User talk:Gob Lofa/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Gaughan (Irish republican), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ballycroy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks :D and do you happen to be an admin? I'm currently in danger of breaching 3RR with a vandal on Republika Srpska Dschslava (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not, but I'll keep an eye. By the way, 3RR doesn't apply when you're reverting vandalism, only for content disputes. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alan Berg. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. N0TABENE (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a little disingenuous of you. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sir Henry Wilson, 1st Baronet

added a link pointing to British Expeditionary Force

Springhill Massacre

added a link pointing to Sandhurst

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Appointed by

Hello, thanks for seeing a resonable view on the Martin mcguines page, your further comment would be most appreciated Ouime23 (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverted

Hi @User:Gob Lofa,

If adding Category:Regions of Iceland is wrong, then you should remove the same cat from other regions (Eastern Region (Iceland), Westfjords, Southern Region (Iceland), Northwestern Region (Iceland), Northeastern Region (Iceland), Capital Region (Iceland)). Im going to add again, you can decide, all or non.--Liridon (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, seeing as it's already nested, I'd go for none. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Y Ok, agreed.--Liridon (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

why reverted my edits in "Physical exercise".

hi.. uve just reverted my edits in "Physical exercise". i wud like to know the reason for it. i do think that an imp. article like it needs a gallery.

Fair enough, but not all military. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

bro, u need to give reason for reverting any edit. y have u reverted my latest edit to "Physical exercise"? ive removed all military pics except two.. and even in those two it is not apparent that they r from military.117.215.234.42 (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Three. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Billy Reid

Are you sure Reid was "kicked to death after being wounded"? I have never read that anywhere, and there is no reliable source online to confirm this. Page 137 of the source cited, Richard English's Armed Struggle: History of the IRA, is likewise unavailable online and I am afraid I don't have the book on hand. CAIN lists his death as being shot during gun battle on Academy Street, Belfast. I just want to know: did you actually read this in English's book? The online mirror sites which quote this are a joke so they are utterly unreliable per se. Just wanted to know what's up with that. Quis separabit? 23:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write that. I just checked the source and it simply says he was "shot dead". The song says the soldiers kicked his corpse about, but I've never seen a source that says he was kicked to death. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Then I am removing it as there is not a shred of reliable sourcing to confirm it. WTF!! Quis separabit? 00:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Ireland (1536–1691), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacobites. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Prisons in Ireland

Prisons in Ireland was moved to Prisons in the Republic of Ireland. If you disagree with this move, then stop reverting (and therefore creating two identical articles), and open a RM discussion on the talk page. Snappy (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it wasn't; an old version was. They're no longer identical. Gob Lofa (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

They are 95% the same then. There should only be one article on this topic. Snappy (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd estimate 70%. If you believe there ought to be only one article about prisons for all of Wikipedia, why do you promote one about prisons in the ROI? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prisons in Ireland. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Bamyers99 (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

4th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment

added a link pointing to Territorial Army

6th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment

added a link pointing to Clady

Dublin and Monaghan bombings

added a link pointing to Henry Barron

Ulster Volunteer Force

added a link pointing to Billy Wright

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Stop vandalising this article Paul Murphy (Irish politician). You continually remove reliable references. This is vandalism, stop it. Snappy (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

See article's talk page. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gob_Lofa reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Paul Murphy (Irish politician). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm ♠ 21:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What gives? I was restoring the consensus version of the article; see its talk page. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Detailed logarithmic timeline

Hi. I sent you an e-mail with the following question but I don't know whether you got it. What would you think of rearranging the subsections in Detailed logarithmic timeline so that the breaks would be powers of 10? Like:

13.8 billion years ago to 10 billion years ago

10 billion years ago to 1 billion years ago

1 billion years ago to 100 million years ago

and so on. Also, I think it's all right to put links to something more than once (such as Homo erectus), since this is not an "article" that one reads from beginning to end. It's more like a reference. One looks at a particular part in order to get an idea of the context at that period. So it's nice to have links to things where one is looking, and not just at the first mention higher up. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Eric, sorry for not getting back sooner. While I like the elegance of your suggestion, it would lead to longer sections, which I'm not a fan of. That's a fair point about the links, though. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

