I have reverted your edit. I know that the Irish constitution does claim that the name of the country is "Ireland" rather than the "Republic of Ireland". However in this context, Ireland is more likely to be taken as referring to the entire island. The Republic of Ireland may not be part of the UK but it's somewhat misleading to imply that the whole island is not. GordyB ( talk) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
G'day, I see you are renaming a large number of articles. Has this bulk rename been discussed anywhere? If it hasnt, could you stop until others can review. Cheers, John Vandenberg ( talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course, however I can't see any objections to renaming as I am just correcting the name of the articles to a more accurate and official name. Their previous article names were quite slang sounding. Having the official name of the country in the article is much better. Wikipéire ( talk) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Please can you explain more why I have to get consensus for removing a colloquial name and putting in the official one. It is indeed pertinent, that is why I am trying to correct the article. Wikipéire ( talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it was probably an accident, but I must ask why you blanked a redirect page in this edit. Canterbury Tail talk 05:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It was indeed an accident. Wikipéire ( talk) 10:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the edits you made to Republic of Ireland about the physical border issue related to the Schengen Treaty. The sources you provided do not support the text you added. There is no mention in the sources of a physical border nor any reluctance on the part of the Irish government. There is disagreement about the two government's interpretation of Article 7A of the treaty and perhaps you will rewrite the text based on what the sources actually say. I think that your interpretation of the sourced provided cannot be considered as a NPOV. I don't like to butt heads here and will of course be happy to leave any accurately sourced edit you add because extra constructive edits are always welcome. Thanks for listening. Cheers ww2censor ( talk) 15:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Responding from Republic of Ireland. Sorry, but anybody can edit/post pratically anywhere. GoodDay ( talk) 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Wikipeire. Unless & until you can convince me, that the Irish Republic covers the 'entire' island? I'll have to disagree with you on that article. GoodDay ( talk) 21:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: You've breached 3RR, a blockable act. GoodDay ( talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I was not aware of this rule. However if I have broken it, then rules are rules and feel free to block me for the designated time. Wikipéire ( talk) 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll let the Administrators decide on weither or not to block you. In short, 3RR means - an editor is limited to reverting the same edit '3' times within 24hrs (if he's breached that rule often, then he could be blocked for less then '3' per 24hrs). GoodDay ( talk) 23:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edit regarding Pascha. It is used by Eastern Orthodox churches as the name of Easter even in English. Grk1011 ( talk) 19:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed that the articles “ foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland; civil service of the Republic of Ireland and public service of the Republic of Ireland" be renamed in each case by deleting the words “the Republic of”. As you’ve previously discussed this issue, I thought you might wish to know that this is being discussed here. Very few have participated in the discussion so far. I'm not sure how widely the discussion forum is used. Redking7 ( talk) 09:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
A point of communication for the future: WP:3RR permits upto and including 3 reverts within 24 hours. No policy was breached. I would ask that you contribute to discussion and use edit summaries to comment on content rather than contributor. An explaination of the 3RR rule in the edit summary is not an explaination as to why you made that change.
