Archive 1: Sep. 2005 - Mar. 2007
Archive 2: Apr. 2007 - Dec. 2007
Archive 3: Jan. 2008 - Aug. 2008
Archive 4: Sep. 2008 - Dec. 2009
Archive 5: Jan. 2010 - May 2010
Archive 6: Jun. 2010 - Dec. 2010
Archive 7: Jan. 2011 - Dec. 2012
Archive 8: Jan. 2013 - Dec. 2013
Archive 9: Jan. 2014 - Oct. 2014
- 1 Demographics
- 2 Gaelic Ireland
- 3 Global account
- 4 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 5 Help with rebarbative editors and administrators
- 6 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 7 Southern Ireland
- 8 WT:DRN Comments
- 9 Protection
- 10 FA template on Easter Rising
- 11 WOT Services - ANI
- 12 Disambiguation link notification for March 10
- 13 Christian terrorism
- 14 Covers
- 15 Michael Collins
- 16 Manchester Martyers
- 17 Thank you. :-))
- 18 Bobby Sands
- 19 How to add a fact that isn't necessarily 'source-able'
Thanks for editing my edit and your clear explaination..." "two-and-a-half times", not "two-and-a-half times more than" which would be three-and-a-half times "...AlwynJPie (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
It's glad for me to meet a rational wikipedian like you :). Btw thanks for backing me dude. Feeling those guys are a bit 'amateurish' that they read too few articles. XD Pktlaurence (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I've been putting off doing that for so long. I never dreamed it would be so easy! Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Pope Joan. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
Help with rebarbative editors and administrators
Hello, I don't know whether you can help with editing assistance, but I was impressed by your fair-mindedness on the Pope Joan page (don't worry I have nothing to do with the fair lady). But I am a supporter of progressive Catholic causes, and in looking on Catholic Wikipedia I have become aware of a large number of very conservative heresy hunters, and have fallen foul of them myself firstly in writing a short article on the UK group A Call to Action, ACTA, which was deleted on grounds on non-notability, when it had a number of references in national press and on BBC news, and over 2000 members. The administrator who first welcomed me gave voice to a series of conservative opinions himself, and then passed the details on to another administrator, who deleted it forthwith, and refused to enter into any discussion about it. It is true that there was a majority arguing for deletion, but not a consensus, and several of them were readily identifiable as part of the conservative mafia. I can send you the deleted file if you are interested, but can't remember how to access the deletion page. Meanwhile I tried to re-edit the pages about a similar but unlinked US organization called Call to Action. An editor on that has threatened me with banning for adding a sentence at the end saying that the climate towards dissent has changed since Pope Francis has come in. She has accused me of various violations. The original article was a bland piece but it has been rewritten to focus entirely on an excommunication process in one diocese of the US in 2006, and that is the note the editors insist on ending on. If you are prepared to you could look up this one as it is still on wiki. Anyway, sorry to trouble you if that is not cup of tea Tomcapa1 (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I do occasionally let myself get involved with oddball Catholic articles, like Pope Joan or Ngô Đình Thục. But I'm not an editor of Catholic articles generally, and certainly not of articles on current Catholic organisations. Anyway, I have my fill of excitement elsewhere at the moment, so I think I'll pass on this one. Thanks for the kind words, though. Scolaire (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- NUTS 3 (I had to chase it up; you should really link to things like that) has a "South-East" and a "South-West". "Southern Ireland" doesn't denote either of these, and I don't think you can add them together to give "South". The "South of Ireland" in that sense is a concept rather than a precise geographical area with boundaries, and it would be OR to try and put boundaries on it. Best leave it as it is. Scolaire (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification, and for what half reads like a slight apology. I will see that your repeated use of the word "ultimatum" to refer to what was not a threat or a warning but simply a setting of conditions for our willingness to provide a service was hurtful and did sting. It did read as if you were making a demand as to how we provide a service. I don't think that you were fair to the volunteer mediators. To the extent that you apologized, I accept the apology. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think I was fair to the mediators. I noted that you are doing this out of the goodness your hearts for the well-being of the project, and asked only that you recognise that I and other participants also are, and that you not apply different standards of timeliness to us and to yourselves. I have expressed regret for the use of the word "ultimatum", which was not intended to be hurtful. It would have been nice if you could have acknowledged that comments like I can't continue it without some collaboration, when Cuchullain and myself were breaking our necks collaborating, are also hurtful and do sting. I have more to say, but I will say it on the DRN talk page. Scolaire (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that (in an over-written comment) you referred to the semi-protection of Pope Joan. I think that it was fully protected until 4 February due to edit-warring. I don't think that you or I would have noticed semi-protection, which has no effect on established editors. Maybe the article should have been semi-protected rather than fully protected, because it appears that IPs were part of the problem. Anyway, it can be untagged now. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- It said "Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users". I took that to mean semi-protection. I realised afterwards that the protection had expired, and deleted my comment accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
FA template on Easter Rising
WOT Services - ANI
Please have a look. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward O'Dwyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Brothers (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.
