Jump to content

User talk:Tóraí/Archive/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heteracanthocephalidae

[edit]

Hi you edited this page, but I'm afraid you've lost information by doing the citations in this way. Author citations are written in brackets if the species in question was originally placed in a different genus. Otherwise no brackets. It is also tradition to do the small author citations after each species, and not in the reference section. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattximus. This is a general encyclopedia. Atypical referencing conventions from specific disciplines will be unknown to our readers. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, nevertheless, thousands upon thousands of wiki pages of taxonomic classification already uses this convention, it would be wonky to have one page on parasitic worm be the one out, and the current way does convey more information to those who do care about the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. There's merit to it and it doesn't hurt. I would suggest however that the sub heads be de-linked. Having links in subheadings can cause problems for users with accessibility issues (as well as looking bad IMHO) - but I'll leave it to you to make your mind up on that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A Rugrats Passover"

[edit]

Hey, thanks for taking interest in that article, but even though its a special, it's still an episode of a TV show. Therefore, the title should be in quotes, not italicized. I reverted them back to quotes, so I hope you understand. Thanks :) The Flash {talk} 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the distinction and had thought practice was to use italics in all cases. Learn something new every day :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, Yup, no problem. The Flash {talk} 22:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for the typeface collaboration

[edit]
Requesting editors' help

There is currently an oppened collaboration which aims in improving articles related to typefaces and font categorization. If you´re interested in this subject, please visit the collaboration page, add your self and see how you can help.

I hope you can contribute in this section. Happy editings! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland

[edit]

Hi there. I'm sure, like me, you believe that Northern Ireland should not even exist - that is irrelevant in the present discussion. The reality is that a consensus was achieved that each of the four 'entities' that together constitute the United Kingdom would be described as 'countries that are part of the United Kingdom' with 'part of' linking to the Countries of the United Kingdom' article. If you attempt to change the article, you will find yourself being reverted by a large number of editors. I do not say this as a threat, but just to suggest that you may end up wasting a load of time on this for absolutely no benefit. Could I suggest there are many areas where I am sure your interests and knowledge could make a real contribution - how about the articles concerning the use of Irish language in Northern Ireland/expansion of Irish medium education etc? I have tried to do some work on Gaelic Medium Education in Scotland in the face of opposition from some editors who objected to articles in English wikipedia having titles in Gaelic, even when the name of the school the article was about was a gaelic name! My point is, I am sure you could make a real difference if you devoted your efforts to issues where you can achieve something - your efforts to change the lead sentence in this article will certainly prove fruitless. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fishiehelper2 - First, we need to leave politics behind. What we (you, I or anyone else) want for the future of Northern Ireland is irrevelent. The same goes for Scotland/England. I hadn't looked at the Northern Ireland article for a while. I can remember a long time back the trouble WRT Scotland ("nation", "country", etc.). The present solution may work well on the Scotland, England articles (or at least I'm not going to comment). Specifically, with regard to Northern Ireland though, it's a crud that I can only imagine was designed to resolve problems elsewhere.
Describing Northern Ireland (baldly) as a "country", as one of the sources I supplieds says, is "blatantly absurd". "Constituent country" is fine (although it would not my prefernce). If, as you say, removing the claim will result in a shed-load of editors coming down up me then the way forward is a community RFC, dispute resolution or so forth. Do you really want to air your dirty lenin in public? (That's not a threat either.)
The content for one article cannot be decided through horse-trading on another two. The (bald) statement that "Northern Ireland is a country" is contradicted by published sources (and the sources that proportedly support the claim are a synthesis that has been given undue weight). Our POV on the matter is independent of that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I don't know what 'dirty linen' I have but in any case have no problem if you want to push this matter. However, please don't misrepresent the argument to make your point - the article does not state "Northern Ireland is a country" without further qualification. It states "Northern Ireland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom". Anyway, we may just have to differ on this issue - Cheers for now Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A bear is an animal that lives in the woods." In order for this statement to be correct, the two insdividual statesments that it makes must be true: "A bear is an animal." and "A bear lives in the woods."
"Northern Ireland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom". As with the bear example, the two parts of this statement must be independently correct in order for the whole to be true. It is true to say that, "Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom." Without qualification, however, it is not truthful to say that, "Northern Ireland is a country."
"Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom" is entirely correct. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By your deductive logic - a 'constituent country' needs to be a 'country' and also requires to be a constituent of something - so you are happy for Northern Ireland to be called a country if if has the adjective 'constituent' placed in front of it? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of words change when we modify them with other words like "constituent". Northern Ireland is not a "country" in the ordinary sense of the word (or in the same sense that Scotland or England are called countries). In terms of the UK, "constituent country" has a specific meaning, distinct from what is ordinarly understood by "country" alone. My perference would simply be "a part of" - there is no need or usefullness in bringing in controversial or not readily understood terms in the introduction, they can simply be left to the body of an article where they can be explained in context more easily. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably risking my life in telling ya this. I actually understand the argument for 'province' (which is amazing, with my past 'consistancy arguments'). Within my country, its 13 divisions are not all named the same - we've got 10 provinces & 3 territories. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that. (I thought all Canadian "provinces" were called "provinces".) The origin/significances of the distinction in terms between the unit parts Canada is of course different to that of the UK, but I'm happy you can appreciate that "consistency" is not a prerequisite.
BTW, I'm not advocating "province", but baldly saying "NI is a country" is a definite no no - whatever about Scotland and England.
(p.s. you know who I am don't you?) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know, I never would've guessed. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that sarcasm? :) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I really wouldn't have guessed. I thought you had 'retired' long ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country

