User talk:Gavin Lisburn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

July 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Ulster Defence Regiment appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. BigDuncTalk 21:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from BigDunc[edit]

Hi, Gavin Lisburn. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four squiggles (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome! BigDuncTalk 21:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Provisional IRA[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.-RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Provisional IRA[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you.-RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

UDR[edit]

Hi Gavin. I'm really sorry I had to rvert your correction on the UDR website but I had put it there originally and it was a quote from somewhere else, verified by an inline quotation. As far as I know we have to keep such items as they are, even if there are mistakes in them. I've added that on the reversion notes on the page history.

sorry again and thanks for your continued edits on that article. The Thunderer 19:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I like these wee edits you're doing on the UDR page. Over a period of time you're contributing good, constructive material in small doses. Moving the Freedom of the City stuff is exactly the sort of thing I mean. Of course it should have been in the awards section all along. Well done for spotting it.The Thunderer (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; still learning how to do things with Wiki. Happy to move slowly and with agreement.Gavin Lisburn (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008[edit]

Information.svg Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Spooks: Code 9. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BCDR[edit]

I did adapt the diagram here to BS7-2 but left the open/closed red/pink balance as it was before. I am thinking of starting a discussion re the value of using the open line red to denote the line which is the subject of the article, as I think has been done in this case. Some would argue that this method enables the writer to distinguish between the track of that company or railway and that of others; personally I think it makes it hard to tell which is open and which is closed as the colours are used in a non standard way. So my answer is yes, I have but this is not a thing i started and may require discussion before toes are trodden on. Thoughts? Britmax (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Shamrock[edit]

Just for your information, the shamrock is the floral emblem of Ireland, not Northern Ireland, despite what the BBC may say. This award may be for NI citizens and not Republic of Ireland, but that doesn't change what the four emblems represent. Please also don't delete references to a statement, especially where in this case the MoD are clearly the main authority. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

On reread this post seems a touch aggressive - not meant to be I promise Ranger Steve (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rail transport in Ireland[edit]

I reverted your edits to this page due to Rail transport in Ireland being the static name of this page. Which in the first sentence acknowledges both Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland, both operators are stated in the info box. I removed the Enterprise picture because it is an embarrassment to rail transport in Ireland! The Class 22000 is the most modern train in operation. I would favour when the new CAF trains roll out next year putting that as the picture until we finally get some form of quality Enterprise loco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernCounties (talkcontribs) 19:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Community restrictions[edit]

---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nickname Test[edit]

Small test. jggb 15:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Another. "an interested party" 15:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Gavin. If you want to give yourself a nickname or otherwise change the appearance of your signature, just click "My preferences" at the very top of the page. Half-way down the first tab (User profile) you have the option of changing your sig, with instructions on how to do it. Having said that, changing the name by which you are known to an anonymous name like "an interested party", as you did here, is not considered good practice on Wikipedia. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Prince William[edit]

Hi Gavin, I rolled your addition to the article Prince William of Wales back because, in my view, it is a breach of privacy (see WP:BLPPRIVACY). I used rollback so as not to draw attention to this rollback. Martinvl (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is information in the public domain. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gavin, I appreciate that this is in the public domain. Nevertehless, please read WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY. If you still disagree, please discuss at the appropriate forum.Martinvl (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the guidance.

Thank you[edit]

Hi Gavin, thank you for tweaking David Alexander Mulholland. I got the idea of bomb car from a journalist, but you are right that car bomb is the correct usage. Thanks again for your help.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Not proven baronets?[edit]

What is this all about? I actually thought it may have been placed there by some confidence trickster in preparation for a claim to be nobility... but clearly not. Still, I am confused.... Egg Centric 23:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Even at today's date, this site http://www.baronetage.org/succession-to-baronetcy/ is still showing the Hogg baronetcy as unproven. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Very simply, I was unaware until now of the requirement to prove a baronetcy - and I suspect that my ignorance is far from uncommon - to the extent that talking about proof will confuse most readers.
The solution is probably to elaborate upon proof in the main baronetcy article and then hyperlink that section from Hogg and probably various other baronet pages. I will write that section if necessary, but will leave it some time given my lack of knowledge... Egg Centric 04:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edits in Danish Air Show article[edit]

On June 30 you reverted said article because I'd added that another air show had taken place. You did not classify it as erroneous and/or mistaken, but as vandalism? How can keeping an article up to date be considered vandalism? In the mean time I've reinstated the edit.

