User talk:Brianlacey

Hello! Feel free to make any comments you like! Brianlacey 17:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

since nobody else has done this yet... Welcome!

Hello, Brianlacey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Thanks very much Holocron! Although, I have to admit that Longhair's already welcomed me and I deleted it - was that rude of me?! oops! Anyway, I'm sure you'd agree with me that wikipedia is a fantastic venture, and I'm honoured to be a part of it! This is what the internet's all about! Brian 22:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all concidered rude. I should have checked the edits history, I'm new myself, started the first of the month.--Holocron 03:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then welcome to you too, Holocron. Nice to see you're patrolling the place! 145.229.156.40 14:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subjunctive Mood

Hi Ancheta Wis, I was just reading your following comment on the subjunctive, and although I agree with you in principle that it should be retained, I'm not sure if I follow your exact argument as shown...

the English language badly needs to retain the subjunctive mood! I fear for countries that are giving up its usage. How else might one state things that are not yet true and yet very much need to be discussed? What other mechanisms of language might there be to work things out?

Could you maybe give me a couple of examples of how the subjunctive is used like that in English (excluding "I wish I were...)? Thanks, Brian 09:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian, some examples can be seen in Jose Rizal, where he submits the Agenda of the Propaganda Movement to Spain. In this case, the Agenda does not exist, so everything is hypothetical. Thus subjunctive is a proper construction: "That the Philippines be a province of Spain". 'Another example might be this sentence.' "'Would you be a dear, and fetch me that pen? Thanks.' "If you were to see what I meant, then you could make even more examples." I have to admit that I do not understand the jussive mode, as I never knew about it before wikipedia. But it may be (note the subjunctive) that "God save our noble Queen" is jussive mode. I do not know (note the indicative mode). --Ancheta Wis 14:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for that response. I agree that the first example ("Philippines") is the jussive subjunctive, and that the second ("if you were to see") is the hypothetical subjunctive, but I have to disagree about "would you be a dear", as to me that's a simple conditional interrogative. I feel dizzy using such big words this late in the afternoon! Do you mind if I mention it on the Subjunctive discussion page to see what other people think? Brian 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - just one more comment! You said But it may be (note the subjunctive) that... but that definately isn't the subjunctive! Be is used there because may is a modal verb which is followed by the bare infinitive. The only time the subjunctive is used after the word but is when it has the meaning of "although". For example, the Bible verse "but he were dead, yet shall he live", and further note that it's the past subjunctive even though it refers to present time! For such a simple form, the English Subjunctive is one complicated little thing! Brian 16:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe one reason that the subjunctive lives on in English is as a result of many lyrical passages in our culture; for example, in the show Carousel, the song If I loved you:
"If I loved you, words wouldn't flow in an easy way, round in circles I'd go. ... "

Since the subjunctive is the mood for imagination, emotion, and also free and unfettered thought, this mood is proper for scientific thinking, where one thinks 'out of the box' in order to come up with new knowledge. I believe the subjunctive is vital. But my knowledge of it is informal. I seem to have learned it at age 10-12 years. Since American high schools actively propagate Broadway musical shows, they seem to teach the subjunctive as an added benefit, and teenagers love the lyrics, of course. --Ancheta Wis 12:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, of course, bring up your thoughts on the Subjunctive thought page! We need to uphold the subjunctive. 12:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Quebec / Northern Ireland