[edit]
Hello, Tóraí. You have new messages at Stuart's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It would make a lot more sense to try and find a form of words that recognises the controversy you know --Snowded TALK 11:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't follow. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting that everyone calms down on the arguments etc (on more than one page) and attempt to agree what can be said and then see if there is a way forward. One way might be to expand a section on Constituent Country on Northern Ireland and then pipe link to that from the current lede. How about that? --Snowded TALK 11:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are three seperate pages with three separate issues (albeit topically related). This is a "Troubles" thing, Snowded. I'm not interested in opening up a new "front". Leave the battles behind and plase assume good faith. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above note suggests trying to move forward. Nothing there that can be interpreted as WP:BATTLE or a failure to follow WP:AGF . However one can only ask people to attempt to move forward, it can't be forced. --Snowded TALK 11:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ... my message was in reply to the first version of your message above - I've been away since.
Regarding the full version of the above - that's better thinking about the issue but I don't agree that we can pipe link the word "country". See my explanation on the NI talk page in reply to an earlier suggestion like this re: how Wikipedia content is used and the problem with assuming that a reader can follow a link to see what is meant by a word never mind that they will actually do it (even if they can). It's better to simply write what you mean in prose rather than relying on "tricks" or agreements satisfy differing POVs. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and I am sure we can find a way to move forward on this. The designation of Northern Ireland as a country was the most problematic when we sorted out the UK as a whole. The lack of a historical country (as was the case in Wales and Scotland) and the controversial nature of any terms associated with it. I was surprised when I first saw the UK Government reference. I agree that the reader needs to be aware of the disputed use of terms. How about a small section on names in the main body? --Snowded TALK 05:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Constituent county is my personal fav, but it was gradually rejected (months ago). GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular "fav" so long as it is accurate and neutral. What's getting my nerves up on this is the obstinance of those insisting on country - regardless of how many sources are produced or even it's pointed out that their own sources use different terms. You might have seen my last post, I'm getting ill-tempered now. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never loose one's cool, as it tends to hurt one's argument. It's the consistancy thing that's taken hold & a majority -vs- minority situation. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Always good advice. Thanks, GoodDay. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if only I could follow my own advice, at the Ice hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry? wowsers, ya'll really got me with that one. I'll hear heck about this latter on (for sure). GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it in the lightest possible way - but how did it come about that you came to "promise" one thing or another? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think exhaustion played a factor. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a complaint was raised at the Rfc, about my being 'bullied' into changing my stance. If another such complaint occurs, it'll render my participation there as 'compromised'. If this topic creates 'tension' between opposing sides, I'll have to wirthdraw completely. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

[edit]

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Ireland naming in articles

[edit]

Good morning. What has happened with the project on this? Has it just been abandoned? I can't even remember where the discussion was taking place. Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The in-article issue was far more important as far as I was concerned. I don't know what happened - maybe when the "headline" issue got effectively sent to bed other either got a) disinterested, or b) disheartened. I can understand people being sore about it - but it was a certainly that someone one party or another were going to get wounded.
I think the affair may have done far more harm than good to the Irish Wikipedia community. (I'm struck by a notable absense of Irish participants in my current arguments over on Talk:Northern Ireland.)
As far as I'm converned, the collaboration is either a) over; b) still on going; or c) resolved to use Ireland, except where Republic of Ireland provides clarity. That doesn't make much sense, I know, but the whole thing just seemed to fall off a cliff and I don't think anyone knows what the final outcome (if there was one) was. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guessed that's what probably happened. Can you remind me where the page was that hosted the discussion? Mooretwin (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exhaution from the Ireland naming dispute. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble understanding RTG's posts. Am I the only one? GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations.

[edit]

Congratulations! You have managed to manipulate an editors opinion with this nonsense. Very clever indeed. As for me bullying GoodDay? Please, do me a favour! It's no wonder I've had my fill of this place. And for the record, I was not joking on his talk page. I truly was pissed off at him for continually putting my country down at every opportunity. Jack forbes (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack, it's not a matter of wanting to "manipulate" anyone. I was genuine shocked at that exchange and I think it was disgusting. Whether we agree with it or not, GoodDay's view are common place and well supported. Just because we are of a different vew is no good reason to go harrang any other editor for their's. We are here to write and encyclopedia, not right the wrongs of history or set anyone straight on the "facts".
What particularly turned by stomach was the gang mentality. We are not here to spit in our palms and strike unbreakable deals based on honour. We are here to write an encyclopedia. It is not a theatre wherein to conduct real-word battles of ideas, we simply describe them describe them as if we were neutral observers. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, for the sake of 'keep all 4 the same', the best choice would've been 'constituent country'; Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New stubs

