User talk:Beaumontproject

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Beaumontproject! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Alex (Talk) 16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical


Summerhill College[edit]

Thanks for tidying-up the Selected Alumni section on Summerhill College. Sometimes the smallest things escape you, and I should have noticed these myself (being the creator of the article!). Thanks again. --The.Q | Talk 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Callaghan[edit]

Please explain your statement that the edit you reverted was "POV". Please also read WP:BLP. Demiurge 10:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just reading the headline and the edit that was made its obvious that that editor has an axe to grind - Wiki is not the place for that. Beaumontproject 10:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What axe are they grinding, and how is it obvious from the headline? Demiurge 10:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its tabloid nature Beaumontproject 10:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you reverted the wrong edit then. The version you reverted to contained tabloid-style innuendo which is irrelevant to O'Callaghan's notability and hence is forbidden under WP:BLP. Demiurge 10:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree Beaumontproject 10:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you disagree and why your edit does not violate WP:BLP or your edits are liable to just be reverted again. Demiurge 10:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got time to write at length on this subject this morning so I shall be brief - I disagree with both your assertions, 1. there is no innuendo it that article from what I read, and 2. it is a relevant issue in his life and is noteworthy. Many BLP have sections in them that do not relate directly to the reason that they are notable or famous but that does not necessarily make that event irrelevant or notable. For example I will use an exaggerated case, if a pop star shot someone that shooting would be notable even though the shooting is not related to the real reason that that person was notable. Beaumontproject 11:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't read WP:BLP as I requested. The incident is unrelated to O'Callaghan's notability as it has nothing whatsoever to do with his career as an informer. O'Callaghan is not a pop star; he is what WP:BLP calls a "non-public figure" so your analogy is irrelevant and WP:BLP tells us we should leave it out. Demiurge 11:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. I have read WP:BLP, obviously our interpretation of these guidelines are different! Even if he was a "non-public figure" which he isn't then the section should stay in. Is it not an oxymoron that a "non-public figure" should have published a book, write in newspapers and appear on television as a pundit! Beaumontproject 11:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't an oxymoron, "public figure" is a legal term with a very specific meaning. See [1].Demiurge 11:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not create sockpuppets such as User:Bangomcgurk to evade the 3RR. Demiurge 13:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]

Regarding reversions[2] made on November 24 2006 to Thomas_Begley[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 16:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your mail. You can talk here, still. DU has 3R: his first isn't, because "volunteer" has been there since the beginning William M. Connolley 16:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that you are bang out of order putting a 24hr stoppage on my account. I did not realise that my first edit was a revert as at the time I thougth it was an edit. I am fuming especially as it was DU that broke the 3RR, DU actually made one edit to take out the volunteer reference (the edit that I misse initially) and then three subsequent reverts - 10:35, 11:23 and 12:00.
In addition the use of volunteer is neutral as it is the middle ground between freedom fighter and terrorist.
Finally, as already outlined the sockpuppet has nothing to do with me. I did post that there was an issue regarding this users on a politics forum and ask for any users of that forum that are knowledgeable on the issue to come over and add their thought but it has nothing to do with me and I want this made clear and you to acknowledge that please. Beaumontproject 16:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think DU's first edit is a revert, because "volunteer" has always been there. Which version do you think its a revert to. As to the sockpuppet... well, I still think its likely you. You can try a {{unblock|cos I'm innocent guv}} if you like William M. Connolley 16:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His edit at 00:39 was an edit (as I have already outlined this is the one I missed as I thought the article had historically said memeber thats why I changed it at first) - the following three at 10:35, 11:23 and 12:00 were reverts. Are you just going to ignore these but bar me for the same thing? As to the sockpuppet....once again it wasnt me, I have already outlined how and why this is the case. On what basis do you think it was me apart from "you have the feeling it was me" - does that consitute proof and warrent a ban around here?? Beaumontproject 17:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He has one edit and 3R. So no block. You by my count have 4R, including the sock. *I* think the sock is very likely you - otherwise, we have the twin puzzles of why this new account suddenly shows up, and why it hasn't complained about being blocked as you. I think I've said all I have to on this: if you want someone else to look, I recommend the unblock template I mentioned above. Or you could mail Fys ;-) William M. Connolley 17:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous, I want someone to look into this and this strike against my account wiped. If you are going to hand out bans at least have the decency to actually do some investigation into it. How to I prove that the other user is not a sockpuppet of mine? Beaumontproject 12:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mairéad Farrell[edit]

Hi, just to ask that you refrain from reverting/editing the intro of the article to include Volunteer. The exact usage of the term hasn't been fully ironed out yet. I know where you're coming from and fully agree that Mairéad should be referred to by her rank with in the RA but it won't happen by indulging in an edit-war. I participated in one on the Bobby Sands page a few months ago and sadly it wasn't successful. So, put your energy into the discussion on the MOS page about the use of Volunteer within the Republican context and hopefully it'll get the outcome I know we want. :) GiollaUidir 16:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Taylor (martyr)[edit]

I note that you added {{fact}} to Blessed Francis Taylor is probably the only 'blessed' politician. (If we define politician as one who attained elected office). It is rather difficult to prove a negative. There may be another saint who held elected office. Are you aware of any? I am unaware of any others. The usual saint-politicians quoted are the likes of Thomas More. However he, and the others, were all appointed to their office. We are certain that Taylor was elected Lord Mayor. I suggest that in the circumstances the "probably" is justified. So, there is no need for your {{fact}} - Regards ClemMcGann 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRA Volunteer issue[edit]

Go to this page, an Indian guy is being forced by Loyalists and West Brit who are demanding that the rank of Volunteer is banned for describing the rank of members of the IRA – if you do not voice your opinion on this then they are going to get away with this bull Vintagekits 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Cruise O'Brien[edit]

Could you indicate what it is you seek citation for on Conor Cruise O'Brien regarding your recent tagging. The sentence is overbearing and a clarification by you, perhaps on the articles talk page, would help resolution. Regards. Djegan 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for each claim is needed Beaumontproject 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Ireland Champions - Counties[edit]

If you are going to use geographical counties in the article then you need to link to the geographical counties, and there is no geographical county with the name County Derry and that redirects to County Londonderry anyway. If as you state it is the GAA district then you need to link to the athletic organisation for that area, but this article just links to geographic and political entities. All the county beside the name is doing on this list is showing where the winner is from, for example Chicago isn't a traditional neither is St. Albans in England, USA etc. Ben W Bell talk 09:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learn about the set up of the All-Ireland system or else do not make ignorant reverts - the County structure is not the legal structure it is the designated or representative structure (or else there would be County Fingal, North and South Tipperary etc). Those outside Ireland represent their local branch of CCE Beaumontproject 10:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops[edit]

My apologies, I didn't look closely enough. I didn't even know about the competitions, I have no idea what the answer to your question is. Again, sorry. -GlamdringCookies 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 22:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beaumontproject&oldid=1142883696"