I was actually working on ammending some uses around the Republic of Ireland as a way to achieve a compromise, but you conflicted with my changes and I've lost such an opportunity. Unlike the others, I've initiated discussion, cited policy and tried to acheive a consensus/compromise and would've preferred some recognition rather than a revert with an inaccurate summary of the situation. -- Jza84 | Talk 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You have won the Irish Wikipedians surprise draw!! Just leave a message on my talk page to receive the prize of USD 1,000,000 or EUR 638,442.37 or GBP 505,871.414 Markreidyhp 07:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain this edit please at Talk:Scotland. Your edit summary was not clear and doesn't reflect any kind of consensus. -- Jza84 | Talk 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SFC9394 ( talk) 11:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop trying to impose a Unionist agenda. Your comments on the language in your latest reversion are simply false. Acts of Parliament establish Wales as bilingual. The national anthem is played at all sporting events (including the Commonwealth games and elsewhere). You are also reverting issues on the map when it is under discussion - please engage in that discussion do not impose changes. -- Snowded ( talk) 20:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I left your changes on Celtic Sea and the nations issue (others may disagree). However the other positions on the language etc. as you can see I disagree with you and have set out my reasons. Whatever this would be a LOT easier if you came to the discussion page first - please try for the sake of us all. I will look at your map suggestions. -- Snowded ( talk) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think your overall edits on the Welsh Language are fair and balanced. I think it was pushing it a bit to change over the info box, but that is liveable with. There are enough arguments going on elsewhere! Lets see what people do with it. -- Snowded ( talk) 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have researched Wales Country or Nation and concluded that it's more likely to be a Nation. refs are on Wales talk pages as you advise. I have added Nation to article where appropriate, I don't believe it is mandatory to go to talk before changing things, particularly when I quoted evidence and citations. Canol ( talk) 10:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Wikipeire, you are using POV to continually remove my edits for,what you believe is, bad grammer and structure. The sentence has subject, verb and predicate and is constructed correctly, you should reinstate my sentence particularly as you beleive the facts to be correct. You could also construct your own sentence to include Nation and Country. As for me, I've done my best to ensure that the reader sees that Wales is a Nation. Pity you see fit to delete it all the time. Canol ( talk) 01:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
For "constituent country" to become non-point of view "constituent area". We would like your oppinions :) Gozitancrabz ( talk) 14:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't vandalise your site - you did by deleting an editorial block that would have cast you in a bad light. One of the principles of the Wikipedia is that what you do and how you interact can be traced. I think you do yourself no favours by actions like this which can be easily exposed as evidence of dubious practice. Its not an vendetta, only the paranoid could see it as such. Using Sockpuppets is a very serious issue and it would be better if you posted an apology rather than trying to cover up the evidence. As I said I reserve the right to raise this behaviour on the sites you are editing. -- Snowded ( talk) 14:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
what is going to happen to Constituent country then? If we continue to call it "consituent country", that pushes the POV that it is a country, don't you think? Gozitancrabz ( talk) 16:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
(unindenting). Yes, rather. Oh yes, i saw what you just did; i forgot about that. Do you think you would be able to get the exact diff for where Snowded showed his support for the compromise? The more we back up the report with diffs, the better. Gozitancrabz ( talk) 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You insist that principality is a commonly used term for Wales, yet you have had Welsh editors telling you this is not the case. Do you think they are just making this up? Also, don't forget the original discussion involved User:Gozitancrabz refuting the evidence that Wales is a country. As for your compromise, it seems nonsense to put Principality before country when all the evidence points to country being used more often! Whether other editors agree to your compromise I don't know,but unlike the language discussion I won't be doing so. -- Jack forbes ( talk) 15:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your changes throughout Wikipedia to hide the description of the state (used for disambiguation), see WP:MOSDAB, specifically:
Entries should not be pipe linked — refer to the article name in full.
and...
Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed. For example, in the entry for Moment (physics), the word "physics" should be visible to the reader. In many cases, what would be hidden by a pipe is exactly what the user would need to be able to find the intended article.
