As an admin can you please decide wether this should be deleted or not. [1] The nominator's reasons for nominating it for speedy deletion is because it is not notable enough, but there are plently of secondary sources locally and nationally on the organisations and the other relevant ones, I am working on the sources at the moment. WinterIsComingOdran (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see Rashers has removed the speedy template. TBH the article is borderline in terms of asserting significance. I think Rashers is right in saying, however, that it merits discussion rather than speedily deleted. Regards, --RA (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should pick your words more carefully. "Perhaps he's guilty of egregious cultural or historical illiteracy and wasn't aware of the significance, but it seems more likely to me that he was just resoundingly insensitive" and "execrable judgement and tremendous insensitivity", O RLY?
The answer is in fact none of those, it's in fact the answer you apparently failed to consider - I know more about those particular gallows than you, and seemingly anyone who posted in that thread. Although they are a replica not the original gallows, they are the ones built specially in 1947 for the execution of former camp commandant Rudolf Höss. So you see the particular gallows they replicate were never used for the killing of Jews, but for the execution of a mass-murderer of thousands and thousands of Jews. I already knew this, just in case anyone cares to think I somehow got lucky. 2 lines of K30309:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, look, don't get stressed over a thread like that. Personally, I wouldn't have a picture of a gallows on my talk page, but there are enough people with common sense that know what you mean. --RA (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are correct in your reasoning wrt IMOS, but the code is now hyper-linking to Ireland, rather than just bold text The Republic of Ireland as previously. Think we should have Ireland bolded but not linking. Not quite sure how. RashersTierney (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I've reverted. It doesn't appear that the template is capable of pipe linking. It's protected so I'll drop a suggestion on the template talk page. --RA (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Flag of the African Union 2010.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks, SergeWoodzing. I am not going to comment on the book as the matter is being dealt with by a third opinion and I want to stay neutral with respect to yourself and Pieter Kuiper. --RA (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the question of whether Throne of A Thousand Years is a reliable or unreliable source. Do NOT comment on Pieter Kuiper or mention him (either directly or indirectly) in your response. Stick solely with the question of whether Throne of A Thousand Years is a reliable or unreliable source, and you'll be fine. --RA (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SergeWoodzing, I'm prepared to issue a block for one of the edits that you emailed to me. However, doing so may reveal or imply your real-world identity (whether correctly or incorrectly). Do I have your permission to do so? --RA (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you aren't asking me to give up my anonymity, and I see no way that it could be compromised, because I know of no one involved who knows who I am. There are theories, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean they are correct or can be substantiated. I will never discuss them with anyone.
If I didn't want to maintain my anonymity I would log in with my own name, so obviously I have no interest in outing myself or in permitting anyone else to attempt that. Can I be forced to do so?
I don't know if this answers your question or not, but frankly I don't know what else to say. You might explain how the issuance of a block (per se?) "may reveal or imply your [my] real-world identity". I don't really get it. Sorry if you find me dense.
In any case, you have my permission to deal with this in any way you feel is appropriate.
You may of course email me. However, I may not reply to email correspondences. Also, I may not take public action in response to private correspondences.
You certainly cannot be "forced" to out yourself and I am not asking you to. It is the edit summary of the first link that you emailed to me last night that concerns me. I am prepared to issue a block for it. However, doing so may reveal or imply (whether correctly or incorrectly) your real-world identity when I am explaining why I would issue a block for it. Because it impacts on WP:OUTING, I am not prepared to pursue the issue without your on-wiki permission to do so. --RA (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I still don't understand, though I am very anxious to and agreeable to your effort. How could your explanation reveal or imply that if you you don't know who I am, and no one else does either? And how more precisely do you mean that the wording of your block explanation could impact on WP outing? Is it your feeling that someone else knows who I am, can prove it and somehow would be entitled to out me because of what you will write? SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SergeWoodzing, I'm taking the above as being permission.
With regard to email contact with third parties, I will not be engaging in email discussion with third parties. If third parties have concerns, these concerns should be directed through the appropriate channels. Please see Wikipedia:Contact us. --RA (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will there ever be a day when my mistakes will be corrected by any- and everyone else but you-know-whom, because you-know-who shows us he respects our wishes that he ask a neutral editor to do that, rather than flaunting his right do it himself? And is this important to anyone else but me? SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this edit. Pieter Kuiper's first edit after coming back from the block for harassing you was to revert a contribution by you. At face value that is unfortunate. However, there is nothing improper about the edit and the comment is neutral and not directed at you.
I appreciate that in a dispute like there is between you that it is likely that reverts like that may be taken personally. However, we should neither personalise our contributions here nor so easily see the contributions of others in that light. Assume good faith. --RA (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but after this nonchalant reply of yours, I cannot consider you neutral or helpful in this matter. If you only knew (bothered to check) how badly I have been treated since 2009 you would never impose upon me so severely as to ask me to "assume good faith" with that person. How incredible! If that was possible, why would I have asked several times for a complete severance of all contact? Do you think I'm some kind of a busybody or nut that has nothing better to do than do battle with someone with whom I reasonably could consider it the slightest bit possible to assume good faith? There is no reason whatsoever, based on verifiable past history, for me to assume good faith there.
Please do not ask me to be your fool!
Why don't you take a few moments to compare our contributions to enWP, if you want to be fair in passing judgement?
One single edit was made on enWP by that person immediately after that block and that was made to reverse me. Albeit a proper correction of an error of mine, but in total disregard of the requests of 5-6 editors that a neutral 3rd party be asked to handle anything where I've been involved, so as to keep me and that person completely apart.
So you've managed to get me to agree to something, as if I had any fault in any of this, and while you're at it subjected me to a bunch of disagreeable outing-related speculation, also with my agreement, and for that you let that other person, known (as you well know) to me as a repeatedly manipulative devious even vicious and cruel person of whom I am seriously afraid, slide in instantly flexing the muscle you've strengthened. You're letting that person continue to play the same little bullying game that has gone on for years, and I guarantee you that is being celebrated. It amounts to nothing less than a slap in my face. What you've managed to do is to give a notoriously uncivil stalker carte blanche while wing-clipping me. I feel tricked and hoodwinked by you. And absolutely sick to my stomach. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ..... I'm going to callyou RA.... SORRY IF THIS AINT HOW I SHOULD DO THIS BUT IM NOT GREAT WITH THE WHOLE WIKIPEDIA ETTIQUIT
sorry fir any misspellings... I'm on a tablet...
but I had said on the page about Irish(teanga) that it isn't called geailic but if other people call it Gaelic but the Irish people don't then aren't they wrong??? I'm assuming your Irish... as in with an Irish passport not an American who thins they're Irish... so its our language to name not anyone elses — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pogwalshe (talk • contribs) 22:10, 24 January 2012
A key policy of Wikipedia is that articles are written from a neutral point of view with respect to reliable sources. That means respecting what different sources say about a subject. The Irish language is called Gaelic in many reliable sources. Neutrally mentioning other common names for a subject is normal practice for writing articles on Wikipedia.
Interestingly, while many in Ireland today believe "Gaelic" is a foreign name for the language, this is hardly the case. Compare for example, Conradh na Gaeilge, which literally mean Irish-langauge League but which translates its name as Gaelic League. --RA (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tóraí/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Can you take a look at the user page of User:Ruairidh.kee - I don't believe it's appropriate for user space and is against guidelines. I posted a notice which has been removed. Or if there's a more appropriate forum, let me know. Ta. --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get involved. TBH it looks quite balanced and reasonable in comparison to the large flags you sometimes see from people of different nationalist (including unionist) bents.
