User talk:Aatomic1

Unblock

Please settle down. I've protected this page for one hour; you'll have to wait to make any further appeals. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the protection has expired, and Aatomic1 has gone directly back to similar abuse, I've extended the block to a week, and protected this talk page for the duration. Mango juice^talk 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User:Mangojuice, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gscshoyru 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am obviously sorry. Offending comment for the curious :[1] Aatomic1 16:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could Pedants please remember Headings in future?

The article Cyprian Bridge has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BigDunc

can you explain to me what you are asking me to note thanks, on Birmingham pub bombings--BigDunc 10:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

Thanks for clarification.--BigDunc 10:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on talk page about the list of the dead

Could you please join discussion on talk page about the list of the dead appearing in article on birmingham bombings.BigDunc 13:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting very silly now what are you doing scouring WP looking for places to put lists of dead people why dont you set up an obituary article and you can have your fun there.BigDunc 14:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we simply use my talk page for ALL innocent victims? I'm bloody interested in them and I should be able to look them up in an encyclopedia Aatomic1 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in innocent victims too I am sure there is a page on the Paras put the names of the people murdered on Bloody Sunday on it then. BigDunc 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Aatomic1 14:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Aatomic1 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the below to the SAS article - but Consensus was to remove it

The use of a shoot-to-kill policy has created some controversy. For instance, on 10 July 1978, John Boyle, a sixteen-year-old Catholic, was exploring an old graveyard near his family's farm in County Antrim, when he discovered an arms cache. He told his father, who passed on the information to the RUC. The next morning Boyle decided to see if the guns had been removed and was shot dead by two SAS soldiers who had allegedly been waiting undercover. Aatomic1 14:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with what you put in there but why were they removed.BigDunc 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you are not brave enough to remove the memorials to dead British soldiers in the very same articles are You? Aatomic1 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of the articles have not read them but I will do. BigDunc 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick look at them I cant see any memorials to the dead members of these regiments.BigDunc 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken!! Aatomic1 14:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me memorials to dead soldiers I cant find them. BigDunc 14:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol... Show me a single memorial on Wiki... I can't find them either. Aatomic1 15:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not about memorials, I'm about adding information - not deleting it. Aatomic1 15:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)..possibly in some deluded attempt to manipulate History?[reply]

[5]

What are you talking about you are the one who said "...remove the memorials to dead British soldiers in the very same articles are You"? I asked you where are they and then you come out with this "I'm not about memorials..." when all you have done today is tried to add them to numerous articles stop this sillyness please.BigDunc 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was using your definition of memorial. This is a Memorial (ie a lump of stone)Aatomic1 15:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never gave you a definition of memorial and could you please refrain from name calling. BigDunc 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop adding lists of the dead to articles, The list fails WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Use the discussion pages on the articles to raise any issues you may have, thanks --Domer48 23:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aatomic can you please stop adding these lists to articles without first discussing them in article talk pages and getting consensus first. Starting edit wars is not going to achieve consensus on this issue, put your case for their inclusion on the talk pages.--padraig 10:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Apology

Yeah...I am sorry... I was angry and I do not believe it to be true. I accept that I should not do it againAatomic1 21:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that apology is for me I accept as I said the dead from any conflict should not be forgotten lets work together to come up with a solution to our differences. BigDunc 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Agreed Aatomic1 22:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks ...

... and insinuations, of the like you made here are not appropriate. Please don't do that again - Alison ☺ 18:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Sorry

Aatomic1 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KFP

{helpme} Am I allowed to scan a picture taken at an event that happened over 80 years ago from a 10 year old book?Aatomic1 18:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Scan and upload on Wikipedia, I assume? It depends. What was the event and who was the photographer? --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would like to (eventually) upload. The event was a funeral in 1922 in Ireland; the book is well referenced. It states that permission has been received for a 1990 photo; but all other photos (presumably from around 1922) have no further info. Aatomic1 18:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I see. We'd need more information about the photo to determine if it is free. It might be public domain or otherwise free enough or it might still be copyrighted... --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You KFP will upload it when I can. Thank you for your advice. Aatomic1 21:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp (Cyprian Bridge)

Hi. The main thing that needs changing is the structure of the article. At the moment it reads more like a list of bullet points than an encyclopaedia article. It needs to have sentences and paragraphs, not just a series of notes. At present it's not really long enough to need section headings either. -- Necrothesp 21:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...cheers I'll put it on my to do list Aatomic1 21:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking other editors

Hello Aatomic1. This edit is not acceptable ....

Firstly its not true and thus a misrepresentation...
Secondly, it is entirely irrelevent to the discussion at hand...
I note you have already been warned...
Subsequent to Vk's blocking, the culture of tolerance for such behaviour in articles relating to the Troubles is rapidly dissipating.
If there is any repeat of the ...comments you have ... been warned about, then I will issue a block... please take this opportunity to consider adopting a more collegiate tone with fellow editors.
Also, you have been a contributor to an ongoing edit war over the addition of lists of victims on various bombings. I do not know the background to this disagreement...
If consensus cannot be reached on a talkpage, then you should

open a WP:RfC or
request external mediation

reverting three times a day is disruptive. Please stop.

