would have been helpful if you had made this clearer in your edit history, though. Logoistic 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as long as you have admitted that you are wrong then I suppose I can let that one slide.--Vintagekits 10:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. Logoistic 13:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Gilmour

What are you on about - you just changed Volunteer to member - either self revert or you will be reported.--Vintagekits 22:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should NOT have created an erticle referring to an IRA "Volunteer". The mediation was about use of VOLUNTEER and not MEMBER. Volunteer is not to be used like this unless it can be proved as a rank. And it hasn't. Logoistic 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect - it is OK to create using Volunteer - it is NOT ok to switch the two. Last chance to self revert or I WILL report you.--Vintagekits 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say it is ok to create articles with "Volunteer"? That is essentially the same as adding to an article with "Volunteer". I reiterate Shyam's latest reponse: only use Volunteer if it can be proved as a rank for the respective IRA, and in this case it can't. You have broken mediation. Logoistic 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, where does it say it isnt.--Vintagekits 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Other than these two IRAs [Irish Volunteers and original IRA] members the term "volunteer" is strictly prohibited." Furthermore: "we all agreed to make only to make a good and well-referenced article of Volunteer (Irish republican). Other than this, I never agreed to make any edits to other articles related to this mediation." Point is: unless you can proove it, you have to loose it. Logoistic 22:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the recent message also: "I am recalling all the persons who could produce reliable sources to prove "Volunteer" as a rank." That hasn't happened yet. Logoistic 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is his PROPOSAL for an end to the mediation - that is NOT what he has asked us to do until mediation is over.--Vintagekits 23:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until mediation is over BOTH can be used but not switched.--Vintagekits 23:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be absurd. Creating a new article with "Volunteer" has the same effect as adding it to an article! Logoistic 23:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No its not, there has been NO ban put on using either member or Volunteer as of yet, it is currently up discussion WHICH one is to be used, the only ban that has been put on is SWITCHING one for the other - which you have done and I have now reported you for.--Vintagekits 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only saying this one last time: the point is that you should not be able to add Volunteer without proof of rank at all, either in a new article or adding it to an existing one. Logoistic 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are 110% WRONG on this occasion - Volunteer has been used since wiki started, nobody has ever said it can not be used, its use is NOW currently up for mediation, NO decision has been made on the issue yet and UNTIL a decision has been made over its use then then I have AS MUCH right to use Volunteer as member in any article as long as no one SWITCHES member for Volunteer or Volunteer for member then the use of both is CURRENTLY legal.--Vintagekits 23:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "switches" aspect you're going on about is not the rule, but the cirumstances under which the rules occured - namely that current uses of "Volunteer" would remain until a mediation outcome came about. Remember, the case is about use of "Volunteer", not about use of "member". Logoistic 23:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You couldnt be more wrong, the whole reason for the mediation is to the determine the use of Volunteer and member - NO decision has been made yet and it is Shyam that will decide not you.--Vintagekits 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond belief!

I cant believe you made this post just just when he is considering reopening the cabal. What are you thinking?--Vintagekits 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you don't close mediation cases down because one user breaks consensus! Anyone can see that! Logoistic 01:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timing!!!!--Vintagekits 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage, it shouldn't matter. Logoistic 01:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its not the point.--Vintagekits 01:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's just give him some space to digest everything, and hope that he gets what's going on. Logoistic 01:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inform him of your revert and tell him you did this not because you think you were wrong but because you take the mediation so seriously.--Vintagekits 01:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already did here. Logoistic 01:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Tyne and Wear

Hi there, I'm currently considering making a wikiproject called Wikipedia:WikiProject Tyne and Wear and I'm just wondering if you would be interested in joining if and when It's created as I noticed from a user category you live in County Durham. It would be all about improving and creating wikipedia articles relating to Tyne and Wear. If you have any questions, comments please tell me on my talk page and if you know any other users who maybe interested in joining please feel free to tell them as it will need a few members in order to make it run smoothly. I will also be willing to create the project page and templates etc if there are enough active members. Please leave your name here if you are interested. Could you also please tell me whether you are interested or not on my talk page - You can take as-long as you require to decide! Thanks. Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the mediation cabal on the term Volunteer is ending in two days.