IMOS

Ireland unlinked as discussed above in more than one place is the right way. Murry1975 (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No. If it's not linked, you're confusing the reader as to which Ireland you're talking about. IMOS doesn't back up your position. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Per the Linking guideline of the Manual of Style, the names of major geographic features and locations should not be linked. If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. Pretty easy to follow, and you are up to three on that article now. Murry1975 (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe you need to establish context. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring at The Troubles

You are gaming the system by continually reverting The Troubles just over once every 24 hours. You have now been told by myself, Snappy and Snowded that your edits are against policy. If you revert again you will be reported to the Edit-warring noticeboard. Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Gob you have breached it in your reverts on the Ireland article, shortly after returning from a edit warring block, why? Murry1975 (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not gaming anything; I didn't edit until you announced you were leaving the discussion. Breached what, Murry? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The 1RR. Murry1975 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

On the Ireland article? Aren't you stretching the remit? Gob Lofa (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Slow edit warring on the Troubles and playing the you reverted my change so I will ignore WP:BRD and use up my one revert game is not going to cut it with your block record if you get taken to one of the notice boards. Not sure why you are doing this as the bulk of your edits are fine, but you just can't let go on some things if you are opposed. You are running a serious risk of a long term block. After a week the next is likely a month, then indef normally follows. Pull back ... ----Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your games are not my games. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

True, my concern is you are heading for an indefinite block and that game would not be a good one ----Snowded ^TALK 06:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2006 Lebanon War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Litani. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As previously

How many times do you have to be told, if it is to do with state governance we use Ireland??? How about reading IMOS for once with a view to understanding it??? Irish is very correct. Stop removing it. Murry1975 (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is your original edit so BRD that first. Murry1975 (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Agian. Really. Murry1975 (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Since when is a Dublin minister responsible for prisons in a part of the UK? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

They would be, wait for it, British prisons. Irish Prison Service = Irish prison. Murry1975 (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

They're whatever kind of prisons they want to be, and it's not your place to ascribe a nationality to them. Irish Prison Service = another badly named arm of a badly named state. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well the start a referendum, send letters to the Dáil members, and when it is chnged we will encyclopedic-like change it. Just because you dont like is not a good reason. Murry1975 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It strikes me that there are easier ways to avoid the resulting confusion on Wikipedia; although I've noticed that those who refuse to ascribe the term 'Irish' to anything in a large chunk of Ireland™ seem resistant to this notion. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You above have shown your personal view that Ireland should rename itself, and not use Irish to describe what is within or related to. I will put it to you this way, Belfast is an Irish city (and a Northern Irish one and British too), so should we go around wikipedia, and on every mention of Belfast, insert Belfast, Ireland, this would follow you view, but it would not be encyclopedic. And anything from the state is Irish, if you like that or not, you can not change that. Murry1975 (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not my position. I have no problem describing prisons or anything else in the ROI as Irish. My problem is with you saying that Irish prisons can only exist in one part of Ireland, and that those in another part can't be considered Irish. It's unnecessarily confusing. Enough confusion flows from the irredentist renaming of the Irish Free State; there's no need to add to it. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have shown why we use different adjectives, you keep denying the states name, its name is something neither you nor I have control over. Irredentist, a word I haven't heard in a long while. Last time was a certain revisionist unionist. Odd that you use it now. Since 1937, longer than the current UK name, yes a claim was laid over all the island. Yes it was changed. But the states name has not. If you are only concerned with your. I think if you want a larger scale discussion would be needed on project Ireland, but as Irish local elections, 2014 shows it may not fall the way you want. Murry1975 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want a blanket insistence that 'Irish' can only refer to ROI-related subjects, a larger scale discussion would be needed. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Polity

Your continued insistence of pursuing your desired POV in regards to what Northern Ireland is still goes against: previous opposition; WP:BRD; lack of evidence to back up your claims; needlessly over complicating statements than can be said much simpler; virtually no-one else using that term to refer to it; the fact it is a degrading POV term. If you feel that your terminology is indeed the right one, then go to IMOS and state your case and persuade the community to back you. Otherwise desist from your slow edit-warring and disregard for Wikipedia protocols. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I take it you're referring to my use of the term 'polity'. Why do you consider it degrading? I don't. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Polity has been discussed several times and rejected by consensus. You are in effect edit warring and if you continue to so so it will be reported for community action. Lots of small changes against consensus over multiple articles. With your block history I suggest you STOP now ----Snowded ^TALK 09:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Several times? Please stop your edit-warring. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a consensus against you. Assume you will be reverted own all articles until you get agreement, If you continue this, as stated it will be reported ----Snowded ^TALK 15:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

