Jump to content

User talk:Tóraí/Archive/Archive 5

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

Talk:Northern Ireland and WP:NOTAFORUM

[edit]

The reason I removed the comment - I can't comment for the other editor who removed it - was because it was unrelated to improving the article.

I respect your decision to reinstate it, and certainly won't remove it again, but I am concerned that it isn't a proper post for an article's talk page, and that it's a divisive post at a talk page where divisiveness doesn't tend to be helpful.

Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 18:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It blew a lot of steam and we are probably of the same mindset that keeping discussion tightly focused is best on an article such as Northern Ireland. But one post does not make for a forum and, even if the post did blow a lot of wind, its premise was based on developing the article (use of the word "country" in the lead) and not just a random rant. Criticism of any part of an article - no matter how much hot air comes with it - is always on-topic.
If the thread develops in to a general rant between several editors then close it off. (And, at the very least, removing posts is also unwise on an article such as that.) --RA (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, hell, by the time several editors are involved I ain't touching it ;-) Fair enough, and thanks! TFOWRpropaganda 19:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! --RA (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

[edit]

GB&I

[edit]

Personally I think that if one has to have a dab page for this prhrase you should include all of the meanings however straightforward they are. The Talk page shows that some people do not grasp the problem that using the phrase literally excludes a number of other islands in the area. Specifying that the phrase includes only two of the many islands in the archipelago is unfortunately necessary in my opinion. There should be no need to add the separate definitions of Great britain and Ireland below as they are not the subject of the page, merely components of the phrase. But I should have known better than to poke my nose into this mess of POV pushing. Dabbler (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be no need to dab to the separate definitions of Great Britain and of Ireland. They are merely components of the phrase. It was for that reason that I reverted your edit. All it did was just that: dab out to component parts.
You are not alone in your view though and including dabs for Great Britain and Ireland also is intended as a clearer and less POINTy way of doing doing so without dabbing to all possibly permutation of United Kingdom/Great Britain x Ireland/Republic of Ireland separately. Or making POINTy remarks that about problems with the phrase.
(Similarly, POINTy remarks have to be avoided when dealing the problems of the other name for these islands. Or insisting that we should dab it to ensure that readers understand that it may also just mean "isles that are British".)
A comparably example is Australia and New Zealand, which redirects to Australasia for which it is a synonym. It does not explain that, in any given context, all that may be meant is just Australia and New Zealand. It does not pointedly remark that the phrase doesn't include all of the islands that are a part of Australasia. But, as you indicate, Australasia is much less of a POV pushing mess than the British Isles. --RA (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroids and Bots

[edit]

Regarding this: [1], I have just one thing to say. THANK YOU !!! 98.71.255.6 (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. With a bit of luck it will get the OK. --RA (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

[edit]

Your action is a subject at ANI

[edit]
I've requested oversight regarding your demands and cite blanking at ANI. The section can be found here:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_requiring_extraordinary_reference_and_has_just_removed_all_25_Ref.27s .99.141.254.167 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PIGS (economics)

[edit]

I reverted back to the IP's version. I can see that there are problems with it, but it seems to me that nearly blanking the article is not the best course of action to take in response to the content dispute. Note that I'm not agreeing with either side here, I just think that the tiny unsourced version is not appropriate.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 20:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My intention was to immediately start re-adding references (and not just leave the article hanging). Removing all of the - even those that were fine IMHO, and not just those I saw as being a problem - was meant as an act of neutrality and fairness. Unfortunately, real life got in the way and I was not able to re-add references to the article immediately. --RA (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

[edit]

I would participate if you were to wish to try that avenue. I think first though we might try to at least agree on what are differences are. How do you see our differences? We did agree quite generally on a number of things - most importantly that the article was in need of assistance. Let's see if our positives can give us the basis in which to ... create a better article. Seriously. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck that since and made it Wikipedia:Third Opinion. That would probably be a good idea anyway - it's very claustrophobic on that article with just the two of us.
The biggest problem I have is with OR, SYN and how sources a treated in general. I think the general direction of your rewrite is fine (and I've said I was supportive of a rewrite from the start) but I think the rewrite as it stands shows a very lax approach to sources. Use of sources has to be literal. A lot of what is in the text now is an interpretation of sources rather than a literal description of what they say.
A third opinion could be an opportunity to get an outside view on both texts ("your" most recent one and "my" most recent one). How about we take a day or two to get our positions together and we can present it to an outside editor for comment? --RA (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with venue, and whatever pace you wish to take is fine. My position is largely constructed on the talk page already, I will just re-present it in a more trimmed concise fashion at wherever I'm directed. .99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm busy in IRL now. I'll drop a line on the talk page over the weekend. --RA (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put a comment on the article's talk page trying to find a neutral ground between the versions. Thanks!  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

[edit]

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and you seem to be learned and interested in Irish, and maybe other minorized languages, so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm part of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will help all the small languages in obtaining a representation! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! slán agat! Capsot (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

[edit]

Bot framework

[edit]
Hello, Tóraí. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard.
Message added 06:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PleaseStand (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PIGS again

[edit]

I've replied again on the article's talk page. We are coming very close to a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

[edit]

Northern Ireland demonym

[edit]

Hi, I didn't mean to be pedantic or adversarial by reducing the demonyms (and their sources) in the NI info box to the original Irish and N. Irish.

