User talk:Scolaire/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Scolaire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

1769 sovereign states

I thought the Kingdom of Ireland was a sovereign state, up until the 1800 Act of Union took effect January 1, 1801? GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you understand by sovereign? The king of Great Britain was also king of Ireland. Ireland had a parliament, but the parliament was subordinate to the parliament of Great Britain, and had been since Poynings' Law of 1495. So no, not a sovereign state. The Irish Volunteers won legislative independence in 1782. In theory, you could say that Ireland was a sovereign state for the following 18 years, but as the Act of Union showed, its sovereignty was fairly illusory even then. Scolaire (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Still couldn't be considered truly sovereign during those 18 years as the Irish parliament gradually lost much of the legislative independence it had gained especially with the dwindling of the Volunteers as an effective "pressure-group". Mabuska ^(talk) 22:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Nathan

Not sure why you undid my edits. I was trying to separate his personal life (retirement etc) from his career stuff, in particular so I could bring out his Governorship of Queensland as a separate section in preparation for expanding upon it. Kerry (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The page is on my watchlist. I'll be happy to discuss the article structure there. Let's just say there was no disrespect intended. The diff shows that there were three increasingly short one-sentence paragraphs, which is not considered good practice, and that his retirement and death were at the beginning of the article instead of at the end, which is also quite unorthodox. I look forward to seeing your edit of the Queensland part of his life. And, as I say, I'm always happy to pitch in on the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No disrespect? No presumption of good faith, reverting a good faith edit rather than rewriting, no attempt to communicate with me, and claiming to be enforcing some "orthodoxy" not mentioned in Biographies. MN spent two years in Ireland (your home) and your preferred structure gives his time there a lot of prominence, sandwiching the rest of his career including 5 years in Queensland (my home) under "Later career" between pensions and retirement. The Queensland section that I created had 4 sentences (from the existing article, not the one sentence you claim) and there would have been more if you hadn't been so quick to delete everything I did in preparation. Communicating with me would have clarified my intentions; even reading my user page would have probably made it clear what my intentions would be since I indicate my interests as being Queensland history including biography, which have an obvious intersection with the Matthew Nathan article. If you didn't intend disrespect, how did you expect me to feel as a result of your actions? Valued? Welcomed? Respected? Well, I didn't feel any of those things; I felt only disrespect; I felt I was wasting my time; I felt angry. I had been intending to spend the day contributing to Wikipedia, but stopped and walked away in disgust. Kerry (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry that your feelings were hurt. I didn't expect you to feel valued or welcomed as a result of my revert, but I certainly didn't foresee that you would feel angry or disgusted! I didn't look at your contributions at the time I did the revert, but I see now that you've been editing for slightly longer than I have. It's hardly a case of "biting the newbie"! On the other hand, when I said above that I would be happy to discuss it with you on the article talk page, and that I look forward to seeing your edit of the Queensland part of his life, I did expect you to feel valued and respected. I am shocked and hurt at your response. Please read Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. It's a very important essay. Your edits were bold. I reverted them because, as I said in my edit summary, I didn't see them as an improvement. There was no presumption of bad faith, only a difference of opinion. The next step is for you to go to the article talk page and discuss the article structure there – the article structure, mind you, not my actions or your feelings. I have no ill-will towards you, and I will gladly engage with you in the proper forum. Scolaire (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

PS I don't understand what you mean when you refer to "my claim" that there was only one sentence in the Queensland section. I can only guess that it was my reference to "three increasingly short one-sentence paragraphs". That referred to the "Personal life" section. It had four paragraphs: a short three-sentence paragraph, a shorter one-sentence paragraph, a still shorter one-sentence paragraph, and a still shorter one-sentence paragraph. Looking at The diff shows that up very clearly, which is why I included the diff. I deliberately did not comment on the Queensland section, because my user talk page is not the place to do that. Scolaire (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