[edit]

Hi Rannpháirtí anaithnid, good to see a few new stub articles on places in the RoI! One request, though, if you make any more - rather than simply adding {{geo-stub}} to the bottom, could you add the specific template for whichever county or counties the place is in? All counties in Ireland have their own geo-stub templates in the form Countyname-geo-stub (e.g., {{Clare-geo-stub}} and {{Roscommon-geo-stub}}). It just saves a little work further down the line and makes the articles easier for editors to find. Cheers -and keep up the good work! :) Grutness...wha? 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, Grutness. Wasn't aware. Will do. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go raibh mile maith agat! :) Grutness...wha? 10:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (I hope that's right... my grandma had the Gaeilge, but I don't, sadly)[reply]
Perfect. Tá fáilte romhat, a chara! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote symbol at 'Northern Ireland'

[edit]

Ya may want to change that symbol, as it looks like a Catholic cross. The Protestant majority may get sore. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duly changed to an 'a'. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even think of that when I saw it, I clearly haven't been living in the (constituent) country long enough. The NI article looks and reads well now though, thanks for the lengthy input on the talk page. Alastairward (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Troubles'

[edit]

It's the old alleged 'Anglo-American vs Irish PoVs', that's the core of most (if not all) of those heated edit-wars & discussions. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear to everyone

[edit]

I am posting this to everyone who has contributed to the Specific Examples page recently and this message should not be taken as any criticism of your editing. However, following yet more edit-warring today, I think it's needed to make some things very clear. Editors on BI-related articles may be blocked for

  • Exceeding 1RR/day on any related article
  • Persistent edit-warring/reverting over multiple articles even if not breaking 1RR
  • Following other BI editor's contribs and reverting them, even if not related to BI

I will also, as I have today, be blocking obvious sock accounts and/or IPs if they are obviously being used to game the system. Edits by such accounts will be reverted. This issue is now very close to going to RfAR and I suspect the outcome of that would not be one that many editors in this area would welcome. Black Kite 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom RfC

[edit]

Its probably not worth the time to start one during the election. You aren't likely to change the method (which arguably was chosen before the last RfC) and it won't be distinguishable from the general whining about arbcom that accompanies these elections.

And who knows. It may turn out that secret ballots aren't such a big deal after all. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Elonka to delete the page. It is more sensible to wait until after the election and actually use an RFC to gaguge how folk feel about a secret ballot after they have had a chance to use it. If we go for it them ... well, at least we will be better informed. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stats.grok.se

[edit]

I've added a bug report to the doco. Josh Parris 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to fix the bug; the anchorencode that was taken out needed putting back in Josh Parris 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Josh. I haven't looked at this anchor encode/url encode business. (I see you've been reverted.) I'll check it out later on tonight and chip in my opinion on the talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out that it's more complex than that: there's a bug in mediawiki (documented on the /doc page now). Josh Parris 09:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geology, geography

[edit]

Jeez, I say geography and you give me a lecture. :) Jack forbes (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Don't mean to lecture. In fairness all I arguing for is the status quo. And considering the pile of references I have I feel pretty hard done by.
With respect to the issue, it really shouldn't be this much of a task. The diagrams are fine as they are, IMHO. They reveal an (admittedly) often neglected fact, which is worthwhile in itself. We can leave the rest for articles texts. There's no need to open a can of worms for the sake of a diagram. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I would though like to see the rest of Matts evidence before fully deciding where I stand on this. Jack forbes (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland

[edit]

Howdy RA. Don't ya thing a discussion should occur 'first', before changing 'President' to an Irish language version? GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on Talk:Republic of Ireland. It was an IP that go the ball moving but we can revert in the meantime if you think it is better? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User boxes

[edit]

Wowsers! Good work! I never thought anyone would take my invitation seriously. Did you make em all youself or were some already there? Counties was, I think. You haven't got over much time on your hands have you :))) Mister Flash (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I gotta admit, as I was doing it I was thinking, Surely, there's more I can do with my life than this?
FYI - I used the {{userbox}} template to make them "from stratch" and picked up (fairly random) pix from the Commons ... the hardest part was choosing the colours :)
If you're doing it yourself in future, this is a handy colour reference. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll have a bash with a couple. Mister Flash (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

[edit]

Typo

[edit]

Think you made a typo here BigDunc 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Thanks for that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, I am completely baffled with the reasoning of an editor that because he can't pronounce it we should move it to something he can say, unbelievable. BigDunc 21:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the better thing to do would be to change the spelling: Cunra na Gaylega? :) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to him, he might be influenced by a discussion on Talk:Republic of Ireland re: "Uachtarán" or "President", in which case I support his position. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolemy

[edit]