Their edits outside of their user space are focused on a few narrow things that we (and they) know to be provocative but that does not mean they are mean trouble. Templating them probably wasn't a good idea.
If you want I can explain the MOS re: Derry/Londonderry to them, but I don't think there is any major concern at this time. --RA (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm making zero comment on whether I agree or disagree with that User Page, or whether it is reasonable or not. The guidelines on User Pages are very clear and this appears to be a personal essay and nationalistic in tone and content. The same guidelines recommend leaving a template, which is what I did. If that's "not a good idea", it shouldn't be the recommended course of action in the guidelines.
Leaving all that aside. I respect your decision to not get involved. But equally, if you don't believe it's a concern, there's nothing to "get involved with" and that's grand. It's why I asked for a pointer. Thanks for taking a look. --HighKing (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I said it was probably not a good idea is because when someone with a Ulster Banner on their user pages gets templated by someone with a Tricolour on their user page, they might take it up the wrong way ;-)This kind of thing, in my opinion, is more helpful and gets better results. --RA (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I hope this finds you well! In following the guide at WP:ADMINABUSE I am informing and engaging you re your attitude. I have never seen such a pointless debate, particularly fired and continued by yourself. Please read this - as written on the Welsh Government website, approved legally by the UK Parliament. If this debate continues, then I will push through a WP:ADMINABUSE on your attitude. It is quite ridiculous that you have pushed this debate to this point. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find it an abuse of the open and honest spirit of Wikipedia editing that Trident13 comes here and makes threats in this manner about a perfectly reasonable line of discussion honestly and coherently argued. Oh and is there anything to say admins can't join in content discussions? Please refer us to that policy. Note also that RA is critiquing the attitude (blatant refusal to discuss and outright hostility) that seems to meet many honest raisers of debatable points in a whole bunch of UK-nations related articles when a view is expressed contrary to that acceptable to nationalist opinions of various shades. The above comment appears consistent. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, James.
Trident13, my concerns expressed on the Wales article is wider than whether Wales is a "country", "principality" or anything else. (In my own everyday speech I would say "country" for Wales.) My concerns relate to approaches to collaboration and treatment of sources across a number of articles on issues to do with "countries of the United Kingdom". In particular, I am concerned at the manner in which a particular POV and terminology (one that happens to overlap for the most part with my own personal view on these issues) is pushed and the way in which dissenting voices, from where ever they may come, are beaten back.
These threads go on for ages because editors arrive expressing fair questions but are bitten, filibustered and stonewalled until they go away. That is deeply damaging to the community. It breeds resentment and drains morale. I'm concerned that consensus itself is being gamed and proposals to change consensus (no matter of their merit) are being dressed up as "disruptive". In this case, it has gone on for years without being sufficiently challenged. That was wrong.
Thank you. I'm not sure how deeply the message penetrated, but your words of support were a great help. Thank you for being brave enough to make them. --RA (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I don't understand the Adminstrator Abuse accusation, either. You didn't block or threaten to block anyone at that discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was nonsense. Basically we are seeing a somewhat absurdly (and I believe deliberate) feigned hysteria over an alleged tone of RAs and alleged actions of RA that when you read through what he actually said are not there. Which is why we've subsequently heard nothing more. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Continuation of principle "Throne book" subject above
Given contribution history involved, and that user's excellent, intrigant, fine-tuned knowledge and grasp of anything that might irritate me (anything e.g. to do with retired User:EmilEikS whom he drove from 3 Wikimedia projects), are you still not able to see what actually is going on in the real world? How necessary is that action really? Urgent? Does a little article start-up, on a retired user's page, damage English Wikipedia? Michael St. Laurent is known to our acquainted user as a deceased friend of the Southerly Clubs chairman. Photos of him were among the first that the Southerly Clubs uploaded to Commons in 2008 (with the help of our acquaintance at that time, who now is a disgruntled former friend). Gee, I wonder if that could be why this particular, selective action has been initiated right now? What a great excuse for a golden opportunity to post on the talk page of a user he knows is long retired, and he also knows is on my watchlist!
If you can't get that user to steer clear of me and stop taking these intentional jabs at me and at the Southerly Clubs year after year after year after year, who can?????SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does a little article start-up, on a retired user's page, damage English Wikipedia? Probably not. However, the page is being discussed and if consensus is that it should be deleted then it will be. Will it damage the English Wikipedia to have this page deleted? Certainly not.
I'm sorry, but I don't see a any evidence of harassment in this example. Maybe Pieter Kuiper's intention in this action was to rile you up. If it was then he was wrong (particularly if the subject is a deceased acquaintance or friend-of-a-friend), but it should not have worked. You should not be judging his actions here from that perspective by default. We need to be a bit more objective, and a little less personal, when contributing to Wikipedia compared to "real life".
I didn't write to you about the deletion, the content of that article start-up, its staleness nor whether or not it's appropriate to delete it. Personally, I couldn't care less about that.
To me, it's incredible that you choose to discuss such matters.
I wrote to you about that person's continued, intelligently pulled-off hounding and harassment, as clearly evidenced by his intentionally selective "contributions" to English WP which amost always involve me, the Southerly Clubs and its image donations (where the trouble started) and suborganizations, Emil Eikner or Jacob Truedson Demitz a.k.a "Lars Jacob" (on all of which that man seems to be as much of an expert as I am - it's really scary!).
Certainly, an administrator as experiened as you must know very well how easy it is to find fault with another user's content contributions if one makes that one's main agenda on the WM projects?
The man has long been well known on Commons and here (regardless of any issues involving me et al) for this specific sort of documented selective direct and indirect animosity. I have never been. And I have never stalked anyone, for disruptive or constructive reasons.
To the specific issue I brought up you have not once yet replied on this page, not even now when it couldn't possibly be clearer to you just from checking a few contributions. Is there something you don't like about checking contribution pages?
I trusted you and was so grateful for your offer of help, the first good one since User:John Vandenberg tried years ago. You offered to effectively help that person and me stay apart and alleviate years of distress on this extremely disagreeable issue. Why continue to skirt it, when it's still staring us in the face? It always will be, until it's dealt with. I have made my decision: I refuse to quit WP. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the contribution history. None of Pieter Kuiper's contributions since his last block appear to relate directly to you, except for this one, which I commented on above.
You wrote, "...you must know very well how easy it is to find fault with another user's content contributions if one makes that one's main agenda on the WM projects?" You may wish to consider this comment more deeply and whether you find fault with Pieter Kuiper's contributions too easily.
I know this answer will not satisify you, but I'm sorry, I will not take action where I don't see a problem. Don't allow my saying no to you on this occasion prevent you from returning where you see an issue in future. I am ready to listen, but I won't take action without sound reason. --RA (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so confused by now, about what you will allow and not allow me to do, and what you allow others to do, that I feel very uncomfortable about touching it at all. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK now I've been effectively extracted from this. Freedom-Schmeedom of speech-schmeech. What you've had me agree to apparently will be an sure fire way for a certain user to shut me up wherever he (and his friend Andejons) pleases. See what I mean by "wing clipped"? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are others involved in that discussion. It is not necessary that you reply to Pieter Kuiper's post. The point he/she made is not new to the discussion. If it is worth replying to, let others do so. Continue contributing to the discussion, just don't reply to Pieter Kuiper. --RA (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This comment was patronising and incivil. However, we don't normally take action against minor incivilities. Any action against it would also need to consider that he responding constructively to a request from you for help, which he gave.
Are you not going to show any interest at all in things like this? If not, can I get another mentor than you, who actually helps me against these continuing insults?