10 shilling coin

Hi Scolaire.... Errrr, not sure if the description of the 10-shilling coin as a commemorative coin is right. I don't have the sources to hand, but as far as I know, it was planned as a replacement for the 10 shilling note; 2 million were minted, but as the coin proved so unpopular, most weren't issued and were melted down for the silver content. (I seem to remember that only about 200,000 made it into circulation) I have a history of Irish coinage somewhere in the house if I can find it. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(PS) Online sources seem to differ on this alright. The Act introducing the coin does say commemorative alright, so I'll have to hit the books. As you were :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem :) Scolaire (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Had a look for the book, just to satisfy my curiosity and make sure that I wasn't imagining the explanation but I can't find it; there are one or two non-reliable sources online suggesting that they were planned as a replacement in the run-up to decimilization, but nothing official. (And I shoud have read the article to get the circulation figures right) Having another look for a source for this idea, but mostly because I just want to make sure that I wasn't suffering some sort of brainstorm brought on by over-indulgence over Christmas. :) I did however find my 1988 Aluminium 50p while looking for the book, so the search wasn't entirely in vain :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Since OR is allowed on user talk pages, I can tell you that I was around in 1966 (I have one of those coins myself) and that there was no intention of ever replacing the 10s. note with a coin. Think about it: if you were going to issue the first of a new coin, would you do it in silver? No way. It was designed and issued as a commemorative coin. Given the extent of 1916 fever (Pearse was venerated in Ireland, along with Pope John), the lack of uptake was all the more surprising. The explanation offered in the article—that the ten-bob note was too much a part of Irish culture—is the most likely, I'd say. Scolaire (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Similarly antique and also in possession of a Pearse ten bob bit. You were right, of course, about Pearse Street before Square in Patrick Pearse#Commemoration, but didn't I do well with gathering them all up? Brocach (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You did :) Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Bold summary

Hi Scolaire. Regarding the GAA Cfd, I did not think of my heading being interpreted that way, so thank you for pointing it out and I will keep it in mind in future. It was not my intention to appear presiding or direct a closer or anything, but I did want to sum up the current state of argument and bow out (Not that the Jan 17 discussion in itself was confusing or off track, but taken together with the Jan 3 discussion and several side discussions...). I would prefer contended Cfds to take a more collaborative approach than the prevalent (and hard to resist) 'us vs them' attitude that dominates too many discussions there. As a result, I make an effort to consider both sides and try to distance the issues/arguments from the personalities, and try to find a way to encourage others to do the same, but I am not always good at expressing myself. --Qetuth (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you did a good job of summarising the arguments, although I did feel there was perhaps an unconscious bias, which might have unduly influenced the closer if the "summary" heading had remained. I'm glad you didn't object to my edit. Scolaire (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, rereading now I think a large part of that bias was the UNDUE issue caused by going back after I'd typed my original comment (and heading, and edit summary) and elaborating on my "Uni player" point as I suddenly realised it had not really been brought up explicitly at this discussion and was poorly explained in the previous discussion. Which I suppose means I wasn't really summarising after all. --Qetuth (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Gaelic games

So far, the questions look okay, but where is my question 4 (Brocachs question 2, part 2) gone? The Banner talk 12:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, TB, you and Brocach are both so wordy that it is all but impossible to catch all of what you say. Hopefully, this will do it. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is perfect. Thanks. The Banner talk 14:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your preferences at the WT:GAA page - it's very helpful to have this calm and well-ordered discussion on what has previously been a very heated topic! There is a new proposal which has come in after your contribution, which you might also like to comment on. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Scolaire, thanks for your vote here but the final part of your comments are unnecessary and possibly counterproductive. The discussion at WT:GAA has been civil and to the point thus far. It was quite unnecessary to couch your oppose in the way you did as all that can achieve is to provoke your opponent further. I've invested quite a lot of time and energy into trying to get this whole discussion moving productively, so as a personal favour can I please beg you to go back and strike out your comments on LL? Thanks. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

[3] Thank you! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk)

Derry GAA

Seeing as we are able to amicably discuss this matter now, and as the GAA discussion has now closed, with Proprosal 6 stated as "no-consensus", I think we may be able to sort it out quickly enough with little trouble.

