User talk:Tóraí/Archive/Archive 1

Editcount

I've carried out your request on {{editcount}}. Is this really the best one to use? It works quickly on your account because you have so few edits, but if I try it on my account it takes >5 mins to parse. By the way, removing messages from your talkpage without responding does seem a little unfriendly. Just a suggestion. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Martin. I don't know about the efficiency of the tool >5 mins is a little crazy. I tried it with your name (MSGJ) and it came back pretty much straight away. wannabe_kate used to take a long time for some users too though (I'm a recent sign-up but a long time Wikipedian).

RE: deleting messages, I removed the boiler plate welcome without saying anything back ... just because it was a boiler plate, really ... but did reply to Mooretwin (only on his page, not here contrary to my message above!). I don't really know why I removed Mooretwin's message, though. I suppose that was a little unfriendly. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Speedy deletion nomination of SaketAgarwal

SaketAgarwal was a redirect to Saket Agarwal, which has already been nominated for proposed deletion. Redirects are not applicable under any of the A (article) criteria at CSD, and SaketAgarwal does not meet any of the R (redirect) criteria at the same page, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. If the Saket Agarwal article is De-PRODded, feel free to nominate it at AfD. Also, when you see a redirect, there's a good chance that the page was moved, and the "creator" on the redirect page's history is not the actual content creator. I moved the page as seen here, while it was created in this revision by Raj Kumar Machhan. Thanks, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tóraí. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Military history of the British Isles

Hi, thanks for your note. It wasn't you that made me leave the conversation, but the general feeling that I was spending too much of my meagre free time worrying about a page I don't care about enough to warrant that level of commitment. It has to be said however that I do find the attitudes of a number of Irish editors towards the British very hard to accept (I'm not referring to you here, and not even particularly to this debate, which was one of the more civilised British-Irish clashes on Wikipedia) - it sometimes seems like they think it doesn't count as racism if its about Britain or the British. At the end of the day, the whole thing becomes too stressful and I think my energies would be better directed in other areas.

Thanks again for your comments and I hope you manage to bring the article around to an acceptable state.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Just a couple of comments on the PRSTV ballot paper in your sandbox:

I'm not sure the 12 month block is necessarily enforceable just on our say from the project. It may be that other admins and bureaucrats would not view things the same way and enforce such a draconian punishment. Given that, I'd suggest that the project should not try to pre judge the outcome of any disciplinary action. I'd remove that note entirely.
I think one thing that is missing is any notice of how the ballot will be conducted. It should say

- is there a minimum number of participants required to validate the ballot
- who will announce the result
- how it will be announced
- if a simple 1 vote majority will be sufficient?
- will the vote transfer processes be open for peer review
- who will execute any necessary page moves
- when will they be performed (I'd suggest 7 x 24 hours after the result is announced)

Just my thoughts Fmph (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're bang on:

If we were to have set punishments, we would need to get ArbCom to agree to them and enforce them. My reasons for having set (draconian) punishments in there was to warn off any attempts at manipulating the vote (there is already bad blood, I'd like it cut out on all sides - having draconian punishments no only warns off possible frauds but, more importatnly, reassure each "side" that the other wouldn't try it and that they have a come back if they did).
I think a detailed (but not too overly lawyerly) "what will happen" section is a great idea. I is important that we all are on the same hymn sheet about what we can expect. I didn't write one because I didn't want to clog up the "ballot paper" with rules, maybe they could be written up on a subpage. Maybe you could sandbox one up? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no special insight into ArbCom, but seems to me that if we come up with a blocking criteria through consensus pursuant to their instructions to settle this, they'd probably accept it as valid. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right. But frankly I think a blocking policy/criteria are the least of our problems. Fmph (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm just addressing the point as you raised it -- ArbCom has delegated the content dispute to us, so if consensus says this is necessary, it probably wouldn't be challenged. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whaddya think of this? Fmph (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good. Especially using software to calculate the result. It will take a lot of the trouble out of it. I have two comments though:

I think there are simpler ways to vote than "A6 B1 C2 D4 E3 F5". I would have difficulty remembering what rank I put 'A' at, for example, if it was far down the line. I would prefer to vote "B, C, E, F, A" for example. However, I think we should allow either method for voting. If a person's vote does not follow one of these methods then I think an assigned moderator should be allowed to reformat the vote so that it conforms to a style (if it is intelligible) or strike it out and ask the user to recast their vote (if it is unintelligble) to avoid confusion among the tellers.
I agree that three tellers should tally the the ballots but I don't think that all three should calculate it. This is because there are times when STV requires random selection (for example if two options have the same number of votes but one needs to be eliminated). Therefore the three tellers may come back with three different results despite recording the ballots correctly. I think instead three tellers should independently collate the ballots into three independent ballot files for OpenSTV according to a pre-agreed format. An assigned moderator should then check that these ballot files are identical using a diff utility. If the ballots files are identical then the moderator should run the results and upload the ballot file they used and a copy-and-paste of the output of the results to WP. The first result from OpenSTV is final (should there be any discrepancy between random selections etc.)

Finally, should we set a minimum quota requred by a "winner"? e.g. must have 1st prefs or transfers from 66% of "electorate"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adds: I also think that most (if not all) of the "rules" should be hidden using a Template:Hidden ... this is so as not not put people off voting by hitting them with a load of text. We should still show a "how to vote" section because people may not be familiar with STV. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I have copied the above conversation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Rules for a vote written up by Fmph in order to allow it to continue there. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've come back to this as it seemed appropriate given Masem (talk · contribs)s latest initiative. I'm not convinced about the polling suggestion above, but I think many people will agree with you, so I'm prepared to give on this. I am thinking about the software used to count the votes. It takes a numeric order, not ABC. When the tellers are entering the data, they will need to make a mental change from alpha to numeric. Always the possibility of a mistake in such a process. A compromise might be a public copy of the final ballot area where any purely alpha ballots have their format changed (but not their vote) to the alpha numeric format.

I did consider numbering the ballot options, but felt that would lead to even more confusion.

I'm also wary about the quota. In principle, it is a very good idea. But I am no STV expert and in discussions with my brother (who is heavily involved in the Dublin party political scene), he seems to think that it would be very difficult to functionally implement in STV. Maybe someone more expert would be able to comment. The basic principle of STV is that when 50%+1 is reached, then the thing is passed. I need convincing.

I'm going to 'push' my version on the talk page. No offence, eh? Fmph (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense at all. Sounds good. There's sound reasoning to stick with the standard formula ... which *could* (in the realms of the possible) BTW lead a a "winner" with less than 50%+1 so I wouldn't state that 50%+1 is what defines the "winner".

More pressing, though, is that the formula requires random selection in some circumstance. This means that if we have two or more people calculating the result there may be descripencies between their results. What do you think of my suggestion above regarding that concern ("I agree that three tellers should tally the the ballots but ...")? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown / Fingal / South Dublin

I noticed you "moved" the above articles. They would appear to be "cut and paste" moves which are generally frowned on, WP:MOVE. However I wanted to give you the benifit of doubt and ask first what does "per CON at WPI" mean? Djegan (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. It was a cut-and-paste move. My bad. (The "CON" was the consensus at "WPI".) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've asked Rockpocket to fix my blunder. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Djegan (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an Admin?

Are you an admin? I don't see what's wrong with listing out the social and business features of i-Meet. If you look at facebook, myspace and linkedin, they all do so as well. Please clarify —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.139.92 (talk • contribs)

I don't have access to the admin tools. A list of users that do can be seen here. If you need to be put in contact with one, I can direct you to users I know that have access to the tools.

"If you look at facebook, myspace and linkedin, they all do so as well." A good place to start is to understand what Wikipedia is not. Advertising (including advertisements masquerading as articles) are not welcome on Wikipedia. If the business is notable then the easiest way to "cure" the article is to rewrite it from an neutral point of view (*very* important) and remove "peacock terms".

I didn't remove the listing of social and business features - that was User:Drmies (see diff) - but I agree with his/her assessment that it was "content that properly belongs in a sales brochure".