Is it unthinkable to recognize that this talk page comment is intended as a slur of my reputaion on WP, and is not primarily there to protect WP from having a few cross-references using older English exonyms that may be poorly documented on Google books? In other words, Rannpháirtí anaithnid, do you see good faith there too? Need this be done at all, and if so, could it be done without slurrig me? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to (quoting you): "An exception to (3) is that SergeWoodzing may raise concerns about Pieter Kuiper's behavior either at AN/I, or another suitable venue, or directly with an admin (specifically, he/she may contact Rannpháirtí anaithnid)." - and to the rule you imposed that I am not allowed to reply to a certain editor at all, which is being used against me personally, always mentioning me over and over, not the content at hand? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am expressly forbidden to do so, would you please remove the deletion template from Richardice of Swedenfor the reason that the user who created the page did so because h/s believes that the name has been used in older English literature that cannot yet be accessd through the Internat and would like to have a bit of time to try to find such sources. There is very little English literature mentioning the names of 14th century queens of Sweden, Internet or no, and this English exonym is at least etymologically correct. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I write about this on the talk page of that article? iw links keep being added to articles primarily about a well, while the English article primarily is about a person. Sort of like linking iw between articles about a pope and the Vatican. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest leaving it be. The links have been there since at least 2009 and were added by a bot (owing to the fact that the English-language article had been linked from the other language articles). Therefore there are already more editors involved than simply you and User:Pieter Kuiper. Pieter Kuiper did not revert your whole edit, only a small part of it. Being reverted, either in whole or part, is something every editor encounters on Wikipedia. There is no need for discussion every time it happens. If the inter-language links are a genuine problem (I don't think they are) then another editor will attempt to remove them again in future. Therefore, I suggest you leave it to others rather than inviting further interaction between yourself and Pieter Kuiper. --RA (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you reverted my bold edit to WP:V... that is OK (I am not going to edit war), but your edit summary explaining your revert is incorrect. You state: "WP:V is why we have WP:NOR, not the other way around"... actually, if you look at the history of these two policies, it was (and is) the other way around. WP:V started as a section of WP:NOR, and it was hived off into its own policy. In other words, WP:NOR iswhy we have WP:V - one of the reasons why we created WP:V in the first place was to prevent the addition of original research.
Which edits? These contributions were fairly straight forward: they (re-)added a hat note to a synonym, clarified a sentence and removed something that we all know is nonsense ("occasionally used since the sixteenth century"). It is only my second contribution to the article space on this subject for as long as I can remember. That hardly constitutes a "crusade".
On the converse, hyperbolic attacks like the above which greet everyone and anyone who crosses yourself and others on this subject does appear to be a crusade of sort. In your own words: chill. --RA (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty startled to see such aggressive remarks as that from Ghmyrtle above on what are in fact very reasoned discussion points which other editors have on the whole been glad to respond in a reasoned manner to. Many admins might conclude that it was time for the editor in question to take a fairly lengthy holiday, enforced or otherwise, from Wikipedia, as that editor is clearly struggling to grasp what the concept of collaborative working required in the project consists of and what to do and how not to behave when one's POVs are politely challenged. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point about RA's edits at Principality of Wales was that, without any prior discussion, they changed a previous wording that had been agreed by editors on that article a few months ago. I'm primarily commenting on the process - given that experienced editors know very well that such edits are likely to be contentious, it would have been better to have reopened the discussion on that article's talk page first - but to assume that "we all know" that use of the word occasionally is "nonsense" is quite vexing. I'm not being aggressive, though I do admit to some surprise at RA's current approach, given his previous attempts at consensus building which I've supported and welcomed. But, if I over-reacted to edits that were intended to be uncontentious, then I apologise. My comment was not directly related to the ongoing discussions at Talk:Wales, and, if the discussion is being centralised on that page, it would be better to await the outcome of those discussions rather than changing related articles on the basis of one editor's opinion (maybe more than one, but certainly not a consensus). To me, it would be more logical to have the detailed discussion at Talk: Principality of Wales, and then summarise the outcome at the Wales article, but I'm not going to make an issue of that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...given that experienced editors know very well that such edits are likely to be contentious..." - These kinds of edits shouldn't be contentious. They are run-of-the-mill and everyday. If they are contentious then it is because people are over reacting to them, failing to collaborate and have too much invested in certain versions. This is a wiki, text will change, without discussion, and without any prior notice. And that is a good thing.
Editing policy is: "Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles." A culture has been allowed to develop around the articles affecting these terms that is exactly contrary to that.
Additionally, discussion is great but, as you know, I and others have concerns that discussion is being used to game the consensus-building process across a number of articles. In particular, I feel that the approach of WP:BRD is abused (and indeed inverted) in order to hold article text at a preferred revision. As I wrote on Talk:Wales, that is bad, bad, bad.
I acknowledge openly that you are in most respects a very collaborative and constructive colleague, GHM, and it is normally a pleasure to work with you. However, the culture that has developed across these articles must end. I'm sorry to be hard in my words, but this is a matter of genuine site policy over a corruption of it that has been allowed to go on for too long. --RA (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Yes, it was rant-ish but no more rant-ish than many other contributions. And it was a comment on the article. We can expect more comments like it in the near future — and we should listen to them. It's all feedback.
And you should think about your apparent willingness to support one time IPs making the old familiar edits, its a long term pattern of disruptive behaviour on these articles. Encouraging it is not what I would expect of any experienced editor let alone an admin. Given that I have made the comment about IPs on these pages twice in the last several month your "see socks everywhere" is a little silly. ----SnowdedTALK22:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is expect of all editors, experienced or otherwise, is to assume good faith. Habitually not doing so is more disruptive to the project over the long term than a random talk page post, from a never before seen IP, criticising some well-know bugbear in an article. A better strategy, IMO, would be to address the bugbear and not the contributor who brings it up. --RA (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is not a license to disrupt RA and the better strategy is not to encourage it. Its fairly clear when we have a new be who needs to be treated gently, and when we have another in the IP series. This IP was not criticising a well known bug bear, they were issuing a political rant (I actually agree with them by the way, politically). We may have to agree to disagree on this one especially as the normal pattern after an Irvine sock has been wackamoled more come out ----SnowdedTALK22:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair RA, Snowded has a solid point on this one IMO, in that there has most definitely been a series of increasingly ridiculous versions of the same basic Northern Ireland-related socks - it isn't unrealistic to have a sixth sense for those if you really do see Dead People. :) I suspect though that Snowded sometimes needs to pause a bit more before casting aspersions - a Sock usually reveals itself after a bit. I support Snowded's long-term ambition to relieve These-Islands-Space of many of the more ridiculously extremism-driven auto-reflex posters, socks and miscellaneous emotional creatures, but the line is sometimes hard to draw. I very much support your efforts RA to create a more constructive NPOV approach to working in these areas. We are all really pulling in the same broad direction but carrying of course our own POVs. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? If you mean Monmouthpedia, it was nothing to do with me - it was suggested by User:Mrjohncummings and set up by User:Victuallers, as I understand it. Feel free to redistribute my barnstar to those more deserving - but thank you for the thought. And if it's not for that, what is it for? Somewhat bemused Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was for Monmouthpedia. Sorry, I got a little excited! :-) Will spread the love to Mrjohncummings and Victuallers! --RA (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm thrilled by the barnstar, but I'm even more/also excited to find someone who writes Irish Gaelic. The last time we did a project like this we had one language from "our islands" ( <-- skips nimbly around the politix) and this time we have English, Welsh, Scots and ... Irish Gaelic? That is so cool. Are you in Ireland? Like to chat more if you have time. Victuallers (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would love to get involved in real-world activities. Email me, anytime. However, my Irish is only middling. For languages from "these islands" (and other places), I recommend consulting with Evertype. --RA (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Real world activities? 1. Being a shoo-er in for the competition ie. thanking, helping make scores 2. Friday I'm shooting videos in Monmouth of "Why I love Monmouthpedia - guess you cannot make it - but send me a 45 second interview to camera? 3. We need help on April 21 - Are you available 4. We need Irish contingent for May 12 AGM 5. Contact Evertype and tell them they NEED to do it, show them the messy one you have already done 6. Oh just be BOLD! :-) Victuallers (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very very much for the barnstar, if you know anyone would be interested in contributing in any language please let them know. Thanks again Mrjohncummings (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP repeatedly adding unsourced info to Troubles-related people
Hi RA, there's an IP User talk:65.184.192.172 who has repeatedly inserted DOBs for various loyalist paramiltaries without providing a source to back thm up. Both myself and another editor reverted him/her and asked for a citation but the IP has already broken the 1RR and keeps adding the DOBs. On the Alex Kerr (loyalist) article (Kerr is living) he/she put the name of a book in his edit summary along with the author and page number; however, when I did a Google I found nothing on either the book nor the author. At this stage my assumption of good faith has completely evaporated. Needless to say, he/she has refused to reply to messages placed by myself and the fore-mentioned editor regarding these disruptive edits. Could you please look into this? Thanks, RA.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's an issue with 3RR violation and that discussion is justified. These articles are also issues under the Troubles sanction so 1RR applies. I am involved in British/Irish issues so I won't take any admin action but I will warn about the Trouble's sanctions and suggest discussion.
