User talk:Aatomic1

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 - Alison ^❤ 23:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

Alison you did a check user on myself and Domer with no evidence, I know I agreed to it but correct me if im wrong but Fozz said that wasn't enough evidence either. BigDunc (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

Yes it can be recovered if I request it to be done. Why? Did you need it for some reason? Dreamy ^§ 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie is an administrator and as such he has full access to the pages in it. Just show him the diff for this edit, to prove that it was me, and he will, or should, get it for you. Dreamy ^§ 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So far that's Aatomic1, Hughsheehy and me who have all asked for the mediation pages to be undeleted - at least two of us were ignored completely... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good thing I checked out this page, Bastun, I will restore them for you. SirFozzie (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion‎ Done. Please let me know when you no longer need it, so I can delete it again, per the creator's wishes. SirFozzie (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

{{help}} [Please see this edit]. I note people are constantly doing this after my edits -it therefore obviously needs to be done but I cannot follow what is actually happening!! Can someone explain. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be leaving in extra blank lines which are disrupting the flow a bit - no big deal. Bhadani was simply removing the extra lines. The problem is that the diff function here doesn't display that kind of modification very well and the editor who changed it should have maybe mentioned it in their edit summary - Alison ^❤ 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

much appreciated! Aatomic1 (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Help}}

• I have removed a link within a subheading to allow me to link to that subheading via a [Article#Subheading]] link in another article. I vaguely remember seeing <No wiki> notes beside similar headings to let others know the subheading is linked but my efforts to reproduce it have failed. Can you help?. Aatomic1 (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Atomic. I think what you are looking for is commenting out markup, rather than nowiki tags. What you do is surround a piece of text like this:
<!-- Comment -->. When saved, anything inside the markup will only be seen when in edit mode. You can format hidden comments like this using the editing button which looks like this: . Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Fuhghettaboutit. Aatomic1 (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're :-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Gerard Young, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI 1703: The worst storm in British history --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting that last edit; I've just started being a Recent Changes vigilante, and I quite frankly had no idea what a "Cork Examiner" was. It looked specious to me.

Just for the sake of curiosity; what IS a "cork examiner?" And "orangeism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrExtreme (talk • contribs) 12:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just dropping you a note to say well done on adding content to the Rome Rule article. If this had have been done by editors instead of the arguments on the talk page about if it was notable or not I would not have put it up for AfD. Pat on the back. BigDunc (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• LOL I think this is the first complement that has EVER been left on my Talk page. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thaba Bosigo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• ...Not one for over a year and then two in one day!! Aatomic1 (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you reference these points. Does this reference state ditectly that Canute did not have any hegemony? I have directly contrary evidence. Maybe you see this statement out of context. In the Encomium Emmae the Encomiast has Canute as king, not only of England, Denmark and Norway, but also Britannia and Scotia. See M.K Lawson's Cnut: England's Viking King. Britannia is the latin name of the Island we now call Great Britain, and Scotia is the latin name of Ireland. I think this proves it. There is also the additional evidence of the campaign in the Irish Sea, and the submission of the kings in Strathclyde, amoung whom was Echmarcach Ragnallson, a Ghall Ghaedil king of Dublin and Golloway.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. This really is quite a fiasco. I did put in one of my reverts I was just doing it. I sent a message to Bardcom saying this. Then another revert was the cause of a glitch and I was thrown of for a bit. Then you add this reference. Ahhh. It a right convergence of edit conflicts here.

The addition is to the Other Dominions section. It will be done today. I am glad of this kick forward as I have been looking at the article with some doubts of its fullness, and cant see how I did not realise this was something lacking. Maybe I did at some point and forgot. Ive been trying to get the Conquest of England bit right for quite a while. I will be adding some references to this too. I just need to find time to read my texts again and slot in all the information properly.

