User talk:Jonto

Hey Jonto, we discussed previously on the Derry/Londonderry vote. It's a bit naughty of me but I'm assuming where you are coming from politically and geographically and as such I was hoping you would have some knowledge of the breaking of the boom in "Stroke_City". I was hoping to add something to the article on River Foyle. A lifetime ago I did a project at school using materials from the Linenhall library, but I'm now half way round the world and don't really know where to start... I added the suicide info on the Foyle at that article, but would dearly love to add more information to the article to balance it out a bit. Interested? BTW if you are in the north it would be good to get a vandalised sign photo for the stroke city article... SeanMack 12:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was reverting other vandalism by that user and I may have been a bit hasty. Demiurge 19:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. Jonto 19:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have added the Flag again. User:The Tom removed it because it might be seen as POV and argumentative. I've no fixed views. I just wish someone would add the English Scout Counties or, as I would prefer,, change the whole thing to a more workable number of regions - workable in terms of having articles on Scouting for each link. Let us see if it stays. If it gets reverted again, I will suggest to the WikiProject Scouting that all flags be removed from the template. --Bduke 21:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User The_Tom removed the image from many templates, despite not fully understanding al the issues at hand - I simply restored to all.

I have no problems with you removing all the flags from this particular template.Jonto 22:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonto. Left a message for you on my talk page. Cheers. --Mal 20:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on your revert for the Ulster disambig page. The previous edit was POV. "Often called" is fine in my books. --Mal 00:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awww poor little 'Jonto' has been rumbled. Dismiss us as 'Irish Republicans'? I'm sure as hell Irish - prove that I'm a 'Republican'.. Tír Eoghain abú

Thanks for your notes, had I been awake when you posted them I probably would have restored some or all of your posts. I'd still advise you to tone down your criticism of Jtdirl unless you want to take formal steps against him, viz. RfC, RfAr. That kind of "ROUGE ADMIN!!!" stuff regardless of Truth or not just turns people off. Regards, - FrancisTyers · 11:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing your reply on the Northern Ireland talk page reminded me that you're from Belfast, aren't you? Anyway - here's a standard circular I've been sending to people who have listed themselves as Northern Irish Wikipedians, or people who have made decent contributions to Belfast-related articles:

As you have contributed to an article relating to Belfast, I hope you could take some time to read this page about our new project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belfast.

Thanks. --Mal 01:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the hand in Image:Flag of Ulster.svg, please let me know if there's something else that need to be fixed. Conscious 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

You might want to look at talk:Prime minister. The page was moved to the illiterate form Prime minister by a vote of 3 people. A new RM is taking place but the illiterates seem to be queuing to endorse such a crazy move. Feel free to contribute to the debate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee. It doesn't list you as a party, but you may wish to add yourself. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland and, if you wish, add you name and indicate that you agree to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted your edit, as you introduced material about the UK's own internal land frontiers that are not relevant. The wording: "The only land frontier between Ireland and the United Kingdom" is correct. All the best, bigpad 15:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into the matter, and history of the argument tommorow evening. For now, I will leave the page protected to give everybody involved time to calm down. Joe D (t) 23:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find yet again you are engaging in personal attacks against other editors, "a lot of editors who are blatantly distorting articles with a pro-Irish Republican PoV ino many articles keep coming running to your talk page",[1] as it is perfectly obvious who you are referring to. So far you have received 3 blocks for personal attacks. If you persist in this, you are going to get blocked again. I suggest you refrain from negative comments about other editors. Tyrenius 07:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree that in the past I have made personal attacks towards users that have been involved in disruptive vandalism, the quote you gave is criticising the disruptive actions of certain users, in no way breaches WP:NPA, and I would happily repeat the commment above. Jonto 19:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'am not concerned about your removal of the Tricolour, but can you explain the rest of your edit where you are removing referenced material and the reference as well, this could be regarded as vandalism, so I am asking you in good faith to restore this information.--padraig3uk

A tag has been placed on Template:User Earth2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:User United Kingdom2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'd like to take the opportunity to advise you on two matters which, being a member or former member of the Northern Ireland WikiProject or it's sister project on Belfast, you might be interested in the following submission about a recent terrorist attack Wikipedia:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board#News.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to ask for your help in reviving the Northern Ireland WikiProject. Given that there are only a small number of Wikipedians from Northern Ireland or interested specifically in the region, the project needs all the help it can get.

