User talk:SonofSetanta/Archive N1

Thanks for the message - I didn't look at the times when I edited and didn't realise we were talking about a matter of minutes, so perhaps a little too quick off the mark! Good work on the rapid addition of sources and improvement, cheers. Lactical (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Wolfe Tone Societies

Hello again. I think you probably know by now that while we welcome and appreciate your contributions, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Your new article Wolfe Tone Societies article appears to contain material copied from http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/crights/nicra/nicra781.htm and from the book Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA by Richard English (Macmillan, 2003, ISBN 978-0-330-49388-8), and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Wolfe Tone Societies and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Wolfe Tone Societies, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Wolfe Tone Societies with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Wolfe Tone Societies. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Wolfe Tone Societies saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Psychonaut (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I

Best to refrain from making anymore statements. You've given your defence and editors have responded, and further comments will only get more responses to those comments resulting in prolongated discussions that people will skim over when making their decision. Wait until Calill or whoever comes along and makes a definite decision on the matter, and if it goes against you, you always have the right to appeal. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Will do. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

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.

The Troubles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bloody Sunday

Wolfe Tone Societies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Irish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Drumcree conflict may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• others aren’t--> marches take place in the town. Throughout the 20th century, the police force ([[Royal Ulster Constabulary]](RUC) was also almost wholly Protestant.<ref name="Mulholland"/>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tags

I am entitled as an editor, never mind being an administrator, to remove CSD tags that are inappropriate. The 'nonsense' tag applies only to things like 'actor formal house judicially enterprise wigwam soup' or 'uyytryt yutytyttyrrrr'. If the text is coherent (or obviously foreign), it does not fall under the 'nonsense' criterion. This article is quite coherent. I am suggesting that you remove the tag yourself, and if you have a problem with the article, that you raise it on the talk page. I also suggest that you read the criteria for speedy deletion. Peridon (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Special Patrol Group and the Glenanne gang

Where on The Troubles talk page is the consensus you claim that any reference to this connection should be removed? Mo ainm~Talk 15:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not removed, just cut down. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you point me to where it is mentioned then in the article please Mo ainm~Talk 15:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

AE request

A request to enforce an arbitration decision concerning you will shortly be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please only edit the section with your statement.  Sandstein  16:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland AfD

Hi. With this edit you added a link to an AfD nomination for the article Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland to today's log, but you did not create the actual nomination page. Instead, you added a proposed deletion tag to the article. The proposed deletion process is a little different from the deletion discussion process. Proposed deletion is a way to suggest uncontroversial deletion by adding a tag to a page. If the tag is removed, then you can no longer use the proposed deletion process. I recommend that you please read the guide to deletion to learn more about how the deletion processes work before nominating the page again for deletion. The deletion policy also lists valid reasons for deletion. Best, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Posting at the Arbitration board

Just some advice about that arbitration enforcement discussion: each of us is given a section, called "statement by so-and-so", and that is the only place we can say anything. To reply to someone else, begin your comment with "@whoever" but put it in your own space. Awkward, I know, but that's how they do it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I see that you replied to Sandstein in his space. Go move it to your own space, before someone else has to move it and gets annoyed. --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been having trouble with that too - I displaced one of your posts and tried to get it back where I thought it belonged. I've never been in the Arbitration area before so far as I can remember. Confusing. Anyway, I hope we've got you straightened out about the different ways for deletion - yes, they can be confusing too if you haven't worked in them as long as I have. Do ask Melanie or me if there are things you're still not sure on. (She's not an admin, but I'm not the only one that thinks she ought to be...). Peridon (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple of items, just to continue the learning process here: 1) Posting walls of text at the Arbitration site is not advisable. See the instruction at the top of the page, Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. That may apply only to the requesting party, but in any case, the wordier and more repetitious your posts are, the less likely it is that they will read and consider everything you say. See WP:TLDR. Bottom line: time to stop posting; you have made your points. 2) There is no such thing as an "AfD admin". Administrators are administrators (also called sysops). They can do any of the administrative chores here, including deleting and restoring articles, protecting pages, banning or blocking users, and rendering decisions at a page like the arbitration area where you are currently engaged. Only administrators can participate in the "decision" area there; both admins and ordinary editors like me can post in the "statement by..." section. Of the people who are engaged in the current discussion, Peridon, Sandstein, Cailil and Seraphimblade are administrators. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Special Constabulary

