User talk:Hiberniantears

Home Talk Dashboard Userboxes! This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify) This user has been on Wikipedia for 6 years, 11 months and 26 days. This user is an Eguor admin. This administrator is willing to consider reasonable requests for rollback permission. This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues. Near Edit warring on Don Cherry (singer/golfer) There is an IP user on the Don Cherry (singer/golfer) who is adding unreferenced information. I have reverted his edits, but do not wish to engage into an edit war. Advice? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Resolved Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Gliese 581 g Hi. Could you explain your reasoning behind this change? I'm open to discussion on the matter, but it was appropriately titled prior to your change. The section does not discuss significance. The significance of 581 g is related to its location in the habitable zone of its parent star. The section in question is about the implications of the find. The phrase, "A new age of discovery" belongs to the lead author of the study, Steven Vogt. He used it at the NSF news conference[1] to refer to his paper published in the Astrophysical Journal.[2] In the paper, however, he used the term "second Age of Discovery", which amounts to the same thing as "new" in this context, so both are correct. In any case, secondary sources use the term as well. If you still dislike the term, I'm sure we can come up with something else, perhaps something about searching for Earth-like exoplanets. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC) It just sounds tacky... but I have no major objections. I changed the header so that it would be more encyclopedic. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Tacky? I don't see it that way. I see it as an accurate description of the content reflective of real history, the Age of Discovery. You can't get more encyclopedic than that. However, until the planet is confirmed to exist, we should definitely tone it down, so you may have a point after all. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Your edits to Proxima Centauri‎ Please stop deleting contributions by other authors that satisfy WP:TOPIC without first discussing on the article's talk page and attempting to reach some type of consensus. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC) I disagree with you on this one. My edit summaries explain my point, but I'll elaborate on the Talk page. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC) picture removed this addition you made picture removed after the killing That has been removed twice as it is unsupported in the citation - either please self revert or ad a reliable citation that actually supports your addition, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Will do: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/09/advisor-linking-palin-to-shootings-appalling/ Hiberniantears (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Cool, make sure you attribute it to removed by a Palin political aide thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Fair enough. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC) No worries, its ok as it is. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC) death panel at NPOV I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_at_Death_panel_.3F and I didn't like it too much. I started death panel and I would say that it is a bit silly to delete the material. Sure, it started as pure political rhetoric. But the term/controversy it inspired has been described as almost taking down health care reform. Physicians wrote letters to JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine. Brendan Nyhan published a paper in The Forum. The term/controversy it represented has been commented on by academics such as George Annas and Jill Lepore. PolitiFact named it "Lie of the Year". The term has moved from pure political rhetoric and has now been covered by serious sources, which is why we have an article. I replied to your comment here because I thought you might have been trying to just get people to not argue, which I understand. Jesanj (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Understood, and yes, I am going for less arguing. The term itself has an interesting story, and it is a classic example of the power that mass ignorance has in a democracy when a political faction deploys scare tactic phrases to obfuscate the facts of a debate. If editors are now arguing over the examples that should be in this article, then they are simply allowing themselves to be sucked into the political theater. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC) I think I agree with you somewhat. I think there is an argument to be made that NICE and the IPAB have non-notable associations with the term. Jesanj (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Does that mean you think the section at IPAB is unwarranted? Jesanj (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I could be swayed toward keeping that section, since this is the specific item that was referenced as a Death Panel, and as the reference is notable within the context of the IPAB article itself. Over time, the notability may diminish, but at this point I think it deserves some mention within the article itself. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC) It wasn't the item that was referenced as a death panel though: Death_panel#Provision_identified_by_the_charge. Jesanj (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Editor assistance list A problem has been identified at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. You may like to read Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Nothing Important, just a q about userboxes Hiya, how do I get those neat boxes I see some people with? I want some and am not sure where to find them. =( Btw, you wouldn't happen to be a certain Celtic archaeologist who lives in the DC area, would you? :p TheArchaeologist 06:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs) I would suggest that you start here: Wikipedia:Userboxes. The instruction and link to a gallery can be found at that page, and there's pretty much a box for just about everything. As for your second question, I am not an archaeologist, although I did once live in DC. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Ah thanks! Now I can put all my biases down. :p Darn, lol, thought you might be one of my archaeology prof, you have similar views (from what I saw here) and she does work in Ireland, so it was possible. :p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 16:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Kosovo Sorry it seems I stepped on your toes with an edit at Republic of Kosovo. Since you are now on the case and it seems you are something like an uninvolved admin, have you got any good idea how the discussion on those articles can be structured and focussed a bit more? I'm afraid the old discussions have gone so chaotic, and positions of several core contributors are so entrenched, that any actual consensus will be extremely difficult to gauge. Maybe something analogous to WP:NCMAC needs to be set up, and tightly watched? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC) I have the same concern. Some form of the multi-article option does seem to work better than some of the other things that have been tried. From an admin perspective, we know that consensus will not form within the Kosovo topic in the near future, and I think this has to be our starting point with introducing a new discussion. Something along the lines of "we notice that consensus does not exist for either one or multiple "Kosovo political entities" articles. In the interest of fostering higher quality content we are protecting multiple articles who's scope is limited to specific political entities within Kosovo.". Thoughts? Hiberniantears (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC) I see that you are making some bold edits at Kosovo (region) and Kosovo - [3]. If Kosovo topic remains changed to Kosovo region - as your edit suggests - some additional changes will be required (only the first infobox should remain, sections duplicated with RoK should be trimmed/removed), including in some redirects, disambiguation articles, navigation templates, etc. - but all this can be done later, if your change remains. But for the time being the navigation template at Kosovo reads somewhat strange after your edit: This article is about the geographical region of Kosovo. For individual articles about each of them, see Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–). For other uses, see Kosovo (disambiguation). I think if it remains in this state it should be slightly changed to: This article is about the geographical region of Kosovo. For articles about the political entities that claim it, see Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–). For other uses, see Kosovo (disambiguation). I can't change it myself, that's why I write to you. Alinor (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Well, actually, Hiberniantears, this is fantastic solution! Now when i think about it, it is the best possible way to regain peace on Kosovo related articles. I created redirect out of Kosovo (region) to the Kosovo article, that redirect existed for a long time, as far as i know, so.... And Alinor proposition for the main Kosovo article sound great! As we already have articles about specific entities, APKiM and RoK, related material should be moved from kosovo article per this post. Well, what do you say. I will only fix the redirects, that shouldn't´t be controversial... Please, respond me regarding the rest, you know how are things going on around here, i dont want to cause problems... Also, please see this move request, as it was proposed earlier. What do you say? Thanks in advance! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 14:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC) CI1 fossils Hi, I saw the article, and the extremely large quotation of the abstract is unacceptable under WP:QUOTE- "Editors are advised to exercise good judgment and to remain mindful of the fact that while brief excerpts are permitted by policy, extensive quotations are forbidden." Please try to paraphrase the paper instead asap, Passionless -Talk 01:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC) LOL... I know. I figured the abstract might fly for the short term, and that other editors would break it down. I'm on it! Hiberniantears (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC) It is done... although I stress that anyone could have done that, further indicating the demise of this project over the past two years. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC) A beer for you Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC) NATO attack In the lead statement, you are claiming that the attack was carried out by "US-Afghan" forces. However, I haven't heard anything on Afghan forces being involved in this and am pretty sure it only involved NATO. Could you provide a ref for clarification? Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Sure thing. The reference to US-Afghan forces is found in paragraph eight of the following Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/26/nato-air-attack-pakistan-soldiers. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC) I see that you have cut down the lead and moved the content into sub-sections. I am not going to revert you, but I would like to point out that I disagree with this merger. This attack is highly controversial, not only from the Pakistan-United States relations perspective, but also the reaction it received domestically in Pakistan from the government, military and public. An article lead should adequately summarize a whole article and the information it contains; in this case, the lead should have a sentence or two on U.S. claims and then a bit on the official Pakistani reaction to the attack (closure of supply routes, shutting down of Shami Airbase etc.) - which the previous version had. The current bifurcated version of the lead does not do justice to the article and its content nor does it summarize the repercussions of the incident. Mar4d (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Looking for a third opinion Would you mind providing a third opinion for a dispute at generally speaking, OWS is non-violent. I don't want to give details because I want an unbiased opinion.Racingstripes (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry to drag you into this, but I don't really know what to do next.Racingstripes (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC) It is a small enough point that it's worth conceding until the movement morphs into something with a more defined platform. As it is presently, the Occupiers really defy a specific description. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Ok thanks.Racingstripes (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC) You've got mail! Hello, Hiberniantears. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. SarahStierch (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC) MSU Interview Dear Hiberniantears, 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 communityHERE, 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 nameHERE 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. Sincerely, Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)