Cheers, --Setanta747 (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ireland, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. BigDunc^Talk 23:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - my deletion was accidental! Jonto (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per The Troubles arbitration case, this article is under 1RR probation. Please note that any further reverts will result in a block. I have also informed User:MusicInTheHouse of this. Thanks, Black Kite 20:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - will wait. It would, however, be useful if we could get some involvement in debates from parties who are non-aligned with Northern Ireland issues - I am sick of only being able to debate with people who plaster their homepages with Irish Nationalist regalia. Jonto (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have previously been warned per The Troubles Arbitration for edit-warring on Flag of Northern Ireland - here - and have resumed this behaviour, I have blocked you.

Please kindly get lost - I did not break any revert rule. The fact is that Wikipedia is widely inaccurate on many NI articles, and people like myself are attempting to improve it, but any edits that I even attempt to perform are instantly reverted without discussion by a core group of editors (often with their talk pages plastered in Irish nationalist regalia). Trying to denounce challenging inaccurate information as "edit warring" is simply preposterous. People like you are the ones that are driving editors away from Wikipedia, and only contributing to the resulting mess that it is becoming. Jonto (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per this revert, please read WP:NFCC#9. If you restore that image to display in the talk page again, you will be blocked. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I was not aware of this policy. I would, however, appreciate if you could use a less threatening tone with the whole "blocking" thing. I do, however, think that showing the full image on the talk page really adds more to the discussion, and that such a policy seems rather daft to me. Jonto (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a threat, had you reverted once more after being told twice, you would have been blocked, that is a simple fact. I would have been nicer had you not forced me to do the same thing twice, and just asked if you didn't understand my first explanation. The policy is there for an extremely good reason. MickMacNee (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make any more comments like this one. It is possible to disagree with others without issuing personal attacks. --John (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see anything personal nor insulting there. I think you need to stop treating people here like little thin-skinned children Jonto (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The material on the Queen's Birthday has been disputed by several editors. The process is that you now seek agreement on the talk page. If you tag team with Miles to re-inserti the material without agreement on the talk page I will request your behaviour is examined via enforcement of arbitration committee sanctions on Troubles Articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. I'm sure your life is very exciting if that's what your plan is. What you call "tag teaming" I call collaboration. You do not dictate the content here. Jonto (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...in a discussion here[2]. Miles Creagh (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had to fix your post, per WP:INDENT -- GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonto. I am disappointed that you failed to follow my advice regarding personal attacks. This edit is the wrong side of the line when you have been blocked before, been recently warned, and are aware you are editing in a delicate area which is the subject of ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I'd also note that I find this a bit concerning; if you are not in agreement with our fundamental goals or methodology, maybe you should reconsider your involvement here. You have 48 hours to reconsider your tone and your strategy. Depending on your future behaviour, I may recommend a topic ban as well. What are your feelings on the matter? --John (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find that rather obnoxious. I do not appreciate the threats made to me by users like and Snowded and yourself -- unlike you, I have not threatened or harassed anyone. I have every right to be involved as anything else. I find it pathetic I am not allowed dismiss threats or to criticise Wikipedia. I feel other admins need to give you a block for your harassment. Jonto (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per The Troubles arbitration case, all articles that contain information about the Northern Ireland Flag, are also under restrictions. Please note that other disruptive or inflammatory behaviour could also result in a block. I'm sending you this so that you can be helped to not inadvertently step over the line in some of the discussions or edits that you do, though it is, of course, up to you what you do. I will be endeavouring to warn others who I discover have been contributing to articles that contain contentious material about any Northern Ireland flag. I would rather not see anyone have action taken against them. It is far better to edit within the restrictions and with others than against others.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]