User talk:Aatomic1: Difference between revisions

Hello, Aatomic1, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Fvasconcellos 16:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please settle down. I've protected this page for one hour; you'll have to wait to make any further appeals. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the protection has expired, and Aatomic1 has gone directly back to similar abuse, I've extended the block to a week, and protected this talk page for the duration. Mangojuice^talk 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User:Mangojuice, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gscshoyru 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am obviously sorry. Offending comment for the curious :[1] Aatomic1 16:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cyprian Bridge has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you explain to me what you are asking me to note thanks, on Birmingham pub bombings--BigDunc 10:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

Thanks for clarification.--BigDunc 10:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please join discussion on talk page about the list of the dead appearing in article on birmingham bombings.BigDunc 13:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting very silly now what are you doing scouring WP looking for places to put lists of dead people why dont you set up an obituary article and you can have your fun there.BigDunc 14:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we simply use my talk page for ALL innocent victims? I'm bloody interested in them and I should be able to look them up in an encyclopedia Aatomic1 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in innocent victims too I am sure there is a page on the Paras put the names of the people murdered on Bloody Sunday on it then. BigDunc 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Aatomic1 14:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Aatomic1 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the below to the SAS article - but Consensus was to remove it

The use of a shoot-to-kill policy has created some controversy. For instance, on 10 July 1978, John Boyle, a sixteen-year-old Catholic, was exploring an old graveyard near his family's farm in County Antrim, when he discovered an arms cache. He told his father, who passed on the information to the RUC. The next morning Boyle decided to see if the guns had been removed and was shot dead by two SAS soldiers who had allegedly been waiting undercover. Aatomic1 14:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with what you put in there but why were they removed.BigDunc 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you are not brave enough to remove the memorials to dead British soldiers in the very same articles are You? Aatomic1 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of the articles have not read them but I will do. BigDunc 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick look at them I cant see any memorials to the dead members of these regiments.BigDunc 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken!! Aatomic1 14:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me memorials to dead soldiers I cant find them. BigDunc 14:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol... Show me a single memorial on Wiki... I can't find them either. Aatomic1 15:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not about memorials, I'm about adding information - not deleting it. Aatomic1 15:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)..possibly in some deluded attempt to manipulate History?[reply]

[5]

What are you talking about you are the one who said "...remove the memorials to dead British soldiers in the very same articles are You"? I asked you where are they and then you come out with this "I'm not about memorials..." when all you have done today is tried to add them to numerous articles stop this sillyness please.BigDunc 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was using your definition of memorial. This is a Memorial (ie a lump of stone)Aatomic1 15:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never gave you a definition of memorial and could you please refrain from name calling. BigDunc 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop adding lists of the dead to articles, The list fails WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Use the discussion pages on the articles to raise any issues you may have, thanks --Domer48 23:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aatomic can you please stop adding these lists to articles without first discussing them in article talk pages and getting consensus first. Starting edit wars is not going to achieve consensus on this issue, put your case for their inclusion on the talk pages.--padraig 10:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah...I am sorry... I was angry and I do not believe it to be true. I accept that I should not do it againAatomic1 21:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that apology is for me I accept as I said the dead from any conflict should not be forgotten lets work together to come up with a solution to our differences. BigDunc 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Agreed Aatomic1 22:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and insinuations, of the like you made here are not appropriate. Please don't do that again - Alison ☺ 18:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aatomic1 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The main thing that needs changing is the structure of the article. At the moment it reads more like a list of bullet points than an encyclopaedia article. It needs to have sentences and paragraphs, not just a series of notes. At present it's not really long enough to need section headings either. -- Necrothesp 21:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...cheers I'll put it on my to do list Aatomic1 21:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aatomic1. This edit is not acceptable ....

• Firstly its not true and thus a misrepresentation...
• Secondly, it is entirely irrelevent to the discussion at hand...
• I note you have already been warned...
• Subsequent to Vk's blocking, the culture of tolerance for such behaviour in articles relating to the Troubles is rapidly dissipating.
• If there is any repeat of the ...comments you have ... been warned about, then I will issue a block... please take this opportunity to consider adopting a more collegiate tone with fellow editors.
• Also, you have been a contributor to an ongoing edit war over the addition of lists of victims on various bombings. I do not know the background to this disagreement...
• If consensus cannot be reached on a talkpage, then you should

• open a WP:RfC or
• request external mediation

• reverting three times a day is disruptive. Please stop.

