User talk:Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age

Welcome!

Hello, Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!

some pages you really need to read

WP:VERIFY - very little of what you have written has sources meeting WP:RS, and when unsourced material is removed it normally should not be replaced without sources meeting WP:RS

WP:NOR Editor's own analyses are not appropriate in our articles. Anything that reflects your opinion would be fine in an essay, but not a Wikipedia article.

WP:NPOV - read that with care also please.

Finally, is your material copied from elsewhere? Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this at WP:NORN. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Chamith (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Wikipedia pages belong to all editors

Anyone can edit an article. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them. Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair point, but what happened in this instance is that others did not challenge or develop the page in question, it was simply removed and replaced with material that was demonstrably misleading. Comprehensive coverage of the source scrolls was replaced by a claim that they do not exist.

I'm quoting you here from elsewhere : You didn't actually create the page, although you did "upload" a lot of material. I am the one who removed it, with an edit summary saying "removing a load of pov text, unsourced, original research, etc - looks like someone may have added their essay to it. I'll put some links on your page. I'm also concerned about the possibility it was copied from somewhere. We consider R. A. Stewart Macalister a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by your first point, I believe I am responsible for every word of it as it currently stands. You need not worry about it being copied, it was written to redress the usual calumniation which characterized the former page as that was deterring respectable interest in the evidence surrounding this matter. Regarding R. A. Stewart Macalister, can I ask with respect if you read the page before removing it? It dwells on the evidence that Macalister could not have read anything more of the chronicle than the calumniation of an earlier critic as he simultaneously repeats the same fundamental blunders of earlier critics concerning the language, authorship and content of the chronicle. He was not even reviewing the chronicle in the much quoted extract, but rather another work partly premised upon it. [He was discharged from his religion led archaeological work in the Holy land for shoddy practice].

Under these circumstances may I suggest you might seek a more reliable source for your point of view? A problem here though is that there is next to no credible research into the chronicle, [except some low grade stuff from those who judged it authentic] which presents unique challenges in prioritizing your no original research criteria. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you write "there is next to no credible research into the chronicle", this presents no particular problem to Wikipedia - it merely ensures that our article will contain next to nothing about the chronicle, and that what it does contain will be sourced to what little credible research is available. We don't publish original research from random contributors just to fill pages... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elucidate your position on the following question. The former page on the chronicle which clearly illustrated the provenance of its source scrolls has been displaced by another which seeks to mislead the public into the claim that they do not exist. This page update has been approved by wiki moderators with all hostile page tags removed. The author has nonetheless been advised that their claim that the source scrolls do not exist appears to contravene wikis stated policy against misinformation. What is your position?

you can see a little more of this nonsense here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Chronicles_of_Eri Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My only position is that Wikipedia articles comply with policy. If you can provide evidence from published reliable sources that the chronicles do in fact exist, we can add this to the article. So far, all I've seen is a link asserting that "A roll bearing lettering stated by Roger O'Connor in his Chronicles of Eri to be the laws of Eri in the Phoenician dialect of the Scythian language" can be found at the John Rylands Library. [1] If that is true (which seems plausible), all it tells is is that O'Connor claimed that this document is a part of the chronicles - it isn't in any way whatsoever evidence that the document is actually anything of the sort. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you deem the National library of Ireland not to be sufficiently reliable for your requirements I can only suggest you examine the original yourself as this would appear to be the only means of satisfying you on the point you make as the primitive form of Gaelic is found nowhere outside'chronicles of eri' and it alludes to places such as Gaalag only rendered as such in the chronicle. It is not really material that this may only be a small fraction of the whole- When the scroll is eventually dated, a single source which if found to long predate O'Connor changes the equation.

The evidence is there whatever reasons you chose to dismiss it. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The National library of Ireland does not state that the document concerned is part of the chronicles. As for the remainder of your comments, what source are you citing for the assertions that it contains a "primitive form of Gaelic is found nowhere outside'chronicles of eri' and it alludes to places such as Gaalag only rendered as such in the chronicle"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited here is the scroll itself when examined in Manchester, if you are not near there the perhaps the library staff can help you with this. You will not be allowed to see it without special arrangement. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'The scroll itself' isn't a reliable source for anything. It is a primary-source document that only O'Connor asserts has any connection with any supposed 'chronicles'. As for seeing the scroll myself, this would achieve precisely nothing. Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, and not on contributor's original research. Given your evident inability to comprehend this simple statement, I am not going to waste further time on this matter. Policy has been amply explained, and the article will comply with policy. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you judge your protocols require you to dismiss primary sources with such arrogant claptrap? Happy Christmas

re Third Opinion request

Hello: I've removed the Third Opinion request you posted. This feature is limited to those discussions where only two editors are discussing. (Also, the issue you presented is difficult to understand.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting

Can I ask you please, when posting on talk pages and forums, to indent your post when responding to another editor. You indent by beginning your post with a colon (:), or, if the previous post is already indented, by typing one colon more than the previous one. Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, I have indented one place here by typing a colon at the start of the line. Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I have indented two places here by typing two colons. Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I want to thank you for using the colons. However, I neglected to say that, if you press "Enter" and start a new line, you have to start the new line with the colon(s) as well. That includes, for instance, if you add your signature in a separate line (which, by the way, you don't have to do). I fixed the colons here. If you click on the version on the left, you will see that the posts at the end of the section are all over the place, whereas in the version on the right they are nicely indented, so you can see at once which post is which, and who wrote it, and who they were responding to. That's why I'm "fussed about it." Thank you again for taking it on board. Scolaire (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for remembering. But, if you look at the diff, you'll see that (a) you only added same number of colons as me, instead of one more, and (b) you only added the colons once, although you pressed "Enter" twice after that. The colons need to be added on each new line. Scolaire (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Eri

You are talking a lot on the NOR noticeboard about what you are going to do in the future. May I offer a suggestion? At the very top of the page, after your user name and the link to Talk, there is a link named "Sandbox". If you click on that, you will open a blank page entitled "User:Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age/Sandbox". You can use this page to develop the Chronicles of Eri article without interference from anyone. When you are satisfied that you have achieved something that is encyclopaedic and in conformity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you can link to it from Talk:Chronicles of Eri, and editors with an interest in the article will be able to review it and tell you whether they think it is suitable for copying into the article itself, either as it is or with some edits. This will avoid wholesale reverts, edit-wars and endless arguments. I hope very much that you will follow this advice, because there could be trouble if you make large-scale edits like before without getting agreement about it in advance. Cheers, Scolaire (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And not wanting to pour cold water on it from the start, but you'll want to be careful how you word it. You won't be able to make the bold statement that it warrants re-evaluation unless you can provide a reliable, post-1941 source as saying that it does. I'm guessing from the fact that you haven't brought it up that you are aware that Guy L'Estrange's Dear Earthling would not be considered a reliable source. Scolaire (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the advice concerning the above matters. I'm beginning to wonder if anything I propose will not be judged an unacceptable opinion. Its simply the evidence that appears to suggest the need for further research - not sure whether its worth pursuing further given the likely response. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]