User talk:Mabuska/Archive 42010/July

Megalithic people???

I know ita not really of much importance where this appears on your 'Did you know' section on your own page but there is no such thing as 'megalithic people'. Of course I know what you mean but the term megalith means 'large stone' and refers to the tomb sites. The people who built megaliths were Neolithic (new stone age) and Bronze Age inhabitants. Mesolithic (middle stone age) and paleolithic (early stone age) people did other things with their dead ancestors (such as take them with them when they moved on!!) but they were not known in Ireland to have built megalithic tombs for them. Comhar (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops my bad, too much technicality ;-) - will fix to Neolithic Mabuska ^(talk) 11:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

You have broken the 1RR rule on the above article in spirit at least, aside from the fact you are edit waring against consensus. --Snowded ^TALK 00:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as i only did one revert on that section i didn't breach anything. And what concensus is there for using dubious WP:SYNTHESIS sources? Better sources as RA suggested are required. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And keep your bullshit off my talk page, thank you. That was not "Vandalism".

NI IS in the British Isles. The British Isles ARE in Europe. I was attempting to fix the captioning when your reverted. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are engaging in an edit-war on a topic that is under discussion etc. You have no right to delete other editors comments especially when they are warnings for edit-warring and 3RR. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:OWNTALK says: "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages... The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though i think it is still a bit silly especially when given recent warnings Mabuska ^(talk) 14:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User page blanking

Please read WP:BLANKING which says "The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." While I personally prefer people archive warnings as such he is free to remove them and you may get a vandalism warning or 3RR warning if you insist on reverting them. I would suggest that you accept that he has read your warnings and leave it at that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I already have, IMO a warning shouldn't be allowed to be removed until after a set period of time so other editors and admins can see that they have one. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the guidelines don't require it to be displayed for any length of time. It is there forever in the page history and most admins looking at a problem editor will go back and review the history for just that reason. Personally I agree with you on this, but we have to go with the consensus rules. - Ahunt (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"i'm sorry but he is blanking a page where he has recently been given warnings for edit-warring)"

I doubt the admin saw the other half of your deliberately provocation of reverting my talk page.

Yes, you are right about getting off on a wrong foot and now I am left with the black mark on my name which I dare say others will throw back at me later. Who elected you as my policeman and empowered you to tell me what to do with my own talk page?

I think you should learn a little bit about personal boundaries, forget national one.

What I was doing on the NI topic was trying to work out how to edit the caption formatting which, as it was the first time, I found complex. There was no big deal. You jumped on me before I managed to finish it.

As for the BS reference, this place seems full of it. I mean look at, "16 July 2010 Ghmyrtle (talk | contribs) (110,484 bytes) (Undid revision 373811708 by Triton Rocker (talk)- map clearly shows the UK in one tone, other countries in another - no case made) " What can you say? The map shows the UK in 2 colours and the map shows the British Isles.

That is not straight talking. --Triton Rocker (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you were already reverted for changing the caption before i did and notified of the current issues involved, you shouldn't of tried to enforce undiscussed and potentially troublesome edits. You earned yourself the black-mark for breaking the proposal on the addition/removal of the term British Isles when not needed which oddly enough you gave your support to. By blanking your page you gave the image that you had read and accepted the warning - blanking your page worked against you.

Wikipedia is a place of concensus; debatable edits when they aren't backed up, not discussed and haven't recieved a concensus for change get reverted. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting my talk page, and leaving " edit-warring" summaries, when you had no right to - let along tell I had none - was a wrong and deliberate wind up when I was in the middle of getting something complex the way I wanted it. You set out to tarnish me.

For me, there is no big issue about. My talk page is my 'inbox'. I get a message, I remove it. Why should not I? --Triton Rocker (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring is when you constantly keep trying to impose your changes when others remove them. I only removed your Northern Ireland edits twice - i didn't breech the 3RR or the new BI removal/addition ruling. You failed to discuss when you told to stop making the changes by more than just me.

There lies the major problem that you've failed to get a grip of - "i was in the middle of getting something complex the way i wanted it". Unfortunately we can't get things the way we want them on Wikipedia unless everyone agrees to them. You failed to discuss and get agreement - you were warned and yet you continued to proceed on your own ignoring. You deserved to get blocked for editing on that basis and if you keep going along that path you'll only end up getting blocked again and again.

Your edits were wrong and incorrect as all maps for countries show the country in relation to the rest of their continent. Northern Ireland is shown as part of the United Kingdom as that is its country, which is then also shown as part of its continent. British Isles has absolutely no purpose being mentioned as its not the country that Northern Ireland is a part of. When showing real-world maps we also don't cut bits off such as the RoI - we show the whole land-mass involved.

Also why would i provocate you? Why would i tarnish you? Grow-up. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Ireland

Hi Mabuska,

Just dropping a line to wonder if you would be interested in participating in setting up a Wikimedia chapter in Ireland. It took a year (almost to the day) but ten editors have expressed an interest, which meets the criteria for a "critical mass". How would you feel about it? Know of anyone who might be interested?

By the way, you might also be interested in joining the Wikimedia Ireland mailing list, if you are not already on it. --RA (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cloughfin, Kilcronaghan civil parisk

The article Cloughfin, Kilcronaghan civil parisk has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Implausible redirect, accidental mispelling

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. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)