PS just realised, you have broken the 1RR rule on McMahon killings. I have to go out for a meeting so you have time to self revert. If you don't then I will file a report when I get back----Snowded ^TALK 15:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The consensus seems to be that it's not covered. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Link to that consensus agreement please. Also you are on 1RR so I really recommend you self revert ----Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Howdy, Gob Lofa. I ain't here to bash ya over the head. Just letting ya know, rightly or wrongly, you're stepping on the toes of a number of editors & sooner or latter, the feet those toes are connected to, are going to be giving you the boot, likely via having you topic-banned from British/Irish articles. IMHO, you best walk away from British & Irish articles for awhile. Say 'bout 1 year. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not so much an agreement Snowded, more that I've seen editors insisting that the remit is much tighter than I imagined, and not so many arguing the opposite. I hope your prediction doesn't come true, GoodDay, for me or the others. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So there is no consensus to support you, you just implied there was. Typical. GoodDay's prediction would rely on good will from the community, the most likely scenario at the moment is an indefinite ban ----Snowded ^TALK 19:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe it qualifies as a consensus, but as you don't seem convinced you're welcome to canvass opinion from other interested editors. You seem fairly blasé about an indefinite ban. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I take it you're referring to my use of the term 'polity'. Why do you consider it degrading? I don't. - you don't equate to the law on Wikipedia and you have failed every single time to provide reliable and verifiable evidence for your claims. It is the community that matters here, not you. I have explained to you and disproved your factitious claims several times before, so you know rightly the problems. Also you have blatantly displayed your quite inaccurate and partisan POV in regards to Northern Ireland/Troubles matters in the past where your claims are completely at odds with reliable and verifiable evidence, so your viewpoint is pretty hard to accept on your word only with no supporting evidence.

Not so much an agreement Snowded, more that I've seen editors insisting that the remit is much tighter than I imagined, and not so many arguing the opposite. - so where is the consensus at? According to you more editors agree than disagree (if so then why have you never seeked a proper consensus despite frequent requests?) All that amounts too is democracy, not consensus. Consensus is where everyone agrees. Democracy is not and Wikipedia doesn't do democracy.

The fact you have undone 12 reversions of your controversial edits, one each on 12 separate articles, in the past day on this term despite the very clear and provable fact you knew long before and long after you made the initial edits and the recent reverts of the removals of your non-consensus POV, makes it clear that: 1) you have no desire to work along with Wikipedia's protocols or guidelines and simply seek to enforce your POV via edit-warring and 1RR/3RR gaming; 2) hoping that I flash revert you in a vain attempt to see if I will breach 1RR/3RR.

You have never had a consensus on the issue and have never sought one so you have no support and your continued ignoring of this and Wikipedia protocols and guidelines only further backs up the many accusations tabled against you by myself and other editors.

I ask that you self-revert and raise the issue at IMOS and seek an actual consensus like any other editor who is willing to engage with the community and act in the best interests of Wikipedia would do. Then again you have been asked too before on this issue and many others many times before and you never have.

Maybe I should raise this to the admin who recently blocked you as another example, this time across multiple pages, of your anti-community slow edit-warring, which may result in you receiving a longer block. Maybe it'll boomerang and I'll get lumped with one too, but it's no skin off my nose considering my recent activity level.

