Jump to content

User talk:Spleodrach/Archive/Archive 005

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


Irish general election template

Hello Snappy. I am currently adding more detailed results to Irish general election articles. For the ones I have done already I have had to replace the Irish general election results templates you developed with a simple wikitable, as the template doesn't work with the additional parties added to the results (such as the Ratepayers' Association, Blind Men's Party etc), and I also can't find a line for registered voters/turnout. Would it be best if I went through and added the full results to all the articles which are currently incomplete, then let you know so you can create all the relevant sub-templates and convert to the correct template? Number 57 13:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Number 57, Good work on adding the detailed results. I've added a new template without a link for the party name, so minor parties can be added. I've also created a one for the electorate/voter turnout. I have done Irish general election, 1923 as an example. Let me know what you think. Snappy (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll endeavour to use them now. Will try and do the rest of the articles in the next week or so. Number 57 21:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, all done now. Number 57 22:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Irish penny

Hello, I have a bunch of pre decimal irish pennies and if you look closely at them there are five chicks, not four. I was wondering why you reverted my edit. Thanks! -Kerry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cablerock (talk • contribs) 04:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Daniel Corkery

Both entries currently have the same data of birth and date of death; if they are two different individuals, this is statistically improbable. Is it possible they are the same, or can the dates be differentially sourced? Dru of Id (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, their dates are not the same. Someone added the dates for the author to the Irish republican. I have removed them and added a warning. They are two different people, its just that in Oireachtas Members database their entries have been conflated. Snappy (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Council of State

Hi Snappy,

I had edited List of presidential appointees to the Council of State (Ireland) which had Catherine McGuinness listed only once. I understood that the name should only appear once, so merged her name into one with the two different nominations separated. When changing which row they list by, it divides into two for separate presidents etc.

I was just wondering why you changed that, as then her as "Appointee" is listed twice. I am prepared to change it for other duplicates. Kindest regards —  Cargoking  talk  20:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the way it is done for all the others, e.g Frank Aiken (4 times), James Dillon (7 times), Maurice E. Dockrell (7 times), each having a separate entry for their term. Also, having a rowspan means McGuinness appears only in the middle of the table and not at the end as you would expect. This table design was done by Jnestorious and I agree with the way he has done it. Anyway, the rowspan=2 means it is only there once initially, once you sort the table by name of appointee, it splits McGuinness into 2 rows, so it pretty pointless then. Snappy (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Snappy. —  Cargoking  talk  21:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Teachtaí Dála

Just to give you a heads up. We'd a short discussion about this last year and I'm still not convinced that TDs should be placed directly in that cat when they're already in relevant subcats of it but I've asked BrownHairedGirl about it here. Valenciano (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Brendan Griffin

Hi Snappy: I am glad you moved the picture of Brendan Griffin, T.D. into the Information Box. I was a little worried about interfering with it. So thanks. Kemiah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemiah (talk • contribs) 09:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Snappy (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Snappy: You have done it again. The picture of Brian Hayes is far better in the box but I don't know how to get it there. This led me to look through your last input to that particular article and, without repeating it here, I saw the sentence you took out. Good for you. Keep up the good work. RegardsKemiah (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Emergency

Sorry about that bud. I thaught it came in in 1940 like the previous version stated.Murry1975 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

James Boland

Cheers for the help, as you can probably tell, it's still a work in progress! Donnacha (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul Gogarty Edits

I think you might be the best person to talk to this user (User:Darepng) about his edits to the Paul Gogarty page. Exiledone (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

He's a SPA, there is usually no talking to them. Why can't you have a word? Snappy (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the behaviour it wouldnt surprise me. Thanks for reverting. I can put in a request for protection if that might be the right course of action. Exiledone (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling someone a SPA clearly shows a bias, whereas I am only interested in presenting a balanced article, that is neutral in content and includes both sides of the story in a controversy. If someone who believes themselves to be rational wants to go through each paragraph where there is an issue, you will find a reasonable response. Highlighting controversies in someones political life without focusing on the bigger picture could be said to denote prejudice and bias. Equally, including references to one's commercial ventures could be called self-promotion. Everything that could be construed as the latter has been withdrawn; the piece focuses clearly on the political elements. Calling for cuts in TDs pay achieved more overall coverage than a baby at a conference. Coverage of Callely received more coverage on radio or TV than the baby at a conference. Even coverage of work to protect education, through Prime Time and newspaper articles received more coverage than a child at a press conference. So why are these left out in your edits. Equally why is the focus on the negative aspects of the press coverage when there are recorded transcripts from the time that show a large number of people disliked the coverage on the Joe Duffy show. The website is an archive in this instance, not an excuse for self-promotion. One is always open to fair comment and balanced edits. Someone who calls someone they recognise as the subject of the article a SPA does not put great faith in that person's edits. One has a reputation to protect, so balance is essential whether or not someone likes the person who is the subject of the wikipedia topic Darepng (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Snappy, you say there is no talking to SPAs. Have you tried? Have you gone through each of the revisions and argued the case for omission/inclusion? No you have not. I may be Paul Gogarty, an agent, a relative, a friend or a Green Party hack, but the issue is not who the SPA may be, but rather what is the change made? You have not made a compelling argument for amending the most recent changes. If someone has an opinion about a person that affects their ability to be neutral whether or not the person has an association with the subject or not. The amended text provides balance; if you want to prevent an ongoing, time-wasting exercise, do at least provide the courtesy of outlining where you think balance has been compromised. Maybe you will find, there is talking to them. Darepng (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Thomas Ashe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lusk (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) 10:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 20th Government of The Republic of Ireland, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. A412 (Talk • C) 04:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Kerry slug

Thanks for sorting out the ministry redirects (Kerry slug etc). -Alan (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hassle from IP