Whilst I think we should continue and conclude the discussion at IMoS as it is an IMoS manner, I would like to respond to your last comment in the GAA discussion:

Proposal 3 is: '"X Gaelic footballers", not "X GAA Gaelic footballers"'. If that were adopted, there would be no need to make Derry an exception. As regards List of Derry GAA clubs, would it not be simpler just to take that link out of the "See also's" altogether? I really don't see what it adds. If the link is to remain, it cannot have "#Derry GAA" in it without changing the section heading in the List to "Derry GAA", which would leave it out of synch with the other section headings. For that reason, I prefer BrownHairedGirl's proposal (the one I've just cited). Scolaire (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The link is useful as it directs readers to an article that lists other GAA clubs in Ireland, and in the case of that hash, it takes them directly to the Derry GAA club section in what is quite a long article. Maybe it could be removed altogether, however it does serve a somewhat useful purpose - yet the start of each article does have a "Table of contents". Hence why when Brocach made the additions I never reverted it, but amended it.

The link can also have "#Derry GAA" without need for the section heading in the list to be changed. A simple pipe is what I suggested beforehand in the discussion somewhere: List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry GAA. Works easy peasy with no need for section-headings needing to be changed.

However as stated in my last comments at the GAA discussion, this is for non-GAA articles, and was trying to clarify BHG's points on GAA being used for non-GAA context articles. In that case the County Londonderry GAA club articles containing that link will stay the same as they are now. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, just to clarify, I meant that you couldn't have "#Derry GAA" in the link part of the pipelink, if you know what I mean. It would be very unusual, I think, to have a hash symbol in the pipe part of a pipelink. So, you could pipe it to "List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland: Derry GAA" or, as BHG suggested, simply "List of Derry GAA clubs", but "List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry GAA" would look funny if it was actually visible on a page.

I find BHG hard to follow sometimes, so I don't want to go back and try and untangle the arguments on the WikiProject page. My own view is that is "Derry" should be used in the context of the GAA where there is no danger of ambiguity. That is not exactly the same thing as GAA context articles. There could be a paragraph or section that is GAA-related in an article that was not itself a "GAA context article". To use the example I gave at WT:GAA, Joe Brolly is a man from County Londonderry who played Gaelic Football for Derry. In that case, I would say that the criterion should be whether there was a danger of ambiguity or not. Maybe this tallies with your view, maybe not. Let me know what you think. Scolaire (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends on article context and criterion as to whether it is a substantial part of the article. In the case of Joe Brolly it would seem to be. In some article where the GAA stuff contributes to only a small amount of the article, disambiguation would/may be necessary. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Question: Should the first instance of "Derry GAA" in the Joe Brolly be not be unpiped but piped thereafter? Or worded more understandably as "Derry GAA team" with Derry used afterwards in reference to it? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says that he is a former Gaelic footballer; the second says that he played for Derry. Anybody who doesn't know what Gaelic football is will not know what "Derry GAA" is. Anybody who wants to know what Gaelic football is will click the Gaelic football link; anybody who doesn't want to know about Gaelic football isn't going to care who he played for. Nobody is going to come to the Joe Brolly article in order to learn what the official name of the county is. I just don't see it as an issue. The context is GAA, the convention is to pipe the link to "Derry". This isn't something that started when I did an edit to IMOS in December 2012. It was already the convention when Joe Brolly was first wikified in 2006.

I found myself editing that article as a result of your post. I really don't want to be editing individual GAA articles at all. And I don't want my user talk page to be a forum for GAA article discussions either. What I said above is just my personal take. It's not a bargaining position. Bounce ideas off me by all means but I'm not keen on having discussions. Scolaire (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

And just to re-iterate: in any situation where there is a danger of ambiguity, as a matter of principle I believe there should be disambiguation. Scolaire (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, busy in real life. The above is only a discussion on where we think it might apply, kind of bouncing balls. Anything we find common ground on here would not have any weight to use on articles as it would require a proper discussion and consensus in the proper arena. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Always happy to bounce ideas around. Scolaire (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content criticizing Wikipedia

I noticed that you removed much of the content of Criticism of Wikipedia in a series of edits here, including some content that was supported by citations. Did you discuss the article with the other editors before you decided to blank several of the article's sections? I'm slightly alarmed by the amount of content that was removed from this article in a single series of edits. Jarble (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There seems to have been removal of content from the talk page. I am currently investigating and I will respond there when I find out what has happened. Scolaire (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite

An RM failed to change that: it's not that an RM moved it to "Medjugorje" with insufficient consensus or participation, but that there was not a consensus to move it to "Međugorje".