I would suggest more faith though. None of the edits seem very out of the way - but of course sensitivity is needed in this area and if they are all being based on one (hitherto unknown) source that needs to be verified and possibly corroborated.
Incidentally, these two edits (summaries) brought a smile to my face:
Hello, Tóraí/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Cheers RA for mopping up on the Republic of Ireland article, I just removed the redirects, which brings me to a question. How many times have we, not only you or I but all editors, been on that page edited and not spotted such? Just an exaample, I am sure there are more. It is odd, made me think!! Thanks for the proper edit. Murry1975 (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It must happen all the time. I'm sure we only see a fraction of trivial mistakes and errors each time we visit a page. Often it is only when someone else makes an edit and I look at the diff that I notice something small like that. --RA (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I'm shocked at your lack of recognizing what FleetCommand self-identified as edit-warring, especially in the context of that user's block log and recent history (which was called out in the block notice). Did you do your homework there? Toddst1 (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FleetCommand's accusation that *.60 was edit warring was ridiculous. As *.60 said, one revert does not make an edit war. Likewise, one revert on the part of FleetCommand does not make an edit war either.
FleetCommand's comments towards *.60 were incivil. However, they cooled relatively quickly and, apart form a thorny final comment from FleetCommand, the disagreement was resolved within two edits each.
I did not look at FleetCommand's contributions elsewhere. The exchanges for which FleetCommand was blocked on this occasion were self-contained. If there is a wider problem then community action may be required. --RA (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is the first time you have unblocked someone. I would suggest that you have done a very poor job here. Generally, it is the custom to notify the blocking admin before unblocking, but it is technically not required. The one set of circumstances where that is not typically done is where the blocking admin has made a clear and blatant error or circumstances have changed. I don't believe that's the case here. This policy on reversing another administrator's actions should have been applied.
What you've done is effectively said "My judgement is better than the blocking admin's. I'm going to undo that admin's actions." I would suggest to you that that is exceptionally bad form.
By your statement above ("I did not look at FleetCommand's contributions elsewhere.") you have not followed the policy at Wikipedia:Unblock#Unblocking. Specifically, you were to review "the circumstances of the block, their prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted." This user has a long history of edit war blocks and WP:BATTLE Your assertion that this behavior was self contained is not in line with policy and just plain wrong.
Beyond that,I see you misunderstand what an edit war is and have done a remarkably poor job in counting reverts. Fleet Command made two: [2][3] and when FleetCommand labeled the IP's actions as an edit war[4], he was implicitly acknowledging that his own second revert which followed was also edit warring.
If that wasn't enough, you did not follow the proper unblocking process and did not check for the autoblock.
I would strongly encourage you to:
Reverse your action in this case with the information presented above
Be much more careful in handling future unblock requests.
I'm not going to get into an argument over whether FleetCommand made one or two reverts. The substantive point is that after one revert progress was very quickly made towards an agreed position.
There is an issue with incivility in FleetCommand's exchanges with *.68. The accusation of "edit warring" was a part of that, in my opinion. It should not be taken seriously (either that *.68 was edit warring or that FleetCommand was, by implication, edit warring).
Let me clarify, about not looking into FleetCommand's contributions elsewhere: I did not look deeply into either their contributions elsewhere (nothing appeared immediately relevant) and their block log did not show anything that would worry me too greatly.
The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
Hi, I recently traced some long-time missing references in British people to this edit of yours here: [5]. I believe I've pulled over the right refs from other articles, but the Cunliffe one I'm not sure about - the article lists a Cunliffe book from 2005 (Cunliffe, Barry (2005), Iron Age communities in Britain: an account of England, Scotland and Wales from the seventh century BC until the Roman conquest (4th ed.), Routledge, ISBN9780415347792) so I updated the year, but then I realized the book might actually be this one, which never ended up in the reference list: Cunliffe, Barry (2002). The extraordinary voyage of Pytheas the Greek (revised ed.). New York: Walker & Co. ISBN0140297847. OCLC 49692050. So, rather than guess, I figured I'd ask you - which Cunliffe book do those quotes refer to? You can see all my diffs here [6] --KarlB (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I can't remember. It may be that the references were not original to me. Back then there was a lot of discussion at Talk:British Isles. The Cunliffe references may have originated there. --RA (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped this note on BrownHairedGirl's talk page but she does not appear to be very active right now. Your thought are appreciated. Over the last year or so I have noticed several Irish townland lists. I really wonder what encyclopaedic value in contributed by any of the Irish townland lists most of which seem to be named "List of townlands in County XXX" like these and the sub categories of Category:Townlands of County Limerick like the "List of townlands in County Limerick starting with the letter B" like this, etc. Virtually none of these will ever have an acticle of their own. What does the list really show? A list of non-notable places. ww2censor (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to make of them. I'm not a supporter of List of XXX article of any sort, though. However, he likes of List of townlands in County Limerick starting with B should definitely go in my opinion.
As information, though, I think they have worth. And I do have another potential home for them, which I will email you about later. --RA (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your edit, it's a good point; however it now reads a bit odd (politics within and between the polities) - I know polities is the right word, but I wonder if we could re-word so it's not so close to politics (when scanning the eye doesn't always see the diff between c and e? What about 'country'? wikipedia uses that term rather loosely, so we could get away with it.--KarlB (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in but the category is ill-conceived in my opinion and implies a 'polity' that doesn't have any basis in general political discourse, namely 'Politics of the British Isles'. I've been following developments with some disquiet since first posted. RashersTierney (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was my initial reaction too, Rashers. A particular problem is that a vocabulary to describe what these institutions are "of" does not exist. Category:Politics of the British Isles is problematic. However, Category:Politics of these islands is, as I recall someone once writing, not particularly helpful to anyone from anywhere else in the world. It crossed my mind to suggest renaming the category to Category:British-Irish politics on the basis that that is a common tread in the names of the institutions that exist, but I'm not very sure.