I don't think it's a good idea to encourage our mutual friend to insert text into the article - on past practice it would lead to edit warring. Can you and I agree on something to be added, and where it should go? In my view the Ptolemy quotes are not directly relevant to the British Isles article - which refers to the collectivity of islands - but they are relevant to be included at Britain (name). Do you agree? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that, after the second sentence of the third para of Britain (name), we add: In his Almagest, Ptolemy used the term Μικρὰ Βρεττανία (Mikra Brettania) for Ireland, although in his later work, the Geography, he referred to Ireland as Ιουερνία (Iwernia).[1]..... That keeps it simple. Then, a new para would start with "Diodorus.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sound good. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Code of conduct

[edit]

RA, another rule should be added, and that is this: editors must carefully read each comment before replying as I hsve seen numerous cases where editors comments are misread or not fully read at all.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll add something. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FlaggedRevs stats

[edit]

Hi! I wanted to thank you for your comment at at VPR. I'm doing a little project management on that, and the community input is great. Did you have a notion of what sort of community impact you were expecting to see, and what sort of measures you'd look at? Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowdeds proposal

[edit]

It would be nice if you voted on Snowdeds proposal. :) Jack forbes (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

[edit]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Tóraí. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ww2censor (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ath-bhliain foai mhaise dhaoibh a chara.

[edit]

Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

[edit]

I see that with this edit you reverted my reformatting of two sports section images in Ireland. One of the nasty formatting situation is when images intrude into the next section header, especially when they are on the left side. The solution is to add more text which may not be possible, add a hard break though that usually adds more white space between the bottom of the image and the following header, or move the image to the right though it may intrude a little into the prose of the next section but not into the header. We could also just place both images on the right and avoid the problem altogether. One of those solutions is necessary because the current format is ugly and does not work.

I also see that you are working on the references. You may find it useful to check the link with the Checklinks tool to ensure the validity of current references, or maybe the Reflinks tool to create inline citations though I usually refine the results for better citations and Ireland has few if any loose citation links. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to. I noticed that you had edited it and I actually thought it was "cool" the way the software hadn't thrown up an edit conflict - because, I thought, it was smart enough to know we were editing in different sections! I guess something went wonky that I could overwrite you without knowing it.
Thanks for the heads up re: the toolserver tools. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 03:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it back to the way you had it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered if we were going to start clashing so early in the new year but actually we are on the same page towards improvements. I just checked the refs with Checklinks and made a few small changes. The main problems arise when the reference vanishes and archive.org does not have a copy but right now there are few problems except for the missing IEI report (ref 83). There is no need to drop a talkback as I am watching your page for a while. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have read your user page earlier to discover who you were; SY. BTW, I have done little with the Ireland portal since your hiatus. So hello again. ww2censor (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No bother. I've been nipping in and out of the Portal every few weeks or so to keep it updated. You changes while I was away (random articles etc.) were great. Thanks for doing that. I think the Ireland article is on the road to being relisted as a GA. Do you think much more needs to be done before putting it in for review? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 04:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Nikkimaria, who has a track record with GAs, to have an informal look and give us advise if there are any glaring problems. She will do so next week. ww2censor (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Thanks, Ww. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED, Channel Islands, BI etc

[edit]

I'll come back to this tonight. I'm asking you again to play fairly. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, please, I'm not out to trick you. I refactored your comments from the reference list because - TBH - having them there is not "playing fair". Let the reference speak for themselves and by all means make comments on them below. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A friend"

[edit]

I very much doubt whether it is the same person. That content has simply been picked up (not wholly accurately) from the information already at Britain (name) - nothing particularly new, I think. I'm in awe of your stamina on BI issues, by the way. I'm sorry to say I gave up on another friend long ago. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a curious comment, as until recently we have not crossed each other, and we've had very little contact I've been aware of (a little at Wales perhaps), although I have more of an idea about you as a Wikipedia editor now for sure. I hope you are not suggesting by this comment that I use sock puppets! Matt Lewis (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt - the original comment was wholly unrelated to you - it referred to a popular item of furniture. My comment above was uncalled for, and I'll happily strike it out if you like. But the whole "Do the BIs cover the CIs?" discussion strikes me as an even more ridiculous waste of time than most related debates. It's an amusing spectator sport though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem on the surface a waste of time, but it was always one of the hurdles that needed to be jumped in order to finalise a guideline. I might look like the pushy one, but I'm actually being given quite a run around to keep the RFC in order. Rannparti put the question to an RFC just as the image was about to be finally updated with a new positive editor involved (merely with another version of the 2-definition Venn, hardly an act of wild bias). The diagram (the CI's were always 'out' on overall consensus - thats just the way it was) was always put off due to the incessant focus on the naming controversy, the article being literally constantly locked (or 1RR in the past 6 months no-doubt) and all the Ireland shennanigans since 2008, which actually stemmed from this very-same BI guideline we are arguing over now. Your view on the Channel Islands issue will probably depend on whether a British Isles guideline is seen as useful or not. Personally I see it as essential for a number of reasons. Not that I really want to be spending my time anywhere near it (its certainly not what drew me back here) - it's basically unfinished business that I'm never going to be able to get away from until it's done.
I've no idea what you are talking about above btw, but as long as you are not saying I'm socking I hardly mind. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It's an amusing spectator sport though." Not sure whether to cringe or to smile. Doing both. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that is a compliment, pity or an expression of wonder at the silliness of it all (an of me for giving a hoot - god know, I wonder at myself!). You've been around long enough surely to know that right now BI is a dream. I've never seen it more peaceful :)
I've edited the content added to the terminology page a little since it was added. Actually, I didn't know about 'Mikra Britain'. It's interesting - but stuff that needs need defusing no sooner than it arrives. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of the Irish Republic by Soviet Government

