Jump to content

Talk:National Day of Commemoration

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

Reverts

[edit]

Yet another appeal to user Murry1975 to discuss rather than attack.

Please stop reverting my edits without rationale. If you do not attempt to discuss the problem you have, then I cannot help you reach any kind of compromise or solution. As you have given me no such reason, my only recourse is to reinsert the edit I had made. I will stop re-adding my edit, once you have entered into objective, rational discussion, and stop throwing out insults.

Please abide.

(Dalriata111) --75.182.54.240 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited as per WP:IMOS. Murry1975 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for those who would like the guideline
"where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating to states, politics or governance) where "Ireland" should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the "island of Ireland" or similar."
Aswell as per WP:BRD, after being revert, you two IPs are meant to start the discussion. Murry1975 (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So here goes. This commemoration takes place in the Republic of Ireland. Let's be clear on that, and let's ensure the readers know. So to cloud the issue by stating just Ireland is not good. IMOS is a guideline, not a rule to be slavishly adopted. You look as though you're engaging in s slow edit war. 86.23.56.107 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:BRD was agreed so as to avoid these stupid edit wars. The explanation provided above explains the rationale behind picking which term to put in an article. The article appears to be about the state (forming a major part of the topic) and there doesn't appear to be any potential confusion with the island or with Northern Ireland. What is your rationale for preferring "Rebublic of Ireland"? Your reason appears to be that you don't want to follow the guidelines because it is not a rule. Is there any other reason? Are you simply trying to "make a stand"? ---- HighKing++ 21:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 86.23.56.107, with regard to the idea of clarity.
As for your reference to WP:BRD - I point that out to you myself, as you continually failed to respond to either my edit summaries, or my comments on talk pages. It's pretty much summarized on my talk page, if anyone cares to look. I'm not suggesting that what I have there is complete, but it's what I've found so far, wasting time looking at the history of our edits.
HighKing, the article (to me) didn't appear to be about the state at all. That's why I went to the bother of actually researching it outside of Wikipedia, and coming to the conclusion that it was an event that apparently takes place ONLY and SOLELY in the Republic, and not in Northern Ireland. Why would I waste my time otherwise, other than to try to provide clarity for other readers, who may not have any knowledge on the subject whatsoever?
I want to follow the guidelines, and I think it's poor form of you to accuse me of anything other than that: I have laid out my rationale many times. Each time I'm met with the intransigent, "Ireland is the name of the state, so nyah, nyah". At least, that's how it appears to me. Suggesting there is no other reason is also offensive, and doesn't presume Good Faith. Further suggesting "trying to make a stand" is also lacking assumption of Good Faith, and a further insult. Likewise, it could equally be applied to Mr Murry1975, though I don't see your accusation leveled his way.
You have also ignored, completely, the statement I made to Murry1975 about his or her failure to communicate.
Please people, this is not a pissing contest. This is simply a matter of logic and clarity.
You have obviously read some of the editing history, due to the fact that you obliquely say, "Your reason appears to be that you don't want to follow the guidelines because it is not a rule." My point about rules and guidelines was in response to Murry1975 suggesting that I couldn't make a specific edit because it was against the rules. So I looked up the rules, and found they were guidelines.
Now he, and presumably also you HighKing (I have to say that I detect a certain bias right from the offset, unfortunately) may choose to keep on drumming the rules, regulations, guidelines or what ever, and appearing to be intransigent (dare I say "making a stand"?). However, I will counter every time with the fact that I am being 'bold': if I see something that doesn't seem to work, then how else would I go about attempting to change it for the better? We may disagree, of course, on what is "better". And that's fine. I'm OK with that. But the idea of actually discussing, and then possibly improving - as I have continuously attempted to do - appears to be what Wikipedia sets itself forth to be about.
So, if we could get over the perceived reasons why, the assumptions about making a stand (against what, exactly?) and the name-calling, I would very much prefer to discuss the issue itself.
Also note that you are correct about the category not existing, HighKing. I shall correct that, and create categories for both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