I was going through Irish articles and see you came across this editor in this form. They show little regard for MOS, they came to my attention by the way they try to blur the line between state and island, they interacted with Jonchapple, much to no avail. As my conclusions in the IMOS post they have been doing it for years and just hop around, sometimes coming back to the subject to re-add what others have undone. Just a heads up. Also on the amendment, just read my summary again, sounds a bit lippy, it wasnt intended apologies if it came across that way, and the typo. Murry1975 (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That IP is annoying but not a major one, that's the second time they've added Free State Senators in the Seanad article. Your comment did read a bit lippy but was fair enough, I did make a mistake in my edit. Snappy (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Apologies again, I didnt mean it to be and should have phrased it better, sorry.Murry1975 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You bet me to that edit on the Seanad, same editor as above. Murry1975 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You gotta be quick! But they are persistently annoying now. They seem to be obsessed with British titles, but its better to have the name and title (per article) than just the title. Snappy (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thier edit on Letterkenny was odd to say the least, slightly POV and confusing, perhaps showing an over-fimilarity with the subject. And you are very quick, I will give you that!!. Two in the space it took me to read one. Murry1975 (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects

Not a major issue, but have you read WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN? There may be more useful ways to spend your time on Wikipedia.. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How I spend my time on wikipedia is my concern. Snappy (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Spleodrach/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Paul Gogarty". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Paul Gogarty, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Edit warring on Paul Gogarty

This is going to be a bit more blunt then i usually like to put things, but what on earth is this revision history supposed to be? Since the 29th of February there have been more then a 100 revisions to this particular page which are nothing more then reverts back and forth. I can find no evidence that there has been any discussion regarding this entire situation anywhere - nothing on the user talk pages, nothing on the article talk page, nowhere.

This situation is the definition of a very long time edit war. I opted against a plain block and instead fully protected the page for a week to make sure this stops, but can you both please use this time to at least try and get some form of discussion going regarding this? If external input is needed feel free to use a low-key dispute resolution process such as a third opinion to get a hand with this. Either way this constant reverting is plain useless and will likely result in a block in case this continues on the current course. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Ireland_category_norms

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Ireland_category_norms. KarlB (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Paul Gogarty". Thank you. --Darepng (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Darepng

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • Account activation codes have been emailed.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember the odd editing IP?

On the Senate and other articles? Good news he has embraced the project!! Continueing where he left off as an IP. He created and account last week User:Laggan Boy. I added a welcome note and some, er, other guidelines for him. If you can think of any that may be of use to this editor I am sure as a newbie he would be grateful. I dont know the ones for over including titles and changing other stuff (MOS would have indicated commonname but I think he might have missed it). Murry1975 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad he has signed up. Snappy (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Vera Peterson

You have just violated WP:3RR on the Vera Peterson redirect page. It would be best for you to self-revert the violating change and make no new reversions until the 24 hour required period expires. Violations of 3RR is considered edit warring, and is not permitted editing on Wikipedia. 99.192.88.40 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

At least, I'm not hiding behind multiple IP addresses to do so. Snappy (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Your comment again violates Wikipedia's civility rules. I have violated no rules. Also, I am not "hiding" anywhere. But your admission that you willfully violate 3RR makes further discussion unlikely to be productive. 99.192.88.40 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You are an IP hopping vandal. Snappy (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 99.192.88.40 (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Just noting you are also 99.192.72.5. Snappy (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am. My ISP uses dynamic IP addresses. I have no control over when it changes or what it changes to. In fact, I was not even aware it had changed while making these edits. 99.192.88.40 (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Which means you violated 3RR first on Vera Peterson, at 15:42, 21:20, 22:25 and 22:46. When I pointed this out to you above, you claimed that I was uncivil, but now you admit I was right. Please withdraw your comments about my supposed incivility. Snappy (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the rule, so let me explain it. The 3RR page I linked to previously clearly states 'A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors'. So first I made an edit to the page (not a revert, just an edit), then you reverted it (your first revert), then I reverted that (my first revert), then you made your 2nd revert, then I made my 2nd revert, then you made your 3rd revert, then I made my 3rd revert, then you made a 4th revert. That is when I posted the notice of violating 3RR here. Not all edits are reverts. Only reverts count for 3RR. I did not violate the rule. 99.192.88.40 (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I have replied at ANI, further comments should be posted there, this discussion is now closed. Snappy (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Germans

Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Heidi Bedell

Hi. Two years ago you PRODded this, and I deleted it. The subject has now asked on my talk page for it to be undeleted, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you want to consider taking it to AfD. You can read on my talk page her arguments and the advice I have given her. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

How vain, someone asking for their article to be restored, but isn't that a CoI? She fails WP:Politician anyway, not being elected to national office and having national coverage in her role as councillor, ans is not notable in any other way. Afd it is. Snappy (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sean T O Kelly.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sean T O Kelly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ireland–United Kingdom relations

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Shriram (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul Gogarty edits

You made a number of valid points regarding the inclusion of information that came from links to the Paul Gogarty's own web page and could be viewed as subjective.

These points will be taken on board and the pieces amended accordingly if you would desist from removing other added pieces that have independent verifiable sources. Whatever your politicial viewpoint, following your own standards suggests that the inclusion of verified paragraphs is merited.

ie Callely - This has a link outlining what Paul Gogarty did Expenses - This has links to newspaper pieces Fianna Fail commentary - This has comments made by Paul Gogarty but on the same Journal.ie page as where the article was published and quoted comments attributed, and therefore relates to the piece in question

Please be reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darepng (talk • contribs) 12:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Following on from your comments on my talk page, I posted the following:

Presumably the overall context of the edits will be looked at by the Adminstrators also. You were asked to engage on specific pieces through dialogue but instead chose to reverse many times.

I already posted on your page regarding willingness to amend items that linked to Paul Gogarty web page. You have not explained why you earlier removed additional paragraphs re: Callely or Expenses articles for example. The eventual inclusion of the Callely piece is welcome, however the expenses issue was also high profile and coverage in media is cited.

I have re-edited the version with what I think are the disputed areas that do not have "independent" citation, but have also included the piece on expenses. The piece about Cowen's appointment of a new cabinet has been removed in the interests of fairness and compromise, even though independent media citation has been identified.

What has been amended following on from your comments should cover all of the disputed paragraphs with the exception of one new cited area being included, which I think you cannot reasonably exclude on grounds of it being subjective.