[edit]

While it is widely believed that there was mutual recognition of the two states, in fact there was not. See contemp docs. for unsuccessful efforts made in this regard. At the time the Russians were more concerned with the recognition (Trade Agreement) of the Brit. authorities.0 Please restore the 'fact' tag until definitive evidence of exchange of ambassadors etc. (the normal evidence of formal recognition) is produced. Best RashersDogRusty (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. I am tantalisingly close on Google Books to seeing what T. Ryle Dwyer (1980, Eamon de Valera, Gill and Macmillan: Dublin) has to say:

"The Soviet Union was the only country that showed any real interest in recognising the Irish Republic. A treaty of recognition was drafted, after discussions with Soviet representatives in Washington, but de Valera was afraid that Bolshevik recognition might..."

I can't see the rest. Other sources I can read follow the standard line as in the ref I added earlier.
If you are based in Dublin, I would suggest a visit to the childrens' section in Donaghmede or Terenure library and finding the rest quote from page 37. In Cork it's considered adult reading. I'll drop by later in the week and see how it ends.
Until then, the source stays. We don't replace a good source with a {{fact}} just 'cos we don't believe it. Verifiability, not truth. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking this better than might might be expected. I was gobsmacked myself. Fact is it did not happen, (and how many who went to Spain and others who maintained lifelong opinions believed otherwise). USSR could have made a principled gesture but realpolitik mattered more. RashersDogRusty (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away from Dublin (and so even my own library) at the moment but your source above has this to say on the subject in 1999. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, it isn't easy to prove a negative and back it up with sources, particularly when it's such a long-standing and emotive fallacy. RashersDogRusty (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

[edit]

Ireland review

[edit]

I am working a reviewing the images and noting any problems I see with possible replacements but have only started and will not be able to work on it later or tomorrow. See User:Ww2censor/Sandbox1 and add any comments you want. I'm off now. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I won't touch images. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've pretty much finished the image review. I was considering the duplicate satellite image and think that keeping the one in the lede would be preferable and replace the one in the {{History of Ireland}} template with an old map of Ireland image, such as File:Wenceslas Hollar - Ireland (State 2).jpg, seeing as that would relate well to the history of the island. Thoughts ww2censor (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds good. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you remember the source for this image File:IrePop1500.PNG? Created by User:Grahamzilch!! ww2censor (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That dagnaster - sure he never had a source for nothin'!
Pre 1841 was this webpage. 1841 and after was UK and ROI census data. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

[edit]

'Republic of Ireland' on EU page

[edit]

Hi there Rannpháirtí anaithnid, a debate is currently in progress on the EU talk page concerning the use of either ‘Republic of Ireland’ or ‘Ireland’ to identify the state. As the page is clearly political and involves both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, I am arguing for ‘Republic of Ireland’ for reasons of clarity and common sense. However, all my arguments are falling on intransigently deaf ears. Perhaps you would care to take a look? The Spoorne (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up here after seeing the canvassing by The Spoorne, which in turn led me to the IMOS. You had incorrectly announced a result for the broken-down IECOLL process. I have corrected your misleading summary. Unfortunately, I'm grabbing literally 5 mins to do this - my internet time is severely curtailed at present so I probably won't be able to engage in a conversation for a week or so. --HighKing (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw that. Seriously, now? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RA. Seriously, yes. It's well known and recognized that the IECOLL process broke down. The poll was not a stand-alone poll, but was part of a broken-down process. Nothing was finalized, nothing was agreed, and no binding decisions were made. I don't anticipate anything restarting, but let's at least recognize the mess for what it was. --HighKing (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI on citation methods

[edit]

You expressed some interested in LDR. IMO, a better method is to use short footnotes with a references section. When implemented using {{Sfn}}, it produces minimal interruption in the article prose and has several other advantages. If you are interested, see my user essay Citation method comparison. I did not want to add this to the Village pump because I don't want my my preference for particular citation templates to cloud the main issue. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also gives a lot away about your preferred referencing style ;-) It is quite nice (it's how I was taught to cite) but I'm suspicious that it would be too much for occasional editors/inept citers. If a preferred method is agree on, I think it has to be fool proof - even for the inept. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

[edit]

