User talk:Jonto

You ought to get in touch with User: 64.109.253.204. This anonymous user has very strong opinions about my edits.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As regards Irish Republican Army:

Please do not attempt to move pages by cutting and pasting content. This forks the edit histories of pages, thus breaking the edit attribution needed under the GFDL, not to mention making it harder to see how the article evolved generally.

Use the "move" tab above the article to move the entire article (including edit history) to a new location.

For the time being I have restored the original content at Irish Republican Army. Should you wish to move it to the location you previously chose, I can delete the pasted article for you first (pages can only be moved to an "empty" location).

zoney ♣ talk 14:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted Irish Republican Army (1916-1919), so should you wish, you can move the Irish Republican Army page there (although I would suggest putting a notice on talk page and waiting a few days to see what others think). zoney ♣ talk 14:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was not aware I could do that.Jonto 13:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still somewhat unhappy about this. How widespread is the term "Ulster Banner" for the Northern Ireland flag? It's certainly a POV term for a flag associated with (note, not representing) the six counties only, and not all of Ulster. I would be prepared to accept that it is termed the Ulster Banner if there are sources, but I'm still not sure it's proper to refer to it as such (and certainly without explaining the problem with the term) here on Wikipedia.

zoney ♣ talk 17:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As said, "Ulster banner" is the flag's official name, as sourced from the Flags of the World site on that page. From experience the term is not used that often - the most common term being "Ulster Flag", so I don't see how removing it is going to make any difference. From the article's title of "Flag of Northern Ireland, so I don't think you can get any clearer than that. I think it is also explained pretty well.

I also think it is a matter of debate as to whether "Ulster" in an article on NI is a "POV" term as you put it (this is actually your POV!!). This is a very complex issue because the word is used in many contexts - cultural, political, geographical, historical, sporting, as an identity, and often mainly because "Ulster" is 2 syllables and "Northern Ireland" is 4 syllables! Depending on your POV and context Ulster has 9 counties, 6 counties, or perhaps most significantly and accurately is a cultural region with no exact boundary. There is a distinct Ulster/Ulster-Scot identity in NI (and also in some areas in the Republic, mainly Donegal where many people have an almost identical accent and a close relationship to those in NI), of which the existence of Northern Ireland plays a crucial role in upholding this identity. Therefore, to supress such information is actually causing offence to many Ulstermen and Ulsterwomen. I think this issue of Ulster identity and the cultural region does not seem to be mentioned on wikipedia, and the Ulster article actually needs some work to bring it up to scratch.Jonto 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a glance at Irish Republican Army. A user wants to blur the line between the Old IRA and later IRAs and is annoyed that, as a professional historian, I am trying to point out the fact that post 1922 IRAs did not have the same legitimacy in the public's eyes as the IRA of the Anglo-Irish War. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jonto, we discussed previously on the Derry/Londonderry vote. It's a bit naughty of me but I'm assuming where you are coming from politically and geographically and as such I was hoping you would have some knowledge of the breaking of the boom in "

Fair enough, I was reverting other vandalism by that user and I may have been a bit hasty. Demiurge 19:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. Jonto 19:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have added the Flag again. User:The Tom removed it because it might be seen as POV and argumentative. I've no fixed views. I just wish someone would add the English Scout Counties or, as I would prefer,, change the whole thing to a more workable number of regions - workable in terms of having articles on Scouting for each link. Let us see if it stays. If it gets reverted again, I will suggest to the WikiProject Scouting that all flags be removed from the template. --Bduke 21:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User The_Tom removed the image from many templates, despite not fully understanding al the issues at hand - I simply restored to all.