I didn't like the arguments put forward by the other editors involved that appeared to be an appeal to logic rather than sources. I thought cutting things back in the article might have been a better way forward until the talk page had settled down. I could self revert if you felt it helped things. WikiuserNI (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no bother. Others there have done the same thing. Its up to yourself. You are right about the "appeal to logic". But rarely do these conform to logic. --RA (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ordnance Survey

[edit]

As far as I'm aware the OS OpenData Initiative is specific to them only and the crucial element that makes it useful for us is that the raw data is released under a free license (designed to be like {{cc-by-3.0}}). OSNI (or rather LPS) only appears to provide unsuitable (and expensive) licenses. OSI copyright is similarly restrictive. (Incidentally the MapGenie says that it includes both OSI and OSNI data). Unfortunately this means that the Irish data isn't usable at present, even if you can access it.

As for the GB data I've been using: I've been working from the raw data supplied by the OS (specifically the boundary line product). There are a number of raster file outputs that may or may not be useful, whilst the most useful data is in shapefile format.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Britain

[edit]

The claim that Ptolemy, in the Almagest, referred to Ireland as Little Britain (Mikra Brettania) is open to challenge. The reference is to Almagest 2.6.25-27 [Heiberg 1898] translated as:

The twenty-fifth parallel has a longest day of 18 equatorial hours. This is 58 degrees from the equator and passes through the southern part of 'Mikra Brettania'. The twenty-sixth parallel has a longest day of 18.5 equatorial hours. This is 59.5 degrees from the equator and passes through the middle part of 'Mikra Brettania'. The parallel where the longest day is 19 equatorial hours is 61 degrees from the equator and passes through the northern parts of 'Mikra Brettania'.

Even though Ptolemy incorrectly places Hibernia at these latitudes in his Geography, identifying Hibernia with Mikra Brettania resembles equating Birmingham with Amsterdam.

Ptolemy could be referring to Scotland, as shown by the medieval cartographer Abraham Ortelius, in the Parergon (historical appendix) to his Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, Antwerp, 1595 and by JANSSONIUS, J. in his Insularum Britannicarum acurata delineatio, Amsterdam 1642. AJRG (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is disputed in published sources then that should be added to the article. The reference for Ireland as Mikra Britannia is Freeman, Philip (2001). Ireland and the classical world. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. p. 65. It can be seen on Google Books. However, I wouldn't go mixing Britania Major and Britannia Minor from the 16th century with similar sounding terms from the 2nd century. The names of the places and people in the archipelago have shifted greatly over time. It may be worthwhile noting that in the 16th century, Britain itself was divided between "Major" and "Minor". --RA (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a map of sixteenth century Britain. It's a published sixteenth century map of third or fourth century Roman Britain, based on Ptolemy and other sources, by Abraham Ortelius - a reliable source that contradicts Freeman's interpretation, though there are other map makers who agree. The point is that it's not a universally agreed interpretation, so shouldn't be presented as one. AJRG (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Potlemy's maps were an inspiration to 16th century map makers but were in no where near as much detail at that. They also showed Scotland in a much more distorted fashion. See here for a rendering of Ptolemy's Britain from Geography.
If a source exists to say that Ptolemy's Mikra Britannia of Almagest referred to northern Great Britain then it should be added; but the maps you link to above do not support it without original thought. --RA (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend Recreating a possible Flavian map of Roman Britain with a detailed map for Scotland. Translation from Greek Μικρὰ Βρεττανία to Latin Britannia Minor is not OR (cf Phrygia Minor - Greek: μικρὰ Φρυγία) and Ptolemy would have spoken both languages. As far as I can tell there are only two recent books that identify Mikra Brettania with Ireland - Freeman, already cited, and Richard Bradley's The prehistory of Britain and Ireland (though his exact wording stops short of certainty and he appears to be quoting A.L.F. Rivet and Colin Smith's, The Place-Names of Roman Britain). There are various nineteenth century books that equate Britannia Minor with Ireland, and some maps that refer to Ireland as Hibernia seu Britannia minor, but there appears little appetite amongst modern authors to make an identification. AJRG (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reference to "Mikra Britannia" (or similar) in the PDF link. Am I missing it? Be cautious about translating between languages and making assumptions based on it. If modern authors, aside from those you cited, disagree that Ireland was described as "Mikra Britannia" in Almagest then we should cite them. But we need cites to do so first. --RA (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF was a response to the rather crude interpretation of Ptolemy's map that you offered. Particularly notable was its observation that Ptolemy used a different scale west of the River Tamar and also in Scotland. A German translation of the Almagest (there's a lack of English ones) is here. If you search for brettania you'll find the passage Freeman quotes from - it uses Großbrettania and Kleinbrettania. You'll struggle to find many references to μικρὰ βρεττανία or mikra brettania. The only modern ones I haven't yet presented are the Manx scholar George Broderick's Indo-European and non-Indo-European aspects to the languages and place-names in Britain and Ireland quoting in passing from The Place-Names of Roman Britain (a source cited extensively by Freeman and several times by Bradley) and Anglo-Saxon England (by Peter Clemoes, Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge) citing the same source but helpfully giving the page number as 112. So we have one source, Rivet and Smith (1979), cited several times. AJRG (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of any that contradict the statement though? Don't get me wrong, I'm no cheer-leader for "Mikra Britannia" but if it is verifiable regardless of whether it is true or not. "V, not T" (and the other policies) really is the only thing that I am a cheerleader for. --RA (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When the only source for a very rarely used term is close to being a gazetteer, expecting an explicit modern contradiction is rather optimistic, especially when Ptolemy doesn't say that μικρὰ βρεττανία is an island (or indeed that it isn't). The identification of Ptolemy's μικρὰ βρεττανία with Britannia Minor is made here (post-medieval Latin prefers Britannia Parva). I've quoted a reliable medieval source (the first true atlas in the modern sense) which disagrees with the identification with Ireland. AJRG (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested

[edit]

In this discussion here Mo ainm~Talk 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

[edit]

Why did my bot stop running?

[edit]

After about one week of continuous operation, User:PSBot stopped running the User:PSBot/Deprods task (source code is on the talk page). I believe this was caused by the recent Wikipedia outage, and the bot never automatically restarted. [I do not believe an error message was ever generated; perhaps it timed out when it was trying to retrieve the list of category members (the last message was "Edit succeeded").] Is it possible to set up a bot using your framework to automatically restart when the wiki is back up?

Also, do you think running the bot on Firefox, Chromium, or Konqueror (with custom user-agent and other settings of course) rather than the IDE would work? I am considering moving the bot to a separate Linux server that happens to be an old Mac. Therefore, I cannot use Adobe's compiled AIR binary (needs to work on a PowerPC processor).

And what is the current status of support for the minor and bot flags? I am considering extending the bot to leave messages on talk pages (yes, I am aware of approval requirements), and it would be nice to have those flags available. PleaseStand (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folens

[edit]

Seeing the Times article you quoted, I checked Folens' web site. No sign of the proposed change yet... AJRG (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao i love the sample of the contents page shown on that link. They give it a very dominant position and plenty of pages. The quote in the article it talks about stopping its use in Ireland, would be interesting to find out what alternative book they publish just for Irish use and play spot the difference. I think the fact Folens is still using the term strongly in some of its publications deserves a mention after the sentence that talks about it. Will have to raise that on the talk page i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny alright! ... but I wouldn't be so quick. We don't know what year those PDFs are from - or what they actually are. I see one is marked as a "UK atlas" which I would find very peculiar for an Irish national school classroom. The Folens atlas is a rebranded version of a Philips atlas. Given the "UK atlas", those PDF (and the blurb) could be quick re-brands of interiors of Philips version.
Out of curiosity I've occasionally kept an eye out for the infamous atlas but I've never seen it in real life. If wanted, I can try to find it for once and for all at the weekend. Although, I would say that without a reference, it won't count for much. --RA (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That one AJRG linked to is the 2006 edition, it doesnt look like they have made a new atlas for the UK since then, those books appear in its 2010 primary catalogue. Theres a whole separate set of books for ireland on their Irish website which probably now no longer mention it. But a sentence saying the most recent edition of their atlas used in the UK still uses BI might be justified after the sentence on it no longer being used in Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BI Lede

[edit]

Hey RA, what do you think of shortening para's 2 and 3? I think the intentions behind introducing other info into the lede is good - but its too long. Thats all. No other agenda. --HighKing (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. No agenda whatsoever. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had considered several times posting a comment on that thread several times. Literally just now I had typed up a comment, but discarded it. I'll drop a line in now. --RA (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full support from me. I suggest that a revised draft be prepared in a quiet little space somewhere, and then put forward. Personally, I've given up responding to anyone who says "I think that..." or "My view is..." Let's try to make some progress using the peer review and good practice. (And WP:AGF, fwiw.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is a peer reviewer chosen, out of interest? I note that the peer reviewer knew about Atlantic Archipelago, surely a minority interest. Or was that already in the article at the time of review? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been in the article a few weeks so yes. Anyway, I actually came here to thank RA for concentrating on implementing sensible changes to the body of the article (as per the peer review) while most of us have been arguing over a couple of words in the introduction. The article is looking much better. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of Ireland

[edit]

Please see my query at Talk:List of flags of Ireland#Question. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

[edit]