If you want to keep your preference you'll have to take it up with the Manual of style. -- Jza84 | Talk 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I won't be making any edits regarding this issue until we've agreed something! WikipÉIRE \ (caint) 18:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Just warning you not to troll me anymore Wikipeire - you are a guaranteed sock-using sock. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you point out these other editors? (except Pondle, whose argument appears bias) WL ( talk) 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The references given do not support the assertions in the article British Isles. Please read the sources and then explain why you want to keep the incorrect statements. TharkunColl ( talk) 00:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ceist beag duit: have you actually read the Southern Ireland article? You are so hell bent on adding the tricolour that you appear to have failed to recognise the fact that Southern Ireland never became a functioning reality - and existed only in practical terms as a construct of UK constitutional law. The Irish Republic had been declared by the first Dáil - which DID use the Tricolour. In the ONLY election of "Southern Ireland", Sinn Féin won all but a few of the seats, and (instead of sitting in the "Parliament of Southern Ireland") they went off and formed the Second Dáil of the Republic. The whole damn point therefore about "Southern Ireland" is that it was a UK construct (under the union flag), none of it's elected nationalist officials chose to recognise it formally, it was not acknowledged as a legitimate governing body by those who "carried" the tricolour, and it therefore DIDN'T fly the tricolour. It's quite clear that your "patriotic" tendencies are now seriously being mis-directed, and (frankly) are backfiring on you. STOP therefore making changes purely based on nationalistic intent, STOP with the historic revisionism, and START reading a little bit more about the history before you make changes to this project. (Ill-informed Good Faith edits are just as damaging as vandalism to the accuracy of the project.) Finally, if you feel a change is in order some place, but you're unsure of the accuracy or historical legitimacy of an update, then open a talk thread BEFORE making the change. Cheers. Guliolopez ( talk) 14:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the sole objector to your preference, and so, I want to keep discussion at Talk:United Kingdom. Neither of us own the page, and I think it would be wise to let the wider community come to a decision. -- Jza84 | Talk 15:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing, the Mediation page is the place. PS- I too, am not entirely familiar with this route. GoodDay ( talk) 13:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do you keep deleting the one sentence "Another suggested location is Saaremaa in the Baltic Sea."? There are multiple references for that. It does not mean that Saaremaa is THE ONLY possible location for Thule, it is just one of the many, why shouldn't it be mentioned? It has been there in the article for ages and noone has had a problem with that, I hope you can let other people contribute for Wikipedia as well. H2ppyme ( talk) 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Wikipiere. I'm dropping out of the Mediation over the Irish name. It's become more obvious & apparent -then ever- (to me) that there'll be no consensus for changing Republic of Ireland. GoodDay ( talk) 13:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank god your not a typical Irishman! If you were my Grandparents would turn in their graves! -- Jack forbes ( talk) 01:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there - a quick question. Given that the contribution history of the above (which you can see here) is pretty much limited to articles which you yourself have an interest in ( Wales, Editors, Hard-Fi, and given also User:Melvo et. al., I'd be interested to know if Petitspois is another of your accounts. Thanks. The public face of GB T/ C 12:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
May I just politely remind you about the 3 revert rule before you get to involved into an editing war out of the heat of the moment. Don't want anyone to fall afoul of it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Is Ireland one of the British Isles or not? If not the British Isles entry needs to be revised. If it is then the Ireland entry needs to be revised! It is not at all about controversy, it's about accuracy!! Stephen Parnell ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It is getting very difficult to take you seriously. You don't dispute the Welsh Anthem but you want to tag on qualifications. You clearly have some form of agenda here to denigrate anything associated with national identity regardless of the facts. Further National anthem states that an anthem can be established by tradition. So to use your own advise if you want to make a case for defacto in the absence of legislation I suggest you try and make the case there rather than take two anthems in isolation. I have reversed your changes as they are wrong in fact -- Snowded ( talk) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Wikipiere. Are you still changing Republic of Ireland to Ireland, ha ha ha. GoodDay ( talk) 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind your hiding Republic of Ireland. I just don't wanna see ya getting into another squabble. GoodDay ( talk) 23:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've appreciated your words at Talk:Scotland. Several of the editors currently engaged seem to be determined to miss the point. Do you think that an RfC is would be helpful? Sunray ( talk) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipéire ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What? I did absolutely nothing wrong! Is this a case of mistaken identity? It says I've used a multiple account. That is not true! Some mistake has been made, this is my only account! I see now its User:Petitspois you've accused me of using. If you do an ip check you will see they don't match!Also 99% of the ip addresses aren't mine. Sometimes I have edited using solely an ip address but that was because I couldn't log in. For example my ipod touch doesn't have the é symbol which is part of my username. Anyway with the ip in question, I didn't break any rules or anything. I just edited normally, like I normally do. Please explain what I've done wrong.
Decline reason:
A technical investigation confirmed that you abused multiple accounts in order to breach 3RR. This confirmed that you were indeed using these IPs. You were previously warned and blocked 72h about it. — -- lucasbfr talk 12:27, 23 May 2008 (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.
