Jump to content

User talk:Tóraí/Archive/Archive 4

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

[edit]

Uploading free images to Wikimedia Commons

[edit]

Thank you for uploading free images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'file' namespace from the drop down box (or see [1]). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! Quibik (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

That general piece of information aside, what I wanted to say was: if you edit an image from Commons (File:Range guitar.png) and upload a new version for it as a new file, then rather than uploading it to English Wikipedia, please use the derivativeFX for uploading it to the Commons instead. That also takes care of all the licensing information that needs to be provided. Regards, Quibik (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your other work (File:Royal standard of Swaziland.svg) I see that you are well aware of all this already. Apologies. Do move that image to Commons, though. Quibik (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No bother :) My mistake. Will move it now. -- RA (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding committed identity

[edit]

The committed identity on your userpage is done using the SHA-1 algorithm, which you might be aware is considered broken since 2005. So I would advise you to move to SHA-256 or SHA-512. --JovianEye (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted and acted upon. Thank you. -- RA (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luasog bot

[edit]

No idea what this will do. Look forward to finding out. But I have a strong feeling that it would make life easier if the o lost the accent. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god ... at this stage it vapourware! I haven't looked at it in months! The idea is pretty simple (simplified bot scripting in Javascript - I used it to count the ballots in the Ireland-naming vote, for example) but I started off with too many grand ideas I've been turned off labouring over bells and whistles. Time to go back to the drawing board and strip it down to the basics, me thinks. Bells and whistles can come later.
Point about the fada is noted. I'll keep it in the name (I like the name) but will make sure doesn't impact on use. -- RA (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding headings to talk pages

[edit]

Don't move my posts around like this. don't move anybodys posts around like that. If you are in doubt in future, ask about it. Cheers thanks. ~ R.T.G 13:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I thought it was a separate question (related to your posting of the flag on the project page). -- RA (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

[edit]

ALISN

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

Thanks!

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

Doc Quintana (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Talkback!

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

Doc Quintana (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

[edit]

Just a heads-up. Looks like Ireland will be getting the British nationalist treatment soon; see here. Enjoy. Daicaregos (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

[edit]

Arbitration motion regarding Ireland article names

[edit]

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011.



2) While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Adrian Crowley

[edit]

Excellent, thanks (I've not much experience with flickr), would you be able to do that? I think it might be possible to send him to GAN soon and an image would be helpful. :-) --candle•wicke 19:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See File:Aidrian-Crowley.jpg and File:Aidrian-Crowley-2.jpg. -- RA (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thank you! The photos look amazing! --candle•wicke 19:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't thank me, thank Michael Gallacher :-) Glad I could be of help. -- RA (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Michael if you're reading this! Now if I could find one for Julie Feeney that would be all the current winners of the Choice Music Prize... --candle•wicke 19:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, are (m)any of the following musical images acceptable? Delorentos, Jape, Fight Like Apes, Cathy Davey, Lisa Hannigan at Glastonbury 1, Lisa Hannigan at Glastonbury 2. The Bell X1 good article doesn't have an image at all and I see there are several images of Paul Noonan on flickr. I searched using the link you provided. I also saw a few other interesting photos which might be useful for some articles, such as Lisbon Treaty Yes and No Posters, Micheál Martin under an umbrella, blurry Mary Robinson, the entire Green Parliamentary Party, Mary White and Paul Gogarty (articles don't have images), three more politicians. --candle•wicke 20:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They all look good. Cool to know there are so many. Maybe it's something that the WikiProject Ireland should start instilling into editors: for every Ireland article we come across search Flickr for a photos and upload them?
To make sure, click on the "Some rights reserved" link (if it isn't there, then it's definitely not usable). The license will come up. Look for "Under the following conditions". The only conditions we accept are "Attribution" and/or "Share Alike" (or none). See commons:Commons:Flickr files for more info. -- RA (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Flickr use "infomatique" has loads of free Irish images, but be mindful to also check that the free licence is clearly valid. Occasionally you will find uploaders who improperly claim copyright on public domain images, known as copyfraud, and visa versa. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's what I thought but wanted a second opinion. I don't have experience of Commons or Flickr so I can't upload any of them. Des Bishop and Tommy Tiernan, Charlie Bird, Ryan Tubridy, Rose of Tralee? --candle•wicke 21:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just log into the commons and use the Flickr upload bot which does most of the work for you; paste in the link to the largest version of the Flickr file, refine the description, alter the file name if necessary and add categories. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know about that. I've just uploaded Micheál Martin. Is everything as it should be? --candle•wicke 22:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP Ireland in the Signpost