--Dalriata111 (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the various misplaced accusations of bias and name-calling, I still don't get any logic from you other than "the event takes place solely in the Republic therefore it should say Republic of Ireland", followed by some vague and undefined reasons why the IMOS guidelines aren't workable for this article. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me that you disagree with the consensus worked out previously. You've now two editors telling you that the guidelines appear to apply to this article. If you wish to reopen talk on the guidelines, then we should be discussing this on the IMOS talk page. If there's something specific about this article that results in the guidelines not being applicable, then please clarify or produce reasons beyond the one you've provided. Finally, please remember that although IMOS is a set of guidelines, without those guidelines we end up with these lame edit wars, and the guidelines were decided through consensus. Yes, there can be exceptions and maybe this could be one (with appropriate reasoning) but right now it is unclear. ---- HighKing++ 14:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dalriata, as per guidelines, can YOU explain YOUR edit? And as per BRD and your bold edit, the cycle is bold->revert->discuss not BRRRRD on your part. Murry1975 (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just put it back. No convincing arguments have been put forward to use Ireland rather than the unambiguous name of the state to which it applies.
The version before it was edited out? And kept out? BRD. Consensus is use Ireland, you have failed to prove otherwise. Murry1975 (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Total mentions of Republic on page before edit war one (catergories), Total mention of Republic being put forward 2. Total mentions of Ireland 17, 2 in catergories. BTW there is no unambiguous name, the state has only but one name. Murry1975 (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a point of view. It is also widely known as the Republic of Ireland. See the name of the article for heavens sake! 82.26.216.150 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a change of IP. Still the same editor. Murry1975 (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the version that is in line with IMOS. That doesn't mean discussion is finished - discussion can continue here - but can we move past the tired "Ireland is the official name" VS "Republic of Ireland widely known" discussion. The proper place for that discussion is at the IMOS talk page, not here. The editors requesting the change have been given an opportunity to put forward an argument or reasoning on why this article should not follow the IMOS guidelines, and have (for whatever reason) decided not to engage in a meaningful way. By way of disclosure, I'm very sceptical of anon IP addresses and a new editor turning up making contentious edits in an area that has, in the past, attracted much edit warring and resulted in many blocked editors and the uncovering of sock accounts. The editing style shown is reminiscent of those times, in my opinion, the community has a low tolerence for this behaviour. I'm trying not to let my scepticism get in the way, but for that to happen, I'd like to see some meaningful engagement on the topic of *this article*, and why *this article* should get special treatment and not follow IMOS. -- HighKing++ 11:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was the bold so why do we have it re-added WITHOUT consensus? Show where this has changed? Two editors, by the quack a ARBCOM banned one, and another who uses IPs so his edits cant be traced to his account, revert without actually showing why or even seeing the edits have made redlinks. Murry1975 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editors Murry75 and HighKing are simply trying to make a point. I suspect they don't like the term Republic or Ireland and are targeting articles containing it. Certainly that's how it is with Murry75 when you look at his history. This article was just on his list. I already said; Republic or Ireland is the correct description and it's unambiguous. Putting "Ireland" can mean one of three things, the island, the Republic or two states. it's stupid to use it here. 86.25.12.125 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So your idea is to simply insist that you're right, and everyone else is wrong. Forget about IMOS. Forget that it represents a consensus agreed by many editors. Forget about even trying to make a case for changing this article, or even trying to argue that IMOS needs changing on the IMOS page. Unfortunately for you, the wheels might move slowly - but they do move. And your behaviour just won't be tolerated. The argument you've put forward "Republic of Ireland is right, Ireland is wrong" has been dealt with at IMOS. As has already been explained (here and in the guidelines), we use Ireland where the article is predominantly about the state, and there's little chance it can be interpreted as anything else. But to be honest, I don't even know why we're even bother with this charade. It's obvious you know your way around here and you're familiar with how all this works, and in all likelihood, you've been banned in the past from this topic. You think you can get away with breaching 3RR because you're on Virgin Media or one of those other crappy ISP's that can be manipulated to generate IP addresses seemingly from a range of locations. -- HighKing++ 19:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So its okay for you to break 3RR is it? And, on top of that you're informally working with another editor to push your point of view. I just read IMOS and it mentions something about avoiding confusion in this matter. That's what I'm trying to do. 86.25.12.125 (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your first edit on the tp mentions IMOS, yet you only read it now? No, you are by habit and language Factocop, using different ISPs in the London area to stalk, BjMullan, myself and Highking over the course of our time on here. You have yourself breached an ARBCOM ban on editing ANYTHING on here. Murry1975 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You talk bollocks man! I've never heard of factocop. I just read imos AGAIN, in detail this time.