You're supporting the call for a topic ban? Seriously? That is a serious matter, and you sincerely believe my actions are so disruptive? I'm shocked. I'm more than shocked. I can't believe you did that - I've always held your opinions in high esteem, but this is a serious lack of judgement. --HighKing (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not you. Everyone. You know I've always been of the opinion that working through pages systematically and changing one word to another only raises bad feelings. I don't think it's wise. Words like British Isles have great symbolic meaning for people. Even when used incorrectly, changing it to another turn of phrase is something that should be approached with sensitivity for those who cherish it (for what ever reason).
Like I posted, I don't support the idea that what you are doing is in any sort of poor faith (unlike LevenBoy who I think was just reverting your edits as part of a war). I do think it's unwise. I'd prefer not to have a topic ban on any individual, but a general ban on the activity all together. --RA (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re this and your comment on my page HK, I also agree that you are acting in good faith - I just don't agree with the policy you (and to be fair a number of others) want to pursue. I don't see this as a personal issue, as I've mentioned before, so regardless of who holds who in esteem, I think you need to concretely address the actual policy questions and have a serious think about wether site-wide deletions are really the right thing to maintain. I know that you repeatedly aim to show that these are considered and I agree that some are, but you stray over the line often enough and in a maintained way enough to have convinced me that as a policy it won't work. There needs to be at least some period of severe restraint so that we can get to grips with the issue and related ones like Great Britain in a more considered fashion. I know it's complicated and as I said, some of your deletes have been useful - if only to expose various weaknesses in articles - but overall it's the systematic and apparently very, very persistent nature of what you (and some others) wish to do that grates. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding guys, I appreciate it. Let me say that I've always complied with consensus, even if I don't agree personally. And I'll also say remind you again - I've remained civil throughout, and always discussed everything - consider that in light of the sock farm that - literally - abused me for over a year. And I also believe that LevenBoy is part of that sock farm. If the community decides to engage in a process and ban additions/deletions while MOS is created, that's absolutely fine with me. Actually, that's what I want and have always wanted. But this ANI is different for many reasons. Black Kite is calling for a topic ban on me personally, not just everybody. And you've both supported it.... That's unfair and unwarrented. --HighKing (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's plausible that as a relative newcomer to all this (and Wikipedia - although naturally I read it with keen interest for years before involving myself as an editor), with vast amounts of material to read and catch up on, I am not aware of the whole history of interactions and so may sometimes make mistakes because of that - if that happens, I can only apologise. However, I have tried quite hard to read as much as I can and examine as many as I reasonably can of the histories of affected articles (don't always have enough time for this latter activity!) and my comments were based on analysis of that plus analysis of the policy issue. I don't know enough to know if the admins in question are right to focus specifically on you HK - maybe that was essentially just a reaction to your ANI request - and as I've said, it does look to me like there multiple editors engaged in both add/delete fighting and also (as in your case) in pursuing it on a more considered policy level. It's the latter that concerns me, but I suppose the two can get muddied. I can only suggest having another go at dialogue with the admin(s) in question about the specific personal concern. I was trying to get the policy addressed and I feel it will be disappointing if it isn't and it focuses on individuals. Thanks for your comments. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like the policy addressed. But that's not what you're suporting btw, you've indicated support for a topic ban. That's not a trivial difference, that's pretty major. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, if you make one further suggestion that I am part of a sock farm then I will open up a separate AN/I report. The SPI came back with Unlikely, but you're not satisfied, so you're now trying for DUCK, with so-called confidential evidence. Well let's see this evidence because, you know, I doubt you've really got anything, so either put up or shut up. LevenBoy (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RA, given what you've said above, including the bit about I do think it's unwise. I'd prefer not to have a topic ban on any individual, but a general ban on the activity all together, it's just not reflected in your Support of the proposed topic ban on me personally. Yes, the issue needs to be sorted out, but what exactly am I being punished for? It's undeserved. I'd appreciate it if you'd have a rethink about what the best course of action is. --HighKing (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its significant that editors with significant experience of this area (plus James who has come up to speed fast) are taking an oppose or reluctant support position. I don't include the strong pro BI group which ranges from partisan Unionism to well meaning romanticism for the Empire. Personally I am disappointed with BlackKite who gave up on a good process far too quickly and is now responding without thinking. That said HighKing it was really silly to go to ANI, it was almost bound to produce this response. There seems to be little tolerance at the moment (look at the question from a neutral admin on my talk page). Net result neutral admin within experience will see you as gaming the system. I think its going to end up with a topic ban for HighKing and LevenBoy but a right to propose changes on the project page. HighKing, I think you would be best at the moment simply accepting that (and doing so formally at ANI), then your right to propose changes is in effect the same as a total ban on change. I think anyone changing without consent will get added to list very quickly by the way. Then lets clear the backlog, evolve the rules while be have a neutral focus and stabilise it. --Snowded TALK 00:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ncmvocalist? Not an admin. And I don't believe a topic ban is right or fair. (Although if editors like RA and JamesD and GoodDay support it, it's more probable.) But its outright wrong, unjust, unfair, and totally without justification to topic ban me. The last suggestion that was put to me with the aim of reducing disruption and edit warring was to create and use the SE page. I've done that. Despite disruption by an army of socks, we crept along and made progress. But jeez - a topic ban? There's a lot of alternatives I'd agree to (as I've done in the past), but my faith in WP as a project would take a huge blow if editors I've worked with and respect go along with this. Sorry. --HighKing (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I have said its not right, James has come closest to support. If RA would join with Rashers and others then I think we could make a case that the experienced neutral editors should be listened to. FOrget Goodday, he will change his mind with the wind as he always does. I still think you were very very foolish to create the ANI report, that has triggered the response. It comes across as if you are trying to remove editors who disagree with you, and all the good done by your flushing out those socks gets washed away (apologies for metaphor). It's damage limitation now. --Snowded TALK 01:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly would be nice for RA to at least comment. But yeah, the AN/I was spectacularly dumb. --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it's easy for people to react out of red mist (bit like my driving sadly sometimes - I always come to regret it!) and self-control is apparently the number 1 skill around here! I have tried to comment on ANI on this again now - it looks like following Snowded's lead might be best in general on this HK, as (1) he's clearly hyper-experienced, (2) generally calm and (3) knows the processes well. Shall we focus on taking deep breaths and taking time over the MOS discussion? It's so important for all of us in these sacred islands to approach each other respectfully and I must try harder with that myself as well. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