[edit]

Hi Rannpháirtí anaithnid. WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Ireland for a Signpost article to be published March 15. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? -Mabeenot (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. Here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, feel free to share this with them. I've contacted several of the project's recently active editors, but the more the merrier. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my bit! ww2censor (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books

[edit]

Just in case you missed it, I left a suggestion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#WikiProject Ireland books yesterday morning. Scolaire (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

[edit]

Those question

[edit]

I left some comments. Even doing that left me feeling dejected. -- Evertype·✆ 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Ireland

[edit]

I left a rambling note at Talk:Ireland 800–1169 following this redir you just created - nothing wrong with the redir (as a start) but there's a lot of things wrong with the article it's pointing to. Just saying :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment there. I think we agree. --RA (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion regarding (re)organising the Irish history articles seem to be moving somewhat slowly - while patience is a virtue I'm still eager to actually start doing something... I'm currently working on expanding/fixing the Norwegian equivalent of Ireland 800–1169, and for a number of reasons it would be good to do that work simultanously in Norwegian and English. Just to give you an impression of what I'm doing, this is Googles translation of my work in progress. Do you think it would be useful to make a proper translation with the aim of replacing the current English article (which could be moved to Viking (sigh...) Ireland)? If so, would you be willing to lend me a hand copyediting (I can make a better translation than Google, but not much better...) and formatting citations (currently lacking in the Norwegian version also, adding inline citations as well as writing out the parts that are only "keywords" is what I'm about to start working with)? If you think this work might be worth while doing, but don't have the time to assist, do you know any other editors here that might be interrested? Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's pretty much consensus. I was going to let leave it open for a day or two more then just be bold.
From a quick look your no.wiki article is far superior. I have no issue with copy editing it - however I know people get upset about copying-and-pasting a whole new article on top of another. So, maybe we could create a "new" Viking Ireland article, which I'll be happy to copy edit for you. Could you do something about making the current Early history of Ireland and Ireland 800–1169 articles into History of Ireland 431 - 795 and History of Ireland 795 - 1169?
I'll get in touch with Scolaire and work on rearranging the article articles since 1169 per the consensus. I'll also look into the pre-431 articles, if you like? --RA (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Do you intend to be so bold as to start moving the actual articles around or just create a "shadowstructure" in userspace? Just to clarify, my intention with pre 1169 is that
  1. the current Ireland 800–1169 (minus the two last paragraphs) should be moved to Viking Ireland. Even as "Viking Ireland" it needs further improvement, but at it will serve for the time being.
  2. A translation (maybe ommitting some parts) of my work in progress will be the new History of Ireland 795 - 1169 (Ireland 800–1169 redir there)
  3. Early history of Ireland moved to History of Ireland 431 - 795 (more precise name anyway, the article itself needs improvement at some point though).
I haven't more than skimmed the pre- and proto- articles, and I guess a merger of those needs to be proposed at the respective talkpages and done by someone who actually knows that stuff... If the two of us are agreed on how to proceed with 400/-31 - 1169 I guess we should post that intention at talk:History of Ireland. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... having read Ireland 800–1169 over again - the whole article really needs fixing badly, and a better strategy might be for me simply to expand/fix it mainly based on what I'm already doing in Norwegian. I could start creating a proper new Viking Ireland in a sandbox while doing so. Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. My thinking simply that if you were going to copy the no.wiki article in here, it would be better to do so as an entirely new trans-wiki article rather than pasting over an exiting article on this wiki. I think it would just be more "politic". The Ireland 800–1169 is a mess but moving it to History of Ireland 795 - 1169 and rewriting its content would not change its nature. --RA (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand what you mean about "politic" - but if I just expand/fix the present article step by step I'm not stepping on anybodys toes, as well as not starting something I might not finish (how much wikitime I have varies a bit unpredictably with real life...). Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdoms of Connacht

[edit]

I would really like to see one for Connacht and Ui Maine. Hopefully I will be able to create my own after that! Ideally there should be one for all the major Irish kingdoms. Fergananim (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

[edit]

Irish Place

[edit]
Hello, Tóraí. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox settlement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom

[edit]