Can the matter rest, now, please?Darepng (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please confine your edits to Paul Gogarty's talk page. I have already posted there. It is bad manners to have open multiple discussions on different talk pages. Snappy (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bit of a laugh

I knew some idiot would eventually do it, who thought it would come froma "reputable" source...see the last sentence in the 4th para for the non-existant party ;)

Just wanted o share it with someone whod understand ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps if they eventually merge, that will be their new name! Snappy (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Politics in the British Isles

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Politics in the British Isles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KarlB (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sean Sherlock

To state that the inclusion of information in the public domain, directly sourced from Irish Govenment publications, that pertains to the subject and is presented without opionion or comment is vandalism is bizzare!

Why do you believe that Irish TDs salaries and expenses, in this case publicshed by the government is not relevent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


First time on this - why are you editing out all information on Irish politicians expenses as you appear to have done previously in relation to sections above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.46.185 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


I am actually a different person who is amazed that it seems that someone is using wikipedia to persistently censor any comment relating to information on Irish politicians expenses that happen to be connected to Cork and salaries that is in the public domain in Ireland! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.46.185 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are a completely different person who by amazing coincidence is editing the same article at the same time with the same concerns, and writes in the same style. Btw, I am a purple pig. Snappy (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There are more than a few people on the phone to each other and reading your edit's wondering why you have a persistent and bizzare 'hobby' of editing out any references to expenses and payments relating to politicians from Cork! Don't suppose you would like to tell an Irish newspaper why you are doing this ? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.46.185 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

ah yes, on cue, the vague threats, and insinuations of connections with 'the meeja'. Seen it all before. Laughable! Snappy (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

R U paid to do this? Why would anyone do what you are doing? Why are you concerned being caught? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.237.184 (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


"You have not explained why you earlier removed additional paragraphs re: Callely or Expenses articles for example."

How do u loom at yourself in the mirror? Spinning for Callely - sure he was arrested! Why are u censoring Sherlocks salary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.46.185 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I loom quite nicely, thank you! I am so delighted that the saddest person in the world is going though my contributions and analysing them! Haaaaa haaaaa haaaaa!

So you admit that you have a persistent agenda in your edits to censor information that is known and verifiable whenever it relates to a small group of Irish politicians expenses and salaries, even when they have been arrested in relation to them and you are thrilled a group of people have notioced this? I think the Irish public know who the sad ones are...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, not you think you're in a courtroom! You're a troll on the internet! Excuse me, while I pick myself up from the floor! I'm the one who most of info about Callely fiddling expenses and being arrested, learn how to read you freaking moron! This has been entirely hilarious, I haven't laughed so much while editing wikipedia for some time, we must do it again sometime! Keep it country! Snappy (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You are the definition of a troll....already read though your 'great work' on a guy who was arrested for questioning on fiddling for expenses...I actually don't doubt that you are loving this...let's face it keeping facts of wikipedia Irish politics pages seems to be your hobby. Want to explain exactly why you thing salarary and expenses information should not be on Irish Politicans pages? The only thing emminating from you is the dull thudding sound of a tribal party hack who likes to hide fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep on trollin! Snappy (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Politics in the British Isles

As someone active in this area, I'd like you give input to a thread I've opened on "Politics in the British Isles". If the article is to exist then we may as well make a fist of improving it. Unfortunately, I think that means blowing it up and starting again. I've proposed an outline for re-starting the article on a firmer and more reasonable footing. --RA (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Waffle

Regarding this edit, thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You have to draw the line some where! Snappy (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Long-term vandal

Hi Snappy, I came across your name in connection to a particularly obnoxious football-related vandal here at Wikipedia. I can see you've had a relatively recent conversation with this guy last month and I was wondering if you could give me any more info on him. He seems to be rather prolific and I am interested in finding out who he is (is he a blocked/banned editor evading his sanctions?) and whether you are aware of any patterns in his editing that you are aware of. Do you know if WP:FOOTBALL is aware of the guy? If not, I think I'll write up a summary at some point to raise awareness of this pest for the WikiProject. Any help you can provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please write me back either here or at my sandbox for discretion reasons if you would. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it the one who keep removing maintenance tags on football articles? If so, he edits on a lot of different IPs. He may be a banned user but I don't really know. I don't think any at WP:Football is aware of him. You're right, he is quite obnoxious. I'm afraid I can't be of further help but maybe a checkuser will turn up something. Snappy (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
OK. Thanks anyway. I intend to go through a lot of these articles next month and hopefully I'll be able to put a lot of the clues together regarding this guy. -Thibbs (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Fingal

Would you please refrain from making any more such changes to the Fingal and the Dublin Airport articles, as Fingal is not a county. The Oireachtas did not create County Fingal. By passing the Local Government Act of 1993 the Oireachtas created Dublin City Council, South Dublin County Council, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and Fingal County Council. They did NOT create county Fingal. There are 32 counties in the island of Ireland and Fingal is not one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobbs1996 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix Park concerts

Looking at the concert disruptive edits, there are no sources for any of the concerts. IIRC U2 did not play in the park but at the racecourse in 1983 for which there are several sources thought no very good ones. Did they actually play the park itself since then? I have not lived in Ireland for the last 20 years so am not up to speed on such matters. BTW some nice additions you made. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right, U2 played the racecourse, never the actual Park. Snappy (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I wonder what about the other acts listed. I'll add a hidden warning to the top of the section. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Good idea! Snappy (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

New Parliamentary Constituencies

"Snappy" work by the way on creating the new articles for the proposed constituencies. Kudos. CivisHibernius (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but well done to you for starting them off. Snappy (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Michaela McAreavey

Hang on a sec. If the article says she was a Roman Catholic, then shouldn't we add her to an Irish Roman Catholics related category? Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the category description: "Members of the Roman Catholic Church, either past or present for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and where the person has self-identified as a Roman Catholic". This does not apply to her, as it was not a defining characteristic nor was she notable for being a Catholic. She was notable for her association with the Tyrone Gaelic football team, her participation in The Rose of Tralee, and mostly being murdered on her honeymoon, but not for being a Catholic, so we have to respect the category guideline. Snappy (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, although I'm slightly confused by the wording. It could be argued she did identify as a Roman Catholic because of her membership of the Pioneers. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Pleas re-read the category description, it says "defining characteristic or related to their notability and self-identified....". It must be both. She was an RC, that is not in dispute, but she was not notable for being one. Also the Pioneers is a reasonably large organisation and membership of it, is not really notable. Snappy (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I get it now. On another note, I've not encountered the idea of hiving off some categories to the redirect before now. I recently took Murder of Joanna Yeates through FA and with that they're all grouped in the article itself. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It can be done either way the subject is these cases but I don't know if there is a recommended way to do it. Snappy (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems more sensible actually to do it that way as the articles are about the event rather than the person themselves. I'll take a look and see if I can find something on it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Editting Assistance