[edit]

Community discussions

[edit]

Over such issues, discussions can easily last a month. Perhaps we need a RFC to encourage wider discussion, please don't jump the gun like that. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC was invited last week and took place at Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Manual of Style. It was advertised at UK Wikipedians noticeboard, Irish Wikipedians noticeboard, AN/I and at British Isles, United Kingdom and other articles. That solicited comment from a wide range of editors. Including going through each point one at a time. The basic elements of the guidelines had been thrashed out over a long period at the task force page before then.
I agree that it was bold but but there is general agreement and only a handful (two?) editors who are determined to say 'no' regardless although they don't seem to be able to find anything actually problematic about it. --RA (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't get to hear about it and I would have liked to comment. Rushing issues through will only make them weak and disputable. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mailing list. It was widely advertised in appropriate places. Post your comments at Wikipedia talk:British Isles but do bear in mind that a lot of what you may have to say has been discussed before. TBH what would make them stronger IMO are sensible editors abiding by sensible guidelines (which they would do anyway). There's noting in there that changes the game, only some common-sense guidelines to deflate the conflict. --RA (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, this discussion has only been posted to various British noticeboards. Which Irish ones were included do you know? --HighKing (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland locator map

[edit]

The "Island_of_Ireland_location_map.svg" is a splendid piece of work. How was it derived?

Equivalent county maps for Great Britain are lacking somewhat, their boundaries shown with lines far too thick.

Howard Alexander (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Simple answer is that I don't know! But is it amazing! I combined it from two already existing maps: File:Ireland location map.svg and File:Northern Ireland location map.svg. The original creator of those is User:NordNordWest.
Another user you may want to contact is User:Nilfanion. He/she is developing maps for the UK straight from Ordnance Survey data, which should be of the same or better quality when done. I would like to be able to do the same for the Ordnance Survey of Ireland and Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland data sometime too. But have to look into it.
If you find out more about the origins of those maps and how to work with OS/I data, let me know please. Thanks, --RA (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

[edit]

Tirade

[edit]

Should this horrible tirade against another editor be allowed to stand? I was going to delete it myself but thought I'd ask you for advice. Jack 1314 (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel that. It's now been redacted. Jack 1314 (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

opps

[edit]

Mis-read who the comments were from - thought they were from the same person - sorry. Codf1977 (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-) No problem at all! Easy thing to happen. --RA (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland demonym

[edit]