Wikipéire ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not use those ips! None of them match mine! I will go through them one by one for you: 78.16.126.36 - it is not mine, the ip address is not mine, nor did I make any edits on this alternative ip 78.16.57.194 - this ip is my ip address! I edited as an anon that day for the reasons explained above. I can't always log in as sometimes I cannot access the é character which is part of my account. Note on this ip no 3rr warring was done! 78.19.213.117 - this ip is also not me - this user edited some pages which I have never gone too! 78.19.55.51 - this ip user claims they are fluent in irish and has edited in regards to the irish language. my user page says that i'm not fluent and couldn't possibly make those edits 78.19.204.211 - this ip is also not me - check and you'll find I've never used this ip address 78.19.222.154 - this ip user seems to know an editor who i have never talked to 78.19.13.108 - again this ip edits something about the old irish language - i have never done this 62.49.20.179 - this ip is from London! 124.168.196.226 - this ip is from Australia! 78.16.114.193 - this is me i think, looks like edits i might have done, again a circumstance I couldn't log in - no rule breaking here! 78.19.238.101 - this ip made an edit within two minutes of me with a different ip address, how could it be me? User:Petitspois - this is not me! How can you say the ips match. They cannot! You have to ignore the fact that most begin with 78..... that just means that we're the same isp which means theres possiblly millions of users! I did breach 3rr and edit warred before. I served my suspension for that. You cannot ban me for the same offense twice! I learnt my lesson after that and didn't do it again! Please unless you have an ip address that broke 3rr with my ip address how can you say I controlled them? You are jumping to conclusions! There is no way you can say that these ips are mine cos they're not!!!!
Decline reason:
A marvelous bit of sophistry, but that's all this is. You claim those IPs could be a multitude of British users, as if administrators here aren't all too familiar with dynamic IP. "You cannot ban me for the same offense twice" ... I assume you're referring to double jeopardy? But if we discover the original offense was more severe than we realized at the time, yes we can. You claim one sock can't be you because it claims to be familiar with Irish and you're not ... well, wouldn't it make sense to have a sock say that, all the better to create some distance between yourself and it? Look, the bottom line is that this whole thing comes from a) a checkuser request, from which blocks are almost never overturned, and even then only by other admins with checkuser and b) this is, as mentioned elsewhere, covered by an ArbCom case. The net result is that there are very few admins on Wikipedia who would seriously consider an unblock here. — Daniel Case ( talk) 14:19, 23 May 2008 (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.
Wikipéire ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
How can I contact these very few admins then? I am outraged that I am being accused of using these ips that aren't mine! You say I am trying to creat some distance between myself and the ips. Well what else can I do? They all made like two edits. I can't make any other proof. This checkuser request is bogus!! None of the accounts mentioned ever shared my ip address! I would like to speak to someone who has access to the right tools to see that I am not lying immediately. This is a disgrace.
Decline reason:
You said most of this already. In general, when you ask the same question, you will get the same answer- the person who has access to the right tools has already said that the evidence indicates that you have been using multiple accounts. Since most people who do that vociferously deny it, the mere use of exclamation points will not, on its own, convince anyone. — FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 14:28, 23 May 2008 (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.
Wikipéire ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Well then the person who used the tools made a mistake! The looked at the 79....and jumped to a wrong conclusion. None of the ips are mine. I will do anything possible to prove that if needs be. What do you want me to do to convince someone? I don't think I can do anymore. I would like a full or re analysis of those ips by someone who has access to it. Anyone who compares them will see that there's a mistake. That should convince you, because you are ignoring my defense without analyising the situation.
Decline reason:
The IPs are unnecessary, anyway. The named accounts would have sufficed to demonstrate sockpuppetry, and you quite blatantly used multiple accounts to feign consensus at Ireland, among other articles. This would have been sufficient to get you indefinitely blocked. The checkuser matches on User:Melvo and User:Petitspois are unambiguous. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:37, 23 May 2008 (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.
Wikipéire ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I never denied using User:Melvo. It was my first offense and I served a ban of a few days given to me by an admin. You say it might have been sufficent to get me banned indefinitely. Well it wasn't. An admin used their judgement to identify that it was a first and only offense. You can't ban me for something which was already decided and acted upon. The current case is about the ips and user that is supposedly mine. A user check on User:Petitspois will show that his/her ip is different to mine. Once that is done it will proof that I did nothing wrong and all those accounts are not mine.An unblocking will have to take place then, as I have done nothing wrong.
Decline reason:
Actually, a user check on Petispois showed his/her IP was identical to yours. Two IPs, actually; you created User:Petitspois in between an edit to Wales and an edit to User talk:Melvo. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 23 May 2008 (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.