Actually it was an undiscussed move. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

PS Sorry I didn't notice this Question: I followed your link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) and it does not cover Bosnian at all! Why do you call it "WP Naming conventions for Bosnian names"? Scolaire (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC) - Bosnian falls under Serbo-Croat. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, there was an undiscussed move in August 2011 that was stable until November 2012. A stable article equals consensus for my money. An RM to move it back failed, for two reasons: one, it failed to attract any attention (12 !votes although it was open for over two months and had acres of "discussion"); and two, oppose votes were "supported by sources demonstrating that the current spelling is a common one, and even comments in support admit that the name can be spelled both ways."

Why didn't you say "WP Naming conventions for Serbo-Croat names"? Although even then, the section is titled Serbian, not Serbo-Croat, and only says "Serbian Latin spelling is used", while Romanization of Serbian says "strictly Đ should be used" (my italics).

I'd be grateful if you would confine any further argument to the article talk page. I don't feel strongly enough about the subject to want to conduct a one-to-one argument on my user talk page. Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Medjugorje

Hello
I made a bold edit here, which you reverted; so I've opened a discussion on the matter (here) if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've commented. Thanks for the heads-up. Scolaire (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This could become nasty, so I need some advice

I have found myself in a bit of an awkward situation. The case is User talk:The Banner/Archives/2013/March#Ireland Reaching Out. As you can see, I know the other editor in real life what makes the disagreement rather awkward. Any advice how to get out of this without offending the other editor? Was I wrong with the removals ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) The Banner talk 19:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see how you thought it was spam: five edits by three different editors (two of them having only that one edit) and an IP with a handful of edits. I don't know whether I think "Reaching Out" is a useful link or not; I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for removing them. If it was me, I would just let it drop. As The Duke said, "Never apologise, never explain." If you know the person in RL then you can discuss it face to face – much less danger of misunderstanding that way. Scolaire (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice. I was afraid for a major screw-up with extra complications. But I will just leave it with this. Thanks again! The Banner talk 23:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Limerick Pogrom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Tom Clarke

Hi, Scolaire. I thought I'd tell you that I just had to gut the Tom Clarke (Irish republican) article because it had become almost a word for word transcript of Clarke's part of the Seachtar na Cásca TV series. So I reverted to the last version before the copyright violation. It wasn't written terribly well anyway, but we did lose some good stuff that had been done since then. I wondered if you wanted to help try to get it in better shape. I think the last of the extreme partisans with poor writing skills has retired (you probably know who I mean), so making small edits shouldn't be epic battle anymore. I'll take a poke at it here and there, but already had to scrap a bunch of my rewrites I did before I gave up and did a whole scale reversion. Thought I'd let you know anyway, since you've shown interest in the past and have proved to be a good editor. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you did right to revert. Like a lot of Irish history articles it had become too unwieldy, with too many blockquotes, even if it hadn't been copyvio. I don't do a lot of large-scale editing nowadays, but I'll try and give it the once-over at some stage. Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, This is the diff between the last major (copyvio?) edit in 2011 and Snappy's copyedits at the beginning of this month. You'll see that, in fact, very little of substance was added in that time, so the revert hasn't caused the loss of very much "good stuff". Scolaire (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael Gambon

My apologies about the modified proposal, I was not aware it was in breach of protocol, I never really filed a RfC before. ÓCorcráin (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted :-) I still don't think I'll involve myself further, as I think these debates are sterile, circular and impossible to resolve. Have you read Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars? The only point I wanted to make is that self-identification is one of the the least useful criteria of nationality in most cases, especially with somebody who says "I am Irish" or "I am not Irish" depending on the interview or the time of year. Sources are the best measure: if there are comparable numbers of sources saying he is Irish, English or Irish-English then the opening sentence should reflect that, but in a neutral way and preferably without the need for refs. Scolaire (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm going to cross-post this to the article talk page, and then retire. Scolaire (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