Umm...I'm not sure if you're having a go at me or not, but I certainly agree with your first three sentences, and I don't have a particular view on the latter part which doesn't seem directly linked to the question anyway. I was just idly replying to a possible troll or, at best, someone in need of basic advice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not having a go. Certainly not at you at least. Sorry if I came across like that. I'm prickish over "country" and "Northern Ireland" - particularly, "the latter part which doesn't seem directly linked to the question anyway" :) --RA (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know they do - not me though, I hope, so apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, apologies are on my side to give. I was the one that gave a prickly response. --RA (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RA, shouldn't that have been prickly over country... rather than prickish? Jack forbes (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
;-) I'll leave that to other to decide. --RA (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always see the good side in people, so I'll call it prickly. :) Jack forbes (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

[edit]

Ireland GA

[edit]

Do you want to discuss any of the issues thrown up by the GA, such as the todo list? I'll try to do the notes thing if I can get an example of what is meant. Some justification may be that this is an island article and not a country article, so some of these things may not be so applicable and maybe should have been removed a long time ago; those todo items have been there since 2008 and never edited since then. Thoughts. ww2censor (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could find an example on the notes-thingy here Merfyn Frych for instance, the point is to separete comments from citations (I don't like it myself, but...) Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on the talk. Some of the todos are duds IMHO. --RA (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to start a notes section and add one note but the second note needed (ref 3 re population) is used twice and I could not figure out how to code that without getting an error. Can someone else do it? ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done it. The two main refs were back-to-front (see the diff and you'll see what I mean). --RA (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

[edit]

You're doing a grand job, RA. Hope I'm not tripping you up on the way. Jack forbes (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, enjoying it. That coal thing is interesting. --RA (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the article needs any more images, but I had a wee look at commons to see if there where any suitable for the economy section and found these [2] [3]. If you don't think their suitable please say so, but I thought I'd show you them anyway. Jack forbes (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this might better. (I think it's a nicer picture too.) It shows how close Ireland was to industrialising just at the point before the union - this was state of the art stuff. Also, one of the questions in the "coal" thing was whether Ireland could have used anything other than coal? Read the description accompanying the picture to see the choices going. --RA (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's a better photograph by far, and it's a snapshot of where Ireland was industrial wise just before the union. Jack forbes (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like RAs suggestion. I added a new image to the agricultural section, though I would have preferred a better "cows grazing" image. Maybe I can take a better one next month myself on my Irish visit. I think some sections are in need more citations. ww2censor (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - once you're happy that you've done everything you need to with the article, can you just put a note on my talk page so I know I can read it through again before it's passed. Jhbuk (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think we should do with the lede? The new food & drink section seems woefully under cited but I have not found much to support it even though I think most of it is true. Did you write it? If so where did you source it from? See you later. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Ww, Yikes! Is it that bad? A lot of the first two paras came from The Oxford Companion to Food. The third para from Irish cuisine. The fourth para from my own knowledge of whiskey (*hic*). And the last para is kind common knowledge. Mark anything with {{fact}} and drop a note here and I'll ref it up.
I don't know about the lede. I don't think it was so bad but it wouldn't hurt to try and shorten it. Even if worst comes to worst we can revert to the version we had anyway.
@Jhbuk, thanks! Will do. --RA (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, woefully was probably too strong but a few extra citations would be good in this section. Maybe you can do some today, otherwise I will try to look at it tonight. I don't think it is necessary to add cns. Later. ww2censor (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more references just now (sorry for the hold up: Easter and strife elsewhere on the wiki). Do you think it's OK to proceed? --RA (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same here; yesterday had to upgrade my wife's Mac to be able to use the her new iPad, but the update gave me drama, so had to do a complete clean install and now all is well after about 4 hours work. Today I had to dig out a large shrub that was damaged by our recent snow, etc. Anyway, the refs look good though I did add the page numbers I think you used as well as the isbn for the Food Companion but you might want to do likewise for the other references you added. I think it looks great now. Well done. Let's keep our fingers crossed. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fingers crossed indeed. Will we contact Jhbuk? (Would be interested BTW if you could let me know how your wife gets on with the iPad, after a week or so of her using it. Have a professional interest in these kinds of things but haven't seen/used the iPad in real life.) --RA (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the article (done a tiny bit of copyediting), but the only problem that I can see now is that there appear to be several (well, 15) books cited, but without page numbers. This is fairly significant, and I should have spotted it sooner, although it might not be necessary for all of the refs I mentioned to have them. I think Ww2censor seems to be having a go at correcting that. Otherwise very good. Jhbuk (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aarrggh! I never cite book numbers (lately this has become the norm, I know). Will take a look through it tonight and get back. Thanks. --RA (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to mention the lack of some page numbers, but have been busy all day, though as you see I did add sone missing isbns that I could find. If you can add some I will also look for some if I can find the books. It's looking much better now. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