(Aatomic1 Precise of Rockpocket Warning) 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I'm sorry you wasted your time Aatomic1 18:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 1 week for your third violation of WP:3RR and for continued edit warring at Birmingham pub bombings. I'm not sure what else to tell you that has not be outlined above - you must work with other editors instead of simply re-adding your changes. Kuru ^talk 02:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Memorial guideline

Who is the mediator? I can ask them to postpone the closure of the case. –Animum 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreamafter Aatomic1 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've alerted her. Just sit tight and wait a bit. :-) –Animum 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Alright, I have postponed closure, so what is it that you have to say? Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 12:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In Birmingham pub bombings, you have been the one, among some others, adding the list of the dead, so what are your referances? Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 13:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but in a while the Times article will be removed, and so are there any more refs? Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 16:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, please go to this page check it, and then, on my talk page, confirm that I have the basic gist of what was written. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 11:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please add why it does not breach WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go here when you are finished putting your full information here, and in the first link, put only 5-7 sentences. I would like it concise. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 21:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Liam Tobin in 1922.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 11:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. In your zeal to revert on the above page, you removed not only the cites in question but a spelling error (British English for UK and Ireland articles per WP:MOS) as well as two totally unrelated paragraphs. If you're going to revert-war, at least ensure you're not reverting to a revision that's not too early - Alison ☺ 10:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tá brón orm faoi sin Aatomic1 11:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceart go leor ach bí curamach as seo amach / Fair enough but be more careful from now. And please - English on the English Wikipedia, in deference to other editors who can't read this (and you're obviously trying to make a point) - Alison ☺ 14:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (also ga.wikt admin)[reply]

Instead of reverting what you have not even read would it not be wiser to provide a reference to disprove claim. BigDunc 13:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ba mhaith an smaoineamh é. Aatomic1 13:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please use English on the English language encyclopedia. --Counter-revolutionary 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Do I set up a page to experiment Aatomic1 19:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of many option: set up a page as sandbox, such as User talk:Aatomic1/Sandbox. KTC 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. :) KTC 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Domer48 16:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed you from the case since you were not initially listed as an involved party. You may choose to re-list yourself, however (and note that Arbitrators may re-list you should they find that your involvement qualifies you to be listed). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits which became Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles and you are an involved party. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get around to saying this before, but thanks for finding a terminology that includes all the lands covered in the article. Eventually I do want to write about hillclimbing in the Republic of Ireland, and if I do that in the same article (which is possible, as I believe the events are very similar in format) then "British Islands" will be inaccurate... but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it! Loganberry (Talk) 16:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 10:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aatomic1, just reading the above article, and just thought I'd mention the list of names. Do you really think it lends anything to the article? --Domer48 13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

You can go to this page, and talk about it. Dreamy ^§ 19:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Brum and I sympathise. I am also a veteran of two tours in NI with an Irish Regiment so I am no IRA fellow-traveller. Please accept that this battle has battle has been fought and lost and the link is a compromise. Finally, what is the relevance of being from Brum? They were innocents; that is what matters. --MJB 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you are aware of the Mediation which you are welcome to join but I dont believe that I doubt I am fighting the battle you think I am. I have been working on many aspects of this area -Frank Skuse; Griess Test which none of these editors have found fault with. In this particular article there were another set of victims namely the Birmingham Six who rightly have their own article which I have contributed to in a balanced way - here for example. However for truly balanced coverage it is right that the reader is aware of the ‘other victims'. Domer has included Marylin Nash, 22 from Pelsall and Stephen Whalley, 21 from Bloxwich as dead Brummies. They were not Brummies - and an encyclopedia such as wiki is were the reader should be able to check such facts - CAIN simply states NfNI