Hi, see you've done a lot of work on the Ireland article. It's looking really good and I wouldn't expect WP:GA to be much of a problem. I didn't want to mention it on the Ireland Talk page as it may distract from the WP:GAN, but would there be any objection from you to note that Ireland is considered a Celtic nation. The article notes Celtic music, 'Celtic Tiger' status and Celtic woodland, but not Celtic nation. It would sit quite well in the Political geography section, replacing: "Traditionally, Ireland is subdivided into four provinces: ... " with "Traditionally considered as one of the Celtic nations, Ireland is subdivided into four provinces: ... " A reference is here, but I'm sure you would be able to find others. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd have no problem with it. I've seen the woes a similar line caused on Wales. I think it is something that can either handled well or turned into something twee. I think you'd find it a lot easier to squeeze Celtic nations in there, as opposed to other terms.
I wouldn't mix the provinces and the Celtic nations, though. It makes it sounds as if they are related concepts (and that section deals with political geography). I'd be more inclined to put it in the section on culture. That section is missing an intro paragraph. You could write an few lines of an introduction to that section and talk about Celticity while doing so. That would "meat it up" too and put it in a stronger context rather than just have it as a random/isolated statment of fact. Pob lwc, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I intend to re-order the sections of that article so. Culture shouldn't be at the bottom. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Culture sections are at the bottom at Italy, Germany and (nearly) France, so I shouldn't worry too much. You'll be pleased to know that I hadn't thought to include any other terms. It makes sense to place it in the Culture section, though. Trouble is that an intro paragraph shouldn't just be a summary of the rest of the section, like a stand-alone article, as that would be duplication. That means you would have to introduce new content/concepts. This would be difficult for an outsider to pull off, as it would be easy to be either patronising or stereotypocal (or both). I'll have a go if you like, but only if you promise to be gentle with me and remember that I'm trying to help, rather than being a smartarse :) Daicaregos (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me? A smart arse? Never! ;-P --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant: I'll have a go if you like, but only if you promise to be gentle with me and remember that I'm trying to help, rather than me trying to be a smartarse. Please let me know. Daicaregos (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you had it better the first way around :-D Have a stab and I'll fill in more later on. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thought it best to try off-page (see here). You are welcome to make any amendments on the page, or to copy any use elsewhere, or not use it at all. Let me know what you think. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Not bad for a Gall ;-) Plonk it in the page. I suspect it will be worked though a bit before it settles but it's not bad and does the job. (TBH I would have emphasised "Celtic nation" it a little more and may do once it's on the page). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. We need references though. I'm not precious about it. Please feel free to make any changes you think necessary. Daicaregos (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

[edit]

Cite.php addition

[edit]

Proof of concept looks good, though I think putting every citation type on one page is going to end up slowing it down at some point in the future (correct me if my perception is wrong). I have two thoughts on separation: Either separate the pages by medium of publishing (book, encyclopedia, so on), or by style (APA, MLA, so on). The latter would probably be the way to go, as we're already declaring that information in the references bit on the page (and it doesn't have a data-relation like the medium would). Probably split to [[mediawiki:citation style-apa]].

I would like to see an example of the ability to specify the medium of distribution (<ref medium="journal" />) however, before a full go on my part; I do see the the "apa::journal" in [[mediawiki:citation styles]]. What we also need would be an example of the same page, one using citations, one using one of those "nasty templates", and one using a normal set of citations (though the last might be obnoxious to put together, so I won't hold you against for not having that example), so we can can get a feeling for the difference in load time (and possibly an example with those cite templates which have been made which eliminate the coins metadata in the html).

Nice work, and good initiative. --Izno (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made "duplicates" of the two sample pages using manually typed and transcluded tempaltes.
The medium is implicit e.g. if "journal" is passed as an attribute then the journal template is used. See the example journals on the Malcom X page.
It might make sense to split the templates up as you suggest. That would depend on their size. The tempaltes are processed only once per page and the overhead of including all of the templates in one file is very little. The greater portion of the time it takes to get and process files like that is usually the time it takes to make the request for the file itself so trimming it to make it smaller may not be be a meaningful win.
The coins data is left in the template example but is not present in the enhancement to Cite.php being demo'd. I would be very little to add. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you misinterpreted the request regarding COinS; I'm referring to the large discussion at WT:Citing sources/Archive 27#Making pages faster to load wherein it was found that removing the COinS data from T:Citation would reduce page load significantly; I want to see if <ref> with this new format you're creating would beat even the reduced citation templates (which are mentioned somewhere in that discussion) out in page load, and then what would happen if we did include coins data... perhaps another parameter like "coins='yes'" (which would render the appropriate html) to see what happens—though I'm hesitant to ask for that functionality, as that would be something which I'm not sure WP needs (per the discussion). Up to you on inclusion of COinS in the extension.
Would the MediaWiki pages be cached? I can see that aiding in this endeavor, and I suspect that's where the speed boost would come most from...
Re: Medium: Duh. -_- --Izno (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a speed test section. It compares plain text, the new format <ref> tags, and the ordinary citation templates (with and without COinS data). It uses a dummy article with 100 citations. The article is identical for each version. The difference in loading times between the "nasty" templates and the new-format <ref> tags is noticable. I cannot determine a difference between the plain text version and the new-format <ref> tags by eye (but I suspect there is one were to you actually measure it).
You will have to click Clear the cache! to see the effect. As you guessed, caching eliminate the difference. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland

[edit]