[edit]

Kingdom of Wales

[edit]

This re-written paragraph was so against the spirit of Wikipedia that it was either an act of trolling, or an April fool! As far as "kingdoms" have to do with anything, Wales was a principality. Whatever your reason for it, I don't believe for a minute you expected the edit to stick. Matt Lewis (talk)

Don't want to cause an ec while your editing, but "being increasing annexation" doesn't seem like proper English to me... Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh start

[edit]

Your response at the SE page takes in a lot of emotive thoughts and concepts (having a bug bear, to being the centre of the universe, to making decisions without having an interest in the content, overstepping a mark in excess of Arbcom). Can we actively agree to avoid this type of approach? It's not helpful, and usually results in long drawn-out nationalistic and vacuous arguments. We've all been there before. We can learn and move on. It's an easy habit to pick up, but if we avoid it I believe we'll make progress. Feel free to delete this. --HighKing (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that it is a "bug bear" of mine too - but we do need perspective. It is not the most important thing on the wiki and should not determine how sources are used across the 'pedia. --RA (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't mean to nag or whine at you, my intention is to actually make some progress this time. I agree that it is not the most important thing on the wiki - content is. But taking that approach you could equally argue in the same way over capitalizing after full stops, correcting spellings, etc, as well as implementing styles (e.g. Ireland/RoI). If we get past the reluctance to discuss usage of BI, and get past personal preferences and baked-in thought patterns, maybe we can put enough of a MOS in place to deal with 90%+ or more of articles. --HighKing (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm not opposed to a MOS entry for British Isles. I think it would be useful and had worked on one before my extended wiki break. A MOS entry though shouldn't (IMHO) determine how sources are used - particularly one that would affect so many articles and topics as this one would. I also believe in KISS and that a MOS entry should reflect what we can all agree on, not horse trading or procedures. The two points from Snowded that I proposed should go into a MOS are (I believe) basic statements of two things that we can call agree on (I think). Start small. We don't need to cure all the worlds ills in one day. If the little bits are behind us the bigger picture may fall into place.--RA (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "how sources are used"? Sorry, I don't understand if we're talking about the same thing. By this, do you mean how references are used? Because we've already seen (and you've been involved in) discussions where the reference states "England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales", but the article uses British Isles, and when questioned the outcome was that it's fine to use "British Isles" in that context. --HighKing (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be. Sounds like an issue for Wikipedia:Verifiability, not the MOS. Per norm, take it up as being improperly cited (probably on the article talk page), if its a problem. There may be a good reason for it - or there may not be. Either way, it's covered by WP:V. --RA (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is where we started. Asking for references, etc. And then the discussion comes off the subject of refs and onto ... well, you've seen it. Much like the RoI subject, this needs an MoS whereby we can give common-sense guidelines on where to start. Anyway RA, thanks for the clarification. --HighKing (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

[edit]

Post 1922

[edit]

Hi RA, I posted a question relating to why BI shouldn't be used post 1922 in a cultural and political sense? What are your thoughts behind this? Was British Isles *ever* used in a cultural and political sense (in an accepted manner, sources, etc), or was it a convenient shorthand-of-the-day? Thanks for your contribs to date - I'm optimistic we could be nearing a conclusion. --HighKing (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIIE

[edit]

Dear RA, glad to know that you have edited the page IIIE. Kindly add more details and give a smart look.The article need more info.Btw, may i know, are you a member of IIIE? regards --Shrieekk (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shrieekk. I'm not a member of the IIIE, I'm merely a Special:NewPages watcher. From time-to-time I copy edit newly added pages to make them fit more accordingly with the Wikipedia:Manual of style. Best of luck with the article, --RA (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ireland

[edit]

"Peoples and politics" wasn't a good wording, but neither is "polities". "Gaelic Ireland" certainly doesn't describe a polity as Wikipedida defines it. Best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means change it to something better. --RA (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't come up with something better, my comment was sort of intended to ask you if you could... ;) How about "Peoples and polities" (also bearing in mind that if anyone gets around to writing them it would include Viking Ireland and Norman Ireland.Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good :-) ... sorry I couldn't be of any more help! --RA (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Tóraí. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 02:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ww2censor (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Fallschirmjäger 13:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