Wikipéire ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
That couldn't possibly be right. Two ips identical? You just made that up. Check the actual ip of the edits made by User:Petitspois and you will see they are not my ips and have nothing to do with my account whatsoever. So in essence my reason for not being banned is, since the last time when I did get banned for using a sock I have done nothing wrong and have not broken any rules. All this stuff about User:Melvo etc. I did not complain or appeal about. I acknowledged I did wrong and served my ban. Since then I have only done good editing to wikipedia. There is no evidence of me controlling these ips and other user accounts and besides I don't see what those accounts potentially did wrong. There is no edit waring or consensus changing or anything like that. It is the past things that I did wrong that is being told is the reason to not unban me. I have been banned because of those and not for anything raised in the case. I already served my ban for those mistakes and should not be banned again for the same thing even though I have cleaned up my act.
Decline reason:
Checkuser confirmed you were abusing multiple accounts. They would not have confirmed it unless they were certain. Your talk page has already been protected; this is only a formality. Further appeals go to ArbCom's email list. — Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 17:43, 23 May 2008 (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.
How many different admins will have to review your unblock request before you will consider the matter finished? Most admins agree that, while a user has a right to a fair review of a block, no user has a right to an infinite number of unblock requests. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 15:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipéire ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Requesting unblock so that I may appeal to the Arbitration commitee per the unblocking guidelines on long terms bans/blocks where it says "In some cases, a banned user may be unblocked for the sole purpose of filing an appeal." I attempted to make appeal through email, but it's not working so I am requesting unblock only so I may make an appeal. I was told by Arbcom that I could "re-apply with proposals for appropriate editing restrictions and we will re-consider your application" after "six-months absence from the English Wikipedia." Therefore I am now wish to reapply and am requesting unblock so I may post at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests as it is my sole remaining method of attempting an appeal.
Decline reason:
As per Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Appeal_to_the_Arbitration_Committee, please post your appeal here (on your talk page); someone will copy it to WP:RFAR then. — Aitias // discussion 23:20, 28 June 2009 (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.
I, User:Wikipéire was blocked and subsequently banned from Wikipedia for engaging in sock puppet accounts. I appealed some months ago requesting reinstatement with conditions to Wikipedia. While it was deemed that I understood what I did previously was wrong, the request was rejected on the grounds that I had caused disruption and that you, Arbcom had wished "to see evidence of changed and well-controlled behaviour" before considering my unblocking. It was instructed to myself that I could "re-apply with proposals for appropriate editing restrictions and we will re-consider your application" after "six-months absence from the English Wikipedia." I intially attempted to send an email to Arbcom but that failed to work so I am now appealing through WP:RFAR to make sure the appeal is heard.
While my absence from English Wikipedia is just short of the six months (5 1/2 months actually), I recently came across the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration and I am hoping the two weeks can be overlooked due to this invaluable process that is going on. It is now in the process of finding a solution, however it has upcoming deadlines on decision making and I wish to contribute positively to the process before it's too late. Once the process is over and it is felt that my contributions to the project are evidence of "changed and well-controlled behaviour" then I will construct conditions so that I may eventually return to full editing privileges. As of now I only wish to participate in WP:IECOLL and I hope you grant my unblocking as I have served my time away from Wikipedia and now wish to contribute positively. WikipÉire ♣ 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've read on User:MusicInTheHouse's page that it was requested that I respond. Arbcom told me 6 months ago that I could apply for reinstatement after 6 months time away from Wikipedia. I served that time (February - July) and now I'm being told that this user is now a sock of mine and my application is being turned down. I don't know what makes them think this, but I think its some ploy to reject my case as they don't want me back on Wikipedia (even though I could always just edit using ips.) Anyway I think Musicinthehouse has become a scapegoat unfortunately and I feel sorry for him/her, but more annoyed that Arbcom have turned their back and made an excuse with no real backing behind it. As for some of the questions on the talk page, no I have never been to Madrid. For the record, while I'm not at my usual location at this moment in time I'm still in Ireland and my ip address is checking it now: 83.71.248.57. A checkuser will easily confirm this and if it true that the other editor is in Madrid then there is few thousand km's between us, which is pretty much proof that we are unrelated. To Snowded, considering Arbcom have created a sock of me, just to prevent me from even editing with minimal privileges and I don't think rehabilitation will work, because no one else wants it to happen. I think WP:AGF is the only way forward. WikipÉire ♣ 17:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)