Hi there, just wanted to say hi and thanks for your assistance in fixing some of my references and links on recent Irish articles that I have been working on. I have more in the fire so will see you on the site in due course. I may also ask for your assistance regarding uploading images.Devite (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Your welcome, feel free to ask me any questions. Snappy (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


Should the inclination take hold of you...

could you cast a cold eye over the following: Michael Feeney, County Mayo Peace Park and Garden of Remembrance and this specific user: User:Martincoyle. The latter has thought it acceptable to include the lines of a poem in the Michael Feeney article. CivisHibernius (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

mayo peace park

Have contacted wikipeadia directly about this page Thanks Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.19.55 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Good. Snappy (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Spleodrach/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Fingal

Another SPA popped up tonight, thats Dobbs, Tadgh and now Culchie. Dobbs is stale but quack- I have filed an SPI with checkuser request on them. Murry1975 (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

They are probably all the same person. Snappy (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Finlay (judge), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish (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) 14:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Office of the Taoiseach

Category:Office of the Taoiseach, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Town definition debate

There is a discussion about towns, as used in Irish county templates, that might interest you at the WikiProject Ireland page. I notice you were involved in a relevant dispute about this in the Template:Fingal page. In a nutshell, User:The Banner argues that towns are only places that have town councils, and I dispute that narrow definition. — O'Dea (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to the Pádraig Mac Lochlainn page

Water charges are a separate charge to septic tank charges. Rural dwellers are not subsidised for their sewerage systems/ septic tank. They pay the full cost including planning. Urban dwellers have access to public sewerage systems that are paid for in full by the tax payer.

All households will pay water charges.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.15.241 (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not the venue for such issues. Snappy (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
I saw the work you did cleaning up non-free images on lists (specifically, Irish Prime Ministers) while STiki'ing, and I just wanted to say you're doing great work. Keep it up! Achowat (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Snappy (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Mathew Gerrard L'Estrange

Ref your last ammendment. Mathew Gerrard L'Estrange birth registered March Qtr 1918, Granard, Vol. 1, Page 129 I think that I would trust the Births Index over the online Oireachtas dB, especially as the website is not aware that Gerry was taken from his middle name.

I think that you would go a long way in early 20th century rural Catholic Ireland to find a farmer's son called Gerald! Keomike (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, in that case, you should change it back. Snappy (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Didn't want to jump in without a mini discussion. Ezpecially as the marriage gives Matthew G, and so didn't really help. Thanks and cheers. Keomike (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael J. Noonan (Fianna Fáil), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish (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) 10:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Seán Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus

Hi Snappy, I'm not sure why you reverted an edit that established a legitimate See also section at Seán Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus, but I've restored it. The edit may have been performed from a new IP, but there's nothing wrong with that. If you think it was inappropriate for some reason, I'd be glad to discuss it here. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a very tenous connection, I've removed it again. Snappy (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure of any other politicians who have changed their names based on their political views. It's rare enough that a category would be inappropriate. What's so tenuous about it? --BDD (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, its tenuous, but if you feel that strongly about it, then re-add it, I won't object. Snappy (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I will. And if another editor removes it, I'll consider mine the minority opinion and not press the issue. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Seán Moylan

Ref your changes. Thanks for Cleaning that UP!! Gibbano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.140.25 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Snap happy

Dear Snappy,

Wikipedia in its infinite wisdom has suggested I come to a compromise with your good self over said edits. Personally I'm quite enjoying this tit-for-tat "edit war" but I shall try do as the Wiki Gods have asked. I have looked at the pages of numerous TDs and public figures before updating the page to get a feel for how the pages of other politicians and public figures are displayed before updating his page and I do not understand your reasons for editing said page. In a very rare moment of maturity on my part, perhaps we might come to a friendly truce. Perhaps something similar to the Christmas truces of WW1, minus the Christmas carols of course.

Yours sincerely, Snappyer.

Wikipedia, The World Wide Web

See my comments on my most recents edits to Johnny Pauly's article, all see WP:OWN. Snappy (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dáil Éireann, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brat and Scumbag (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) 12:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:IRE-IRL again

We have had this discussion before, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles/Archive_5#Disam, and this showed that consensus and giudelines are to use Ireland. The guideline itself is pretty clear what should be used,

"where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating to states, politics or governance) where [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the island of Ireland, or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland")."

Cheers Snappy. Murry1975 (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Little

Why would you restore such a large amount of material after I reverted you with a detailed edit summary? What about WP:BRD after my revert? And why would you remove a maintenance template without curing the problem the template highlights? For an editor with your experience, your conduct is puzzling. My assumption is you were annoyed because of the work you probably put in to adding the material, but that doesn't excuse what you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You removed a large amount of reliably referenced material which is why I restored it. The article needs more refs, especially around his early life, but your removal of whole sections which are referenced is puzzling to me. I have restored the maintenance tag. Snappy (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
As you apparently realize, the entire Early life section is unsourced; it shouldn't have been added; it shouldn't remain. The first paragraph of the Revolutionary years section is completely unsourced; it shouldn't remain. The source for the first paragraph of the Political career section does not support all of the material. Neither does the same source support the first sentence of the next paragraph in the same section. The rest of that paragraph is completely unsourced. That same source is used for the release-from-jail sentence in the Revolutionary years section; why? I'll assume the other source for the jail material supports the sentence, but the jail sentence itself is jarring as there's zero context. Nothing before it talks about him being put in jail or why. Suddenly, we have material saying he was released. Makes no sense. Perhaps you now understand why I removed all of it. There are more problems than non-problems. Unless you have answers to these issues (perhaps I'm missing something in my analysis), I will remove all of the unsourced material. The article was tagged as unsourced before you added the material. Unsourced material shouldn't be added in those circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I have added more references and so has another editor. If you want to continue this discussion then please do so at the talk page of the article. Snappy (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Kathleen Lynch

Hi Snappy, I appreciate your efforts in helping to edit the Kathleen Lynch article. Perhaps, however, you are exagerating in saying my edits include "everyone she is related to". In fact, if you examine the reversion, the only relative I have added is a short reference to Brian Lynch. Mostly my edits attempted to clean up the article of a prominent Irish politician, a Minister of State in fact.