Above comment is by User:Chrthiel

Gavin,
Chrthiel is correct. You should be more careful when using STiki. If you were unsure about that edit it would have been very easy to do a Google search.
Yaris678 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
While we're on the subject I wouldn't call this vandalism. A good-faith revert might have been appropriate though. Yaris678 (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsource?[edit]

Definitely unsourced - and i think i know why it was added. Currently a smear campaign going round Magherafelt District trying to make the said band look like sell-outs. Mabuska (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure of requested move discussion[edit]

I have undone your closure of Talk:Mary Peters (athlete)#Requested move. Once you have stated your opinion, you're involved and can't close the discussion. Let the discussion run until the second week comes to an end and let an admin close it. Favonian (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

UDR[edit]

Hi Gavin. I noted your small edits on the UDR page and wondered if you wanted to join the discussion on the talk page? I could certainly do with more opinion on some new facts I've added recently as well as someone to read over my edits and point out any failings? It's not like it used to be on this article. Things are proceeding in a very calm and collegiate fashion. I'm feeling a bit isolated though being the only person who's actually doing any substantial editing at the moment. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Gavin may I direct your attention to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Pressing_on for an answer regarding the post you left on my talk page. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
See here please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Continued_edits SonofSetanta (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Gavin was Huxtable Colonel of the Regiment of all of the RIR or just Home Service? I ask because he is a Woofer, not from any of the Irish regiments and they usually have one of their own as Regimental Colonel. SonofSetanta (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Not aware. It was either reverse the posting or expand to cover the date shown. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll try and bear this one in mind and see if I can trawl the information up from somewhere else. It is important but as somebody else commented: he couldn't have been UDR regimental colonel after 1992 - because it didn't exist. To my mind though it would be odd if the new Royal Irish Regiment accepted an outsider in this appointment because they had plenty of their own people with the necessary rank to take the appointment. The again in the army always expect the unexpected. BTW you don't happen to have any good UDR pictures kicking about in your collection do you? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Wee tip for you[edit]

I noted something on my watchlist about you deleting "Rt Hon" from Ken Maginess's article. That is the right styling for his name as he is a Baron. All Baron's get "Rt Hon" in front of their name. Hope that helps? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Following reference to Parliament UK they say *Rt Hon. should be used when a Lord is a member of the Privy Council. When you look up a member on the Members of the House of Lords list, it will state if they’re a privy counsellor. Lord Drumglass is not a PC. Thoughts? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You're quite right that Privy Councillors use the title but it isn't restricted to them. Other appointees are allowed to use it as are some ranks in the peerage. There's actually good explanation of it at The Right Honourable. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's another guide to it on the wiki, Baron#Style_of_address. It says "Non-Scottish barons are styled The Right Honourable The Lord [Barony]." I'd self revert were I you mate. I'd do it for you but I've sworn off troubles related articles. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You need to go back in there Gavin and self revert. It's a 1RR page. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I have moved discussion to the 'talk' page of Baron Drumglass. There appears to be inconsistency between the HoP page, Debretts and Wiki. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I've searched for an answer and most pages including the Collins dictionary insist the title should be used for Barons, see here [1]. I have found a UK government archive though here [2] which agrees with you. If you do a page search for Baron or Peers you will get to a section called "Peers" which explains it this way, "Peers - There are five ranks or degrees in the Peerage. These are in descending order of dignity: dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons. "The Right Honourable" should be applied only where the peer is a member of the Privy Council." So you may be right. I'll post this information on Counter revolutionary's page too so you're both singing off the same hymn sheet. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Cheers. We compromised earlier by me adding it back into the Infobox. Looks ok there but definately looked wrong when insertein the full name etc. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be honest and say it looked ok to me in the lead and the first few sources I checked supported that. I have to say though, despite the fact that most sources say it should be used, a government advisory carries more weight than all of the others and it seems to be that you were right all along. I was just concerned about the potential for edit warring. I've been caught this week for the same thing. I thought I was reverting vandalism but it turns out I was reverting two admins which left me in an invidious position. McGinnis is clearly tagged as being a person involved in the Northern Ireland Troubles, even though the "Troubles Sanctions" header is missing from the page. I hope you don't mind me kindly advising that you exercise 1RR protocols in all situations like this and don't walk yourself blindly onto the AE board as I did. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, thank you Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notification[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gob_Lofa_disruptive_editing_on_Troubles_related_articles Mabuska (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Having received some feedback at the AN/I, I have filed an Arbitration Committee request for enforcement of Troubles restrictions against Gob Lofa instead at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gob_Lofa. Mabuska (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Gavin Lisburn. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Gavin Lisburn. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Gavin Lisburn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)