The mediation process is ending in two days - you have two days to have you final say and 1. Show any proof that Volunteer is a rank and 2. Leave your final vote in coming to a consensus here. Thank you. --Vintagekits 22:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have already done that. And it's not a vote! Logoistic 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Often written as !vote to distinguish. Tyrenius 01:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star

Unexpected. I'm honoured. I hope I can live up to it! Thanks. Tyrenius 01:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PIRA Volunteer v PIRA member

Can you tell me how this turned out in mediation or arbitration? Is it OK to use Volunteer or not. Given that it is Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army members and not Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army volunteers, I believe, and for all the other reasons w/o rehashing, that "member" should be used.El chulito 20:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El chulito, you can find the final outcome here. Logoistic 22:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "volunteer" in articles outside of the Volunteer (Irish republican) must first use "member" and then indicate that this is also know as "volunteer" (no capitalisation as things currently stand). Logoistic 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Diarmuid O'Neill

You might be interested in this discussion.

Once a quarter my local Council delivers a newsletter about its dubious achievements to all 95,000 properties in the borough. The circulation of this newsletter is over 6 times that of An Phoblacht.--Major Bonkers 08:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Ireland

Hello User:Logoistic, on February 14th you added NPOV and Unverified tags to the Young Ireland article. It is general practice to provide a reasoning for such things on the relevent talk page. Particularly with the NPOV tag; if you tag the article without actually disputing the content, you are effectively lying. I'll leave it for a time, but if you fail to actually provide a dispute as to the neutrality, then there's no reason to leave the tag there. Thanks, Erin Go Bragh^talk 00:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"effectively lying"? What do you mean? I'll leave a message on the talk page of Young Ireland. I thought my edit summaries were clear enough. Logoistic 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Ireland

Your points have been responded to on the Young Ireland page. As this is the place to discuss it I’ll leave it at that. Domer48

User:Domer48

He has left a conciliatory message on the article talk page and I've left a note on his talk page, so I hope things settle down now. See also my note on Talk:Young Ireland re removing POV. Tyrenius 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tyrenius! :-) Logoistic

Hi there. I first spotted the edits of this user and there appears to be a severe POV issue with him/her refusing to accept the community consensus of County Londonderry. The user will go out of their way to try all the trick edits in the book to avoid mentioning the term, which is showing a great POV that seeming can't be let go of. A lot of their edits are very good but this is a real sticking point. Ben W Bell talk 08:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ben. I think this new user is just a little misguided rather than following a POV agenda. We should take it easy on him. Logoistic 18:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Re Edits --Domer48 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry

I see you have an english ancestry userbox and an Irish ancestry userbox. The way you are editing the "Irish" related articles including Irish American, you have 100% english blood NO Irish. That's not a fact that's THE TRUTH. Leave the Irish arcticles alone. Stick to your english ones, you know more about them. - Culnacréann 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand Wikipedia. I've left a message on your talk page. Logoistic 22:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Volunteer Force

Please forgive me my child. I will pray to Our Lady for forgiveness too. It was only a little wisful thinking that caused me to make that contribution. The blessings of the Almighty to you and yours. +++ Fr. Slat O Bodach 13:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to respond to this... Logoistic 22:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Phoblacht

"a history of An Phoblacht by An Phoblacht is not neutral" You can not be a member of An Phoblacht to write its history?--Phoblacht 16:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Log, your wrong on this one.--Vintagekits 17:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history was copy and pasted from An Phoblacht's website was it not? Logoistic 17:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you cant copyvio, but you said An Phoblact wasnt a RS for the history of An P which is nonesense.--Vintagekits 17:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about how it was presented. Whilst we could theoretically go through it and pull out any POV, weasel wrods, and peacock terms, wouldn't it be simpler to simply use An Phob. as a source for specific facts, rather than as an orignal document that then gets altered? Logoistic 17:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per usual those must be stripped out.--Vintagekits 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That makes it POV. Kittybrewster 09:49, 25 February 2007

I dont understand that comment.--Vintagekits 10:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can An Phoblacht be used as a RS for the history of An Phoblacht Yes / No --Phoblacht 12:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Murder" versus "killing"

I didn't know where to discuss this, but this is as good a place as any.