(Aatomic1 Precise of Rockpocket Warning) 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I'm sorry you wasted your time Aatomic1 18:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 1 week for your third violation of WP:3RR and for continued edit warring at Birmingham pub bombings. I'm not sure what else to tell you that has not be outlined above - you must work with other editors instead of simply re-adding your changes. Kuru ^talk 02:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreamafter

I confirm I am happy to try Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-24 Birmingham pub bombings. Aatomic1 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreamafter/Mediation Notes

Not my personal view but Con's for deleting it:[6]

Brixton’s time line arguement [7]. To which I replied

[8]. Absolutely [9]

Notes to myself

Should details of victims be in our article?

Aatomic1 Notes

Xoloz [10]

In principle, the addition of sourced material to the article can occur at anytime, subject to consensus on the article talk page[11]

EliminatorJR [12]

I don't see the problem with inserting lists of the dead into the articles. I looked randomly at a few other terrorism-related articles, and found plenty with such lists...- so if we're going to remove lists of people killed in incidents (terrorism-related or whatever), then that has to extend everywhere and would involve the deletion of entire articles (i.e. List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre).[13]

W Frank [14]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 15 here. ( W. Frank) 19:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. Frank 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what the closing admin (Xoloz) said here, on his talk page today: [15]

"...your ability to add new sourced information is a fundamental principle of the wiki... as is other editors' ability to remove that information, if they provide a reason^[1] for doing do. What you're describing is an editing dispute over whether the list of victims should be included in the article or not. Neither DRV, nor any of our deletion processes, are particularly relevant to your problem..."

(aatomic1 added parenthethis)

Bastun [16]

Following the DRV conclusion[17], I've added the names, along with two sources. Others may want to contribute other sources. BaStun not BaTsun 15:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Le sigh. That was what, 3 minutes? A question, guys - would ye object to the inclusion of a list of those killed in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings? Or to the inclusion of a list here written in more narrative style a la Bloody Sunday (1972)'s list? Bastun 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So, the story so far... the information cannot be included because of WP:NOT#memorial [18]. That gets overturned. Then it cannot be included because it (in a separate article) was subject to an AfD[19]. That got clarified[20]. Now it cannot be included here (even though referenced) because of no consensus, NOT#memorial (again), NOT#indiscriminate (the only one there that could possibly apply is #5, news reports, but thats a very tenuous case), and NOT#directory (none of them apply). BaStun 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus last time I looked was that WP:NOT#memorial did not apply to the inclusion of lists of victims, where appropriate, where their deaths made an event notable and where the list didn't dominate an article. BaStun 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Because at the time I thought WP:NOT did indeed apply to such lists and I've since been convinced otherwise. Agree with this being covered by the mediation request. BaStun (not BaTsun) 08:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Padraig [21]

The decision was to discuss the issue here first and try and achieve consensus first.--padraig 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ruling given

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Omagh Bomb Victims – Deletion endorsed. The fact is that this list had no sources whatsoever. In principle, the addition of sourced material to the article can occur at anytime, subject to consensus on the article talk page. However, the restoration of this particular source-less draft would be useless, and a disservice to encyclopedic accuracy.

(padraig 15:51, 20 August 2007) (UTC) (Padraig's emphasis added)

I don't see what purpose a list of dead in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings article would serve, they were all killed in explosions like in this case.Padraig 16:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What does a list of names add to this article, nothing. Padraig 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Brixton Busters [22]

Absolutely. The DRV close[23] says that,

consensus is neeeded here first.

The list fails

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL,

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and

WP:NOT#DIRECTORY.

Brixton Busters 15:49, 20 August 2007 annoted by aatomic1

I object to any lists in any articles that are not essential to an understanding of the event...comparison to Bloody Sunday (1972) is a red herring.

Brixton Busters 16:02, 20 August 2007 annoted by attomic1

WP:NOT#memorial did not get overturned,

Please do not distort events.

Brixton Busters 18:57, 20 August 2007 annoted by aatomic1

People at the DRV seemed to think it did, as did the editors (including administrators) at the help desk.

NOT#directory applies to lists of dead, as it's a directory entry of dead people.

NOT#indiscriminate obviously applies,

please read what is says under the heading.

Brixton Busters 19:04, 20 August 2007 annoted by aatomic1

Perhaps Bastun would like to explain why he twice removed the list of dead from Bloody Sunday claiming WP:NOT applied ([24] [25]) and then started a discussion saying the list failed the memorial part of WP:NOT ([26])? And I suggest this article is covered in the mediation request, as the same principles are involved. Link Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-24 Birmingham pub bombings. Brixton Busters 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Domer48 [27][a][28]

I’m glad this discussion is being held here, before it begins could we all agree to abide by the page guidelines. Otherwise it will just be a mess, and nothing gets resolved. Domer48 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and tell me how this list fits in with you opinion. Domer48 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A redherring, using Bloody Sunday (1972). Domer48 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic1 [29]

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, Part 1 : Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. - What relevance does this have to this article? (None to my Knowledge) Aatomic1 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a different point? Yes. Have you answered my question? No Aatomic1 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are these further points Yes. Have you answered my question? No Aatomic1 05:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conypiece [30]

If the dead can be included on Bloody Sunday (1972) then they can be included in this article. However I can now already see the WR:IR brigades response... Oh they were killed in disputed circumstances, they were killed by an army, they were innocent etc etc. A list should be included in this article and any of the many sources such as this could be used. Conypiece 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good reply Domer, hmmm. Conypiece 00:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw if anyone didn't pick it up, the above was sarcasm Conypiece 00:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

BigDunc [31]

A list of the dead adds nothing to this article and I would object if one was placed on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings too. Citing the Bloody Sunday article I feel is just muddying the water.BigDunc 19:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(added by BigDunc - noted by aatomic1)