3rr on our IP

I made a report here if you have the other IDs to hand would you add them? ----Snowded ^TALK 15:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That was needed. As far as I can see he has only edited Irish War of Independence and Easter Rising. Of course he is still free to edit them as User:Herscvhell, but at least then we can communicate with him on his talk page (and look for a block if it becomes necessary). Scolaire (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've now made a new report here. --Scolaire (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Could some admin warn a person to just stay away from my talk page. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Result of AN/I Please show the man some respect and comply. Kind regards,--File Éireann 00:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please Help

Can You Help Actor Jack O'connell is half irish and he himself said that but some people changed it to english and then locked it please can you change his nationality to irish-british please, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.192.63 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how you found me, but I have to tell you that I walked away from Talk:Michael Gambon because the same silliness was going on there. An awful lot of the time, people don't actually want to resolve disputes, they want to fight foe the sake of fighting. It's best to walk away, because you can't win when it gets to that stage. I don't even know who Jack O'Connell is, and you haven't linked to the article, so I think I'll pass on this one, thanks. Scolaire (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Tipperary

In your edit of William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber‎ you say "no obvious need to specify North Tipperary"

I do agree - but neither do I see any obvious need to remove the extra information. What is your motivation for this? Doug (at Wiki) 23:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but what 'extra information'? RashersTierney (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

What Rashers said. Scolaire (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

North Tipperary indicates a particular part of the old county. Why remove this information?Doug (at Wiki) 11:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you know why I did it, but I decline to say. I see no obvious need to specify North Tipperary, and you say you agree, but if in spite of that you revert me, rest assured I will not edit-war. Scolaire (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I really don't know. I suspect there's an Irish dimension to this that I don't understand. I don't think it's important either way on the page in question and if it's important to you I'll leave it your way. But I was genuinely curious to know what the reason was for making the change, which, to a non-Irish specialist , seems strange.Doug (at Wiki) 18:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not an Irish dimension, it's a POV thing. Essentially, the editor who first put "North Tipperary" in that article wants to get rid of all references to "County Tipperary" and replace them with "North Tipperary" or "South Tipperary". If he had consensus to do so, or even a measure of support, then it wouldn't bother me. But he continues to make mass edits against consensus, and he used this edit of yours as "evidence" that he does have support. Even by telling you this I am possibly setting myself up for accusations of POV-pushing, edit-warring, personal attacks and God knows what else. That is the only reason I was slow to put it in writing. Scolaire (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No. That's a pretty good summary of the current situation. RashersTierney (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Purely out of curiosity, what is the hypothetical motive behind removing county in favor of north/south? Im always interested in these sort of controversies, since I ordered a "black and tan" at a (real) Irish bar once and almost got the crap kicked out of me! Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Half Guinness and half Smithwick's, right? I haven't heard the term for a long, long time. You used to be able to order one without fear of violence, but maybe times have changed, and the individual wasn't familiar with it. The Tipperary thing is not political, it's purely a burocratic nit-picking thing. Tipperary was divided into two county council areas many years ago, but people in the real world still only talk about "County Tipperary". This one editor thinks that Wikipedia should reflect the legal/administrative paper world, not the real world. But don't worry, you can talk about "North Tipperary", "South Tipperary" or just "Tipperary" without getting the crap kicked out of you, and they haven't renamed the song to "It's a Long Way to both North Tipperary and South Tipperary" yet. Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Around here its half guinness, half harp. He knew what I meant (its a very popular drink, especially in the faux-Irish bars), but thought the name was offensive due to the military black and tans. (Granted he was pretty old, so might have taken more personal effect) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, Harp is golden (lager), Smithwick's is tan (ale). Anyway, it's interesting to know that it's still popular "around there". I presume you're in the States somewhere. Scolaire (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ya, Midwest. guiness and Bass sometimes too I suppose. We have lots and lots of faux-Irish bars, and they all prominently list "Black and Tan" in their list of drinks. (Along with Black and Blue, etc) (Almost as ubiquitous as McDonalds.) Occasionally in certain towns you can however find "Real" irish bars where all the expats and their decendants hang out (often also cop/fireman bars at the same time due to historical Irish prevalance in those careers. and I was in one of those places. IFrom just quickly reading our Black and Tan article and apparently across the pond you guys drink them all mixed together, where here I send them back if they don't have a strong separation between the brews. That article does mention that in Ireland its generally Smithwicks.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Didn't even know that article existed! Thanks for linking it. Scolaire (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Could I remind you of WP:NPA. I raised the RfC on establishment because there was a dispute. It is a standard method of getting a decision when it isn't straightforward. I do not appreciate snide comments about me getting my way and sticking in the business for thirty days. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you may remind me. I am duly reminded. By the way, you are always welcome on my talk page. Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I was over the top above and withdraw most of it, probably you thought of it as humour which has gone wong, that happens often on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for fixing the page refs. I attempted to thank you as well via the "thank" link on the page history. What did that do? Just one of the new notification thingies? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it just comes up as a notification under the notification box, which turns red: "Gaijin42 thanked you for your edit on Talk:Gun control." Scolaire (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't sign your !vote.