There have been several edit wards in many articles (e.g. Edgar Graham, Robert Bradford (NI politician)) over whether to use the term "murder" or "killing" (or words to that effect), with some (namely, Vintage) claiming that it is only "murder" according to a particular state, and doesn't want it used presumably because it carries negative connoations (which I think we would all agree). On the other hand, there is a case to say that murder should be used, since, to quote the Wikipedia article on murder, it is:

the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being by another.

Note the words "unlawful" - it must occur within a rule of law that is governed at the level of a state. If that state is disputed (and its laws disputed), surely we must remove the "unlawful" aspect, as this is POV. An article persona that uses the word "murder" in this context is implictly supporting one particular side - that of the British state in most of these articles. What we can do, however, is highlight if they were convicted of murder, as this is dissociating the term from the article persona.

A common counter-argument might be, when do we use the word "murder" at all then? We might imagine someone disputing whether, say, Myra Hindley can be described as a murder. However, in this context the vast majority of people would accept that the description of murderer is appropriate. What we should be doing is approaching a situation where we get as common a viewpoint as possible, and describing Myra Hindley as a murderer in the Myra Hindley is a commonly accepted view. On the other hand, there is substantial opposition to the legitimacy of British laws in Northern Ireland, and this must be reflected in Wikipedia articles. As Wikipedia:Words to avoid highlights:

There is probably no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article. However, there is always an appropriate word and an inappropriate word, and, depending on the article, some words may mark tendentious or unclear presentation.

the important point is a consideration of context.

Can we all agree to this and stop the edit warring? Logoistic 00:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. - Kittybrewster 01:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with this policy. What point are you trying to make? Logoistic 01:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killing is weasel words in the context of Allan Quartermaine, stockbroker, and the 86 year old Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet. Murder is the word used by Time magazine. - Kittybrewster 01:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage with what I orignally wrote as to why "murder" would be inappropriate, and "killing" would be better. Just because Time Magazine used it doesn't mean we should. Rather, we should discuss it on its own merits, rather than relying on the considerations of its merits by the editors of Time Magazine. Logoistic 01:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reliable source so "murdered" can be used with that as the ref. in the lead section or main text, except I've made the point above that where the IRA point of view is represented then it should state what they call it, and words can't be put into their mouths. We are using the original sources where they are good. Time magazine is not POV - Kittybrewster 01:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing a word does not make it NPOV. Rather, you are referencing POV! You are conistently failing to engage in a discussion about why we should use "murder". Your current arguments are nothing more than a type of appeal to authority. Logoistic 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one thing that we definitely should not do is discuss amongst ourselves what is correct. That is barred under WP:NOR. The inevitable rule is that we need to go to sources. The key fact is that WP:NPOV applies to us as editors, not to sources (once we've accepted them as WP:RS, that is). There is a useful essay (NB not a policy or guideline, but an opinion with some support, as it were): WP:POV. As I see it, there is a major reliable source that says "murder" (US, not UK by the way). There is no counterbalancing major source that says it wasn't. If, for example, the Irish government says it wasn't, then that would be a different matter. If that doesn't solve the matter, then what's the next point? Tyrenius 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. We treat the majority mainstream view as that to be given the greatest emphasis. I understand that relevant governments and nationa media etc would see this as murder. That would be the same in the UK, Ireland and the US, so is not a local view: it is a mainstream view. Tyrenius 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its still POV and part of the "criminalisation" policy the that UK government employed against republicans.--Vintagekits 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying US and Irish govt and mainstream media do not classify it as murder? In that case, please say what they do classify it as and provide refs. Tyrenius 01:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying its is POV like terrorist. Many of these people were charged with murder as part of the "criminalisation" policy, however, they were released under the terms of the Northern Ireland Peace Process/Good Friday Agreement - You dont see many "ordinary" murderers released as part of a peace process. This shows that this is a special situation and charge of murder had a heavy political bias - hence the reason the Category of "Northern Irish murderers" was deleted.--Vintagekits 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you've said is original research and synthesis with no sources to back it up. Could you please answer this question: Are you saying US and Irish govt and mainstream media do not classify it as murder? In that case, please say what they do classify it as and provide refs. Tyrenius 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am saying that many reliable sources print POV. see here--Vintagekits 02:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And see this--Vintagekits 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point. We know reliable sources print POV. Everyone prints POV. It is the so-called reliable source's POV that we use. We don't deal in facts. We deal in verifiablity. Tyrenius 15:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this right. You are saying that the US and Irish govt and mainstream media don't classify such killings as murder? Tyrenius 02:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above question has not been answered. Therefore I take it that it is accepted that the US an Irish govts do classify such killings as murder. Tyrenius 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Good Friday Agreement allowed for the release of convicted Murders convicted of crimes during the Troubles to be released on licence. There has been and there has been no offers of pardons for murder. In UK law a murder conviction does not expire, you can only be released on licence (as have many paramilitaries), be pardoned or have the conviction quashed. A good example of this is Sean Kelly who was returned under licence to prison by the NI Secretary after becoming involved in 'activity'. FACT Weggie 15:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, I didn't think it were possible, but I think you're wrong. By your argument you would be suggesting that "terrorist" could be used to directly describe a group because most of the media do indeed use the term to describe, say, al-Qaeda. Yet as Wikipedia: words to avoid points out:

The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist

Descriptions as a "terrorist" is never used without reference to who is describing it, even though most mainstream media describe them as terrorists. Likewise, we should be indicating who considers it a "murder" by indicating that these people were convicted of murder charges. As I pointed out to Kitty, citing a source is citing POV. It is a logical fallacy to simply say that because mainstream media have used the term, then therefore it must be NPOV. This is relying on their judgement of the POV, rather than our own. I do not think this contravines Wikipedia: no original research. What we must strive to do is seperate any POV from the article persona. This doesn't mean ignoring the mainstream view, but indicating where it derives from, in this case from the murder convictions. Logoistic 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you've just said proves my point, namely that the word "terrorist" can be used if it has reliable sources. A specific example re the IRA is cited in the guideline you refer to Wikipedia: words to avoid:

Provisional Irish Republican Army - "The Provisional Irish Republican Army is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation. The organisation has been outlawed and classified as a terrorist group in [Great Britain, Ireland, the US] and many other countries..."

The same applies to the word "murder". I have argued throughout that reliable sources must be provided and the use of a term attributed to those sources. It is not we as editors who are saying these things: we are merely presenting things that the sources have said and it must be made clear to the reader what those sources are. The first stage is to find the sources and what they say. The second stage is to determine how the attribution should be presented. This is done differently depending on the context in the article. Contentious points sometimes have several footnotes relating to one word or statement. This is one way as it is an alert to the reader.

It is important to remember all statements (apart from merely factual ones such as "Elizabeth I was Queen of England") are essentially POV, or as the section quoted beneath terms it "viewpoint". We are not here to assess these sources and use them or not depending on how neutral we think they have been. That would be original research. If they are accepted as a significant source then we present their viewpoint (aka POV). If there are different viewpoints, then we don't sit in judgement on them. We present them with appropriate prominence and weight depending on the importance of the source that made them. This is made clear in WP:NPOV#Undue_weight:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all

Now it seems to me that the majority viewpoint from media, governments etc is that this act was murder. Therefore this should be stated. If that isn't the majority viewpoint, then we need to establish what is. A minority viewpoint, as expressed by the IRA is that it is "assassination". We also present this viewpoint, but not with the same weight. I think this has been done. In this way we are fulfilling WP:NPOV by showing all viewpoints in proportion to their "prominence".

Nor is it our job to sanitise these terms, and this is stated Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Things to avoid. This would not be WP:NPOV, which is to present each of them unvarnished.

Just to make it absolutely clear, re your statement:

It is a logical fallacy to simply say that because mainstream media have used the term, then therefore it must be NPOV. This is relying on their judgement of the POV, rather than our own.

We are not saying it is NPOV because mainstream media have used the term. NPOV does not apply to the source: it applies to us as editors. We accept the sources are POV, and we accept their judgement, but we attribute it to them. Our area of judgement is not whether what they have said is NPOV or not. Our area of judgement is whether they are a significant "reliable source", and, if we determine that they are, then we represent their POV.