I hope this doesn't put you off contributing to Wikipedia again. Best regards, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisu (2nd nomination)

Could you please take a look at the article as fixed per WP:HEY, and the 1st nomination, and change your !vote? Bearian (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Bearian (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's a pretty good article now. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smirking

I am smirking. I detect tactical voting with only a dozen voters there. -- Evertype·✆ 20:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's said to be an quality of these kind of electoral systems. I don't know if there is any evidence for it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even more fun is Tfz's attacks on me for having done this at all. "Sheese" [sic] -- Evertype·✆ 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tensions are frayed. People have invested a lot of effort into this over the past few months (and longer). All parties have made heart-felt and well-reasoned arguments in favour of all manner of approaches. I think a vote is the only option remaining - but it is understandable when people are unhappy about "risking" everything that they have invested in this process on the outcome of a vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But now they're bitching about having the vote at all. Even Masem is waffling. -- Evertype·✆ 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the nature of the dispute. Just when one thinks there's a light at the end of the tunnel? caboom. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish language

Hello. You may be interested in the discussion here. Mooretwin (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

Is it me or is there something wrong with - http://stats.grok.se/ ? Modernist (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it too. Pity. I found it useful. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's back. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good show, thanks...Modernist (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to self

Buy Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid a pint. -- Evertype·✆ 17:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless?

One wonders what all the work was for. -- Evertype·✆ 20:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signature forgery and POINT

A uasal anaithnid,
I can't believe you thought this edit was a serious attempt to mislead people! Is the word "light-hearted" not in your dictionary? There is no User:Aardvark, so how could I forge his signature? And WP:POINT is actually headed Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Disrupt Wikipedia? Lighten up, man. Scolaire (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to accuse people of disruption. -- Evertype·✆ 17:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evertype, are you making a point? ;-) Scolaire (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I struck it out. No harm, no foul? Though, in serious, I did at first mistake it for a comment by a User:Aardvark.

It's not very often that we get humour at on that page. People are taking it so seriously. And I guess I'm not untouched by it either. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I wasn't particularly offended anyway; more surprised and amused. You obviously haven't been watching Evertype and me. Even when we're at each other's throats we have our little private jokes. Scolaire (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr. -- Evertype·✆ 08:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johhny come lately

Hi. I hope nobody thinks this Johnny come lately to the discussion on the Ireland collaboration page is interfering. I wouldn't want to appear to be telling long term users and people who have worked on this for a long time what to do. I'm sure you all wouldn't listen to me anyway. :) Coll Mac (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Coll Mac. A fresh cool head is just what's needed. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whose "but"?

I accept your apology, and I'll never mention it again. But I would like to set the record straight: I'll admit I got cross at what I saw as unilateral changes to the ballot with - as I thought then - only a few hours left before the ballot opened. Then Masem gave his opinion on the changes, and I immediately responded with "Fair enough". So whatever caused the poll to be put on hold, it was not that. I would never do something like that. Scolaire (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Position statement

Why not move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements/Rannpháirtí_anaithnid? -- Evertype·✆ 07:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I do think the common template is good. -- Evertype·✆ 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit removing the name twice was a good one. Have we grounds for optimism? -- Evertype·✆ 20:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there is room for optimism. -- Evertype·✆ 09:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banners and Flags

I don't mean to sound patronising, but I thought I'd just try and explain my position on this in full, in the hopes of avoiding an edit war. In regards to the use of banners and flags in the Middle Ages;