@Karl, I don't mind the politics and polities being in the same sentence but feel free to change the sentence to make it sound better. --RA (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a category title, it's pure invention with no basis in any usage in the real world. Are there any article on "Politics of the British Isles"? What is the justification beyond "Oh Well, British Isles is a geographic region"? It has never been "united" in policy or government. Is there a reason beyond geography? What purpose does it serve? Your suggestions on "British-Irish" are more in line with existing naming of categories and articles. --HighKing (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Category talk:Political movements in the United Kingdom
I haven't seen any more edits of these sort. Sorry, that I can't be of any more help. Thanks for the link, and if I do come across any more, I'll let you know. Regards, --RA (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we can find a good end result that improves the encyclopedia, and the starting point is that we both seem to agree the content is good. I'm looking forward to your wisdom and leadership to help guide this discussion through tricky waters. KarlB (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's rather difficult to get topics about in the isles passed without agreement from you and BHG, perhaps you'd be willing to work with me on developing an article on the academics of archipelagic/postnationalist studies as had been suggested? I've placed some quick notes here: User_talk:Karl.brown/postnationalism and would appreciate your thoughts; if we get somewhere, I may take a crack at creating an article in userspace that you and BHG can comment upon, and once the 3 of us are in agreement then we could release into the wild with a bit more confidence it might survive. Thanks. --KarlB (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, DK if you have deleted the page or undeleted the page. I was going to continue filling in the the history of the organization and its completed projects to date. I trust the explanation re: your question on copyright has been answered. The long name is the original but the redirect is the functional name for searching and for linking. There is absolutely no copyright infringement as the two addresses are one and the same. They are directly linked and belong to us at JASHP.
Also, I am not as familiar with creating wiki pages and would appreciate a hyper-link to go to the online page to continue adding to the site.
I agree, and I'm glad Mr Griffith-Jones above does too. Frankly I'm bemused by your second revert, which restored the version of the article that said the term is only used in a sporting context (despite the fact a quick Google on your part would have revealed that it definitely isn't), so RA's removal of any original research is most welcome. —JonCॐ13:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think going down the route of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Card Geniuses is a good idea. Starting it there will allow you to develop to meet Wikipedia's criteria and they try to submit it.
Unfortunately, I don't think the subject of the article will meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In particular, I don't think you will be able to find enough independent sources that describe the subject. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it requires the subjects of articles to be first described in other sources (independent of the subject of the article itself). Wikipedia then collates all of these sources into a single article.
I don't think you will be able to find sufficient independent sources that sufficiently decsribe the subject for Wikipedia to base an article on. --RA (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to defend myself from criticism any further in the Politics in the British Isles DRV, I have said my piece, and now others can make what they will of it. However, one of your comments seemed to be directly posing a question to me to which it would be rude not to reply, so I hope you do not object to this post.
I did not intend to in any way set a precedent "demanding that there be a specific policy or guidelines stating how to interpret WP:POVFORK in every circumstance". If POVFORK had been the only argument put forward, and their was consensus for this, then my decision would have been DELETE without question, however poorly the argument was based in policy. The community is entitled, if it so wishes, to delete articles even for utterly bizzare reasons such as "too many commas" (although I am sure that will never happen). Even if there were counter-arguments to POVFORK, but the counter-arguments were completely without merit, then the decision must still be DELETE. But this was not the case, there were credible arguments on both sides, and I was therefore obliged to make a judgement on how strongly policy supported each side. Note that the POVFORK argument was not dismissed, but deweighted, a big difference. It was still accepted by me as a valid argument of the delete camp and taken into account.
By the way, thank you for the compliment "That sort of honesty and willingness to reflect on a decision is something that I actually admire about Spinningspark's conduct in this affair" which is a comment that meant a lot to me. In turn, I feel I need to praise you for being willing to change your !vote as result. I was astonished that anyone at all would do such a thing in a debate with such entrenched views. Regards, SpinningSpark14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's done is done, and there's little to be gained now by rehashing it. You've come in for enough flaming (including from me) so let's just treat the conversation here as academic and of no consequence. You don't deserve the haranguing you've got and I'm exhausted.
The point I took you as making in the comment I quoted was a kind of "double catch": that not only was it good enough to put the case that this article was a POVFORK and that POVFORKs are against guidelines, but there had to be a policy or guideline saying that this article was a POVFORK. Like I said, that's an unreasonable burden on policy.
Without re-hashing the whole affair, POVFORKs take two kind: one is an obvious POVFORK where the two titles clearly refer to the same topic (e.g. I once saw British Isles forked as British and Irish Isles). The other is where a degree of WP:COAT comes into it. That's how it was in this case. You rightly mentioned my POINTy copy-and-paste. My intention was to demonstrate that look, if you can copy-and-paste to entire contents of one article into the other then clearly they treat exactly the same topic. As a topic, "Politics in the British Isles" is arguably reasonable topic for an article but, specifically in this case, that topic was used as a COAT to fork Ireland-United Kingdom relations in order to emphasize the devolved regions of the UK separate form the UK.
As it is, the article was kept. As SmokeyJoe commented in the DRV deletion is arguably not the best way to deal with forks (and I linked to WP:ATD as well). It's just going to be a long haul to get the article to a place where it is going to be actually about "politics in the British Isles" and extract the POV and fork from it. We are also left with an editor who takes the closure a vindication of the content and others who are openly hostile to attempts to remedy the state of the article and perceive attempts to do so as politically-motivated attacks on it and contrary to consensus.
Shame you didn't suggest that, in retrospect it seems like a very good idea. What do you think of the request on my page from Karl for me to make suggestions for article improvements? I don't want to walk away from a mess I am responsible for keeping on Wikipedia but I am very reluctant to comply. Any suggestion I make now is sure to get a reply along the lines of "see, you do have a POV on this". My participation is just too likely to be counter-productive. SpinningSpark21:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, stalking here. I think your insights would be most useful, but it should probably be after the DRV is over.--KarlB (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Personally, I don't mind. The article is to be kept and what's needed now IMO is to improve it. Of the personalities of the editors I recognize who participated in the AfD on the keep side, there were no true live wires. (BHG can get tetchy, no more than myself, but she is fundamentally reasonable.) So I don't think you'll meet hostility from those quarters, particularly if you are straight up about it.
As I wrote during the DRV, my perspective is that you were already involved. I know you said you are an anti-monarchist and sympathetic towards nationalists during the Troubles, but that only underlines the point I was making. Everyone from these islands comes with a POV on the politics of them. For you to contribute now to the article is natural, from my perspective. It's closing the AfD that I don't think anyone from Britain or Ireland should have done :-) --RA (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...in regards to the level of opposition at ITN/C over a monumental handshake/meeting being put up on the front page. But thank you for your support! I was really hoping to see more people involved in Ireland-related articles putting their view across on this. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely surprised. Someone unfamiliar with the topic could reasonable ask why this is significant: dignitaries shake hands every day. The significance therefore needs to be spelt out. That's why I suggested a re-wording. Hopefully it will help things along. --RA (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you. The mistakes of past discussions are not justification for the mistakes of current discussions. --RA (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RA, I just saw Shreodred's unblock request and I was coming here to advise you that you shouldn't be reviewing it due to WP:Involved, but I see you noted that in your edit summary[7]. I would still advise you to revert your change to the template - as you cannot review it, and given the heat of dispute in the Britain-Ireland semantics topic area I suggest you have no ambiguity about acting as a sysop in it or you'll leave yourself open to unnecessary dramahz--Caililtalk12:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't notice the template would identify me as reviewing the block. I've reverted it now. As I commented when I notified EdJonhnston, I will not participate any further in the request except to notify EdJohnston. --RA (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the strike-out. I don't have the best edit-war avoidance skills in the community, but I was hard-pressed to see how two edits really constituted edit warring. --Drmargi (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. thanks for dropping me a note about your proposal. I'll need to keep reading, but a couple things jump out:
nuke should be kept as an almost-never-used tool for sysops only. Same with upload from url. You'll never convince the community to give protect and not block. (which was part of why I substituted editprotected.) Based upon your proposal, browsearchive should have a question mark like viewing deleted. And the granting of user-rights requires assessing editors' behaviour and edits.