Although you object on the grounds that the article is about her rather than her relatives, I would point out that inclusion of her brother Bernard and brother-in-law Brian reflects news coverage directly relating to Kathleen Lynch's appointment as a Minister of State in 2011. Additionally, it must be admitted that there is a common thread linking Brian, Bernard and Kathleen's political involvement which is obviously legitimate contextual information. I would also note that everything was footnoted.

So bearing in mind that only around 15% of my edit actually introduced new information (the rest simply rearranged information already in the article on Bernard, and is still there after your reversion), could you perhaps give further details as to how I might improve my edit in line with your objections? Regards.Blippityblop (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Your heading of section titled "IRA controversies" is npov as she has never been a member of said organisation. Something her brother-in-law did nearly 30 years ago is not relevant in her bio, see WP:BLP. Remeber Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. Given your recent edits to Pat Rabbitte's and Eamon Gilmore's article, it appears you are not contributing constructively but rather wtiting Wikipedia:Attack pages or using WP:Coatrack. Snappy (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I think you aren't sporting a npov yourself by the sound of things. You seem to have quite an imagination when it comes to attacking her and her colleagues from the Workers' Party now in government.
Nevertheless, I accept your point about the section heading, for the purposes of tidying up the article perhaps it can go under a common heading of "controversies" alongside the pre-existing reference to her character reference for a rapist. How would you feel about that?
Really the only point of disagreement - and correct me if I am wrong here - is the fact that in addition to tidying up the article I also inserted the newspaper referenes to her brother-in-law. I can see your point to a certain extent about her brother-in-law, but on the other hand I would argue that an encyclopedia should make reference to how civic society (in this case newspapers) react to and interpret individuals deserving an encyclopedia entry - something which a contemporary newspaper article on Kathleen Lynch's appointment to the post of Minister of State would certainly fall into. She certainly did not dispute the content of the article, ask for a withdrawal or bring them to court over it. Blippityblop (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

IT archives

Hi Snappy. If memory serves, I seem to recall that you had access to the Irish Times archive. Do you still have it? Just an edit I wanted to check out. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rashers, I had access to the archives but my subscription has lapsed and I have not renewed it. Maybe someone on WT:IE might have access. Rdgs, Snappy (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. I may do that or splash out and buy temporary access, if I think of other worthwhile research. Best wishes for the New Year. RashersTierney (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
You could apply for a grant for the wikimedia foundation. It would be useful for one of WP:IE to have. At nearly €400 a year its expensive for an individual to have. Best for 2013. Snappy (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Seán MacBride

Hello Snappy,

Thanks for your oversight here. I'm wonder why, though, you add all those spaces to the infobox code..? CsDix (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it makes them easier to read when editing. Most of the articles that I edit have the spaces in them (space not added by me). I don't know if there is a guideline on this. Snappy (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Neither do I – but it seems a lot of extra space for a little extra convenience, especially for information that's likely to be updated only (very) infrequently. CsDix (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Imos

What is IMOS? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.201.29 (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:IMOS RashersTierney (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Didnt know that

Persondata, didnt know. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless it has some form of AI to figure out pipes, but I think not! Snappy (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Magdalene asylum

I marked both cites as 'failed verification' because they supposedly give Waterford as the last laundry to close. They don't. Neither in fact mentions Waterford. See NYT and Toyntanen. Ref #5 does give Waterford as the last, but it is incorrect. Numerous RSs give Gloucester/Seán McDermot Street as the last to close in 1996 eg Finnegan and McAleese #29. Waterford closed in 1982 - see McAleese Ch.3 #58. Meant to address these errors sooner, but got distracted on another issue, and have been quite occupied 'off Wiki'. RashersTierney (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at the year of closure not the location, my bad! Snappy (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

batt oconnor

thanks for the clean up!! am still newish to this. G

No worries. Snappy (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Snappy; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Land limit (1 acre) for purposes of LPT

Hi Snappy, You might be interested in a letter in today's Irish Times which addresses this issue from a different angle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.25.137 (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


Collins

Just curious why did you undo my correction to the Michael Collins Article. Finnegas (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Hello, I'm 46.7.236.155. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Helen McEntee without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! 46.7.236.155 (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Toddst1 (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you misused your rollback privileges [1] in this edit war. If it happens again, you'll lose those privileges. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this is the worst block I've seen for some time, but who gives a flying fuck about bad blocks. Good editors leave and life goes on. RashersTierney (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
No Admin prepared to overturn this egregiously bad block? 24 hrs and ticking! RashersTierney (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, Rashers! Snappy (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Rashers, I'm not sure how it's supposed to be a bad block, there was pretty clear edit warring going on (from both sides) - as the IP's edit, although dodgy, wasn't clear vandalism, more discussion should've taken place. 24 hours is a small block, and is right for this case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There's always grounds for discretion/discussion. That doesn't make it a bad block, whether you agree with it or not - by the letter of the law, the block is correct. (That's the only reason I commented here, I was intrigued, having seen the closed AN/I, to see what discussion would ensue, if any) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Certainly a poor decision, Dennis Brown was correct is his assessment was prepared to let it lie, unfortunately his wisdom did not prevail. Snappy (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

linking to redirects

Hi, WP:R#NOTBROKEN describes why it isn't necessary to make changes like this —rybec 07:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is! Snappy (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Another edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Godfrey Timmins. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not edit warring on Godfrey Timmins. I have restored information which was incorrectly removed, and added several references for the article. How is this edit warring? Snappy (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Limerick

Thanks for sweeping up after me where I missed a few ", Ireland"s. Brocach (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Snappy (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled

Hey Snappy :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

county registrars

ta, nearly walked myself into a 3RR block Brocach (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Same IP hopper who has caused Dominic Hannigan to be protected twice. Snappy (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Brendan Smith Bio page

I see we are gradually starting to go to war with each other on this, which is a pointless exercise for both of us. Can we discuss this and see if we can agree on a mutually acceptable text? I know Dep Smith and think , with respect, that the emphasis in your original text on the free cheese issue is a bit OTT - esp the five external refs on just this one issue.