Hiya Rannpháirtí anaithnid, just in case you missed it in the traffic, I answered your question to me here. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dai. I hadn't seen it. I'll reply here.
"But back to your demonym point: If you were to say someone is Irish, it means they are from the island of Ireland (or from the state called Ireland). It isn't specific to Northern Ireland."
That logic is very appealing, particularly to the Wikipedian tendency to want to tidy up things that are messy about the world. However, simply because a logic is superficially sound or attractive does not mean that it its conclusion is correct - or that logic can even be applied in any given situation. In this situation, the question is one of language, not mathematics. Set theory is not going to determine the answer. Usage is.
In any case, we don't work off "logic" on Wikipedia. We work off verifiability and reliable sources. You know this. If there is doubt about any thing we add to the encyclopedia, we look to the sources, not logic.
In this case, we are in a fortunate position. There are books published specifically that list places and their demonyms. One such book is referenced on the Northern Ireland page (Dickson:1997). For Northern Ireland, it lists "Irish" and "Northern Irish". (Demonym is actually quite an obscure word. Dickson (1997) is the source that "popularised" it.) That was thought strange by an editor, and another source was requested. That's quite fair. A second source (Martin:2009) describes what to call the people from the four constituent parts of the UK. It says the people of Northern Ireland are called "Irish". Additionally, "Usterman/woman" is defined as being a "a native or inhabitant of Northern Ireland or Ulster." So that is included also. --RA (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome RA. Thought you may like to see the actual post, so here it is:
Firstly, as you are quoting technicalities, we don't know they are reliable sources as the WP:RS/N haven't ruled on it (whatever their reasons). But back to your demonym point: If you were to say someone is Irish, it means they are from the island of Ireland (or from the state called Ireland). It isn't specific to Northern Ireland. The same argument would work for European too. While everyone from the island of Ireland is European, if you were to say someone is European, it doesn't mean they are specifically from anywhere other than Europe, let alone Northern Ireland. So using European as a demonym for people from Northern Ireland would be incorrect, in the same way that using Irish as a demonym for people from Northern Ireland is incorrect. And at the other end other scale, if someone is from Dublin, they are still Irish, but using Irish as a demonym for people from Dublin would be incorrect, as Irish doesn't define where on the island of Ireland they are from. Daicaregos (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Impressively patronising answer, RA, if you don't mind me saying. Especially impressed by your avoidance of the of the WP:RS/N issue. Not to mention no discussion at all of the points raised (oops, I only went and mentioned it - silly me). Best, Daicaregos (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cool it. What point did I miss? I thought that was the substantive point.
RS/N is a non-starter. The first of the sources is as reliable a source as you can get on demonyms. --RA (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that unless a demonym accurately describes people from a specific location it loses its purpose. i.e. if you called someone Irish would you know that they came from Northern Ireland specifically, rather than from 'somewhere' on the island of Ireland? (please answer that question RA) As for the argument that we work off verifiability and reliable sources; it is not always true. See John Prescott (here and here). If enough people choose not to adhere to Wikipedia's policies then they don't, even when a source has been agreed to be reliable at the WP:RS/N. Daicaregos (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"if you called someone Irish would you know that they came from Northern Ireland specifically, rather than from 'somewhere' on the island of Ireland?" — They might come from any one of three 'places': the island of Ireland, the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. You may see this is being 'inaccurate' but it is not unusual. Where does someone who is "American" come from: the USA, North America, South America? Or someone who is "British"? Are they from the UK or the island of Great Britain? Like the Ali G quote when told by Orangemen in Northern Ireland that they were British, "So is you on 'olidays, den?"
These things can't be reasoned with. It's language. So we look to reliable sources where there is a dispute. That is what we've done and they have informed us that demonyms for Northern Ireland are "Irish", "Northern Irish" and "Ulsterman/woman". The last of these is similar to the question here: it can refer to someone from either Ulster or Northern Ireland. It is great that we have been able to find references for so many of these demonyms of Northern Ireland. They enrich the article.
Regarding the Prescott article, I don't see any NPOV issue. (I didn't look at the sources, I'm presuming they are reliable for the sake of argument.) Both versions portray what appears in RS in a balanced way (I presume). In the case of Northern Ireland, you appear to be recommending that we turn a blind eye to some things that appears in RS because ... ? We don't just ignore things that are appear in RS because we don't like them or because they don't fit into our picture of what a demonyn should be.
Reliable sources say a demonyn for Norhtern Ireland is "Irish", we repeat that and say no more. --RA (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back so soon, Rannpháirtí anaithnid?
The context you are using “American” for North America or South America is the same as using European. Otherwise, if it were correct to say that someone from anywhere in North America or South America would be called an “American”, the demonym for each of these countries would include “American”. It doesn't, and it isn't. Try telling our local friendly Canadian (GoodDay) that he's an American. For there to be any point to a demonym it needs to apply to the relevant location.
I mentioned Dublin previously ("if someone is from Dublin, they are still Irish, but using Irish as a demonym for people from Dublin would be incorrect, as Irish doesn't define where on the island of Ireland they are from"), but you have not commented on it.
I mentioned the John Prescott article because, although there is a WP:RS of him self-identifying as Welsh (the only source of his self-identity), editors coming to the page decided not to note this in either the intro or the infobox. So, there is precedent – it appears we do just ignore things that are appear in RS because we don't like them or because they don't fit into our picture of what something should be. Daicaregos (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're reminding me of why I'm taking a break.
Look it, I'm not going to argue with you any further. Reliable sources say the demonym for Northern Ireland is "Irish", "Northern Irish" and "Ulsterman/woman". Therefore we list "Irish", "Northern Irish" and "Ulsterman/woman" as being the demonyms for Northern Ireland. That's the long and the short of it. It isn't a big issue. It doesn't even involve writing prose (like the introduction the Prescott article). It's just a neutral statement of what reliable sources say are the demonyns for Northern Ireland. No more. No less. --RA (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much as I thought. You got nothin'. You chose to bring the discussion here. Why? And then refuse to answer reasonable questions. Again, why?. Hard to AGF with you Rannpháirtí anaithnid: you say below that your break is personal stuff and nothing to do with us lot, then you try to blame it on me. Charming. See you in September. Enjoy. Daicaregos (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Regards to Ikon Circuit Page

[edit]

Hey How are you doing,

Nice to meet you, I dont think that the page Ikon Circuit should be deleted. It is a social networking website which is prominent in the state of Florida. It is growing and of course alot of time has been spent on it. I submitted the article since it was published in the local newspaper here and thought it would be interesting for musicians like me to hear about it.