mother fucker... I didn't sign this comment! lol. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe you have misread #5 and meant to !vote no (based on your reason following). The question is some what confusing, but has a "is it false that" in there, so that "yes to all" makes sense. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Right! Have corrected it and signed both. The whole RfC is more than somewhat confusing, to be honest. Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware. Unfortunately it is in my opinion the only way to resolve a very long running debate between a relatively small number of editors. The generally opposing side switches from argument to argument without ever resolving one, so this was an attempt to resolve all objections to the inclusion one way or another. (See the recent "first sentence" section, and how quickly it got off topic of what was actually asked.) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Directing your attention

To here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment#New_Edits

Taking you up on your earlier offer of assistance. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to e-mail me through the Wikipedia system please. I have an interesting and I think exciting development to announce but I do not wish it to be made public. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, intriguing as your announcement sounds, I don't want to learn anything that can't be shared with the entire WP community. Is it of a personal nature? If it is, maybe I can guess. Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It isn't of a personal nature. The news is that I had dropped a speculative e-mail to the Ulster Defence Regiment Association and received a very warm reply from their Regimental Secretary offering assistance from their own extensive collection of documents, with qualification of course. I intend to request the use of a better badge for the MILHIST information panel to start with but in the further course of our collaboration this could prove to be useful. My reason for asking was to supply the man's e-mail address - to share my source. I'm intrigued though, what would your guess have been?

It would also have been useful for us to share e-mail addresses so that I can send document scans to you. I'm presuming you don't have the three regimental histories? I do(in addition to others on other units). Is there perhaps another way we can do this on Wikipedia? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you're assuming a much higher level of commitment on my part than I'm prepared to give, or am interested in giving. I also think that the kind of work you're contemplating is original research, and so totally unsuited to an encyclopaedia article. You might think about writing something for History Ireland or some such publication, which is looking for original research of that sort. If it was published, it would then become a reliable source on which editors could draw. For myself, I am engaging with you on the UDR talk page because nobody else is, and I don't mind being a sounding-board, but I am far too busy doing research on other topics in real life to give any kind of commitment to collaborative writing, and besides, the UDR was never one of my pet subjects.

I wondered for a moment if you were going to tell me you were in a relationship with another Wikipedian, but I was thinking of a different UDR editor who used to have long conversations with an American lady on his user talk page. Scolaire (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

All received and understood. You're acting as a mentor and I greatly appreciate it. I am happy to confirm that I have never engaged in any sort of relationship with another Wikipedia editor. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

:-) Scolaire (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment now submitted for A Class Review after a very enjoyable two week editing period. No bullies in sight. I did manage to fall out with an over zealous copyright enforcer but it hasn't marred my experience. I invite your scrutiny of the article as it stands, particularly with reference to NPOV - did I get it right? SonofSetanta (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to St John's Eve may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

In Lithuania the is known as 'Joninės',(aka: Rasos (Dew Holiday).The traditions include singing songs and dancing until the sun sets,
//books.google.ie/books?id=3CDGQinECFgC&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false Moon Handbooks: New Orleans]]'', Avalon Travel, 2007, ISBN 1566919312, p. 55</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Michael Gambon". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 18:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sinn Féín Foundation

I am curious, the info box states that the party was founded in 1905 but 'created' in 1970 as a result of the split with the stickies. But it seems to me that certain editors are denying that Sinn Féin, despite the splits is the same party from 1905.
1905: Sinn Féin founded
1923: Sinn Féín Split - Cumann na nGaedheal founded
1926: Sinn Féin Split - Fianna Fáil founded
1930: Sinn Féin Split - Republican Congress Founded
1970: Sinn Féin Split - The Workers' Party (aka Official Sinn Féin & Sinn Féin, the Workers' Party) founded
1986: Sinn Féin Split - Republican Sinn Féin founded