I moved the page to Wikipedia:Probationary administrators. first, it better describes your proposal, I think, and second, you might be better off distancing your proposal from my recent one, as it was so recent. Plus, it would reinforce that these are equivalent to admins.
(edit conflict) Thanks! I've made most of those changes. I left in "protect" because, for now, it is linked to "editprotected".
I reverted your move because a core part of this proposal is that Moderators would be coequal to Admins (and go through RfA). It's not proposed as a "probationary" role. I accept it is the same title as your proposal. I'm intentionally developing upon yours (whether it is a positive development or otherwise, we'll see). --RA (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not very much at all! The central difference is that I'm trying to do is meet the objection 'why not just become an admin'. The proposal tries to meet that question by leaving the option open. It also makes it clearer that a Moderator and an Administrator are coequals (which I think got lost in yours). --RA (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were more than a few confusions during that proposal.
While you're of course welcome to propose as you like. I think it might be prudent to wait some time before immediately re-proposing. I'll leave that up to you, of course. - jc3700:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After spending some time reading into the long and troubled history of articles relating to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, I think over on Ireland-related articles we have it pretty easy. Not sure why I'm saying this here, might have something to do with reading the whole article on Éamon de Valera at 3AM the other night for no real reason. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreements on Britain and Ireland related articles are true POV (litt. point of view) issues. There are few (maybe no!) disagreements over the facts or true bitterness between the participants. At times that can be more maddening because one would assume that if two people agree on the facts and they don't hate each other then their POVs would align? It can actually be quite an enlightening thing to realise that. And a very inspiring thing to see the colourful (and thankfully peaceful and prosperous) archipelago we live in. --RA (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing by your user name you have at least a rudimentary understanding of Irish, RA... any chance you could take a look at my edit here or recommend someone that can? I don't think I've messed up, but I don't speak the language. :) Ta, —JonCॐ15:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe you're right Jon it's not na hEireann (that does mean Irish - and the line translates as: welcome to 'the Irish Portal', not 'the Ireland Portal') it probably should be "Éirinn". That's the dative case rather than genitive case. "Failte chuig" is probably wrong too, but my chuig/go dti understanding aint what it used to be. There is probably a Gaelic word for Portal too (taristeach - is threshold and ursain is door frame)--Caililtalk16:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - na hEireann can also mean "of Ireland" - not just "Ireland". For example, "mná na hEireann" (used by President Robinson) refers to "Women of Ireland". So it's correct on that score. --HighKing (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can search for "na heireann" in the search box and you can see there's a lot of articles with it in the title, all translated to mean "of Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. HighKing, appreciate your input but it's supposed to say "Welcome to the Ireland portal", not "Welcome to the portal of Ireland" or "Irish portal". Must be a way to simply say "Ireland something" in Irish? Cailil, I didn't write the rest of it and my Irish is non-existent, so someone else will have to tackle the chuig issue, but you think it should be "Éirinn" instead? Cheers, —JonCॐ19:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no exact translation for "Portal" - a lot of "newer" words in Irish are difficult to find (or made-up sometimes). I've seen all of the following used: "Suíomh Tairseach" or "Tairseach" or "Tairseach Láithreán". "Suíomh" is often used as a webpage or URL. A lot of things are phrased differently in Irish - in my opinion it wouldn't make sense to say "Ireland Portal" - we'd say "Portal of Ireland". Even as a name, that's how it would be "phrased". So that would be "Tairseach na hÉireann". A "literal" translation of "Ireland Portal" into Irish would be "Éire Tairseach" or "Éire Tairseach Láithreán". Finally, "Welcome To The Ireland Portal" is "Fáilte go dtí an X" where "X" is whatever is decided for "Ireland Portal". --HighKing (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of grammar it's not "Portal of" its "Portal for/to/about" Ireland related content. To see this try substituting the word Ireland with the word "Toyota" for example, it becomes 'Toyota's Portal' rather than the 'Portal about/for Toyota' if you use the wrong grammatical case - the meaning of the two phrases is quite distinct. It's the dative tense because the object of the sentence is 'Portal' and the indirect object is "Ireland" (its indirect because the direct object is the type of webpage not its content), the verb is "welcome to" (with the implied "You are" before it). Na hEireann is the genitive case (tusieal ginnideach) of Eire (translating as 'of Ireland', 'belonging to Ireland' or 'Irish'), and that has a completely different grammatical sense. The dative case in Gaelic is used when a noun falls into the prepositional case (ie 'about Ireland' 'to Ireland', or 'for Ireland') and that would be "Failte go dti an Portal Eirinn" (fadas missing) in this case. Look at other wiki's pages (ie French wikipedia - it's Portail Irlande not Portail Irlandaise; or "Bienvenidos al Portal Irland" in Spanish not "Bienvenidos al Portal de Irlanda". Anyway that's the grammatical form I don't have an opinion beyond that. But ask BrownHairedGirl she might be better able tohelp--Caililtalk02:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have the left the English word portal for both Irish and Ulster-Scots – even though I'm sure a suitable approximate translation could be found for both, there'd no doubt be disagreement as to what the word should be, so have just de-italicised to make it clear it's not Irish/Scots. As for the Irish, I've put in Cailil's "Failte go dti an Portal Eirinn", which I hope makes sense and is acceptable to everyone! Feel free to make any edits you think are suitable yourselves. —JonCॐ09:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that the "Irish portal" or "Portal of Ireland", as above? HighKing, any chance you could ask about Éirinn on the Irish Wiki? I wouldn't know where to begin! (Ah kin juist aboot mek masel unnèrstood oan tha Scotch Wikipædia...) —JonCॐ08:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've a Evertype to comment. (I'm fascinated by the discussion - and have no objection to people discussing it here - but I'm not able to comment.) --RA (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in the short term the usual templates could use some optimisation. And these new 'fast' ones are a problem, as they don't work much of the time and are too limited. The better ref tag might be the thing, now... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question regarding this editor [[8]]. He seems to be found of raising contentious issues over perhaps trivial matters however that is not my problem with this, this editor seems to be hiding behind proxies, which does not paint his/her intentions in a good light at all, the majority of the other IPs if not all on the same page seem to be the same person.
Correct me if I am mistaken but as far as I am aware of are proxies not permitted to edit? Sheodred (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see evidence that the IP is a proxy. And in any event, I don't see evidence that the IP is abusive. Policy on open proxies is that, while they may be blocked at any time, "legitimate users ... may freely use proxies until those are blocked". --RA (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only state the above because it turns out to be a proxy according to the 'Geolocate' option, it states that it is a confirmed proxy. See here [[9]] But if policy dictates that it is acceptable if no abuse is being perpetrated then that is fine with me. Sheodred (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. To be clear, policy is that proxies may be blocked for any amount of time because they are open to abuse. However, I don't see evidence of abuse in this instance so I think it would be unfair to use policy in that way to remove a participant form a discussion.