Anyway. Im not sure where we will stand after my addition. If your point hinges on the lack of mention of Canute in the articles you state though. This is no surprise. It was a hegemony, not a direct lordship, over the subject territories. It was also over in something like 5 years. The main evidence is the submission of the non-English, shall we say, kings of the British Isles.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss this on the discussion board? Or maybe come to an understanding privately. It seems you feel strongly on this. I agree is is wrong to say Cnut was conqueror of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. He was vastly more powerful than these cultures though. This is why it was a hegemony, rather than a territorial sovereignty.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops. No, I didn't mean to remove that. Sorry! I have references dealing with Canute and Ireland/Scotland/Wales/etc, there's a fair bit in Woolf's Pictland to Alba and Hudson's Viking Pirates and Christian Princes. I also have the Hudson paper Lawson refers to on p. 102 and various other odds and ends. I'll try and add something. Again, apologies. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow you really want to be difficult here dont you. I think your additions are out of line with the article. They appear to be out of context, or at best oversimplifications. I cant actually believe you just cut and paste a bunch of quotes over more thoughtful writing. I will revert these. You certainly want to bring down the acievement of Cnut. I see these are all M.K. Lawson quotes too. Maybe if you find proper context for them they will fit better. There is nothing not said in the article in these, and alot unsaid. Dont you think this is irresponsible? My intentions in this article are to shine light on the little known facts of this man. It is a biographical article after all. It must be dealt with with scrutinty rather than unsrucpuliunesses. I want to tell the facts. You seem to want to keep the shadow on this man's achievements.

Your first quote seems to consider these must be lies. Does it not occur to you a letter of a king to his people may be more reliable than anything. It would be foolish to pretend you are somthing you are not dont you think?

The second quote is actually contrary to other things Ive read of Lawson. Not sure what to say. You cannot simply apply it to Cnut's entire life and suppose it means he did not achieve anything, though. Most irresponsible!

Not sure what the point of that is, I suppose a quote. The previous was better anyway. More thoughtful.

And the final quote just sweeps away everthing else.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A good idea. If there's anything you need more details on, drop me a line and I can scan excerpts or copy them out. I can also send you that Hudson 'Cnut and the Scottish kings' thing if you email me - either use the "e-mail this user" link or just send it direct to my wiki user name at gmail dot com. There's an article on the reputation of the battle of Clontarf by Clare Downham here and various Ireland & Viking related links here. The "Viking Ireland—Afterthoughts" one by Ó Corráin is interesting. As for this, I'm not sure exactly what it is. I'm all but certain it's by Ó Corráin - it reads like his writing and some of the phrases are recycled in, or from, his article on Ireland in The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings - but I'm not sure where it was published, if at all. Unfortunately, for anything after Clontarf and before the Normans, there seems to be little enough on Ireland, let alone Vikings in Ireland. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is clear you operate under alterior motives here. I cannot say I dont either I suppose. Although your attempts to bemuddle the intro confound my sympathy. I have made every attempt to reach an amicable conclusion, yet you childishly resort to slights against me, my references, and now my subject matter. IT is almost a joke, unless I did not consider this so serious as it is. You desire you discontectualise the conetent of the article amuses me for its transparancy. First you overwrite a section of the intro, with a totally out of context Lawson quote, bring in a shaky reference I wager hinges almost entirely on the map in the atalas, and now attempt to attack Cnut himself, with yet more half points, basicly out of context. I can Im sure find references to finish your, 'but his empire did not survive him' stuff, with 'but this does not detract from his achievements' stuff. This would surely be childish though dont you think? Not only do you degenerate the facts, you now want to degenerate the article too! Why? Why? Why?

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of any deletions. I cant recall any non grammatical amendment either.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I never, you found a way to be difficult again. I think though you can only be wrong as your opinion 'substancial' tries to turn England into the British Isles is erronious. It is a broad term applicable in light of the evidence, and the fact it is quite clearly not meant to mean kingship, only overlordship. It is not I think a weasel word by the looks of the example. This Wiki-thing seems to be a counter for the statement of opinions, of single side points seen from two sides, as fact (not acceptable even if it is with a reference). I really cant see the validity in this context. Can you enlighten me?

Do you mean the reference I state is contradictory to a reference of yours. If so please be so kind as to quote it in its specific referral to Cnut and the fact his dominance did not ever reach beyond the English borders. I have made every effort to note the uncertainties of the extent of this 'overlordship of the British Isles', in fact now only with the use of 'lordship over substancial part of the British Isles', yet you insist on the denial of my references, and the capability of myself to be objective. Maybe you can offer a more (or less) appropriate word? I suppose your alternative will be unsubstancial?