I reverted your controversial edits as they lack consensus, something you now well about. I raised the issue with you and asked you to seek consensus. You blatantly ignore that and engage in your continued pattern of slow-edit warring. Pretty clear who has the problem. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You are unable too provide a link to any conversation which indicates a consensus. You have no editors in agreement with you in the current discussion. On which planet is it possible for you to consider there is a consensus? ----Snowded ^TALK 20:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves, both Snappy and Murry1975 were insistent that I had overestimated the remit of the Troubles restriction. I've no idea where they made their feelings known, but you can ask them. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You were asked for a link to where consensus was made Gob for use of polity. ":If memory serves, both Snappy and Murry1975 were insistent that I had overestimated the remit of the Troubles restriction. I've no idea where they made their feelings known, but you can ask them." Do you even understand what people are asking? Or are you just trying to draw this on until everybody no longer gives a hoot? Murry1975 (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no. Snowded said, "you have broken the 1RR rule on McMahon killings", and Gob Lofa answered, "Are you sure about that? The consensus seems to be that it's not covered." He never said there was a consensus for "polity"; Snowded only took it up that way. Gob Lofa has said plenty of annoying things on this page and elsewhere, but there isn't an awful lot of point in chastising him for things that he didn't say. Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How far back up was that!! I took it to meaning consensus for polity. Yes I have said on certain article, Albert Reynolds I think, when Gob was claim a 1RR that not every Irish article is under 1RR. I did however point out the actual Ireland article was- a fact he ignored. The Mahon Killings would most definitely be under 1RR as it is a Troubles article itself. Murry1975 (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to this statement "I believe it qualifies as a consensus" which is a total nonsense and did imply he believed there was a consensus for polity. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

He said, "I believe it qualifies as a consensus, but as you don't seem convinced you're welcome to canvass opinion from other interested editors. You seem fairly blasé about an indefinite ban." His previous comment was, "Not so much an agreement Snowded, more that I've seen editors insisting that the remit is much tighter than I imagined, and not so many arguing the opposite." The reference to the ban and to "the remit" shows that he was referring to the 1RR, and that the two of you were talking at cross-purposes. Scolaire (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Disagree, he was responding to my "So there is no consensus to support you, you just implied there was" in the previous comment. However the hermenutics of Gob Lofa 's comments is probably not the most important thing around here ----Snowded ^TALK 04:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time, Snowded. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The Troubles

Hi. I've noticed you've edited some articles I made on the The Troubles and just generally tidied them up. I was wondering do you do much wrtining/editing on the The Troubles in general as I could do with some help putting some new (obviously worth while events, not just one random death, one random injury, one random bombing etc...) articles together.

Best regards.

TDV123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdv123 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I've done a bit. I'd be happy to help out. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pegida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Muslim. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of 'NPOV'

Please do not write "NPOV" in your edit summary – as you did here, for instance – when it is completely inappropriate for the edit. The term "Northern Ireland" does not represent any particular point of view, and the term "polity" does not represent any kind of neutrality. Also, please stop edit-warring to replace "polity", or its new sibling "political entity", in articles. Scolaire (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your edit-warring and hark. I've no specific problem with the removal of 'polity' here; my problem is with the wording, 'campaign against Northern Ireland'. We don't say that the French Resistance launched a campaign against France. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it was poorly worded. But just being poorly worded does not make a sentence POV. I've now fixed it. Once again, turning somebody's words back on them is not clever, it's childish. And I advise you to heed Snowded's warning below. Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Gob Lofa is being dishonest and engaging in nationalistic edit-warring? Wow, that's a surprise. AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say the previous version was POV; I was asserting the neutrality of my version, which had been attacked in the previous edit summary. Reverting to a version you favour and then accusing others of edit-warring when they do the same is not clever, and some might consider it childish; the same rules apply to us all. Characterising my edit as nationalist is risible. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Polity again

We have a general consensus that this term should not be used. However you continue to attempt to insert it without gaining consensus first. I am formally requesting that you agree that you will not do this again without first gaining agreement. If you are not prepared to agree then I will seek agreement to a community constraint at ANI. I won't ask for a block, but there is a danger someone else might. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, for new edits. But I'm not binding myself in cases of old edits like that discussed in the previous section, which I reverted for different reasons than the inclusion of the term. Had I a suitable synonym, I would have begun using it before now. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If you're not editing to include the term, you shouldn't include the term. If you do include it, the edit is against consensus and disruptive. Scolaire (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