Hi QuartierLatin, Just as a matter of interest, what's your basic stance on the issue of Quebec independance? Are you for it or against it? (I'm honestly not looking to get into an argument - just interested!) Brian 12:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the question is very complex. Québec is a nation, and independence is an option that belongs to it by right. On the other hand, I think it would be unwise for the Québécois to try to establish an independent state on the basis of a 51% yes vote. The real contest will be for the allegiance of the enfants du loi 101 – once they can be won to the notion that Québec, not Canada, is their nation, then the battle's won. For selfish reasons, I also like Québec in Confederation because they're a good example to the rest of the country. Canada has built its unique social model in part thanks to the influence of Québec labour unions, student groups, feminists, and so on. (In the event of sovereignty, I do think that Nunavik and perhaps James Bay should have the option of becoming a new Canadian territory, should they so desire.) But to answer your question more directly, if I were a Québécois and I were voting in the next referendum on sovereignty, I would vote yes. QuartierLatin1968 16:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll admit for reasons that will become clear that my question was a slightly loaded one, although I have to absolutely stress that I'm not looking to get into a debate, and nomatter what your answer to this second question may be, I'll not respond in anyway other than to thank you for answering! - I just want to give food for thought, as is the nature of encyclopedias! I noticed on your Userpage that you say you're an Irish Republican. If Quebec is distinct from the rest of Canada and therefore a plausible candidate for independence, why would you want to lump Northern Ireland (with its own distinct culture and history) in with the Republic of Ireland? Would you not prefer to advocate self-determination rather than Republicanism? Brian 18:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aha! All becomes clear. :-) You're right, Northern Ireland (and in particular, the northeast of Ireland) is culturally quite different from the South. Indeed, I can see an argument for believing the "British" community of Northern Ireland to be a distinct 'Protestant Irish nation'. But remember that if there is a 'Protestant Irish nation', these are nations living side by side, in every county and town of Northern Ireland. You cannot separate them; no line of partition would satisfy. The current border's a mess: why is Derry cut off from Donegal, a clear part of its natural hinterland? why is Newry in NI? why are Monaghan and Armagh in different countries? But you can't split the difference either; the result would be equally vexing. So there's an overarching need for Orange/Green reconciliation, first and foremost. You cannot build a United Ireland on the basis of support from only one community, any more than it has been possible to build a United Kingdom on the basis of only one community. This is why the Good Friday Agreement is essential: it creates a different dynamic from the "either Dublin or London" mentality and challenges people of both communities to imagine themselves with common institutions and symbols. And this is why the process has stalled: faced with that challenge, both Unionists and Republicans have balked, held back, delayed, tried to hang on to their old fiefs and shibboleths. But that process must go on, sacred cows notwithstanding, because the Union won't work without reconciliation and neither will a United Ireland. There's also the fact tacitly admitted by everybody, at least in unguarded moments, that the 'Protestant Irish nation' or (as it self-identifies) the British community is rooted in Ireland. This is what's unique and special about the Ulster British: their roots are in Scotland and England but they've developed their own definite community characteristics on the soil of Ireland. And as an outsider looking in (I'm a North American of [Northern] Irish descent), it amazes me how much is strikingly similar about both sides – how much is Irish, if you like, in the British community; how much is Scottish in the local Irish community, and so on. Tim Collins makes a similar point about the experience of Irish soldiers (from North and South) serving together overseas. I don't get that feeling much about Québec. You can't set foot in that country without feeling yourself to be in a very different place from English Canada – a nation all its own. Its literature, cinema, cuisine, music – everything is just so distinct. I love it, but it's not mine. As Duceppe always says of Québec, ni supérieur ni inférieur mais différent. It's a different scenario from Ireland. So I do support the principle of consent, as do practically all Irish Republicans nowadays. Cross-community reconciliation is the sine qua non – but at the end of the day, I think that people across the island will recognize that more unites them than divides them. (But I also think Ireland has much more in common with Scotland, and other parts of Britain, than is typically admitted in nationalist circles.) QuartierLatin1968 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to say that I am definately impressed! For someone not from the province you certainly have a clear grasp of the situation here. I really appreciate your taking the time to answer, and so thoroughly too! Just one point of clarification I would make, though! The vast majority (myself being in the minority) of the Protestants that I know would not classify themselves as Irish because they identify that word with Irish Republicanism and ofcourse the Republic of Ireland. Even the term Northern Irish isn't often heard, which means that most people simply identify themselves as British. (Even the logical halfway house British Irish doesn't get heard!) I wonder what they'd call themselves if the United Kingdom were to dissolve?! Anyway, cheers for that input, dude! Slán leat, Brian 19:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, man! It's great to have confirmation from somebody that I'm not totally off my nut! :-) Well, what can I say, I listen to Talk Back. Thank heaven for the BBC in bringing the world together! (You know, your government ought to tax us foreigners; they're providing a brilliant service to us for free.) But yeah – thanks for listening to my thoughts with patience and an open mind. QuartierLatin1968 21:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (I wonder if Hiberno-British would ever catch on? Britanno-Ultonian?)

Image copyright problem with Image:Stthomasbelfastinside.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Stthomasbelfastinside.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright stthomasbelfastinside.jpg

Hi Carnildo, thanks very much for the message. The image was taken by the Rector or St Thomas' but is free to use by anyone for the purposes of promoting the church, etc. I'm not particularly sure how to go about changing the photo to indicate that!