Tyrenius 00:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've understood what I wrote, because what I said didn't proove your point, rather it countered it! We should always atribute the source of the "terrorist" or "murder" label, and this means seperating it from the text. We can't just write:

Man X was murdered{reference}

Instead we must write:

Man X was killed by Man Z, who was then convicted of murder{reference}

...which is an entirely different as this second sentance seperates the label from the article persona. The dispute that is occuring is not whether it should or should not be mentioned, but over how it is presented. Thus, edits such as this one are wrongly presented, whereas Weggie had the right idea in his edit here. Logoistic 18:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some talking at cross-purposes here, one of the reasons being that this isn't the right place to talk about the subject. It should be on an article talk page and talking about the particular article, which may have circumstances and references which differ to another article. I'm only familiar with Sir Norman Stronge and I'm concerned with how terms are to be used in that. There seemed to be a contention that the word "murder" should not be used at all to describe the circumstances of the subject's death. My objective above was to establish whether it may be used at all. I was not being categorical about exactly how it should then be used.

However, I disagree with your proposal that "murder" can only be used if there is a murder conviction. Per WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV it can be used - indeed must be used - if it is a term that is employed by major reliable sources. The exact way it should be used is a different matter. I have no problem with the excerpt you used from Wikipedia: words to avoid:

The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist

Let us then apply this to the term "murder" regarding Sir Norman Stronge. Here are some sources that call his death "murder":

The New York Times, 30 January, 1981 [1]
Time (in partnership with CNN), 2 February, 1981 [2]
Commons Hansard, Rev. Ian Paisley, 1992-06-10 [3]
The Spectator, 13 December, 1997 [4]
Lords Hansard, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, 22 March, 2000 [5]
The News Letter (Belfast, Northern Ireland), January 19, 2001 [6]
The Daily Telegraph, 22 November, 2001 [7]
The Scotsman, 10 April, 2006 [8]

You might like to suggest a form of wording in this case, so that, to adapt the quote above:

The word murder may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling the death murder

Tyrenius 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a conscientious editor ...

SirFozzie has suggested that, as a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here.If you have any questions on what it would entail, please do not hesitate to ask SirFozzie on his talk page or via email....Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Tags

Hello Logoistic, would it be possible to remove the tags from the Young Ireland Article, as the information is now referenced? Regards --Domer48 21:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits already has, but thanks for the heads up. I'm satisified enough for the tags to be removed. Good work on the article - you have come on no end as a Wikipedian! Well done! Logoistic 23:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Logoistic, Regards --Domer48 18:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:2007 Duck0028.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:2007 Duck0028.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rugby League

This is not unfounded nonsense and it is highly confrontational to claim it is so when you have no real knowledge of the subject. If you had read "The History of rugby league" you would know that contemporary accounts said exactly what the wikipedia article claims. If you had studied the history of rugby union you would know that the majority of England players came from what would become rugby league teams, read English national rugby union team. England went from being the strongest team in Europe to the weakest just after 1895.GordyB 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a reference on the talk page of the rugby league article. Again just because you do not know something does not make it "spurious". Anybody with any knowledge of the history of either sport would know that it came down to snobbery. I can even give you references in rugby union history books that say that in those very words. If even the rugby union history books say then it is not "spurious".GordyB 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference, if you have not read it that is not my fault. Go ahead and get an admin.GordyB 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read the reference so you don't know what is in it. If you want another I would refer you to Rugby and all that: An irreverent history by Martin Johnson Chapter 3: England's Aristoprats. Before you call this a biased source, it is book written by a rugby union journalist about the history of rugby union.GordyB 18:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Óglach Roibeard Gearóid Ó Seachnasaigh

this edit although referenced, is written in an editorial style and not encyclopic style. I have noted you edits on that page recently and is appears that some are beginning to accuse you of POV editing. If you need a hand just give me a shout. regards--Vintagekits 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyneside Cinema

Re. Tyne & Wear and the Tyneside Cinema, my apologies - I've spend most of my time in Leeds so I didn't realise that the TC had temporarily moved to Gateshead! BNC85 13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'A' defination of geordie

Not 'the' defination. So hence there has been no one misleading anyone.