As you're aware, the wording of that section of the article is being discussed on the talkpage. Other editors clearly disagree with the changes you proposed, but you went ahead and made those changes anyway. You should've tried to reach an agreement before doing anything. Your changes removed reliably sourced content and, in my opinion, introduced bias. The paragraf you added read like anti-Irish nationalist propaganda. It was mostly about the UDR rather than the USC, it presented opinions as fact, and it didn't give an opposing view. ~Asarlaí 15:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent events

SoS I told you that you should avoid controversial subjects and just concentrate on army stuff which is what you have great knowledge on. Whilst the shoot-to-kill article is army related, it is also controversial and you went ahead and tried to get it speedy deleted which to be honest I don't understand. It is highly notable subject that deserves its own entry, or entry in a very related article. Just because it reads like a republican propaganda sheet doesn't qualify it for deletion - just heavy modification - through discussion and sources.

You have also been warned of 1RR before and it clearly states: "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." - shoot-too-kill is abundantly easily construed as being Troubles related and you should of assumed that it was so. Many articles that should be tagged as such haven't been when they should be but you should also know from your previous warning.

I have given you a lot of support recently, but you have ignored my advice. You should have asked me what would of been the best way to go about the article rather than just go gung-ho at it. It definitely would not have been to speedily delete it, even if you didn't understand the process, which to be honest is confusing at times.

This situation is of your own making. I did say always discuss issues!

Mabuska ^(talk) 20:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And when you did try to discuss at Talk:Ulster_Special_Constabulary#Composition, that is not the best way to do so in order to get support for your actions. Though just to add I have never seen Lukeno94 on an Ireland related page before so I wouldn't assume they are a friend of Mo ainm's. I have only encountered them at AN/I so I must assume they were tracking you like Pyschonaut. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry to have caused damage to your reputation Mabuska. My actions at the Shoot to Kill article were genuine however. Everything seemed to happen so fast that I got caught off guard and reacted in a knee jerk way. I accept I was wrong but I don't think the actions of several other people helped and I am suspicious that my difficulty was exploited. For the moment anyway I think I need to withdraw, certainly from the USC and shoot to kill article, and maybe concentrate on a purely military agenda for the next wee while. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your e-mail

In reply to your e-mail, the answer to your question of "Am I wrong to be paranoid?" is very likely yes. Not everything that is done with respect to content edited by you is aimed at you; you should try to assume good faith and that others are more likely just doing what they think is best for Wikipedia, rather than trying to attack you.  Sandstein  06:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement sanction: WP:TROUBLES

The following sanction now applies to you (in accordance with the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions):

You are indefinitely topic-banned from everything related to The Troubles.

You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in this Arbitration Enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final decision. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  07:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta

To comment, go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –  Sandstein  16:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions Topic ban from everything related to The Troubles, imposed at [1], logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#2013 Administrator imposing the sanction Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator Notification here. Statement by SonofSetanta "The overwhelming consensus at the arbitration page was that a mistake had been made by me, something which I maintained throughout. Two of the three editors who had been involved confirmed this as their opinion: User:MelanieN and User:Peridon (who is an admin). My belief at that time was that I was undoing vandalism and that was over-riding WP:1RR. I was getting to grips with it and had moved to the article talk page until the unexplained intervention of (User:Mo ainm) whom I have experienced unpleasantness from before and who can be seen to clamour for a ban against me throughout the proceedings. He made two swift reverts on a 1RR page without explanation. I note also that Someone not using his real name, who is in fact User:One Night In Hackney, and who has been the subject of many AE cases regarding The Troubles. I hope that any involved sysops will regard whatever these two say as WP:WEASEL and in particular the pursuance of a grudge under WP:BATTLE, particularly as both have gone to some lengths to hide their previous editing history as per WP:CLEANSTART (both have been topic banned from Troubles articles in the last year). I therefore put it to you that, although I made a genuine error on a new procedure, the mistake was compounded by the intervention of someone who was determined to take advantage of the situation, WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Much has been made of my inability to cope with new tasks on the wiki. I accept that as correct. Once I learn something however I don't repeat mistakes as is evidenced in my approach to the problems I had with image copyright in the days leading up to 5th July 2013. I would still say the approach of copyright patrollers was less than sympathetic and I was very much thrust into a learning curve I wasn't ready for. However, I applied myself to it and there are no such issues remaining today. This includes going back over two previous identities and making sure that all copyright issues were dealt with, including the many frivolous ones. My previous identities have come in for scrutiny. As of 7th August 2013, as per the advice of a sysops, all three accounts were clearly linked after I made it absolutely clear that I was the owner of those accounts. Notwithstanding the above, which I believe clearly exonerates me from any deliberate disruption, I made a clear statement on the AE case here [2] that I was withdrawing voluntarily and indefinitely from all articles concerned with the Troubles. I am firmly of the belief that my current personal disposition makes me unsuitable for editing articles where partisan views create an atmosphere in which collegiate discussion and the pursuance of academic accuracy take second place to establishing a political WP:POV. I had requested that the article at Ulster Defence Regiment and all articles relating to it with Ulster Defence Regiment or UDR in their title be exempt from this withdrawal as to me the continued editing of these articles falls squarely into the sphere of Military history and my success as an editor on all articles concerning the UDR is without doubt, having raised the main article to B Class, narrowly missing an A Class recently and now up for WP:GA. I repeat my offer of voluntary restrictions now, suggesting that it, as a self imposed sanction, gives me more scope to prove over a long period of time that it is the interests of Wikipedia I have at heart and not a personal agenda. I request that this topic ban be overturned and instead I will enter into an indefinite voluntary withdrawal agreement from Troubles articles. Should I ever feel able to return to these contentious areas I agree to do so only under the supervision of my mentor User:Mabuska and with the permission of a sysop. Whatever the outcome of this appeal I request again that all articles concerning military history, and in particular articles concerning the Ulster Defence Regiment, be exempt from any voluntary or imposed restrictions so that I might give my best to Wikipedia." Statement by Sandstein Statement by Mabuska SoS does make a great contribution to UDR articles etc. I would let them edit these military articles as long as the edit has nothing to do with the Troubles. SoS has a fan club who will no doubt raise a breech. Mabuska (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Having said that if you were allowed to do a voluntary withdrawal from Troubles related issues, you would need in my view to seek a proper appeal to be allowed to edit the area again. Just asking me to help and an admin for permission would not qualify as an agreement by the community for you to start editing there again. Mabuska (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SonofSetanta Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Re: Your e-mail to me

Please leave me a message on my talk-page if you e-mail me, as I only check my Wikipedia e-mail once every few weeks otherwise. Also, I'm pretty sure sending someone an e-mail instead of a talk page message saying "Help me" is a violation of WP:CANVAS. Cheers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I don't like SNUHRN's username either, and unlike you I was actually the victim of a fairly long campaign on his/her part to do something very close to outing me so the irony is particularly frustrating for me. But he/she clearly wasn't who you thought he/she was, given the location of his/her IP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems very difficult to get out of the mire here once you're in it eh? Noted your comments though, thanks for replying. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

For some reason Romania and a user who has edited Ireland articles keeps turning a cog in my memory, though I can't think of who or why. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement appeal

I have closed your appeal to arbitration enforcement as declined. This leaves the sanctions previously decided upon in full effect. You may appeal again to the imposing administrator (Sandstein) or to arbitration enforcement again after a reasonable period of time, generally a minimum of six months, has passed. You may also appeal to the Arbitration Committee if you can make a good case for error.