FWIW, Germany was 're-united' in 1990. East Germany & West Germany (not their offical names) were created in 1949. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on the issue of Irish RU flag

[edit]

You are receiving this message as you previous participated in a Irish rugby flag related discussion (WP:RUIRLFLAG). There is an ongoing discussion which may interest you here and a poll which may provide a definite answer on the matter :Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Poll:_Should_Irish_RU_teams_have_an_icon.3F Gpeilon (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jz84

[edit]

Hello, RA. Before I say anything I want you to know that I'm not calling you a bully. I wouldn't do that. ;) Don't you think though that the criticism of Jz84 is going on a little too long? He would be surprised to hear me`say that as we have had our differences in the past. You obviously don't have to listen to me but I do think whatever admin actions he took before on the`article should be let go now and we can just go forward with the discussion on the article page (I know you didn't pull him up on it). I also see that you were saying he was canvassing. I don't know if he was or not as I wouldn't know the opinions beforehand of the editors he posted to. Would you have been sure of their opinions before they made them known? Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw Jeni's comments/ANI thread when I went to post my own comments about canvassing. I don't think there was any great act of disruption in his editing of the template (he did so in good faith, I believe). I was very surprised that he would canvass though. That's not on.
The appropriate way to notify the community of the !voting that is happening would have been to notify a community noticeboard (which he later did) or to notify editors that have posted comments on the matter earlier. It is not appropriate to notify three specific editors who had not previously taken part in the discussion, adding (apparently in a vain attempt to cover his arse): "As a public disclaimer, of course, I have no idea what your views may be...". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it was but you've told him your opinion and life goes on. No excuses if he was but I do think he was feeling the pressure from the accusations against him of using his admin status to edit the template. I guess I must be feeling in a good mood tonight, defending those I believe are under a wee bit of pressure. I must be a good guy after all. :) Jack forbes (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. We all do inappropriate things sometimes. Even me (I must be in a good mood too!). 'Tis no biggie. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

[edit]

IMOS

[edit]

That's great. Will be so handy to be able to point to that instead of banging my head off a wall constant repeating myself Gnevin (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a look Gnevin (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

[edit]


Hello, Tóraí. You have new messages at Gnevin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ireland flag discussion on Feb 11th

[edit]

I have just spent a while in the editing of a post and by the time I had posted it, you had responded to an earlier post I had made. I wanted to let you know that I was not ignoring your message in my subsequent post, I simple did not see your posting until I had submitted. Kwib (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call for consensus/conclusion to current Ireland rugby union team icon

[edit]

Hello, I am contacting you because you have been an active participant in the recent discussion on icon to be used for Ireland rugby union. I have tried to summarise the many strands and come to a conclusion based on what I perceive the consensus to be in this section - Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion. To move the issue to a conclusion I am asking all participants who have signed the discussion to read my summary and comment on the validity of the approach I have advocated, before the issue goes cold. I am keen that the enormous efforts of all contributors results in a tangible conclusion on this occasion.Kwib (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby icons

[edit]

Your recent comment on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union notes Newport being from cyg (twice). Cymru is usually noted CYM. Is there any reason for this use? From Cymraeg (Welsh language), perhaps. p.s. I note another contributor to the same debate using upper case to begin the names of England, France etc. but lower case for Wales. Should this continue, would you consider this a banning offence? Daicaregos (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a typo. I was thinking Cymraeg for some reason and so typed "Cyg" and even though I thought it looked strange I didn't correct it. No offense intended.
I don't know about the other editor (I haven't noticed) but do you really think they're doing it as a wind up? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offence taken, just wondered if there was any reason. And yes. Daicaregos (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby barnstar

[edit]
The Rugby Union Barnstar
For your efforts in finally helping to solve the Irish flag issue . For your willingness to discuss the issues not the editiors and for at all times remaining civil. Also for creating this create barnstar image I hearby award you the Rugby barnstar

Gnevin (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who-hoo! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

[edit]

Hi Rannpahairti,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

  • Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
  • In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
  • Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there shouldn't be any automatic baseline after which the bureaucrat "has to" de-admin someone. In time one may develop but I think it is better to start with the basics and allow CDA to develop rather in practice than expecting it is possible to get everything right in one shot. CDA will be something that will develop and change through practice until it is "right" (just like everything else). -- RA (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entitlement to Irish citizenship

[edit]

