User talk:Simon Levchenko: Difference between revisions

RCIRA was never the official name of the grouping, recently the splinter group has adopted the CIRA-GHQ name to differentiate it's self from the CIRA.

This would requiring adequate source(s). Sincerely, Simon Levchenko (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that this socalled "RCIRA" name officially existed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.233.62 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect sir; the burden of proof is not on me as you first challenged the information. It was there placed by another user, perhaps sourced by an IMC report. Sincerely Simon Levchenko (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Continuity IRA is not on ceasefire. https://www.irishnews.com/news/2018/01/26/news/republican-groups-have-no-plans-o-nh-ceasefire-style-ceasefire-1242024/[reply]

With that article in mind; I placed a question mark which linked to the CIRA timeline. They have not committed attacks for several years, and of 50 members, 25 have been arrested, this coupled with major weapons seizures, the mass arrest of top leaders in Newry, and 4 splits within the already small group demonstrate to me a highly diminshed capacity.

Sincerely. Simon Levchenko (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you.

Simon Levchenko (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you listen again to the 1977 radio documentary you cite as the source of your claim that a third (unnamed) home-guardsman was wounded during the gunfight at Graham's house on the night of 9 October 1941. No such claim was made by that documentary. As far as I know, nobody has ever claimed a third guardsman was wounded that night. I must tell you that I am H.A. Willis. I wrote the book Manhunt (1979) and I produced a television documentary about the manhunt in 1974, which was screened by the NZBC a few years later. Many of the men interviewed by Jack Perkins were interviewed and filmed by me in October/November 1974. I spoke to Colin Howat and Amuri King, at that time the only surviving guardsmen from the gunfight of 9 Oct. Neither told me of a third guardsman (counting Hutchison & Coulson as 1 & 2) being shot. In writing my account, I also had access to the Police file -- Perkins relied upon the published account of the Coroner's Inquest, conducted in Hokitika in late December 1941. The Police file, which contains more detail than the statements of the Inquest, makes no mention of a third guardsman being wounded on 9 Oct. I have restored the page to what I claim is the correct account. Should you disagree I suggest you ask a independent Wiki editor to review the material before reinstating your claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.176.160 (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I must have misinterpreted when they said in the radio documentary one guardsman was injured; but later died. This^[1] paper newspaper clipping spoke of s "C R Ridley" who was wounded. It was in fact George Ridley who died a year later.

Sincerely Simon Levchenko (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits clearly did not improve the article, imposing POV laden terms such as Crown Colony that were clearly obsolete in 1982 and do not reflect a NPOV. Even the UN did not describe the Falklands as such in 1982, in doing so you are promoting one narrow nationalist narrative over NPOV. I suggest you read WP:BRD and WP:NPOV before editing again. WCM_email 18:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I in no way intended to alter the neutrality of the article; the page on Wikipedia that represented the Islands before Argentine occupation listed them as a Crown Colony. Could the version be kept but revised, assuming "Falkland Islands Colony" be changed to "Falkland Islands Dependencies"? Simon Levchenko (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For this edit[1] and this edit[2] which resulted in me and others being pinged. Two times in my case!

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: An administrator has placed all articles related to The Troubles, defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period) as a page restriction. When in doubt, assume it is related.

You have now two reverts... The Banner talk 23:59, 18 June 2018 (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 Arbitration Committee has authorised 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 that 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.

Template:Z33