Thanks, Vishal —Preceding unsigned comment added by IkonCircuit (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population stats

[edit]

Hello,

Ive been trying to locate population statistics for Ireland from roughly 15th century (earlier if possible) onwards.....and have just come across your population stats. graph! Can I ask you where you found it/what sources you used for it if you created it yourself?

Many thanks!!!

DustyBooks (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the stats and sources are listed on the image's talk page. The pre-census estimates are from a 19th century source available on Google Books. --RA (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are up to, to be honest

[edit]

1 - please define systematically 2 - please explain how your proposal does anything other than hand victory to the Mister Flashes of this world. --Snowded TALK 10:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will be missed

[edit]

Hi RA, I'm sorry to hear that you are taking a break from WP. I hope that it will not be too long and I for one will miss your knowledge and balanced input. I think that the work you did for the MOS was excellent and it's just a shame that more people didn't agree. Bjmullan (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - you seem to be one of the best around. Don't let the stubbornness of one or two individuals get to you - but enjoy your break anyway! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it seems unrewarding and frustrating right now. We often disagree. I know you believe that "systematic" editing is bad for the project. I know you believe that "Britain and Ireland" is synonymous with "British Isles". I know you believe the whole thing is stupid anyway and a waste of time. But without your help these last couple of weeks, we'd never have made the progress we did. I'm sorry to see you take a break. --HighKing (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HK, happy to know you're not taking it personally. A different view on approach that's all. --RA (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise :-) Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, chillax. It's personal stuff. Will be back around in September. It's nothing to do with you lot! ... And your "systematic" shenanigan :-P --RA (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean some editors have lives...??!! Surely not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop it now. You'll all have me crying and ruining my keyboard. ;) Jack 1314 (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RA, perhaps when you return, the 'pedia will be using Irish Isles & British Sea. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity to see you leave again but hopefully your break will be short lived and you return soon. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drop me a line when you get back. Taking a break too. RashersTierney (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See you in September
Hi, I've been looking at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion#Demo of specific proposal and the live demo. This is great and very much needed. The issue is ripe. Thanks, Jack Merridew 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main belt asteroid typo correction

[edit]

I was the editor who requested that [[Main-belt Asteroid]] be changed by bot to [[Asteroid belt|main-belt]] [[asteroid]] in thousands and thousands of asteroid articles. Just tonight, I see that you've done it! My message to you is: Thank you thank you thank you!

98.71.218.226 (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-) You are very welcome. --RA (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

[edit]

Hello. In April you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article, to reference text about red lemonade. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [2]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 00:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've provided a better replacement reference for this one. ww2censor (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice F&W. I had been misled by "Webster's". Thanks for fixing it, Ww2. --RA (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

[edit]

Courtesy note

[edit]

You are receiving this message because of your participation in this discussion, now continued at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. –xenotalk 13:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

[edit]

Welcome back

[edit]

Hi RA and welcome back! Your calm, reasoned reflections have been missed by this editor. I thought you might be interested in this discussion on using UN listed official member names for states, as it would impact Ireland as well as other things you may have an interest in. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

[edit]

Your edit on Republic of Ireland article

[edit]

I'm not sure if your first edit wasn't the better [3]. Is it constitutionaly a republic? Jack1297 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RA. What are you doing, mun? It has only just been made completely clear that the article is subject to 1RR. Now, don't revert yourself again! What are you like? Only just come back and being naughty already. shakes head Daicaregos (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack, I self-reverted. It would be a pedantic argument on my part. The argument is that the state is not explicitly a republic by the constitution. I self-reverted because that is not what is meant in that context - and the constitution is very republican (i.e. ultimate sovereignty lies with the people, not parliament as in the UK, which is what is meant by "constitutional republic" in the info box). --RA (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All rather confusing for those of us not from Ireland. In saying that I'm sure there are plenty of Irish who aren't quite sure either. Jack1297 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I self-reverted. It would have been a needlessly pedantic in the context and a point that most people wouldn't give a fig about. --RA (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dai is right you know RA, there wasn't yet an agreement to that wording and it was premature to close it. --Snowded TALK 11:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion was "closed", Snowded. No-one here is a chair. Nine editors gave the nod to a change (with various degrees of enthusiasm), one objected to it. I added the text. It was reverted, we go back to discussion. That is simply editing as normal. --RA (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The RoI is like the eastern European republics. Sure they're republics as their heads of state are elected (Presidents), but they've Westminister style governments. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question

[edit]