Can you please revisit your edit here. You have (inadvertently) reintroduced the factual error my qualification of this sentence addressed. From your edit summary, I think you may have misunderstood my quite uncontroversial intent. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry! I appreciate the "uncontroversial intent" :)
I corrected the edit because Irish nationality law is not that people Northern Ireland who are "entitled to British citizenship are also entitled to Irish citizenship". That is certainly one way that a person may claim Irish citizenship however it is incorrect to say that entitlement to Irish citizenship depends on entitlement to British citizenship.
From your edit summary, I take it you mean this in reference to the 2002 referendum. Prior to that referendum, the sole requirenment for entitlement to Irish citizenship on the basis of jus soli was birth on the island of Ireland. (This was out of line with European norm and was brought to the fore owing to issues relating to asylum claims.) Subsequent to that referendum, for a person born on the on the island of Ireland to be an Irish citizenship on the basis of jus soli, one parent would have to have been either an Irish or a British citizen. This brought Irish nationality law in line with the EU norm and parallel to UK law (which has a the same requirement in reverse: one parent must be British or Irish). This change however only affects births post 2002. For all persons born on the island of Ireland prior to 2002, jus soli is not dependent on the parents' citizenship.
It is therefore incorrect to say that "people from Northern Ireland entitled to British citizenship are also entitled to Irish citizenship". A person born anywhere on the island of Ireland prior to 2002 are entitled to Irish citizens. From 2002 onwards at least one parent must be British or Irish. And there are other cases whereby a person may be entitled to Irish citizenship even though they were not born on the island of Ireland. (There is also the matter that thes same issues apply in for "Irish" children born in the UK.) Far better then to simply say that "people from Northern Ireland can have Irish passports" and leave it to the Irish nationality law article to go in the nitty gritty.
(There is also some fuss around the word "entitlement". This is another bane. It does not mean "entitlement" as a person may mean it in day-to-day speech. I, for example, an Irish citizenship with no right to claim any other citizenship, was born merely "entitled" to Irish citizenship (as are all other persons born on the island of Ireland). However, the word "entitlement" (as defiend by law) should not be interpreted to mean that a person was not an Irish citizenship before the "doing something that only an Irish citizen can do", which can be any number of things.) -- RA (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick reading of your interpretation here I see no point I would argue. I accept your further qualification of 'post 2002'. However, the sentence as it now stands is more not less ambiguous than when it included my qualification. It needs a revamp, don't you agree? A simple 'Most people from NI....' shoul be sufficient without going into the nitty gritty.RashersTierney (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article need to run-through. That section is quite an important one IMHO. There are many ways in which ROI/UK and NI/ROI are still bound. It would be good I think to flesh a lot of those out. The article really only concerns the question of "Ireland in the UK" - everything else is better dealt with in the main UK article.
With respect to NI and Irish citizenship, I think "most people" is virtually all. Everyone in NI that can claim British citizenship can claim Irish citizenship. Equally fascinating - and relevant to that article - is when you cross water and count how many Irish people are British citizens (and relate back to, for example, qualification for the ROI soccer squad). -- RA (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general assumption that numbers affected are small flies in the face of the then Minister for Justice's rationale for proposed change which was most certainly based on numbers and perceived avoidance of immigration restrictions. I had a very revealing discussion with a senior Justice policy adviser around that time who emphasized to me that immigration control is always about numbers rather than principle. (I'm paraphrasing) RashersTierney (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The number affected (by the 2002 referendum?) are those who do not have a parent that is (or "entitled" to be) a British or Irish citizen. I don't disagree that the number of people born in Northern Ireland that do not have a such a parent at the time of their birth is not be "small" in absolute terms.
The question is this: in the context of that article would you think it correct to say that "most" people born in Northern Ireland can claim British citizenship? (In the same way that you might say that "most" people born in Scotland can claim British citizenship.) While it is quite correct in terms of UK nationality law (since a not "small" number of people born in NI do not have an British or Irish parent), that is a matter that can be passed over. In the context of the article and we can simply say "people born in Northern Ireland can claim British citizenship" and not worry about the details.
With that in mind, the number of people in NI that can claim Irish citizenship is equal to the number of people in NI who can claim British citizenship (being the same people, since the two are intertwined with the effects that if a person is entitled to one they are entitled to the other). -- RA (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your last point is the one I was trying to convey with my initial edit. How about 'Under the nationality law of the Republic of Ireland, with some exceptions, anyone from Northern Ireland entitled to British citizenship is also entitled to Irish citizenship and so can have an Irish passport or both British and Irish passports should they so wish.' RashersTierney (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it sounds (to me) like they are co-related rather than co-inciding. I'd say, "Under the Irish nationality law anyone born on the island of Ireland to a British or Irish parent can have Irish citizenship and so most children born in Northern Ireland can have a British or an Irish passport (or both). Before 2002, there was no requirement for one parent to be a British or Irish citizen and so all persons born on the island of Ireland before then are entitled to be Irish citizens." -- RA (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats sufficiently comprehensive for the article concerned. Go for it! RashersTierney (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: WikiProject British-Irish Collaboration

[edit]

Wowsers, it doesn't seem to be catching on. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's there should we need it :) -- RA (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the membership. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... it's still there. -- RA (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie. PS- like the new signature presentaton. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easier for you to get your Canuk tongue around? I will still be insisting that you pronounce it "air aww" in the style of the Irish alphabet though. Is that OK? :-P -- RA (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can practice your pronunciation here :O) -- RA (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Air aww, air aww. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Move to the top of the class and pick up a gold star. -- RA (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should make it the venue for the British Isles naming debate, you'll get lots of members then and about 20 + pages of discussion :P Gnevin (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Philip Freeman, Ireland and the Classical World, University of Texas Press, 2001
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tóraí/Archive/Archive_3&oldid=1146573066"