Artanis2001 (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Brendan Smith biog

I left a message for you to see if we can discuss - can you contact me - much appreciated. Artanis2001 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Direct Democracy Ireland

Hi Snappy,

Those two users are both constantly removing sourced content on the Direct Democracy Ireland wiki page. Is there anything we can do to stop them doing it? Considering one of there usernames is Directdemocracyireland I'm guessing they are supporters who only want one-sided information about the group on the page.--CommieMark (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arthur Vincent may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Scolaire (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Brian O`Domhnaill

Hi Snappy,

My apologies for the misunderstandings we have currently been having regarding the wikipedia page of Senator Brian O`Domhnaill. I believe by us working in co operation we can both come to a mutual agreement about what we both believe should be on the wiki page of the Senator.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Gerry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrybyrne12 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Enda Kenny

Heya, I've reverted your removal of the image from Enda Kenny infobox, but not before further cropping the photo to make it more centred on the face. This image is from 1 week ago, the other image is from 4 years ago. Also, there is no requirement for images to be named in English; the Latvian name is fine given the source. If you further disagree, feel free to revert; I don't have a lot of time to spend on such things given the amount of files I've got to work on on Commons. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted, that image is of poor quality. There is nothing really wrong with the current image. Snappy (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi snappy

The categories have shifted some. It used to be organized as 'Great Britain', and 'Ireland'. Which makes sense from how the Catholic church organized things. Folks eliminated the Roman Catholic church in Great Britain, to revert to the political and not ecclesiastical boundaries. Which means that the Ireland category now represents the republic. I would love to restore Great Britain (which was nixed by those without understanding of the ecclesiastical organization), but that's not going to happen without support from folks like you. If I shift all the UK articles to Great Britain, I am going to have to show consensus for this move, something I have wanted to do for years, but it got nuked by others. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Expelled Fine Gaelers' profile pages

I archived Fine Gael website profiles of the four desperados earlier today in anticipation of their removal by Fine Gael techies, which has now occurred. Links to the archived versions are at the talk pages of the four expellees (e.g. Talk:Peter Mathews (politician), if you need to refer to them for any reason. — O'Dea (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Good call, they have indeed been deleted in true Soviet revisionist style! Snappy (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Brian Ó Domhnaill. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spleodrach/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:Gerrybyrne12 keeps removing factual referenced sourced material from Brian Ó Domhnaill without explanation. I have been restoring said material. Why does this merit a block? I would like to be unblocked because I didn't think restoring the material in question was a violation of wikipedia policy. Snappy (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • Talk about giving a dog a bad name! Yes, Snappy technically infringed a 'rule' (got sucker-punched again) intended to minimise disruption - except in this case the disruption was due to yet another POV-pushing 'new' editor. Yes, he should have brought the problem to the attention of other editors - spread the burden - but remember, in general he ensures a level of quality on infrequently visited Irish political pages that otherwise wouldn't exist. As for applying the same sanction on both editors, if Solomon had actually cut the baby in half, his reputation for wisdom would have taken a bit of a knock, to say the least. RashersTierney (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Rashers, this place just gets weirder and weirder. Snappy (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Glad to see it hasn't put you off contributing. Dickdock (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Kilmacren(n)an edits

Hmm, the words anlann don gé do come to mind regarding your comment on my recent edit when compared to your own earlier changes to the same article!

In the section of The Death of the Irish Language (Hindley, R. : Routledge 2012) dealing with variant forms of the names of places in the Gaeltacht, the preferred forms for this town are given as Cill Mhic Réanáin (anglice Kilmacrenan) — these are, incidentally, also the forms used in Bunachar Logainmneacha na hÉireann — with a note of the following variations to be found in some other sources: Cill Mhac nÉanáin / Cill Mhic nÉanáin / Cill Mhic Néanáin.

I intend to post something similar on the talk page of the article concerned in connection with a proposal I'll be making to move it to Kilmacrenan.

(I will admit that I did get my genitives in a twist in regard to the meaning of Cill Mhic X versus Cill Mhac X...) --Picapica (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, sauce...! Well this is a confusing mess. The local national school, the Diocese of Raphoe, the local football club, the Donegal Daily and the local post office use Kilmacrennan. The sign on the road into the village (from Google Street view) says Kilmacrenan. We could have a long debate on Official vs. Common name but over an 'n', I don't think its worth it. Though on wikipedia, common name usually prevails. Snappy (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree that the more frequently used name/spelling should prevail, à la Wp conventions. But what I think is worth noting in the article is the fact (as is so often the case with Irish localities) of the use of variant spellings – with Kilmacrenan and Kilmacrennan being the chief contenders - together with some commentary on this (even if only in footnaote form). What complicates matters here, of course, is that there is also more than one version as Gaeilge..! Investigations continue. I will, however, restore the other, stylistic copyedits in the meantime. -- Picapica (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on W. T. Cosgrave. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. My edit was a relevant link to Wikipedia article which you Reverted Without giving any reason. NSlights (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars. You broke a link, I fixed it. Snappy (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
My mistake I didn't saw that there was a link there already. NSlights (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Stop following me on Wikipedia please, you followed and changed every single one of my recent edits, this is almost tantamount to harassing an editor. Please stop or I will have to report it. ÓCorcráin (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)ÓCorcráin, did you before you came here check the history of these pages? I just had a quick look. I have Snappys page watchlisted, just as he has MOST Irish political pages watchlisted which he does after editing them. Murry1975 (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
And edit summaries like editor wikihounding and reverting every single edit I have made, is not nice. You have raised it here, please let Snappy respond. Understand that you are now edit warring while waiting on a discussion, and adding [WP:NPA person remarks] will not help. Murry1975 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
After some meditating after a cooldown period I will retract my accusation of wikihounding but you must understand that when an editor makes a number of edits than logs back on only to see them all reverted by the same editor it is hard not to see it that way. But on my part I will assume good faith. Next time you want to mass-revert remember that it is highly frowned upon by the community here. ÓCorcráin (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I have these pages watchlisted, and most of the changes I made were copyedits not reversions. For example, you add Sinn Fein as a party, I added the dates of affiliation to that party. Not a reversion! Please calm down and try to assume good faith in future. FYI, I have over 2,000 pages on my watchlist, 90% of them are Irish politics related. Also, I've noticed ÓCorcráin edit-waring on Official IRA and other related articles, but I try and stay away from that hornets nest. Snappy (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kamal Ibrahim (Mister World 2010) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • in modelling and TV presenting. Following the relationship ending Ibrahim moved to [[Sydney]], [[Australia] and worked on a number of projects in television and extreme sports.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Minister for Finance (Ireland) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |rowspan=3|Éamon de Valera{{#tag:ref|[[Taoiseach]]]|name="taoiseach"|group="n"}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Perry (Irish politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commercial Court (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) 11:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The record in http://www.votewatch.eu/en/brian-crowley.html is factual from a reliable source, accurate and pertinent to the topic. To remove this link is in breach of NPOV.