[edit]

WT:MP

[edit]

Please don't modify that discussion any further. I soft-archived it because it was a very unproductive discussion about an issue no longer related to the Main Page. It would be nice if it could be left there, though, as a recent thread, which is why I used {{archivetop}} rather than {{hat}}. I you want to continue the discussion, please find another venue. Thank you for understanding. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Sorry about that. I only noticed the archive box it after I had posted my message (though I don't know how I could have missed it). You were right to close if off. (I had considered soft arching it too earlier on but as I became a participant that was not possible.) --RA (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had similar reservations because I'd voiced my own opinion but enough is enough. I had hoped that it would either fizzle out or someone uninvolved would do it, but WT:MP could rival ANI for long and futile arguments! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

[edit]

PIIGS

[edit]

I had already fixed the references in this edit, so was it really necessary to make the snotty remark in your edit summary? -Rrius (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't need a talkback template if you see fit to respond—I have already added your page to my watchlist. -Rrius (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on the article talk page. --RA (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PIGS

[edit]

Hmm, I see you added 4 refs for the second "G". I am not going to waste my time on editing wikipedia endlessly, nevertheless you do know that as an encyclopedia Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the information out there: you very well know that only a handful of articles out there out of millions would use PIGS with two Gs. In fact, it is the first time I heard the two G thing (and not just in the English-language press). I am not British at all, but seems that your national pride has been hurt because your country is being referred to as being part of the PIGS - the FT article about "pigs flying" was a good read :). Hey, pigs are animals and they have rights too you know. For all that you know, there might be a tribe in Africa where it might be considered a compliment to be called a flying pig. They might even be worshipping pigs!

Don't worry, I am sure that there will be events in the future that will permit you to recover your national pride, like a Frenchman 'not' using his hand to stop Ireland (sorry, Eire-land) from reaching the WC Finals. If all else fails, you might get on working manufacturing a "native language sign", you know, just to make you feel like you actually have a language and all :))) Mechanic007 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly PIIGS is more common (right now at least). The second G for the UK has only started to be added by some in the last few months, although the UK has been associated with the acronym for some time.
There is a problem in general with giving encyclopedia space to topics that are too recent. Neither PIIGS nor PIIGGS make for good encyclopedia articles because they are about topics that are happening right now. Look at the economics section of that article: its a mess because it cannot be written without turning the article into a news report. There is no sense of perspective to it or sense of genuine understanding because these are events that are unfolding right now and secondary sources are still making sense of them. They have no place in a tertiary source like an encyclopedia.
An encyclopedia article needs a fixed target not a moving one. For example, now some are saying that Ireland can be dropped from the acronym (e.g. BBC blog) and others are saying that a new acronym should be coined ("PUGS", with the UK replacing both Ireland and Italy).
The article was nominated to be deleted on this basis but was was kept. In that case all that we can do is record events as they happen. And among those events are that some now add a second G for the UK.
Don't worry about the handball. C'est la vie, as you say. The rugby was more of an upset - made all the worse by the fact that you didn't need to cheat to win ;-) --RA (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

[edit]

MOS Guidelines.

[edit]

Hi RA, I believe the MOS guidelines are nearly ready. Could you take a look at the most recent? What is the next step? Thanks for helping. --HighKing (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not at all ready. As they stand, they have been "agreed" only by one party - those in favour of limiting BI usage. I object to some of the proposals, as detailed in various locations. You have not addressed the concerns of several editors, so you will not be able to impose these "guidelines" on the encyclopedia. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

[edit]

Anglo-Celitc Isles

[edit]

Was this an accident? --HighKing (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's how we pronounce it in Mayo :-)
Yea, typo. --RA (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

[edit]

Whoopsie!

[edit]

Nice text, but could still use some references...  ;-) I'm no linguist, so might try to help but am unlikely to be much use finding (or recognizing) good ones. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bunch of work on the article a long time back. Another editor contributed a lot at the time too, since also mostly or totally retired. Most of the material we added was gradually eliminated by IDONTLIKEIT of one sort of another. Now I'm merely an occasional visitor. Wikipedia got too like usenet. Nutters everywhere. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tóraí/Archive/Archive_4&oldid=1142715462"