By all means, continue to observe the discussion. If there emerges a genuine suspicion of sock puppetry, then contact me again. --RA (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[10] with this. Just because someone mostly sticks to one subject around here does not mean they don't have other interests... (It did raise a few of my eyebrows in regards to your gender, but I'm still firmly on the "M" side of things! Hehe). --Τασουλα (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, believe it or not I have interests outside of what to call Northern Ireland! :-)
I'm sorry you insist with your edits, but two of us tell you that the reference is not to Italy, but it is to Ireland. I think the time has come to put aside absurd nationalistic claims. Bloomberg, The Independent and The Economist confirm the reference to Ireland. As I said, Italy has never had anything to do with Portugal or Greece and the term PIGS, before the crisis of 2008, was designed to identify the European countries that faced the Mediterranean, for which the term was devoid of a condition statement. In fact, the Italian economy is structurally different from that of other countries (1.5 trillion GDP Italy, Greece and Portugal 160 billion). We try to find a compromise solution, thanks.--Naumakos (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you write is contradicted by dozens of reference already present in the article. Additionally, the previous editor supported the text you are changing. I'm seeking a third opinion. --RA (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a misunderstanding. You said PIGS was used already in the 90's, but I told you that that term was used in a different meaning from the economic significance: the economy was not the premise from which the term was derived. The term connoted only a geographical area: the Italian economy has characteristics very different from those of Greece or Portugal. Also, I'm not against the article has this reference: I'm contrary to the definition that you gave from the economic point of view. I told you that the two indicators that underpin the solvency of a country are the deficit (annual deficit between revenue and expenditure) and the rate of interest, the country must spend to finance its debt. Italy has never received an euro, while Ireland has received 80 billion to avert the risk of default. Ireland has had a deficit six times the deficit of Italy. I rely therefore on economic indicators, not journalist sourches, although the same sources confirm this.--Naumakos (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
Hello, Tóraí/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, unfortunately I had to be away for work these days and I could not participate in the final discussion. However, I support the solution was found: finally, we have arrived at a shared solution, a solution that is respectful of all the sources.--Naumakos (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
You made a series of move requests back in June 2012, they have not been acted upon because you used the depreciated template:movenotice on the article page.
Could you have a look at above article JohnC has gone against consensus on IMOS which was established here by adding Limerick UK, a discussion that he took part in, also have a look at his edit summary on the article were he accuses me of hounding him, could you ask him to stop with his attacks in edit summaries thanks. It could also be argued that his edits were a breach of 1RR arb restrictions. Mo ainm~Talk08:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the article to read "Ireland" and "England" in line with common practice.
Looking at your edit summaries, there is a good number of "Undid revision XXX by Jon C". I'm not suggesting you are hounding him (I don't think you are) but I don't think his accusation is meant as an attack. --RA (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I counted 15 "Undid revision XXX by Jon C" out of my last 500 edits and a number of them were on my talk page saw 3 on one day, his constant accusations of hounding are annoying and breach AGF, on the above article I edited it last year 3 days before he showed up to make his first edit on the article which was a revert of me, also I made an edit to Republic of Ireland national football team article and then who shows up a couple of days later to make their first edit another revert of me, I know we all have watchlists but when an editors first edit is a revert of me to the accuse me of hounding them is laughable. Mo ainm~Talk23:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I was just about to come back here to add that, no matter what, we should assume good faith. And it was snappy. It was an article that was reasonable to assume was on both your watchlists since you had been in a cordial discussion with each other on its talk page a year previous.
I don't know, but are things so bad that you cannot drop a word on his talk page? I'm a bit loathe to interfere but if you really want I will drop a line saying that it was snappy, and merely on a friendly basis, it might be worth while to retract it in some ways? On the other hand, he might have more to add. --RA (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GEM Anscombe was on my watchlist anyway because it's one Sheodred used to mess around with, and I think I did come to Rep of Ire football team by way of your contribs, but we all do that sometimes. I wasn't accusing you of hounding in the Wikipedia sense, it was just a slightly snappy edit summary because you simply rolled back my edit (which clearly wasn't vandalism) without using one yourself. My apologies. No offence intended. —Jon C.ॐ08:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if it was the rollback feature but the same principle stands. Using the rollback feature just leaves just a generic summary, which doesn't communicate anything except the person has been reverted. That can get on people's wick. It gets on mine when it's done to me. So, regardless of which feature was actually used, it's best to only use generic summaries when reverting in the following circumstances.
All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.
If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
Hi RA. A new editor seems to have some difficulty 'settling in'. I've tried to engage constructively but they repeatedly make snide comments; basically not assuming good faith. I don't want to be 'bitey', nor do I wish to see them blocked, if that can be avoided. Perhaps you could have a word with them? Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
On 23 September 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2012 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Thanks for your explanation here. I take it that this is analogous to the major-league professional sports in the United States? As you may know, we also have some professional "minor" leagues in various sports, but those are for adults that can't make it in the majors.--Chaser (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Once a player passes 18, they can no longer play for the "minors". However, nom-minors have different levels (e.g. "intermediate").
All Gaelic games are strictly amateur so the distinction is not between professional and amateur. That may seem surprising, but Rugby used to be strictly amateur too until 1995. Players (and even managers) can find themselves banned or punished for receiving payments.
An interesting development is International rules football. In it, a professional team representing Australia play an amateur teams representing Ireland in a compromise game. Australian Rules and Gaelic football are similar enough that this can happen. --RA (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RA, let the current discussion run its course. If you believe there is not a snowball chance of a change being made then let the community decide. You need to allow for more than 36hrs for people to respond. You know this. 46.7.113.111 (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RA, I don't know why this IP thinks you closed his RFC, but I'm both sorry and grateful that you've been taking grief that should have been aimed at me. I think you're only encouraging him by reopening his Derry request; I hope another uninvolved editor will be willing to close it again. Regardless, thanks. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RA, one note, you have included votes from the previous RM that you closed, but they do not take into account the 6 reasons I included in the 2nd RM request. Can you fix this?46.7.113.111 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(a) There was a clear consensus to move; (b) a majority of participants !voted to add a hyphen. However, the arguments by Tony1 and Dicklyon were more substantive and thus are given greater weight when assessing consensus.
Arguments against adding the hyphen were based on a narrow reading of WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. not merely the common name, but also the most frequent punctuation). There are more criteria and issues to consider when choosing a name, including those raised by Tony1 and Dicklyon. --RA (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about the argument I raised - that when a certain punctuation is used over 90% of the time, matching that on WP meets readers' expectations, and is thus more user-friendly? Dohn joe (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the overall discussion. In terms of the overall discussion, I determined consensus was to include the add the hyphen. Dicklyon pointed to WP:HYPHEN, which draws in further consensus among the community on use/non-use of hyphens. --RA (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - thanks for the response. By the way - is there any reason why you close RMs with an RFC-style box instead of the more typical RM closure template? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. No particular reason, except that the archive template allows greater scope to leave a summary of the discussion. That's nicer IMO for more lengthy/difficult discussions where people may like to know the reasoning (e.g. see Talk:Tao_Te_Ching#Requested_move). It crossed my mind to leave a longer summary in the case of Parallel Random Access Machine, for example (but obviously didn't in the end). --RA (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed your interest in the history of Ireland. I'm trying to get some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland#Rose Report on the "Rose Report" which has been listed for several years on WikiProject Northern Ireland as an article in need of creation. I've had the request for information up since 20 August without response. At least we should be able to identify what it is so we can see if it really belongs on that list. Even if you don't know what it is, saying so would be a help. If we get enough of those, that will at least answer the question about its relative importance. Thanks in advance. --Bejnar (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Farroupilha Revolution" was a rebellion that occurred in the Empire of Brazil in 19th century. Since I'm actually the only editor in here who has worked on articles about Imperial Brazil (ten Featured Articles, to be more precise, see my user page) I believe my opinion should at least be taken in account. Books in English about imperial Brazil usually give two translations to the name "Guerra dos Farrapos": "War of the Ragamuffins" (a literal translation) and "Ragamuffin War". So, when an editor who knows little about the theme goes to Google books (isn't what everyone who knows nothing does?) he will find less results with "War of the Ragamuffins" then any name with "Farrapos". That's obvious, the search engine won't find "Ragamuffin", but only "Ragamuffins" (from "War of the Ragamuffins"), giving the wrong impression that the name is less used then it actually is.