Why is 1970 out of all these dates used? ÓCorcráin (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There was a very lengthy discussion on the talk page of the article itself about this. Basically, the sources are not in agreement over whether Sinn Féin is the same party as the 1905 one. Numerous sources say that the current party was formed in 1970 (see the SF talkpage) so per WP:NPOV a compromise was reached to include both dates. Valenciano (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I would concur with Valenciano. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

I have only by pure chance noticed your comment here whilst looking for a link to the user comparison tool. Thank you for you comment, it meant a lot. Some editors are unwilling to man up and apologise properly especially when there is absolutely no evidence at all to back up the slightest insinuation amongst other slights they did. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that guy really had issues. Sometimes you just have to grit your teeth and hope they'll eventually go away. Thankfully, he did. Whether that was the result of me telling him to back off or not I can't guess, I just said what I thought needed to be said. Scolaire (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Irish Republic

Hi, Scolaire. I broadly agree with you that section headings are not there to "make a point", but I should have thought we could agree that a heading reading "Recognition", when there was no recognition from anywhere, is misleading. The purpose of the headings is to summarize the sections of the page, and in this case I prefer "Lack of recognition" simply as an accurate summary. If you do not like that, what would you suggest? Perhaps "Aim of recognition" or "International perception"? Moonraker (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"Aim of recognition" is conceptually right but is not immediately clear and is grammatically a bit dubious. "Attempts to secure recognition" better describes the content of the section, but is to my mind still a little bit clunky. But maybe use that anyway until we can think of something snappier. Scolaire (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Defence Forces (Ireland)

Scolaire, I've reverted your change to this article.

The "stable version" was the one prior to Mownberry's insertion of the claim that "Fhórsaí Cosanta" is an Irish-language name for the Defence Forces. The article has not made that claim since it was first created in 2004. Óglaigh na hÉireann was given as the only Irish-language name for the Defence Forces from then until Mownberry's change.

The Defence Act, 1954 is explicit. As is the Defence Forces own English-Irish dictionary. Ó Cearúili is also explicit in stating the Defence Forces are styled Óglaigh na hÉireann as opposed ot Fhórsaí Cosanta in Irish.

Fhórsaí cosanta is the Irish for defence forces, so confusion can naturally arise. I've walked through these references now on the talk page. --Tóraí (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I've re-reverted, as explained on the talk page. --Scolaire (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Easter Rising

Noting your edit at Easter Rising, I don't think that it is overlinking to link the mention of UK to the article of the actual state it was then, UK of GB and I, as readers may confuse it with UK of GB and NI. Though if that is overlinking, then surely "Irish republicans" and "World War I" qualify as overlinking on the basis of being obvious. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have no problem with de-linking Irish republicans, and I would actively support de-linking World War I. In general, though, it comes down to the old question of editing the lead instead of the article. Does the article say clearly that Britain and Ireland were joined in the United Kingdom? Then that's the place to have it, because it's part of the background to the Rising, not part of the action. Is it poorly explained in the article? Then edit the article. Sure, many readers only read the intro, but do they leave it the poorer for not having the political and administrative structure of the UKGBI explained to them? I don't think so, because if they only came to read the intro, then that's not what they wanted to learn about. Scolaire (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If you decide to focus on removing specific wikilinks on the basis you've given, then surely you should have removed the other two, or at least the Irish republicanism one. You did not. Wikilinks are used for a reason and I'm pretty sure having UK of GB and I wikilinked is beneficial especially for those who don't want to read beyond the intro, and would probably mistake it for the modern UK. "Overlinking" is the exact same reason you gave for not piping-linking Ireland to UK of GB and I for the time period it was part of it. I still feel that deep-down it is just trying to stop Ireland being linked to UK as much as possible. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So you disagree with me because I have agreed with you? You really only want to talk about my "agenda"? Well, sorry, but I'm not interested. Scolaire (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

BracketBot

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tánaiste may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.