All additions of the term polity in regards to Northern Ireland were added in by Gob Lofa, and as it seems the community disagree with the term, then all additions are controversial and should be restored to what was previously there or something more suitable. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Also I apologise if I threatened to go to your recent blocking admin Gob Lofa and feel it may have been a little to rash, instead I have decided to give you a good few weeks to revert your changes, and I will now do what you have for some reason avoided doing ever since the issue of you using polity arose all those months ago... get a community debate and decision on it. If you can convince everyone and get a consensus then good for you, you win, if you can't convince and get consensus then you will have to abide by that fact, swallow your pride and stop edit-warring. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted all the ones I found, Happy to do the others if you have a list. I suspect that the best we can hope is that Gob Lofa will take the warning and not reinstate them. He already raised an RfC on this I think ----Snowded ^TALK 22:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I see Gob Lofa actually went to the Ireland WikiProject to seek views, and good for them about time. Just a pity they gave no case for their argument when they started the discussion. Instead it looked like they were seeking a straw-poll of opinion with next to nothing to go on. I've made a couple of proposals in that discussion on the topic. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please don't come on article talk pages just to abuse me, as you did here. If you have anything to say as regards the edit, say it. The talk page is not the place for scoring points. In fact, nowhere on Wikipedia is for scoring points. Scolaire (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire. I don't come on article talk pages to abuse you, neither at the talk page you provided a link to nor anywhere else. I've already indicated my support for the inclusion of at least some of the additional information you oppose including. I pulled you up on misrepresenting the views of others there and now you're misrepresenting my actions. Almost as if you were concerned with scoring points. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

To reiterate, the talk page is not for "pulling people up". It is for discussing edits, not editors. If you had nothing to add to what you said two months ago regarding the content, there was no need for you to post at all. Scolaire (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Reiterate"? When did you say that before? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jasenovac concentration camp

added a link pointing to Roma

Provisional IRA Derry Brigade

added a link pointing to The Parachute Regiment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Problems with user Scolaire

Hello Gob Lofa, I noticed that you have been engaged in controversy with user Scolaire over aggressive and unproductive edits on his part. I am trying to bring this type of behavior to the attention of Wikipedia administrators, in the wake of a similar controversy in which Scolaire abruptly removed material I had worked on, without improving it. If you could contribute any testimony to the discussion on the Administrators' notice board here, that would be helpful to me and might help check Scolaire's ready hand with the axe. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward I of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simon de Montfort. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nessan Quinlivan

Where is Northern Ireland mentioned in the same context as Ireland in the article Lapsed Pacifist? Murry1975 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Like a dog with a bone, aren't you? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

At least I am not a long term sock like yourself. And I stick with what we are meant to do. Woof-woof. Murry1975 (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, but I reckon you'll be brought to heel sooner or later. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Provisional IRA Derry Brigade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waterside. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Americans

You're a fan (asked in a favourable way)? Kafka Liz (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I am indeed. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Late my time, as perhaps it is yours, but nice to meet someone of a similar opinion. I suspect you're not much given to idle chat, but... The very best thought-out show I've ever seen. Best wishes, Kafka Liz (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Restrictions concerning editing about the Northern Ireland flag and other articles connected with The Troubles (in its widest sense)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. I am sending you this to help you stop yourself from breaking any restrictions imposed by the Arbitration committee for matters concerned with "The Troubles"

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please be reminded that articles about the Northern Ireland flag come under WP:1RR. Try to work within the restrictions placed upon us all, and it is far better to work with others than work against them. I am trying to inform everyone who has contributed to the discussions or edited about the Northern Ireland flag. Also, be aware that behaviour wider than 1rr editing can result in discretionary sanctions.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to remind me of that, and there was a week between my edits. You've informed no participant (bar me) in that discussion of anything, an unusual policy of yours. How does someone as ignorant of the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism as you end up being in a position to block anyone? Sanction thyself. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your behaviour

1. If you read WP:PREFER you will see that I have complied with what is allowed in implementng a full protection. 2. I have warned all editors who have not already been warned by others and who I have seen be active recently in edit-warring about the Arbitration sanctions. This includes behaviour not just on Flag of Northern Ireland. If there are any I have omitted, please tell me, and, after checking, I will also warn them. 3. Your behaviour is becoming disruptive. I am well aware of the matters you claim I am not, and your personal attacks upon me are becoming tedious. Stop it. 4. The above constitute sufficient responses to your accusations. The matter is now closed.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Will you withdraw your personal attack on me above, and cease further disruptive behaviour on this page?