I tried to warn everyone in that move request that "Farroupilha" is not only a name hard to read and pronouce in English, but it actually should be avoided when a suitable name ("Ragamuffin") is found in English. The books that use the name "Ragamuffin" aren't obscure: they were written by the most respected American and British authors such as Roderick J. Barman, who wrote " Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798–1852" and "Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825–1891" (two books used as sources here).
I'd like to request you a favor. Take a look at the history log of the editor who made the move request, and of all the others who supported it. You'll notice that none of them has actually made any contribution to articles about the Imperial Brazil. I'll be a little blunt, if you don't mind: what do they know about imperial Brazil? Moves requests are something that has bothered me since always: people who have no idea of what is being discussed will simply make a quick look at Google books and believe they know enough. C'mon. That's a joke.
Featured articles such as Empire of Brazil, Pedro II of Brazil, Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias and Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre (the latter two were field commanders in the War of the Ragamuffins) were written by me. I know what I'm talking about. The other wditor who wrote this articles with me (Astynax), also opposed the move. The editors who opposed the move are members of the Empire of Brazil task force. We are people who have knowledge about what was under discussion. They don't. Go check their history log. You'll see. Rannpháirtí anaithnid, I hope you won't feel offended with what I'm about to say, but I must tell you that you made a big mistake. If you're willing to correct it, that's up to you. But it's odd that experienced editors were ignored in favor of a bunch of people who knows nothing. Where the Wikipedia reliability has gone, then? Anyway, thank you for your time. Have a nice day. --Lecen (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lecen, you left your message above on Saturday morning. I noticed it at lunch time that day but, as I was about to leave the house for the afternoon, I did not reply since I wanted to give it the attention it deserved.
When I returned home on Saturday evening I encountered a family crisis. I slept Saturday night on the floor of a hospital and on Sunday, whilst I was active on Wikipedia, it was mainly to keep my mind active.
It is now Monday morning and I have just arrived at work, still tired after the events of the weekend. I will not be in a position to reply to your comment fully until this evening.
I wasn't aware of that. I took your silence as a conscious decision to ignore me. Take your time regarding this matter. Your family is far more important than a Wikipedia article. I hope things will get better for you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in getting back. I wanted to read through your comment and look back on the RM.
First, I did take your opinion into account, though I didn't attribute it any greater weight that anyone else's. I am not in a posession to know which editor knows most about a subject in order to appeal to authority. That may be a weakness of Wikipedia. (I'm being serious BTW.) And I know first hand that it can be very frustrating.
My assessment of the discussion, based on a broad view of it, was that consensus was towards a move. That wasn't based solely on !vote counting. My assessment was that the argument to move was stronger than the argument to stay.
That decision may expose an ignorance of the topic - both in me and/or in those who participated in the discussion. --RA (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming higher authority. I was claiming a higher knowledge, which is true. Those who voted in favor of the move made a simple Google search and believed that that was enough. I showed that the name used by historians, by the most respected historians, is the translation. It's sad to see that you will regard that as a "consensus", even more because the name of the article will not be similar to other Featured Articles related to it (Empire of Brazil, Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre and Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. The move only harmed, it did no good. You should notice that none of those editors are improving, working or doing anything at all on any article about Brazilian history. --Lecen (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RA, as an admin with knowledge in the main interest areas (I know you try not to be involved in the administrating of decisions in this area), could you have a chat with Laggan Boy, some of his edits are constructive others are OR or some against guidelines and common practice (which he makes very little effort on dicussion of). He edited as an IP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles/Archive_6#IP_hopping_editor here) from where I first came across him, icluding the Belfast Library IP which has now been blocked. I have tried reasoning with him about sources and his additions but very little has came back. If you could try to have a chat with him ( or if you feel I could have handled it differently have a chat with me). Thanks for your time. Murry1975 (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the entries on Cork (city) and Ballyclogh, County Cork? If so, I think you are being a bit harsh. I haven't checked. It may be that the statements are not in the source, but the statements of Cork (city) could be sourced pretty quickly. "Bally-claw" probably isn't source-able, and I think it would be better presented as IPA or as audio, but generally I don't see pronunciations sourced (indeed see Cork (city) as an example). Whether we add pronunciations to small places is anther question though.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taig, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Paddy, Mick and Tim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The move proposal has been modified to include just two items: Comparison of web browser engines (ECMAScript support) to address your concerns, and Comparison of layout engines. I hope that you can find time to review this. LittleBen (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hot water bottle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain and Ireland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.
JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...
the subject line "JSTOR"
your English Wikipedia username
your preferred email address for a JSTOR account
The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.
I am happy to discuss IMOS issues at IMOS, but I would like you, if you could, to give up the practice of using Easter eggs in your replies, as you did here. If you want to invoke BRD, you need just say "I'm following BRD". I understand what BRD means, but I don't understand what "the Most Interested Person" means. There was discussion of the flag over the Christmas, in the "Saltire representing Ireland" section, in which four people took part, five if you include me, all of whom were interested, or we wouldn't have been there. So, were you saying that you are entitled to the designation of "Most Interested Person"? If not, what were you saying? Also, I did not "expect you to get back to me". I opened a discussion which you had the right to join if you chose, that's all. Scolaire (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and Happy New Year to you. Can you advise on the use of British Isles? Earlier today I reverted an attempt to change Britain and Ireland in the above article to the British Isles. Is there a WP:MOS? User:RashersTierney suggested I contact you. Regards. Denisarona (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a general sanction in place for systematic addition or removal of the term (see WP:GS/BI). However, I don't think the example here is systematic.
The issue is touchy. I think the consensus now it to leave well enough alone (i.e. if it text read "British Isles" then leave it as "British Isles", if the text read "Britain and Ireland" then leave it as "Britain and Ireland"). This is not formalised, but I believe the view of the community to be that is OK to revert a needless change (as in this case) in order to retain the original (or long standing) text. --RA (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this edit and recall I uploaded this image from Flickr having got permission from the Flickr user but cannot find a log for it and don't remember if this was on enwiki or commons. Can you help me with this? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. I removed the wikicode because the image was broken (i.e. it wasn't showing up). I assumed it had been deleted. But here it is: File:Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnell - aerial.jpg. I tried to revert but the image still isn't showing up.
Irish government produced images are copyright for 50 years, so currently 1963 is the cut off date. So images such as these are PD. I'm not sure I know what you mean by reversing it? I don't believe such images are affected by URAA. TTFN ww2censor (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I (incorrectly) leapt to the conclusion that prior to 1963 the situation was similar to current US federal copyright (i.e. state copyright was public domain). --RA (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is what it is except it is a continuously forward moving feast but with a 50 year time line while all US federal images are PD. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Political movements in the United Kingdom. KarlB (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
wikimedia.org) with...