You originally said that Each time I'm met with the intransigent, "Ireland is the name of the state, so nyah, nyah" and coming to the conclusion that it was an event that apparently takes place ONLY and SOLELY in the Republic, and not in Northern Ireland. I'll attempt to provide a short answer - this has been covered many times before. If you like, I'll dig up a link to the previous discussions, just ask. The name of the state is Ireland. It is not Republic of Ireland. But we certainly use Republiv of Ireland where some disambiguation is required - and some examples have been provided at IMOS so you must have seen them. In my opinion, this article doesn't require any disambiguation as far as I can see. Usage of the word "Ireland" in this article is consistent throughout, and with references to the "coalition government" it can only be referencing the state. Within this article, use of the word Ireland refers to the state. This example is specifically covered in the guidelines. And yes - they are "only" guidelines, but the guidelines were developed with good reason over a long period of time. You really should make a case on why this article should be an exception, and the arguments put forward to date don't meet that test. -- HighKing++ 14:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No sign of any discussion happening. I think the anon IP has disappeared. I'll leave it till tomorrow and if there's no engagement here, I'll put the article back the way it was. -- HighKing++ 23:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've had your engagement above, but here it is again in case you missed it. Ireland is ambiguous. It can mean the island or the state. Clarity is needed here, and by referring to the entity as Republic of Ireland we get just that. I'm sorry if you don't like that name, but there it is. It's better to have something clear with a few dissenters, than unclear and confusing. Your argument about the coalition government doesn't hold water. The subject could still be taken to include Northern Ireland. Neil Edgar (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
National Day of Commemoration, well is the whole island a nation state? If clarity is needed then as encyclopedia we should give clarity. Clarity is the clearness of facts. The states name is Ireland, the islands name is Ireland, this artilce is a about the state and tfacts in this article pretain to the state. The guideline shows when we use Ireland or Republic of Ireland. You have actually, by reasoning for clarity, backed the usage of Ireland, yet expressed the opposite. Murry1975 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK - no new arguments and no arguments specific to this article. Just generic anti-IMOS ranting, and the place for that is at the IMOS page. This discussion should be closed, and one should be opened at the IMOS talk page. I'm reverting the article to the version before this tomfoolery began. -- HighKing++ 09:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "tomfoolery" as you call it, it's accuracy and clarity. I'm putting it back. There has been insufficient input to the debate. Four people in all. Neil Edgar (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is tomfoolery. It's not accuracy. It's insisting on clarity in a situation where IMOS guidelines say that none is needed. Your editing is against consensus. What's more, you don't really care about your WP reputation because the system is so shit at detecting abusers like you. It's a game to you and you're getting a kick when you're abusing the system, using multiple accounts and IP addresses. Your behaviour is disruptive with no attempt to engage, at all, other than reiterating the same point over and over. If the community can't be arsed with this messing from a returned sock, I don't see why I should be. Do what you will. -- HighKing++ 17:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So provide some evidence of your accusations or shut TF up! Neil Edgar (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes so by consensus, it should STAY the way it was. As for the points I made above you no respond. Murry1975 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Compromise: Ireland - y/n ? Neil Edgar (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like this revert you removed?. Murry1975 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, silly me. How did I manage that. By the way, please put back that edit I did on the Memorial Gardens. Check it. You're out of order on that one. Neil Edgar (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on National Day of Commemoration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Day_of_Commemoration&oldid=1206262174"