Please reinstate your edits that ignore facts.

Your selective editing is not in accord with NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.232.144 (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Irish Counties

hi , your saying there are 37 counties in Ireland {republic and northern ] when there are only 32 .Fingal,South Dublin north Tipperary are administrative counties,what are basically , divisions of counties what act together to run the county .i hope to be helpful so pretty please stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupolevjet (talk • contribs) 21:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss this at WT:IE. Snappy (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please explain why you edited [1] to read [2] which removes the factual summary of the link which is 'Voting Record' Doing this removes a factual information summary, which is provided for in the layout of articles. Such behaviour is clearly partial editing in clear breach of NPOV Partisan editing is in breach of the fundamentals of an encyclopedia 78.143.161.95 (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss it at Brian Crowley's talk page. Snappy (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Omniplex

Hi Snappy, I tried to change 'Omniplex Cinema Group' because that company does not exist. The reference at the bottom of the website is incorrect and is being changed. Omniplex is the correct name as there a number of companies that all have Omniplex in their title. Paul Anderson who owns Omniplex asked me to have the Wikipedia page changed to reflect the correct name. Thanks, Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omniplexcinemas (talk • contribs) 17:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Eurocoin.pt.010.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Eurocoin.pt.010.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eleassar my talk 08:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The same applies also to:

--Eleassar my talk 08:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

DDI

Er, I will avoid that one bud, best of luck with the DDI spokesman, have fun storming the castle. Murry1975 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it should be interesting! Snappy (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually after what I have read I will address him directly. He seems to have over steppedthe mark (no pun intended). Murry1975 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Scrap that, his own website names Mark, http://www.theruddsite.com/direct.html so I think its ANI time. I cant see how else this can be resolved. Murry1975 (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That's disturbing, clearly ANI is the only way. Snappy (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Category division

The problem is two things. One - the political division does not reflect the ecclesiastical division. The ecclesiastical division states that 'Great Britian' is one category, where 'Ireland' is another. It reflects how the Catholic church presently organizes things. The wikipedia category structure is based on the 'political reality'. I orginally edited the categories (re, cleaned them up so that they actually functioned appropriately). There was a massive flame and edit war over the category 'Great Britain', as 'something that does not exist'. IE, the consensus was that the categories reflect the current political organization and not the ecclesiastical organization.

There are two alternatives. The original division: "Great Britain" and "Ireland". Northern Ireland dioceses would fall into the "Ireland" category, whereas the "United Kingdom" Category would be depreciated and replaced with "Great Britain". This makes sense at the ecclesiastical level, and prior to the massive flamewar was how things were originally on wikipedia. .

Two, the present division "Ireland" and "United Kingdom". This is a frustratingly bad division. I don't like the compromise because the diocesan borders do not overlap with the political borders, one of the very few areas of Europe where this is the case. Diocese of Baden is the other, (overlapping Germany and Switzerland), but generally disregarded as part of Switzerland. We have seen another flamewar over Ireland, Northern Ireland. Everything in the Northern Ireland gets tagged by one side as 'Irish', even though they are not a part of Ireland at all and two dioceses are solely in the United Kingdom. So - since neither 'side' on this issue particularly cares about 'getting it right' and would rather 'push their own view on the wikipedia', I put it back to the way it was. Ireland, Great Britain.

If you want to change it take it to cat review and we'll establish consensus on this nonsense once and for all. 99.5 percent of the entire cat structure has exactly zero issue. This is the only one, and it's not because the category is inherently controversial but because wikipedians are trying to push their own POV on the wiki. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk it to the appropriate talk page. Snappy (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Seanad Éireann Wikipedia Page

Wikipedia is not a website for political blogs. The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_%C3%89ireann contains an offensive remark which is merely the opinion of a journalist with the Sunday Business Post. The last line in the section "Calls for Reform" is insulting to both the members of Seanad Éireann and the House of Lords. Having a source for such an insult does not justify its inclusion. If that were the case then anyone would be free to attack any institution simply by providing a source - no matter how small its readership or questionable its bias. I'm sure that you could find many opinions of Seanad Éireann expressed in the Sunday World and the Irish Sun. Would you see fit to include them? Moreover the Sunday Business Post's opinion of Seanad Éireann is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It exited from examinership in June of this year. [3] In the process many of its debts to unsecured creditors were written down to a very small fraction. Perhaps the Seanad and the Dáil should look into using a similar funding model. The insulting remark, which is attributed to Sunday Business Post, should be removed. Mnamnabadobedobe (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Please take your concerns to the appropriate talk page, Talk:Seanad Éireann. Snappy (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Irish constitutional referendums, 2013

Need some sources at the above site./ I added from the posters around the city. Wanna add to that? Perhaps background ot the governing majority.(Lihaas (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)).

I'm not in favour of these summary/group articles any more. They are duplicates of the actual referendum articles which don't contribute anything and are just more work in maintaining. Snappy (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Election article needs more info, no?(Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)).
The 2 main referendum articles, not this duplicate which should be deleted. Snappy (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Amendments template

Thanks for correcting me. I'd only looked back at 30 and saw there was a 30 rejected then a 30 passed, so assume amendments just went with whatever number was next. Number 57 22:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously when one fails, the next amendment falls there as there wasn't one that happedned in the failed proposed.(Lihaas (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)).