Commenting on your behaviour as an administrator is not a personal attack. I am allowed to do that and what I have written is clearly justified. If you continue with these sophisms, I will block you. Now, stop it.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you genuinely believe my edit to that page constitutes vandalism? Gob Lofa (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, I never said it was vandalism. If you would like to point out exactly where I used the word "vandalism" to describe your edits, I would be grateful, otherwise, please withdraw the accusation.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

At 8:47 above, you told me I had vandalised Wikipedia. Do you still believe that? Gob Lofa (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Flag of Northern Ireland, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'd no idea that the definition of vandalism had broadened to include restoring the stable version of an article while a discussion continues. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That is not what you did. You deleted an enormous amount of text with no discussion, given that others had been edit-warring, that does not justify it. What you did was likely to be disruptive, given the 1rr restrictions and sensitivity of the subject. So, don't come all innocent with me over that! You have a long block log for inappropriate actions, so take this as a serious warning.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did; users adding text during the discussion were warned that the stable version would be restored while the discussion continued. I have discussed my reasons for restoring the stable version, as have others. I'm going to allow you to come all innocent with me; it's obvious your familiarity with the previous discussion is at the same level as your ability to define vandalism. I'm bemused by your uneven approach; you haven't threatened any other editors, even those with a fondness for editing despite ongoing discussions. What gives? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh! I see. It is a standard warning, and you were disruptive. So, I withdraw the stanbdard word used and replace it with words to the effect that you were being disruptive, which you were, given the action you took after the delay of 16 days, and the lack of immediate discussion of a topic you knew was highly contentious. I do not withdraw that.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I accept your withdrawal of your insult, but how can you characterise restoring the stable version while a discussion is ongoing as disruptive? That flies in the face of everything I've been told. The policy of restoring the stable version is designed to prevent edit wars; it's the opposite of disruptive. I don't know what you mean by 16 days; my edit before last was on the 31st. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Even innocent persistent questions can be disruptive. Of course, I suggest you I know that as well as I do. And the 16 days referred to your lack of discussion. I note you tried the edit on 31st which was partly what caused the article to be protected at that time, just as it has done now. That you remade the edit just now suggests you are as guilty as the others of edit-warring and playing the system to avoid the 1rr restriction still without discussing it. You mentioned BRD in your most recent edit to the page, which you did on 31st, so I see you broke the convention yourself, because you made no contribution to the talk page to discuss the matter in between then and your most currect edit. So let's just drop it and I urge you to discuss content on the talk page of the article, rather than persist in this unhelpful bickering. If you have solid cases to make, make them. Otherwise it really does seem like you are just being disruptive whilst trying to innocently appeal to a process, which in fact you have not abided to either (I mean BRD). Stop it now.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your persistent attempts, which if I was less kind I might describe as unhelpful bickering, to characterise restoring the stable version as disruptive in order to save face are themselves disruptive. I'm under no obligation to continually remind edit-warriors that we have policies for content disputes. I saw no need to augment what Snowded and Asarlai were saying, which has been broadly similar to what I had already said myself. I'm not surprised you're urging me to drop it; you've dug a hole for yourself here. Clear off my talk page and get your facts straight before you come back. Now, please. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pretty Boy Floyd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootlegger. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for disruptive editing and battleground behaviour (and logged on Discretionary Sanctions page for The Troubles Arbitration), as you did at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland, in this edit here, though many of your recent previous messages have contributed to your battleground behaviour and disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by reading the guide to appealing blocks issued under Discretionary Sanctions here and following the procedure outlined there.   DDStretch  (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to administrators wishing to review this: The block has been issued under the Discretionary Sanctions for The Troubles, here.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This morning, you wrote "I have an additional problem of having got into a wrangle with a rather persistent editor...I am now not convinced that I could be justifiable in wielding any future discretionary sanctions against this editor by virtue of my interactions with them making me involved. I would be grateful if some extra help could be given." Then, I admired the honourable way you refused to use administrator privileges in a personal dispute. You ought to have kept to that course of action. You introduced yourself on my page with an inaccurate insult and you've pretty much continued in that fashion. Your wounded pride is no justification for your action; I want you to unblock me and I respectfully suggest you then consider your position. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Following Instructions

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: intentionally or not, your last comment at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland gives the impression I deliberately flouted an instruction given me by an administrator who wrongly accused me of being a vandal. I didn't; Ddstretch instructed me to stay away from his talk page after I had instructed him similarly. Only one of us has defied that; the conversation you saw was copied and pasted. And there you go. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)