User talk:Faithbhoy1888

Welcome!

Hello, Faithbhoy1888, and welcome to Wikipedia!

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Steven Gerrard, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home was changed by Faithbhoy1888 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.865415 on 2018-05-25T07:43:53+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it is widely known as fake news Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2014/06/09/that-story-about-irish-babies-in-a-septic-tank-is-a-media-hoax/amp/ Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.catholicleague.org/irelands-mass-graves-story-is-fake-news/ Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to familiarise yourself with the actual reliable sources used in the article, that you deleted. Respected national and international newspapers and statutory bodies, for example, including those charged with independently investigating the site and reporting on their findings. Not only is the story of Bon Secours not "fake news", the veracity of the original claims has now been proven. Which you'd know if you'd read more reasonable and recent sources than an opinion piece written before the site was even investigated. Such as the ones you deleted. You may want to use more neutral sources than the "Catholic League" and adopt a more neutral standpoint while editing... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Liam Neeson. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 06:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a suggestion to put Neesons nationality as Irish as he identifies as such on the talk page as directed on your page. It was just a suggestion hardly disruptive. Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OBEs

We get that you don't like the OBE or British honours thing, but can you stop removing reference to it on recipients' pages - you've been reverted multiple times and have still never provided a reference that the recipients refused the awards. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old England is dying Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

obe

Its in a book somewhere so will send a link. They never accepted the honour. Anyone who knows anything about the Finns would know they have republican leanings. Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grand. Them refusing OBEs would be noteworthy - please include that fact when you have a reference. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

Hi. Please could you read this before continuing to alter the nationalities on biographies. Changing nationalities for no clear reason is not encouraged. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is this in reference to? Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A large percentage of your edits are removing "British" from biographies, and replacing them. Please provide reasons for doing this. "factual accuracy" is not good enough, since a British nationality is factual, accurate and may be preferred. This essay provides guidance for you to consider. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No what page are you talking about? Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Britain is not a nation but rather a kingdom made up of nations, Scotland, England and Wales. The UK includes NI. Therefore nationality is Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish etc. Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Barry Ferguson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Seasider53 (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry added material in wrong place. Still learning. Wanted to add in he is an Ebt recipient. How do you do that? Here is the link: http://www.scotzine.com/2015/11/the-beneficiaries-of-rangers-ebt-scheme/ Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello. Your recent edit to Tim Finn appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Please don't add links to non-existent articles like Elroy Finn. Tacyarg (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elroy Finn is his nephew. Plenty of pages have named people who don't have a wiki page. Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your reply. If you have a look at WP:WRITEITFIRST, that will give you some guidance about not adding redlinks (links to articles that don't exist yet). If Elroy Finn is notable and reliable independent sources exist to demonstrate that, please do create the article and then link to it. The other reason for not adding redlinks is verifiability - readers need to be able to be certain that Elroy Finn exists and that Tim Finn has worked with him, which they can't be if all they see is a redlink. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Barry Ferguson, you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to add détails about EBT. What section will I add it to? Thanks Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. But it certainly shouldn't be used as a post-nominal, which I'm sure you already knew. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 09:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a long-term pattern of nationalistic editing and glib responses to major concerns like "Old England is dying" show that you have completely the wrong attitude to this site. Therefore you have been indefinitely blocked. For the record I myself don't have any strong opinions about your most recent edit but pot-stirring as you have done for the past several years is completely unwelcome here. Also see the essay Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers. Graham87 09:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And do you run Wikipedia? Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The essay was really interesting. What was the point? Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When is the block lifted? Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When is Block lifted? Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

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).

Faithbhoy1888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

time has passed and think it is time for Block to be lifted thanksFaithbhoy1888 (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2022 (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.

I understand why I was blocked and will be positive from now on. I will be a good boy. Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

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).

Faithbhoy1888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I promise to be a good boy. I have learned my lesson and will contribute in a positive manner thank you. I will make sure to source all comments. I apologise profusely Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address your general attitude, lack of collaboration, and nationalistic editing. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2022 (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.

What else do you want me to say? Now I feel I am being targeted. Attitude - apologised. Collaboration- I'll be good with all. Nationalistic editing - I'll source it if correct. Are nationalistic politics banned from wiki? I would need to take this higher if I am not reinstated for targeting and bias. Let me know who I should contact. You should also be aware I have funded wiki in the past and declined this time due to the above. Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

What else do you want me to say? Now I feel I am being targeted. Attitude - apologised. Collaboration- I'll be good with all. Nationalistic editing - I'll source it if correct. Are nationalistic politics banned from wiki? I would need to take this higher if I am not reinstated for targeting and bias. Let me know who I should contact. You should also be aware I have funded wiki in the past and declined this time due to the above. Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you donate to the Wikimedia Foundation or not is your decision, and has no bearing on this matter. We editors are not involved in the donation process, and the Foundation is not involved in day to day operations here. If your request below is declined(as I expect), you could certainly appeal to ArbCom. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't within ArbCom's remit 331dot. Cabayi (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi Ah, thanks, mostly I was just responding to the "I'll take this higher" statement. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who does deal with it then? Quite shambolic. One of the people who declined my appeal advised me to contact you. Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the request be declined? Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

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).

Faithbhoy1888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was blocked for, I will be a good boy and will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions insteadFaithbhoy1888 (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

All you've done is copy-paste the instructions back at us. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2022 (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.

Appeal

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).

Faithbhoy1888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will contribute positively. I apologiseFaithbhoy1888 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're going to need to be more specific about what you did, why it was wrong, and why it won't happen again if you want your unblock request to be taken seriously. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:09, 1 January 2023 (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.

If you check back you will see I have detailed reasons. You just keep knocking me back so what is the point of explaining again and again. To whom would I raise a complaint? Faithbhoy1888 (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I realise I edited at times without source and disrupted a few pages. I won't do it again. Can you please reinstate my editing options?

Thanks,

Frankie