Don't know how to put a sentence on the history page.

Cheers.

--77.97.69.42 00:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand - the reference you cited says nothing about your definition at all. See the reply on your talk page. Logoistic 12:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply,

This is not MY defination of geordie, it is 'A' defination of geordie and because it says it is 'one' defination of geordie it means it is accepting it is not formal or offical etc., thus it only needs a 'reference,' and not proof to back it up as being 'the' defination of geordie. Where does it say it is 'THE' defination? See it doesn't, thus it doesn't have to prove anything. Thus the 'reference' to the authoritive oxford dictionary fits. And it is not misleading anyone. It could only be misleading if I, lets say, changed the first sentence of the paragrapgh and changed the 'A' to 'The' defination of geordie, hence lets say if I referred to it as being proof of 'the' 'formal' complete defination of geordie.

BTW I have note stated my defination of geordie is that defination. I'm unbiased and I'm putting up non offensive references if I can find them...

There are a few arguements being what is a geordie and the biggest is you are from the Tyne etc. However I also acknowledge that people from Durham can argue they are a geordie and could back it up by new and historical documents, I acknowledge that if you come from any mining town in the north east you could argue you are a geordie, I could also acknowledge it if Someone from Sunderland called themselves a geordie be it they used to call themselves geordies...

Any way all the best...

--77.97.69.42 22:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. First and foremost, the reference you cited does not support the definition you have given. It says nothing about the "smell of the Tyne". Secondly, any definition needs a reference, otherwise anyone could come up with their own personal definition. Remember, what you are meaning by the definition is that it is one that carries significance, and the only way to proove this is to have a good, reliable (and actually relevent) source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). On another note, thanks for contributing to Wiki though - why not sign up? We need as many people as we can get! Logoistic 23:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logoistic, I'm going to give you this one.

All the best.

--77.97.69.42 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no vandal

You have recently reverted some vandalism you claimed to be "by Logoistic" on Penshaw Monument (here). This was not me - please be more careful in the future! Logoistic 11:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You are right! It was actually the fellow/gal right after you. Sorry about that...removed warning. Hopefully no hard feelins :-). Shoessss | Chat 11:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all - it shouldn't have bothered me really. I'm just way too picky! Thanks. Logoistic 11:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geordie article / Lambton Worm

You removed my ref from the Geordie page, what exactly do you want me to look for in a reference, i thought "do not call mackems geordies" would cover it fairly well. Gazh 14:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page! Logoistic 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's fine. I will dig a bit more, if you're feeling generous you can give me a hand, you're from County Durham so you will know that this 'confusion' can cause offence. Gazh 11:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to create a new subject so regarding the Lambton Worm article, although Wearsiode is a loosley defined term you cannot deny that Fatfield and Penshaw would fall into a Wearside catagory, both are very close to the river banks (either side infact). Gazh 13:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but so am I near Durham City, yet that is definantly not Wearside. Logoistic 20:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durham City NOT Wearside? the river runs right through the city!! Gazh 08:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaz, just because the Wear runs through it does not mean it's "Wearside". Tynedale is not called "Tyneside" even though the Tyne runs through it, Teesdale is not called "Teeside" even though the Tees runs through it. The Tees runs through Barnard Castle, but this is definantly not Teeside. The areas in question take their name from the rivers in question, but they do not apply to all areas bordering them. Logoistic 11:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, i did read it when you first posted it but decided i couldn't reply.

To the people of Sunderland, if you were to ask the majority if Durham City was a part of Wearside they would give ou a resounding "AYE", the people are the same, we speak near-on the same dialect and have just about the same accent - out newspaper (the sunderlane echo) gives us "Wearside" news which includes Durham City. I know a newspaper is not an official source which would define borders etc but it does a good job influencing the people, and to the people of Sunderland, Durham City is a part of Wearside. Cheers. Gazh 09:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer

Please stop, the mediation cabal ruling has been superceded. See here and here. Administrator John is quite happy with just Volunteer, and consensus has changed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on your talk page. Logoistic 12:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"member (volunteer)" or "member/volunteer" is clunky and pointless wording, which is why the new discussion took place. The consensus is clear. The discussion took place, then John (who clearly has no bias in favour of Irish republicanism) made the relevant edits and nobody objected. Contrary to what anyone says, "volunteer" is not a POV term (although "soldier" would be) as it is the descriptive term used to describe members of the IRA by respected academic sources, as opposed to the British and Irish media. "Volunteer" means "member", so it's pointless duplication. There is no need to show you any single diff showing that the consensus from the mediation cabal has changed, although it clearly has. The cabal cannot impose any permanently binding agreements, and the vast majority of editors involved had no objection to the changes which were made by John. He didn't change one, he changed a large number of them based on that discussion. There's your consensus - the edits stood and weren't reverted. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on your talk page. Logoistic 12:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:CONSENSUS, there's a handy flow chart. As before, the mediation cabal cannot impose any permanently binding agreements and consensus can change and has changed. I said above the "vast majority" of editors did not object, one lone voice cannot hold Wikipedia to ransom by suddenly claiming there as they don't agree there is no consensus. The current consensus is to use a wikilinked "volunteer", I don't need to re-open any case to justify that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also sorted out the "member (volunteer)" stupidity, as evidenced by the fact that all the edits that John made took place after that discussion. Why else were those edits made afterwards? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask administrator John? He made the edits. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus policy says it does. Have any of the other editors involved in the mediation case objected and changed the wording back? No, so everyone is happy apart from you. "I don't agree" =/= "no consensus", Wikipedia cannot be held to ransom by a single editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing. If you think that the IRA is illegal in some countries means that they shouldn't be allowed to have a recognised structure, I invite you to look at Category:Mobsters by rank. Criminals being given ranks, whatever next?! A member of the police is a policeman, a member of the Freemasons is a mason, a member of the Army is a soldier, a member of the IRA is a volunteer. To say that the descriptive term can't be used because the IRA is illegal is hopelessly POV, and not in any way neutral. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

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

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial county of Durham

Please cite sources for this article. Otherwise, it may be tagged as a candidate for deletion in the near future. Cheers. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how that article above will be nommed for deletion. I'm actually working on nomming the rest for deletion because they're a breach of policy.

Look at Lancashire, East Riding of Yorkshire, Somerset, Cheshire - all compliant. I'm sorry to say this, but you're completely out of your depth on the counties issue. Why? - not because I say so, no. But because source material says so. There's no such thing as a "historic county" still existing with the former boundaries! The term "historic county" is an anachronism and not a term of art!

The Assocition of British Counties' website is full of nonsense and misquotation. Why? Because I've check their research at a primary source level! I've got all the material here at home!

I'm going through a couple of my old uni books now and write a proper introducion to County Durham. I'm doing you (and the rest of the world) a favour. The editting community (whom I've worked with very closely on matters of contemporary geographic demarcation) really frown upon your kind of actions of breaching the convention they worked hard to secure. Get them involved if you like - I know from experience it'll just end in how I was asserting it should; I've been through this all before.

I've provided full rationale and links to proper conventions, where you have merely steamed ahead inventing a new kind of geography. Not on at all. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message is bang out of order. Logoistic (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? That you don't like it!?... I've engaged with you - it's like talking to a brick wall! I can only point to policy so many times! I've pointed out that you're breaching policies on places, ownership, reliable sources, citation, verifiabiliy and still you edit war and supply not one single source! What am I supposed to do? Accept you as an authority on geography?!.... infact, don't answer that.

In the meantime, I'm fully entitled to remove your contention because you've not provided citation or a proper rationale. I hold consensus and policy - as you've even pointed out!

For the record it is for YOU to achieve a consensus and policy change. Until that time, I'm invoking the quantified and codified consensus and policy; two things which are fundamentally non-negotiable on Wikipedia. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the relative importance of the various types of county (met, non-met, historic, ceremonial, administrative...) it is not sensible to have five separate articles. It is far better to describe each of them in a single article, where comparisons can be drawn and the subtleties explained properly, rather than having five overlapping articles.