Aatomic1 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added no such thig--Domer48 20:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed my comment re Birmingham Pub Bombings. BigDunc 21:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not contributed to User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion Aatomic1 21:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so I am uninvolved I was just saying that an edit war while mediation is on going is pointless. BigDunc 21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[6] How are you not involved? Aatomic1 22:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a list that was in mediation and which has not reached any conclusion. BigDunc 22:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you added the please stop section to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? I have removed it since there is nothing there that requires admin attention. Metros 21:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did you reach that conclusion? Aatomic1 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because all you did was copy and pasted a warning and said "I think this belongs here." No context whatsoever for what you believe admins need to do with a warning. Metros 22:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it clearly does not belong or that it might but was not clearly explained? Aatomic1 22:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both. I don't think that any explanation you give can explain why we need to see that warning. Metros 22:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is no point in me giving an explanation then Aatomic1 22:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It would be right to change that to Cill Ria. Gasaitéar na hÉireann gives Cill Ria for Kilrea, Co. Derry. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 09:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Níl a bhuíochas ort! (You're welcome!) An Muimhneach Machnamhach 11:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've added Sutton House Hotel as a link in the Erdington article. I've proposed this article (Sutton House Hotel, not Erdington!) for deletion, as I can see no evidence of notability about it whatsoever. – Tivedshambo (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add the list of dead. Either comment on the disscusion page, or you will be blocked. Dreamy ^§ 22:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have WP:BLP concerns about this article. This needs to be fully referenced given that he is being accused of serious offfences and membership of both illegal and state organisations Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aatomic1, I highly appreciate your comment on my talk page and replied there. My suggestion was to focus on improving content of the article (telling some encyclopedig information on the victims, etc.) rather than RR warring. With great respect, Biophys (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The compromise is still being worked out. The article is fully protected now, just so you know. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is not only you, he is merely reverting edits like that. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 22:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way have I condoned it? <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that it is not true for me. I do not believe that you and others have not provided information on your point, I am saying that it is still needing discussion, as people are continuing to go against the mediation. You included. That is why it is fully protected. But notice that it does say that it is not an endorsement of the current version. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 23:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understood all of that. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 21:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...hmm Aatomic1 (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not swayed by that, I only agreed that it was a good idea. It was not what he said that convinced me that it should be closed, it is the way that you are acting. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 21:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP NOW! Adding it after the mediation will get you blocked. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 22:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was indeed a knight, but Knights Bachelor don't get post-nominals ("Kt" is occasionally used but is incorrect), even when their knighthood is hidden by a peerage. I suppose it's because it's considered irrelevant when you're a peer whether you're also a knight, unless you're a member of one of the Orders of Chivalry. Proteus (Talk) 12:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at your translation, sure. Let me know if you need any other help.