You ask if you would make a good admin. Well, not that you will give a tinker's cuss about my opinion, as you show, but no; you would not make a good admin. Your move at Republic of Ireland is a fine example of your cavalier attitude. Discussion had not closed. Further suggestions for improvements were likely. Yet you chose to make a bold edit to an article on which, as it is subject to 1RR, BRD cannot apply. You explained (after the event) that you don't understand what the problem is, yet still you think you know best. The article's intro had been stable since January. Your first proposed rewrite was published at 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC). Your fait accompli was presented at 10:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC). At the very least you should have waited 24 hours. How could you have known if all involved editors had had the opportunity to even see your original proposal, let alone the amendments, and decide whether they were appropriate or not? Do you care? As usual, it was “Rannpháirtí anaithnid knows best”. IMHO, such arrogance is a dangerous trait in an admin. Daicaregos (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, Dai. I'll take time to mull over the substance of your post (honestly, thanks for it) and reply properly.
As far as the change goes, everyone, apart from yourself, that had participated in the discussion (and some who hadn't) chipped in expressing support one way or another. The text had gone through a number of drafts involving several editors. The article is not subject to a 1RR AKAIK. Even if it was, simply revert as HK has done.
The sentence may have been "stable" since January. Stability is not necessarily a goal. Factual accuracy is. The change corrected at least one error in the sentence. If that error alone is corrected then at elast one good comes out of it. --RA (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, WP does have a strange habit of "compressing time" and it did look a little snowbally. Yes, sometimes we can believe there's a consensus especially when it agrees with our own opinion. But I still think you'd make a good admin... --HighKing (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HK. --RA (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British–Irish relations

[edit]

Sorry, didn't realise you were in the middle of editing the article - I'll keep away for the time being! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, please stay at it. Not least because I leave such a trail of typos after myself! I plan to do a section on the relation since 1922 (which the article should be about) over the next few days. Please help! --RA (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm happy to keep an eye on it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...but you're on your own for the next few days - I'm off! Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good reasons or bad reasons (to be off)? --RA (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

[edit]


The Signpost: 6 September 2010

[edit]

Guy Black

[edit]

I'm not that bothered, but looking at his "peer group" Category:Conservative Party life peers, "Baron", not Lord seems clearly the convention. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --RA (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding discussions between pages

[edit]

Fmph mentioned that you might be the person to ask about transcluding discussions between two or more pages - is that right, or are you being volunteered erroneously? ;-) If it is correct, is there a how-to or idiot's guide you could steer me towards, or would you even be up for volunteering for a spot of transcluding? (I'm sure you know the context: getting discussions split between one or more local talk pages and WT:BISE - I'll understand if you want tor un away screaming rather than get dragged into WT:BISE, though...!) TFOWR 19:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. And I don't mind helping from a technical stand point even if it I disagree with the final outline on principle. However, I think it could be a suitable half-way house between the issues I've raised and the needs/desire of BISE:
The basic layout I'd see is:
  • A user creates a subpage of BISE or the local talk page. (My 2¢ is that the local talk page is better for reasons of principle.)
  • That pages gets transcluded onto (a) the article talk page and (b) a BI Task Force page
Some positives are:
  • It would be possible to do it fairly "transparently" so that someone who clicks [Edit] would be taken to the sub page automatically.
  • It would be possible to show different element or the same element differently in the different contexts including "dashboards" etc. for users to use in different contexts.
A disadvantage would be that a user would have to manually Watchlist the subpage before it would show up in their watch list. (But they would see the initial post on the article talk page.)
Would you like me to make a quick knock up? --RA (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds nearly ideal, so yes, please! I hadn't thought about the "new page, watchlist" problem, but from a local talkpage perspective it just means one more page to watchlist, and from a WT:BISE perspective we're used to watchlisting articles when a new discussion starts, so we're not much worse off than before.
Scolaire mentioned that the pages which transclude the discussion might suffer - taking the T:ROI discussion as an example, that's apparently 92k. That won't be an issue for the talkpages so much as for WT:BISE, but we can work around that. TFOWR 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for dumping this on you RA. But I thought you might the person to do it. The main advantage from my POV is actually the cleanup of WP:BISE. The specific examples would be on their own in one place and all the miscellaneous crudge would be somewhere else. Fmph (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job RA --HighKing (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting up the transclusion stuff, RA. PS- May we call ya the transclusinator, now? GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

[edit]

I am sorry I missed that you didn't comment in the section Talk:Ireland#Failure of this article to mention the British Isles or its subsection Talk:Ireland#Concrete proposal. After some discussion everybody seemed to agree with the paragraph I proposed, and I wasn't aware that we didn't have you on board. If "archipelago that has traditionally been known under the collective term British Isles" doesn't work for you, would you please participate in the discussion so that we can look for a real consensus? Hans Adler 10:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. I hadn't noticed the discussion and was only editing the section after it was put it. --RA (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As you may be aware I don't have a horse in this race and am just trying to keep the conflict down in Wikipedia. But I do have a concern of my own: Not to give undue weight to our internal conflicts in article space. This is the only problem that I personally have with the content of your edit. I will bring this into the discussion on the article talk page if/when necessary. Hans Adler 11:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tóraí/Archive/Archive_5&oldid=1145848586"