I will be happy to offer one. My previous suggestion I think. Considerable? If your alternative for this is unconsiderable!?!

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh the irony, the axe grinder who cries murder strikes their own blow (or should I saw weasel words). I still dont think substancial, nor considerable were weasel words... maybe if out of context... I thought they sinply meant real). Now though you advance your own weasely word, 'firinges of England' vs other part of 'the Britsh Isles'. Can you really not accept the truth? This seems to be your own research, I assume, without references. Can you really say Cnut's overlordship was not felt anywhere other than the borders of England?

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just out of courtesy you are mentioned here. BigDunc (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the report above, I've blocked this account for revert-warring and violation of the 1RR/week probation. Please do not revert other's contributions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aatomic1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

After reviewing your contribs, I can see a clear violation of arbcom sanctions against multiple reverts on the same article. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Two points. One this is not related to The Troubles

Two The issue of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Per here see relevant red section

One of the complainants was Dr Pat Muldowney, an academic mathematician and amateur historian, whose complaints to the BCC had included the program's failure to include any footage of an interview recorded with him. In correspondence with RTÉ, he had described the Pearsons as 'Amish from Hell', as 'extreme mercenary types driven by insatiable desire for land and money' and as 'threatening terrified women and children with firearms'. He wrote of the Pearsons that 'apart from their grasping and bigoted qualities, they were rather unremarkable people, best forgotten about'.^[1]

This is unreferenced and certainly highly contentious - Pat Muldowney, himself, has contended these facts at Talk:Killings at Coolacrease#DebateAatomic1 (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly seeing this as being well within the remit of your Troubles probation, Aatomic1, given that the original probation terms were quite broad and that this article certainly falls within scope - Alison ^❤ 21:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Aatomic1, it's a pity that you didn't discuss the issue on the article's talk page, or at the very least read my comments there. The quotes there are all referenced to a reliable source: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/unfounded-claims-about-killings-1230002.html , and WP:BLP does not require the removal of contentious material unless it is unsourced.

Furthermore, your earlier reverts used edits summaries denying that Muldowney has a COI, yet now you claim that there is a BLP issue. You can't have it both ways -- either he is not a part of the article's subject (in which case there is no COI), or he is part of the subject in which case there is a COI. Either way, you could have discussed the point rather than edit-warring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is where I have raised the issue] Aatomic1 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Hello Aatomic1. I liked the mapr of the main Irish kingdoms you inserted at Airgíalla, but I was wondering if you considereed showing Airgíalla at its maximum extant? Fergananim (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Finance Act 2005 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Useless stub, states general knowledge with no specific reference to 2005

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fayenatic (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Charles Lambart, 1st Earl of Cavan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Banner _talk 16:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Dear Aatomics. You created this article on 15 April 2007. In 2009 user Tryde blanked it and changed it into a redirect page pointing to the Article Viscount Dillon and user Ironholds endorsed this by undoing the reversal by user Rms125a who described Tryde's action as vandalism. The result is a circular redirect as the entry for the 6th Viscount on that article points to the mentioned redirect page. I find that makes a poor impression, so I have tried to recreate a page similar to what you had. However, I am a novice in Wikipedia, a foreigner, 2nd-language English speaker, and lack the needed expertise and experience. I am a bit afraid that the recreated article might not pass the test of notability and other standards. The article is also a bit short: only 314 words of readable prose, which is a size for a stub, not a start. I wonder what you think about it. Eventually you might want to propose the article for deletion or perhaps correct, improve and expand it to reach the required standards. You seem to be an expert on the Dillons as you created most of the Dillon biographies in Wikipedia. With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:History of Christianity in Wales has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger Lambart, 13th Earl of Cavan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Lambart, 13th Earl of Cavan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Pilaz (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maguire Seven, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maguire Seven until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Ulfcytel's land has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 28 § Ulfcytel's land until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:People executed under the Normans has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:People executed under the Anglo-Saxons indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)