FMI

Just curious, where are you from? Which school did you attend? Been here a month and its awesome! Although the people are not as political as I imagine ;(

Is there a WP group in the country fo rmeetups or something?(Lihaas (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)).

I am from Ireland, and that is all the personal info that I will give out on Wikipedia. Thanks. Snappy (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Irish referendum articles

Snappy, I was wondering if I should propose for deletion the article Irish constitutional referendums, 2013. It looks awfully redundant to me, repeating what is to be found in more detail in Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2013 (Ireland) and in Thirty-third Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2013 (Ireland).

I noticed in looking back that you started the trend for these articles with Irish constitutional referendums, 1968, Irish constitutional referendums, December 1972, and so on. Why do we need these when the main articles they link to contain the same information, and then some? Then, in 2002, there were two referendums but we do not have an article entitled Irish constitutional referendums, 2002. I don't think its absence causes a difficulty since we have Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002 (Ireland) and Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland.

There is not only a problem of redundancy, but there is extra unnecessary work in maintaining them individually and maintaining coordination between them and their main articles so they do not unnecessarily repeat one another, a task which requires monitoring multiple articles by at least one editor who cares, year-in, year-out for each referendum occasion, if they are to fly in formation, so to speak. What are they for? — O'Dea (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason we have them is because we need a single page to link to from {{Irish elections}}, where elections are listed by date (hence why we don't need an article for 2002 because they can be separated by date as one was in March and one in October). We have the same for Australian referendums in years in which there was more than one referendum. Number 57 10:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
But we can list them separately as in {{Amendments of the Constitution of Ireland}}, and then delete the latter while we're at it. It is putting the cart before the horse to create a series of actual articles just to satisfy a minor template issue! Templates are there to serve article navigation; articles are not created to support templates. — O'Dea (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
As I said, election/referendum templates only list by date order – how would you separate referendums held on the same date? I really don't see the problem with these articles, and I think it's useful to summarise somewhere the fact that there were two referendums on the same date. Number 57 10:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
They are separated already, with subordinate articles devoted to individual referendums as indicated by the example in my opening paragraph above, to wit: get rid of Irish constitutional referendums, 2013 and allow Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2013 (Ireland) and Thirty-third Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2013 (Ireland) to tell the tale. — O'Dea (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, to make it clearer, the question was how you would separate them on {{Irish elections}} if they were to be linked to individually. Number 57 13:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
In brackets after the year, e.g. 2001 (21st, 23rd, 24th) · 2004 · 2008 · 2009 · 2011 (29th, 30th). See jnestorious' original proposal here. Snappy (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank god the AfD finished the way it did - that template is dreadful. Number 57 14:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I suppose I did start those articles some years ago, and jnesterious proposed them for deletion, which I opposed, see here. The debate had only 3 participants; me, jnsetorious and Number57. I see from above that Number57 is still in favour. However since then, I have changed my mind and now agree that they are largely superfluous and didn't provide any compelling info that is not already in the main article, and are just another duplicate that needs to be updated. If someone proposed them for abolition again, I would be in favour of it. Snappy (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Local Government Bill 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tipperary County Council (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) 12:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP EIRE

Are there a bunch of WPians in Eire? Whens the next schedule meetup? And do these occur in Dublin (academia)?(Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

WikiProject Eurovision Invitation!

You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Eurovision!
You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining WikiProject Eurovision. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project. We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like Eurovision and facilitate team work in the development of Eurovision articles.
If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list, and add the project talk page to your watchlist.
I hope you accept! - Wesley Mᴥuse 20:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Eur.be.200.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Eur.be.200.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eleassar my talk 08:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And also:
File:Eur.fr.005.gif
File:Eur.it.005.gif
File:Eurocoin.sm.005.gif
File:Eurocoin.pt.010.gif
File:Eurocoin.sm.010.gif
File:Eur.fr.020.gif
File:Eur.it.020.gif
File:Eurocoin.sm.020.gif
File:Eurocoin.pt.020.gif
File:Eurocoin.at.050.gif
File:Eur.fr.050.gif
File:Eurocoin.pt.050.gif
File:Eurocoin.sm.050.gif
--Eleassar my talk 08:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Eamon Ryan

Hi Snappy,

I was removing some incorrect material and updating the page. None of my additions were incorrect. For purposes of honesty, I am related to the Green Party, but I hardly see how this precludes me from ensuring that a page is factually accurate.

Examples:

Early & Personal Life - I have not removed mention of his unemployment, I have referenced and linked the positions where he was employed. Wikipedia says he was married in 1996, this is incorrect, it was 1998, and I do not see how there can be an objection to saying that he has 4 children.

Political Career - Here I have restructured the first 3 lines, adding the Dublin Cycling Campaign, but as it is not strictly a political role I won't object to having it removed. I do feel that my edited version is clearer, however.

Record in Office - My addition here is factually accurate, as he was a member of cabinet during negotiations, and the ratification of the deal by the Greens is referenced at the end, http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1010/122796-greens/

2011 general election and Green Party leadership - Here I have added a line which I do not see cause for removing about the transition to the Lab-FG government. I removed the 2028 detail of his pension entitlements, but it is fair if you want to keep it in.

North Seas Offshore Grid Initiative - Why would you remove this material? It is an update on his most recent work and is referenced.

On the whole, you will see that I have added far more than I have deleted and I think that removing all of my edits without consideration is grossly unfair.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenwebpress (talk • contribs) 10:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:Jack Taylor

Hi Snappy, I see why you may have reverted that, but I was asking in relation to the article, which I was updating. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was a forum type question, my mistake. Snappy (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
No worries. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Melbourne Star may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 30 June 2006<ref name=spin>{{cite news|url=http://archive.is/2Qx7Q|title=Work to spin Ferris wheel"]|publisher=Herald Sun|date=30 May 2006|accessdate=25 October 2013}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2008–13 Irish financial crisis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Ireland exited from the [[Eurozone crisis|Troika bailout]] in December 2013.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1204/490837-regling-bailout-exit/|title=Ireland 'right'

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Voting record
  2. ^ [http://www.votewatch.eu/en/brian-crowley.html
  3. ^ http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/media-and-marketing/sunday-business-post-to-exit-examinership-tomorrow-1.1435151
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spleodrach/Archive/Archive_005&oldid=1230467353"