I have no problems with you removing all the flags from this particular template.Jonto 22:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonto. Left a message for you on my talk page. Cheers. --Mal 20:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on your revert for the Ulster disambig page. The previous edit was POV. "Often called" is fine in my books. --Mal 00:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awww poor little 'Jonto' has been rumbled. Dismiss us as 'Irish Republicans'? I'm sure as hell Irish - prove that I'm a 'Republican'.. Tír Eoghain abú

Thanks for your notes, had I been awake when you posted them I probably would have restored some or all of your posts. I'd still advise you to tone down your criticism of Jtdirl unless you want to take formal steps against him, viz. RfC, RfAr. That kind of "

Seeing your reply on the Northern Ireland talk page reminded me that you're from Belfast, aren't you? Anyway - here's a standard circular I've been sending to people who have listed themselves as Northern Irish Wikipedians, or people who have made decent contributions to Belfast-related articles:

As you have contributed to an article relating to Belfast, I hope you could take some time to read this page about our new project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belfast.

Thanks. --Mal 01:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the hand in Image:Flag of Ulster.svg, please let me know if there's something else that need to be fixed. Conscious 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

You might want to look at talk:Prime minister. The page was moved to the illiterate form Prime minister by a vote of 3 people. A new RM is taking place but the illiterates seem to be queuing to endorse such a crazy move. Feel free to contribute to the debate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A

Hi, I have reverted your edit, as you introduced material about the UK's own internal land frontiers that are not relevant. The wording: "The only land frontier between Ireland and the United Kingdom" is correct. All the best, bigpad 15:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into the matter, and history of the argument tommorow evening. For now, I will leave the page protected to give everybody involved time to calm down. Joe D (t) 23:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find yet again you are engaging in personal attacks against other editors, "a lot of editors who are blatantly distorting articles with a pro-Irish Republican PoV ino many articles keep coming running to your talk page",[1] as it is perfectly obvious who you are referring to. So far you have received 3 blocks for personal attacks. If you persist in this, you are going to get blocked again. I suggest you refrain from negative comments about other editors. Tyrenius 07:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree that in the past I have made personal attacks towards users that have been involved in disruptive vandalism, the quote you gave is criticising the disruptive actions of certain users, in no way breaches WP:NPA, and I would happily repeat the commment above. Jonto 19:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'am not concerned about your removal of the Tricolour, but can you explain the rest of your edit where you are removing referenced material and the reference as well, this could be regarded as vandalism, so I am asking you in good faith to restore this information.--

A tag has been placed on

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'd like to take the opportunity to advise you on two matters which, being a member or former member of the

I'd also like to take this opportunity to ask for your help in reviving the Northern Ireland WikiProject. Given that there are only a small number of Wikipedians from Northern Ireland or interested specifically in the region, the project needs all the help it can get.

Cheers, --Setanta747 (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ireland, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. BigDunc^Talk 23:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - my deletion was accidental! Jonto (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per

Per

No problem - will wait. It would, however, be useful if we could get some involvement in debates from parties who are non-aligned with Northern Ireland issues - I am sick of only being able to debate with people who plaster their homepages with Irish Nationalist regalia. Jonto (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have previously been warned per

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for the reason given above. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 11:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly get lost - I did not break any revert rule. The fact is that Wikipedia is widely inaccurate on many NI articles, and people like myself are attempting to improve it, but any edits that I even attempt to perform are instantly reverted without discussion by a core group of editors (often with their talk pages plastered in Irish nationalist regalia). Trying to denounce challenging inaccurate information as "edit warring" is simply preposterous. People like you are the ones that are driving editors away from Wikipedia, and only contributing to the resulting mess that it is becoming. Jonto (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per this revert, please read

Apologies - I was not aware of this policy. I would, however, appreciate if you could use a less threatening tone with the whole "blocking" thing. I do, however, think that showing the full image on the talk page really adds more to the discussion, and that such a policy seems rather daft to me. Jonto (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a threat, had you reverted once more after being told twice, you would have been blocked, that is a simple fact. I would have been nicer had you not forced me to do the same thing twice, and just asked if you didn't understand my first explanation. The policy is there for an extremely good reason. MickMacNee (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

One edit restoring the article is hardly "disruption". "Disruption" has been caused by admins like yourself making severe changes such as deleting the article entirely and making a redirect despite most consensus against

Decline reason:

No, it's exactly disruption -- did you really think that your action would have an positive result? There are better ways. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Given we have had a politically-motivated admin completely deleting an article against a lack of general consensus, along with deleting its entire history as well as talk history , then what else do you expect to be done? That was a deeply underhand move, and I have been blocked for making a SINGLE edit, which restored sourced content otherwise wiped from history, by an admin simply wanting to censor political opponents, despite Wikipedia supposedly having a

WP:BOLD

policy.