Also, please be aware that throwing accusations against other editors without solid evidence to back them up can be considered disruptive behavior and is in itself sanctionable, even if the accusations are later withdrawn. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your WP:TROUBLES topic ban by editing File:5 UDR Record Sleeve.jpg among other pages, see [3],

you have been blocked from editing for 48 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  14:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Editing an image page is not a contravention of the topic ban. Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban makes no mention of not editing images.

Decline reason:

Apart from this being lawyering, it actually does: "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Files are pages. If they relate to the banned area, you may not edit them. You are banned from the topic, and may not make any edits related to The Troubles at all while banned, except to appeal or request clarification on the ban itself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:46, 26 August 2013 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban makes no mention of not editing images and I am perfectly entitled to review and quote that without being accused of lawyering. My comments on Sandstein's talk page made it quite clear that was/is my impression of the rules, yet once again I am treated as someone who is being deliberately disruptive. If you want me to leave Wikipedia state your case but stop treating me like a criminal.

Decline reason:

Tone it down SOS. Now. You have ignored a series of warnings for 2 months. You've continued until it got you topic banned. You are the one taking the actions here.

To the matter of this appeal: no admin can over turn this block because it is an Arbitration enforcement block (see the policy on AE blocks linked to above in the block template). And yes WP:BAN covers EVERYTHING, images, talk ages, RFCs discussions. The topic and topics related to everything covered by WP:TROUBLES everywhere and anywhere on this site is off limits to you. Your impression of the rules is irrelevant, ignorance of the rules is no excuse (try telling a traffic cop you didn't realize it was a 30 mile an hour road while you were doing 70). There is no debate. No argument and no leeway. You are under probation (in this case a topic ban) until you show the community you can work within the rules. Continuing to jump up and down and throw accusations around will only make this worse.

Any further abuse of the block appeal process will result in your access to this page being revoked in the very least--Cailil ^talk 15:23, 26 August 2013 (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.

ENOUGH

You people are going too far now. You can clearly see that there is nothing stated anywhere which stops me from editing an image page whilst under a topic ban. There's far too much malicious reporting going on and I'm not being given a chance. These sanctions are draconian and they're not made in the interests of Wikipedia. You've clearly made the decision that you don't want me as an editor on Wikipedia and you may well get what you want. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

SOS, I'll make one last appeal to you. You know that I have nothing against you and nothing to do with Northern Ireland. I have your best interests (as well as Wikipedia's) at heart, and have been trying to advise you. This is my best advice: calm down, accept what people are telling you, sit out your 48-hour block, and come back to help build an encyclopedia - WITHOUT touching anything that relates to The Troubles. That topic ban specifically DOES include the Ulster Defence Regiment; your request for an exemption was denied, and you need to leave that article and everything related to it alone. There is nothing malicious going on here and nothing draconian. Actually a 48-hour ban is pretty minimal; it is just intended to get your attention and to emphasize that you DO have to abide by the limitations set by ArbCom if you want to post here at all. Calm down, stop shouting, take a two-day vacation from Wikipedia. Then come back and demonstrate that you can contribute effectively to articles unrelated to The Troubles. Establish a track record as a valued contributor who can collaborate with others to build an encyclopedia. If you can do that for a few months, chances are the ban will be lifted and you will be able to go back to working in your primary area of interest. If you continue to scream and shout and bluster and insist on trying to edit in a forbidden area, it's unlikely that the sanction will ever be lifted. --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Melanie I thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to post such a kind message. You're correct. I'm very upset and very angry. I didn't know that editing images was forbidden. I mean if you think about it, why would I have been so blatant? Why didn't somebody warn me instead of blocking me? I've been telegraphing my intent to upload a new insignia for the UDR as per a commons request. The permission I was asking wasn't to upload that file, it was to replace the existing one with the new image. I'd even asked a third party would they replace the image for me if I uploaded it but it seems now I'd have been wrong to do that? At the minute it just seems that I can't do right for doing wrong and every time something goes wrong I'm treated as being disruptive. BTW I had a very good track record since I started editing again in May. It just all went pear shaped on me recently. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)