If you think that an article has undue bias in a particular direction, then be bold and edit it! --RFBailey (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the aforementioned articles for deletion. The link is here should you wish to contest this. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co Durham

Aim high! We should get inline references for all the text, like much of the rest of the article. Then we can go for good article status. The 1911 tag will not be thorough enough for that process. MRSC • Talk 19:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co Durham (2)

The LGA 1888 creates "administrative counties" (areas of county council control) and "county boroughs" and separately creates "counties". In the LGA 1972 non-metropolitan and metropolitan counties are created. Separately, the 1972 Act tells us specifically they are now the "counties". Therefore the "county" Durham from 1889 was reconstited as a "county" in 1974. This is what the legislation and (more impotantly) the academic literature is telling us happened. MRSC • Talk 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear we have entrenched views and this has been discussed ad infinitum elsewhere - which is why we came up with WP:PLACES. If you want to change the way we deal with counties, the debate should move there. MRSC • Talk 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording is not ok for WP:PLACES as we do not take the view that there is room for doubt over the continued existence of counties. MRSC • Talk 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breifly, I supported the slight change of wording from "changed" to "reformed" or "reconsistuted" (or what not), and have not said that I no longer do so. So long as everything regarding British county-demarcation is in the spirit of WP:PLACE (something I had no hand in setting up), I really have no problem. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now. I was struggling seeing where there was a point of contention. Actually, at the time of making this statement, I had misread part of your changes here; I thought you had merely moved the text, but you had actually introduced a false claim in the text about "some take the view". That's a misappropriation of the source material, and not really on at all. Thus I can't condone an article with false claims, and even if I did, it's a breach of various policies as you no doubt know.

However, this is all over as far as I can see. MRSC (who from memory has an academic degree and/or publication in local government studies or something) has fostered a clearer, copyeditted version with full citation anyway now, it seems. I'm not sure what is to be gained by arguing with other users who are merely reporting on source material. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waaaiiiitt a minute. Hold on!.... you're completely right. I can't believe I've been so stupid. In fact, I can't believe we have this policy in the first place! You've convinced me that we need to split all the counties up. Then, we need to split all the districts, parishes, cities, boroughs, townships according to the acts of parliament that changed them. I think that's about 9 Manchester's we'll need (not including minor exchanges of land per BCoE). Want to make the start?........ Sorry, I'm jesting of course. I do apologise, but I do do it to make a point.

You're just not going to convince me that this is a good thing for our counties; you're really not. It is pointless for you to bombard me with questions about minor technicallities of Acts of Parliament without having reviewed a selection of texts. Simillarly, though I've provided citation, it is clear to me that you're just not going to go to a library and check these out.

I am partially inclined to write a huge essay on why this is so incredibly bad for counties and British geography, but I don't think it'll make a difference to you. You say I can't ignore your arguments - well, technically I can - I could begin to ignore you completely. This wouldn't be nice or particularly civil, but I am tempted at this stage.

I don't know what to say to you from hereon. We have locked, opposed views. I respect you have the article's best interests at heart, and your point bares weight, but I believe that endorssing such a change has a larger, negative impact upon a vast range of articles and topics. I don't want you to be dis-heartened, as we need as many editors as we can get, but I don't think this is going to work. I think the best phrase here regarding the weight of policy and consensus is, "don't shoot the messenger". -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure why we can't state that the LGA72 "reformed" the boundaries? - it was a Local Government reformation that took place, and it is the correct use of the word. I presume at this stage you have read the entirity of the Local Government Act 1972 article and, crucially, Local Government Act? You may also wish to make a post at WP:UKGEO regarding your request for comment. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Barnstar of Nation Merit

		The United Kingdom Barnstar of National Merit
		For upholding the local culture, traditions and heritige of Great Britain on the article County Durham, in the face of attempted destruction of culture, I award you this barnstar. Earned for sticking by the official status of what the senior government of the United Kingdom and its monarchy has expressed in regards to the traditional counties, despite minorities attempting to paint the picture as otherwise. Enjoy! - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
		_{this WikiAward was given to Logoistic by Yorkshirian (talk) on 17:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

NowCommons: File:2007 0108Ducks0011.JPG

File:2007 0108Ducks0011.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Ducks0011.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Ducks0011.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:2007 Duck0028.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Duck0028.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia: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) 18:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions

As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:061 Chopwell1.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:061 Chopwell1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification motion

A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 21:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]