Decline reason:

There was a discussion at

Deletion Review process. Anyway, if you want to be unblocked, you'll need to agree not to recreate the article outside of the process. PhilKnight (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

---

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.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Please don't make any more comments like this one. It is possible to disagree with others without issuing personal attacks. --John (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see anything personal nor insulting there. I think you need to stop treating people here like little thin-skinned children Jonto (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The material on the Queen's Birthday has been disputed by several editors. The process is that you now seek agreement on the talk page. If you tag team with Miles to re-inserti the material without agreement on the talk page I will request your behaviour is examined via enforcement of arbitration committee sanctions on Troubles Articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. I'm sure your life is very exciting if that's what your plan is. What you call "tag teaming" I call collaboration. You do not dictate the content here. Jonto (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...in a discussion here[2]. Miles Creagh (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had to fix your post, per

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

Hi Jonto. I am disappointed that you failed to follow my advice regarding personal attacks. This edit is the wrong side of the line when you have been blocked before, been recently warned, and are aware you are editing in a delicate area which is the subject of ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I'd also note that I find this a bit concerning; if you are not in agreement with our fundamental goals or methodology, maybe you should reconsider your involvement here. You have 48 hours to reconsider your tone and your strategy. Depending on your future behaviour, I may recommend a topic ban as well. What are your feelings on the matter? --John (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find that rather obnoxious. I do not appreciate the threats made to me by users like and Snowded and yourself -- unlike you, I have not threatened or harassed anyone. I have every right to be involved as anything else. I find it pathetic I am not allowed dismiss threats or to criticise Wikipedia. I feel other admins need to give you a block for your harassment. Jonto (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

I noticed this. I have blocked for one week. Please do not ever again make a discussion personal like this, especially in a charged topic like the Troubles. If you ever do anything like this again the next block will probably have to be be indefinite. Please use this time to consider carefully what you are doing and how you are doing it. Something has to change if you wish to continue editing here. --John (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Sorry, but I fail to see where I made this personal at all. It was not me who opened that discussion, did not reinstate the name "Snowded" in the title, rather I corrected your deleted title where you removed the fact that Commonwealth Games usage was censored to be more accurate. I feel you are harassing me in a non-partisan manner as a user and are not targeting those who actually are attacking and threatening other users. Jonto (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you cannot see how accusing other editors of censorship is making things personal, you will need to re-consider your attitude. Huon (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

It IS censorship. You need a dictionary if you think that using the word "censorship" implies anything personal, especially when sourced content is repeatedly deleted by multiple users. Jonto (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It isn't censorship, it's an editing dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The point is where did I "make a discussion personal" as the reason given for an unwarranted block? I did not, and am simply being harassed by User:John simply for not agreeing with his interfering edits. It seems admins would rather scratch each other's backs here rather than looking at the scenario objectively. Meanwhile, the User:Snowded, who makes constant personal attacks and threats against myself, and acknowledges only reverting because I opposed him "rather than any content issue" and gets no warning whatsoever Jonto (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As the other 3 above, you were using talk headings to attack other users / accuse them of censorship. You may make further appeals via

UTRS, but I would make sure you're making an argument based on policy, and not attacking the reviewing admins there as you have here. I have revoked your access to this page until your block expires. SQL^{Query me!} 17:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

---

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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an

administrator

has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the

unblock ticket request system

that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

I will let a fourth admin review your request. Two things meantime; have you read

Is it OK? Centuryofconfusion (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

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.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jonto. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jonto. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]