Images with restrictions such as "for promotional use only" are not acceptable for Wikipedia. They can't be re-used by anyone else, and if Wikipedia's coverage of the subject is negative, it's hard to claim it's "promotional". --Carnildo 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for votes

Hey Brian, I was wondering if you could do me a wiki-favour... I've been trying to get outside input on whether an article should be listed as Pushpa Kamal Dahal or Prachanda (he's the leader of the Nepalese Maoists). I realize this is unlikely to fall into your expertise, but that's partly why I'm asking you: you seem like a good 'neutral outsider'. Would you mind checking out the talk page and casting a vote? Obviously I'm not asking you to vote the same way as me; I've just been trying to get people interested in the question. (The article's talk page is currently slanted my way, but you can read some counter-arguments on User talk:TJive and User talk:QuartierLatin1968.) Thanks! Quartier Latin1968 21:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stthomasbelfastinside.jpg

Hi Carnildo, I think perhaps my lack of copyright technical jargon has led to my not explaining myself properly on this issue! You said... Images with restrictions such as "for promotional use only" are not acceptable for Wikipedia. They can't be re-used by anyone else, and if Wikipedia's coverage of the subject is negative, it's hard to claim it's "promotional". --Carnildo 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ...however, when I say it's for the purposes of promoting the church, I simply mean that the photo was taken to give anyone interested in the church a chance to see what it looks like inside, whether that be on its internal publicity or wherever, including wikipedia! The person who took the photo claims no legal authority over it whatsoever, it's just out there to be used by whomever, whenever! However, I can see how confusion would arise through my choice of wording!

If the creator is really allowing "whomever, whenever, and for whatever purpose", including such uses as advertising or rants against the church, then the proper license tag is {{NoRightsReserved}}. If negative and unrelated uses are not allowed, then the photo can't be used on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 21:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel down - Keep up the great work

Listen Carnildo, I've been keeping an eye on the whole arbcom thing, and I noticed your comment on how you feel you must have annoyed enough people over image copyright to preclude you from any popularity. I just wanted to say that although nobody is ever going to be particularly pleased about having an image deleted, I would like to think that the enlightened sort of people who are a part of this online encyclopedia would appreciate that your intention is not to piss people off but rather to ensure the continued existence of this fantastic endeavour. And although I may have thought a few choice expletives when you deleted my own image I absolutely respect and commend your reasons for doing what you do. I'm sure that this experience will leave a nasty taste in your mouth, but as one wikipedia user to another, I honestly hope you stay with us. Brian 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't seen the sort of resentment OrphanBot's image removals have produced, or the sheer scale that it works on. Over the past month, OrphanBot has removed 16,992 images from articles, uploaded by approximately 11,000 different users, and is continuing to remove images at a rate of about 300-400 a day.

OrphanBot has notified 7,179 users of impending image deletions, and I usually get the blame when the images are deleted -- after all, my name's the one on the warning, they can't check the deletion history, and they don't know about the deletion log. I frequently also get blamed for tagging images, and I've been accused of all sorts of other things -- see OrphanBot's user page for a partial list.

I've currently got two emails from irate users sitting in my inbox, and I get regular accusations of vandalism on my talk page. I haven't checked Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that I've been listed there, too. I've had ten users and three anons deliberately trigger the bot's emergency shutoff feature not because the bot was malfunctioning, but because they didn't like that it was enforcing policy. There's at least one user who sees my bot (and by extension, me) as a menace to Wikipedia on a par with Willy on Wheels.

If a re-application for adminship were judged only by administrators, or only by contributors with over 1000 edits, I might have a chance of a fair evaluation. With anyone and everyone allowed to come by, I don't stand a chance. --Carnildo 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your link to seaQuest

Hello there...

I have a passion for cleaning up links from redirect pages, and I was working on seaQuest DSV redirects. Your link to seaQuest is to a redirect page. The page is at "seaQuest DSV". Please change it when you can.

Lady Aleena 09:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norn Iron

Hi, just to let you know about the Wikipedia:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ervine

That link you gave doesnt say he is dead. Please give me a source that he does as I have to revert the article without one, SqueakBox 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a ref now http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0107/breaking36.htm and have resored your version. good work! SqueakBox 21:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Brianlacey! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 51 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Wilfred Harrington - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brianlacey1.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brianlacey1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St Peter's Church, Belfast, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Archdiocese of Armagh and Diocese of Connor (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) 10:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of St Peter's Church, Belfast

The article St Peter's Church, Belfast has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no body at all, and we cannot have an article with simply an Infobox. Please promptly add a least a basic few sentences (with sourcing) about the building and its importance, or else move it to your sandbox (using the "Move" button up by your Search box at top of screen)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, please don't launch an article until at least the basic structure is built. Either work on it at your Sandbox or at Article Wizard. An article in actual mainspace has to be at least a basic level of polish. Please either swiftly improve this to have at least a paragraph of body, or else move to your WP:Sandbox. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]