"Flags" in the sense of their use in modern states as we know them today such as various tricolours, stars, stripes and so on are a very recent concept and quite different to the symbolism used in the Middle Ages. Their colours usually represent political "factions" or concepts; France's for instance represents the commune, the city of Paris, and white was meant to represent the monarchy. Like the SF tricolour represents "Gaels", Orangeism and peace between them. Political factionism.
In the Middle Ages the banner and arms of the state was usually that of the family who controlled the territory. To understand this you have to understand the vast difference between how the feudal system ran and the modern centralised state. The arms and banner of Normandy was two leopards, not because of any "nationalism" or communistic popular factionism, but because its the arms of the lord of the land the Duke of Normandy — his land, he is supreme, his arms representing it. Thus on an article like Thomond the arms are automatically that of the O'Briens, because they were monarchs of it. Just as in Ulster the arms were that of the O'Neill with the Red Hand of Ulster. There are a few exceptions in Europe where flags were chosen randomly as banners of sea faring states on ships, usually with Christian symbolism (Lion of Saint Mark on Venice's flag, the Cross of Saint George as England and Genoa's flag) but these are a minority.
Since these arms were most commonly used in a banner form, I think it is appropriate and not a form of misinformation, to present the banner form in the infobox of Middle Ages states where a flag would be placed in the infobox of a modern state. It is in no way myth making if the correct armorial banners are used in their respective article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the as the old adage goes, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Everything you say might be true, but without a verifiable source behind it, it doesn't meet the threshold. Thanks to verifiable sources we know what the arms of the Lordship of Ireland were. Once upon a time, they were listed as something else, for reasons similar to the argument you make above. But the sources said otherwise.

If you say there was a flag too then there will be a source for that also - just as there is a source to say what that there was a flag for Scotland and England during the same period (flags that look very dissimilar to the arms of those kingdoms, I might add, just as the arms of those kingdoms looked very different from the arms of their respective rulers).

Source the claim and everybody's happy. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what much more I can do, I explained to you the difference between a flag and a banner in the Middle Ages (and how it is suitable to put the heraldic banner in place of a flag of former countries). I explained to you how in the feudal era, territories were represented by the families who were the monarchs. The sources describe the heralidic arms and in the Gentleman's Magazine eve its use in parades (as a banner) is described. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current proposal for poll

I notice you'e online right now. I'd really like you to have a read of this section on the Collaboration talk page and see if you can address some of my concerns. Please believe that I am not trying to stir it, just to make sure that come polling day we are all singing off the same hymn sheet. Scolaire (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get the stess and confusion, Scolaire. But I'm not pushing anything. Or trying to steam-roll "my way". And I'm not fighting with you, OK? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I accept that! I've never thought otherwise. And the last thing I want is for you and me - or any two editors - to fling bullet points back and forth at each other. I'm going to respond once more on the talk page, and I hope you won't find it aggressive. Then I'd really love it if you and I did some collaborating. Scolaire (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Ireland

Impressed by the speedy reference. With which institution exactly was the Arms registered? RashersTierney (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... there was a problem with the Chief Herald's office sometime early in the 2000's (as regards it's legality in a "republic" etc.) I'm not sure if it was the chief herald or the national library in 1945 or if things had to be changed since the 2000's - or what exactly is the story. So the exact office, I don't know. That article is a bit of a mess, so that's something to be looked into for the future.

I would suspect too that the harp was registered as a trademark, along with the shamrock, at the same time. So that would add another (international and more "legal") institution into the mix. Another thing to add to the article.

If you don't mind, could you go through the article adding {fact} tags and other (even more annoying) templates where you think they are deserved. If you have the time could you leave a comment on the talk. I'd like to improve the article and a good critique of it by someone else would be a good place to start. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I should have some info. lying about somewhere from when I did some research on the adoption by the IFS of the harp on the new State seal. The first IFS passports did not have the seal imprint on the cover as the design of the seal was not completed in time for a delegation visiting the League of Nations. There was a small special run with a plain green cover, mostly reserved for 'state officials'. This was issued in parallel with a passport identical to the standard British passport for the general pop. (except for request page) until 1924, if memory serves. RashersTierney (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll pre-prep

I appreciated the comment about "mettle". Right now it's true we have several ballots in several places. Shall we try to put some order on this? -- Evertype·✆ 07:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a diff between the texts of the ballot itself. No differences but a commented-out comment. -- Evertype·✆ 08:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a diff between your preamble info-box and mine. They are nearly identical. They differ in the title of the infobox, and in a link at the bottom (where mine links to the right place and yours to a temp). We should agree on the title, and then ask Masem to move it to the transclusion-source for the ballot. -- Evertype·✆ 08:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this to the talk page to make Scoláire happy. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 08:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masem unprotected; I moved; I changed the date; I've suggested to Masem that he re-protect. Please see the transclusion source if you would like to verify. -- Evertype·✆ 13:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]