Beir bua, Joe Byrne -- Plé -- Contribs - :ga: - :fr: - - 14:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Aatomic1, stop the edit warring right now over the list. A mediation decision actually has been made. Once more and I'll block your account for disruption - Alison ^❤ 22:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your actions on the above article, please note that you are now placed on 1-month probation under the conditions specified in the "Troubles" Arbitration case[7] - Alison ^❤ 23:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aatomic1. I saw your note on my talk page but I don't really understand what's going on. There seem to be multiple avenues, nothing is communicated to any of the involved parties, no coordination.....I'm lost, puzzled and rather disillusioned. Can you tell me what's happening? Hughsheehy 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aatomic1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. The exact section is here SirFozzie (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop diddling with the enforcement log of your arbitration case. If you believe a sanction was applied inappropriately, you may raise the issue at the admins noticeboard or Arbitration enforcement. Thanks. Thatcher131 19:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I invite your attention here.. that specifically states that the admins who were involved in the Troubles case but not involved in any edit warring CAN place people under Probation. Do NOT attempt to remove yourself again. SirFozzie (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Fozzie, no actual Arbitrators answered that question. However, the restriction placed by Alison remains in place unless lifted, and I will block for a 4th revert of the enforcement log. Thatcher131 19:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, Thatcher. Considering that a lot of the ArbCom enforcement involved in this case has been done by admins who were involved in the actual ArbCom case (myself, Tyrenius, and now Alison), and at no time has any objection been raised (by anyone other than the person put on probatiob, and certainly no Arbitrator)I thought that was pretty much settled. Would it set both of you at ease if I brought it up as a request for clarification on RfARB's page? SirFozzie (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly agnostic on the meaning of "uninvolved", which is why Alison's restriction of Aatomic1 stays in place until otherwise lifted; however by his actions it seems that Aatomic1 would like the question considered. Thatcher131 19:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[here is the request for Clarification]. The funny thing is that if Aatomic had just let it slide for four more days, the probation would have expired. Now, his actions and the increased scrutiny it provides may lead it to be lengthened down the road. SirFozzie (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator FloNight's response, that Alison's placing you under the Troubles probation WAS valid, and remains so. Hopefully this settles the issue? (sorry, forgot to sign) SirFozzie (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not actually true, Fozzie. An almighty fuss was raised when I warned Vk that he was breaking the terms of his probation and he took offense that I - an "involved" party who was biased against him - could act on an ArbCom ruling to which I was a party. While a number of admins such as John and Tyrenius agreed this was nonsense, Alison seemed sympathetic to his claim and Newyorkbrad made this comment which appears to support the position that those admins "involved" should avoid enforcing the ArbCom remedies. I continue to disagree with this interpretation and welcome FloNight's clarification, but it nevertheless gives Aatomic's protests some validity. Rockpocket 01:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked: 24 hours for 3RR violation after warning on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Thatcher131 01:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Arbitrator FloNight has confirmed that Alison is not considered an involved party for purposes of placing you on probation [8]. Thatcher131 01:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify, I meant that I feel Aatomic had grounds for requesting clarification. Now that has been clarified, there is little grounds for continuing to protest and there was, of course, no grounds to edit war in the first place. Its time to back off Aatomic. Rockpocket 01:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an informal notice that the probation that was placed on you as a result of the Troubles Arbcom case has expired, you are no longer specifically under its terms. Please note that if you act disruptive, you can be placed on the terms of probation again. I hope you had a safe and happy holidays. SirFozzie (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aatomic1, I think you misunderstand.. a RfC does have to be certified that two users attempted to work with the person in question. That happened on the RfC. A request for arbitration does not have to have any such barrier, just that dispute resolution has to have been tried previously. Do you want to edit your statement on the ArbCom case? Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the section is archived on ANI, I figured I would provide the correct link here (sorry, I thought it had a WT redirect like other pages do: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration would be a good spot to bring up your concerns, although I feel I should warn you I don't think you'll get any more of an answer you would be looking for there than you did at ANI, it is a minor quibble.. SirFozzie (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look. Having your statement below User:Alison's at the RfArb is not going to make any difference one way or the other. If anything, you have the last word. What will hurt your case is continually forum-shopping this non-issue to kingdom come. This time would be better spent forging a more convincing statement rather than arguing over the order in which they appear. MastCell ^Talk 00:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see above. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you now re-adding this.--Padraig (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this part of a mediation case only last November and didn't you end up on a month's probation as a result? - Alison ^❤ 16:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there manipulation of the mediation outcome? Aatomic1 (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What manipulation, you failed to provide a justifiable resson for their inclusion, then carried on edit warring which ended with you getting probation, now your back doing the same again.--Padraig (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the list as per Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-24 Birmingham pub bombings, please don't start edit warring again on this issue, file RfC if you wish.--Padraig (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be able to edit war at will. Aatomic1 (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you do & neither is justified - Alison ^❤ 16:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - but are sanctions applied in equal measure? Aatomic1 (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Alison ^❤ 16:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short: no - Alison ^❤ 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aatomic, if you check the edit history, the removed content was initialy added by a anon IP, then reinserted repeatly by another anon IP, when the first was warned with blocking, the second IP was blocked by an admin, and admin User:black_Kite then removed the text and protected the article, when the protection was ended Traditional unionist then tried to reinsert it claiming the GFA as a reference, which it isn't. Soit was reverted as WP:OR and WP:POV inline with wikipedia policy. Maybe a checkuser might reveal if the two anon IPs and TU are connected.--Padraig (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not without serious justification. Remember,  CheckUser is not for fishing - Alison ^❤ 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have either of you checked this edit history?. Aatomic1 (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What has that got to do with anything, the mediation was closed early and reopened after compliants that many editors weren't aware it had been opened, you failed to provide a justifiable reason for their inclusion and continued to editwar over the issue whilst the mediation was open.--Padraig (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you back edit-warring over a mediation issue again? More to the point, why are you edit-warring on an article which has already got you 1 month's probation. I strongly recommend you bring this to the talk page first before re-inserting that text - Alison ^❤ 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your edit warring on Birmingham pub bombings I have placed you on the probationary terms available to administrators under the The Troubles ArbCom case. Since I know you will object to that, I am also posting what I have done to the Troubles ArbCom page, and the WP:AE ArbCom Enforcement page. You are limited to one revert per week on any article that conceivably relate to the probationary terms posted on that ArbCom case. SirFozzie (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]