User talk:Leitrim Lad

Hi,

Thanks for uploading the file. You uploaded it specifying non-free use. Note that such files need to meet all of the non-free content criteria. However, this image is from a 1920 newsreel, and so its copyright has expired. I've changed the licensing to Public Domain. I have also requested that the image be renamed. Given that this is from a1920 newsreel, it obviously cannot be graffiti from the 1960's. If you have questions about media copyright, you can post your questions, or ask for assistance at Media Copyright Questions. -- Whpq (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No. 12 Commando, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crumlin. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references, as you did to Corran Purdon! However, you should know that adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to linkrot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources. A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just URL copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between <ref>...</ref> tags, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum^[1] dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already entered one or more bare urls to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations; try the reFill tool, which can resolve some bare references semi-automatically. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles, and to avoid future link rot, please consider supplementing your bare URLs—creating full, inline citations with title, author, date, publisher, etc. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Inline citations. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. This is very helpful. Leitrim Lad (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Leitrim Lad. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joseph Kilna MacKenzie, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Leitrim Lad. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Joseph Kilna MacKenzie".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Logan Scott-Bowden - soldier.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the film may not meet, can be obtained by going to the file description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the file description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the file page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:GDD1000 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SonofSetanta. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Newslinger talk 05:16, 24 February 2026 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I may not be the most experienced editor on the Wiki but I do know that where I have edited I have done so in good faith and improved every article I have engaged with. There has been no behaviour on my part which contravenes any convention set out in Wikipedia which makes me rather confused as to why I have been isolated and targeted. My editing on the Ulster Defence Regiment article took place seven years after I created this account and I invited discussion and participation from other editors in advance of many of my changes. I don't edit under any other name. I'm not even a regular editor and go quiet for long periods. So, please unblock me. Leitrim Lad (talk) 10:00 am, 24 February 2026, last Tuesday (7 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Reviewing the discussion below, I don't see a compelling reason to unblock at this time. My sense is that the best path back to editing at this time is to either accept a topic-ban from the Troubles and/or accepting a standard offer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. As I am not overtly perturbed by not editing for six months I am happier to take the standard offer as I have not behaved improperly Leitrim Lad (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2026 (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.

Following a period of reflection I have examined the various comments and other identities mentioned in this accusation. I find that the identities I am accused of manipulating haven't posted for years; in one case for several decades. The evidence supporting the allegation is slim and circumstantial and one thing is clear: I am not associated with these accounts nor have I used them in conjunction with my own - for any reason. Leitrim Lad (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You should have only one open unblock request at a time. I have converted your last post into a regular comment. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Would you agree to a topic ban from the contentious topic area of The Troubles? 331dot (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. I appreciate your assistance.

  May I ask why you think I should agree to a ban when I've done nothing wrong? Leitrim Lad (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  This all feels vexatious to me. No abuse of any Wikipedia convention has taken place. Nor have I been given the opportunity to defend myself properly against the accusation, as, despite being invited on the investigation page to do so, my account is blocked from posting there, nor can I contact anyone with admin authority meaning I've been disadvantaged. The only misdemeanour on my part is that I have, on several occasions, seemingly shared opinions with some people who no longer edit articles on the wiki. My personal view is that I've been targeted because I've interfered with an article which is someone's pet project. In accusing me the originators of this false claim have subjected my account to scrutiny it doesn't deserve and that means they can hold it against me in future and by slowly building up a series of claims they can then endeavour to have me prevented from editing articles. All the edits I undertook on the UDR page were thoughtful, neutral and well researched and my intention was to flatten the article out so that no undue weight was given to factional disputes which prevail in Northern Ireland. I also introduced new, modern academic content which the article desperately needed in my opinion.

  It is notable that the first thing the originators of this complaint did after getting me blocked was to immediately revert all the edits I'd made on the UDR article. To my current way of thinking that indicates it is they who have an agenda, not me.

  It is extremely difficult not to take this personally and as far as I can see the only way I can ever hope to enjoy editing Wikipedia occasionally is to retire this account and start a new one under a different name. Of course that then creates a Catch 22 by allowing over keen amateur sleuths to allege that it too is a sockpuppet of someone who, due to the fact they haven't posted for almost 20 years, could be dead by now.

  It all seems dreadfully unfair. Leitrim Lad (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  SonofSentanta is a self-admitted sockpuppet of GDD1000. SonofSetanta's last edit was made on 8 November 2019. Your account was created on 17 December 2019. Therefore referring to almost 20 years and several decades is obfuscation. FDW777 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  This is co-incidence and nothing to do with me. You are doing the math wrong on this as there has been no abuse of account by me. Let's take one easily explained example: Is the UDR a militia or a line regiment? Common parlance, in the area of interest, is to describe a militia as a "unit raised locally from the civilian population which is only deployed locally". As opposed to Line Infantry which is raised through national recruitment, professionally trained, liable to serve anywhere in the world when demanded by the proper authority - known in the UK as "colour service". The Militia article explains this in much more detail and at Militia#Modern_survivals specifically names the UDR as a militia. Bearing in mind I've never edited the Militia article would you be able to cite my editing of this fact as part of my agenda or would you be able to say with confidence I have edited factually and truthfully? Does it seem strange that two other (apparently retired) editors also used common parlance when they tried to correct this inaccuracy on the Ulster Defence Regiment article? How many other editors have been prevented from correcting it? Were they also accused of being "sockpuppets"?

  Additionally, it has been alleged I have been "downplaying negative aspects of the regiment's history" because I reduced the size of the "Subversion in the UDR" section but you have failed to note that I have not changed the character of the article by doing so. My genuine feeling, supported by modern academic thinking (links supplied if requested) that, as the Subversion report only addresses an issue which occurred in the first two years of the regiment's 22 year history, that undue weight was being given to it.

  My accusers have equally failed to note that I added information outlining flaws in the vetting system which led to the abuses carried out by UDR soldiers and which led to the publication of the Subversion report, as well as other information which shows management failures etc.

  I'm accused of Wikipedia:SPA but I note this applies to editors "whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose." My account history clearly shows the wide range of articles I have edited, some in a very comprehensive way. At no point have I ever acted with a "common purpose" or in concert with any other editor.

  Furthermore: I am a member of the Facebook group, "World War 2 in Northern Ireland" and use its associated website which features aspects of the POW system in Northern Ireland during that conflict. It is entirely possible I may share that interest with other editors on this wiki, past and present.

  Nowhere in the accusations does it point out that I invited comment and discussion on the Ulster Defence Regiment talk page in connection with most of the edits I made. I would have welcomed input if any other editor felt I was being anything less than neutral in my own editing. You however, after previous productive collaboration with me, sat back and watched and without any concept of Wikipedia:Assume good faith decided to label me wrongly as someone who had an underlying agenda. You have not offered any advice, encouragement, criticism or expressed any doubts but simply moved in for the kill when you thought the time was right - even though I had obviously finished my editing on that article.

  My politeness and civility has not waned through my interactions with you and every other editor I have ever encountered but I do feel obliged to point out that this assumption of bad faith on your part doesn't appear to be guided by a sense of integrity or diligence towards the wiki but more along the lines of being seen as someone who hunts down people you believe, despite evidence to the contrary, as rogue editors. This is somewhat evidenced by the many citations you have included on your account page. On this occasion you have got it wrong.

  There is much more I could add to clearly refute the allegations you have made but I consider brevity to be important. Leitrim Lad (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  I believe it would be a good idea to have a military expert examine the facts I've presented as they will be more familiar with the parlance used by historical enthusiasts such as I. They will also be cognisant of how we gain and exchange such information. Leitrim Lad (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)