User talk:Dunlavin Green

British Isles

Wow, I thought IP.86.xx.xxx gave colorful speeches. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the great orator has registered-in. Jolly good. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please create an article called Britain and Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
_____________________________
Hi Dunlavin, I didnt mean to be rude by not replying to your post on the British Isles talk page - the replies were all about something I know nothing about (Dee), so I kept out of it.
First, I do want to say - and I'm not sure how relevant this is but I'll say it and get it out of the way: I wouldn't consider myself nationalistic, and (absolutely no offence intended) am pretty wary of patriotism in general.
I agree fully that (as you say): this term is rejected in Ireland and that fact should have primacy in the article To me simply the fact it is objected to at this level is enough to require primacy as a matter of respect.
As per my most recent post (08:31, 14 Sept) the possible disambiguation page does nothing to further this - but I still think it would be a helpful move for the page in general.
The following is probably not necessary (but I wrote it as much for myself as anyone else). Re the British Isles page:-
To me it's clear (mostly I think very similar to what you said in your post):

- the term exists and is used so there is a WP page about it;

- it's objected to (at the highest level possible in the context) so there is (well, should be) courteous acknowledgement of same. I believe courteous acknowledgement involves acknowledgement of the dissent before the page proper starts, be it even simply a link to the name debate page or something to say many Irish object etc.

There is nothing I have read in the WP guidelines that really covers this situation (acknowledgement of dissent - would we call it *valid* dissent) - I've followed a lot of links at this stage from people claiming they relevant to this topic. Is there no precedent in all of Wikipedia's articles? - I guess there is not going to be anything that's exactly the same, but surely in the whole world (and in WP) there must be comparable examples... Tomosullivan (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Union

Dunlavin, I just have to ask you one question, why is it that Ireland's membership of the European Union and it's resulting loss of sovereignty doesn't gall you as much as it's physical presence in the northwest Atlantic archipelago officially named the British Isles? A bit like Martin McGuinness objecting to the Union Jack yet flying the Vatican flag, despite the oppressive domination of the Catholic church in southern Ireland up until recent times. Christian Brothers schools are just one example of the power the Church wielded over the Irish people. This isn't an attack against Catholics-I attend Mass weekly.But they did run the show in Ireland for a good long while.--jeanne (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious aswell. PS- I don't attend Mass (I'm an athiest). GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, you don't realise what you're missing. I went to Mass last Sunday, and not only did I take Holy Communion, but I confessed as well. (You do recall the image on my talk page? Hee hee).--jeanne (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Moving History of the British Isles to History of Great Britain

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war like you did in these edits. [1] [2] [3] Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to move History of the British Isles to History of Great Britain you must take the issue to Wikipedia:Requested moves. On Wikipedia you cannot copy-paste text from one article to another. Besides being stupid it violates GFDL. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me where, in the Wikipedia:Requested moves page was the original request that changed this page from History of Great Britain to History of the British Isles? When you show me that I will gladly take my request there. And it is really unbecoming to go around firing the word 'stupid' at others, even in his adjectival form. Dunlavin Green (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any registered user on Wikipedia can move pages using the move function without consulting anyone else. (You might still be overruled and reverted by others.) This is however only possible if the target name is empty or a simple redirect. What you cannot do is move content from one article to another by cut and paste. If the target already exists you must ask for adminstrator assistance. If the move is politically controversal, no move will go through without a consensus.

As for the history of History of Great Britain, see here. The article has been a redirect to History of the United Kingdom or History of Britain from 18 August 2006 when I moved the old content to The History of Great Britain. The article History of the British Isles was moved from History of Britain on 29 August 2006, after this discussion on the talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That "discussion" was spilt 50/50 on changing the name: 2 persons each. There was no vote, no notification sent to editors and consequently no authority for the change, a change which has simply duplicated the content of the History of Ireland article in order to "British Isles" an Irish article. Indeed, all of this was pointed out in the sebsequent edit conflicts where the person who changed the article claimed consensus when the record shows, clearly, there was no such thing. Dunlavin Green (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dún Aonghusa

Regarding this article, I notice you've changed the spelling of the name to Dún Aonghasa within the article. Is this a case of it should be at the later spelling, but you can't move the page due to it already existing as a redirect? If so, let me know and I'll delete the page with the correct spelling and move the article for you. Ta. Canterbury Tail talk 17:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI please see User talk:Sarah777#Dún Aonghasa --PBS (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted, fair enough. Canterbury Tail talk 11:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out

Linfield FC doesn't seem to have as comprehensive a 'controversy' section as Gaelic Athletic Association. What say we do something about it? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Please be aware that the British Isles topic is under probation on wikipedia (see WP:GS/BI). That means that policies will be strictly enforced in this area. Your recent edits to Talk:British Isles [4][5][6][7] have been brought to my attention I will remind you that wikipedia is not a forum and not a soapbox. Please refrain from discussing teh subject of articles and stick to discussing sources. Also do not make assumptions about the motivations of other editors that is a breach of WP:AGF. Civility and talk page polcies will be strictly enforced. Wikipedia is not a battleground don't use it's articles or talk-space as such--Cailil ^talk 03:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Languages of the British Isles, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Doc talk 13:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for You have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts per evidence here. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Cailil ^talk 20:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]