I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be at my computer, ready to refute any arguments (which still has no source for "a lone wolf is rarely classified as a religious terrorist") or you would feel free to wipe out the section again. --NeilN talk to me 01:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- There was a discussion. You took part in it, but only to make a snide comment similar to the one above. The consensus among the three editors who provided substantive arguments was that Breivik did not belong in the article. I see you are actually engaging now. Perhaps you can establish a consensus to restore the section. We'll see. But coming on people's talk pages to whine achieves nothing. Scolaire (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do agree with about "Man of Constant Sorrow". Notable songs should certainly show notable covers. Don't tell anyone, but I regard this article as perfectly encyclopedic. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- That would be too big of a list for me :-) Scolaire (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I take note of why you have deleted his entry from the table in Records of members of parliament of the United Kingdom listing sitting or former MPs who were murdered. After reading his Wikipedia article and having a clearer idea of the context in which his death occurred, I have created a new category table in List of MPs who died through active service in war for Inter-World War Years. I blame my misunderstanding on a remembered portrayal of his death in the British TV series The Life and Times of David Lloyd George, which showed the victims and perpetrators in civilian clothes and not uniform and the vehicles as civilian cars.Cloptonson (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire - I note that you reverted my edit on the grounds that it was insignificant so to give you an idea of its significance. The trial of Father Larkin in New Zealand was the first trial of an Irishman for a purely political reason in that country. The trial arose solely out of the sad events surrounding the Manchester Martyrs and the response of the Irish community at Hokitika, New Zealand to it. I think a brief sentance referring to it in the paragraph titled Aftermath is a balanced response and simply confirms the statement The executions gave rise to an enormous groundswell of feeling among Irish communities the world over. There was considerable interest in the trial within New Zealand. It was well covered in local papers The Political Trials, West Coast Times , Issue 838, 30 May 1868, Page 7 I leave it to you to decide if the sentece should remain or not, as I acknowledge you are more knowledgable on Irish issues. NealeFamily (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- The source that you gave me there is far better than the one you used in your edit. I added back a short sentence based on it. Please note, though, that mere mention of New Zealand is not enough to add it to the New Zealand category or the New Zealand WikiProject. Scolaire (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Scolaire. The reason I added the NZ Category and project is to ensure it is followed up in an article on the Irish in New Zealand along the lines of Irish Australian. There is to my mind a link between this event and the development of New Zealand's underlying social character in that as time progressed New Zeland moved from being a very English settlement to developing its own more independent character. NealeFamily (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- You were going the wrong way about it, though. What you need to do is create an article on the Irish in New Zealand – you'll find source material in Google Books, and you've shown your ability to do research – and then publicise that on WikiProject New Zealand. Scolaire (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. :-))
Thank you for adding a wikilink to "Arthur McBride" in the track list section of the article on the album Andy Irvine/Paul Brady, yesterday. Your edit brought to my attention the fact that I made a mistake when I created the article!
On this album's back cover, the song is called simply 'Arthur McBride', whereas it is called 'Arthur McBride and the Sergeant' on the back cover of The Missing Liberty Tapes!
I think what happened is that I first drafted the former album's track list by using parts of the latter's, and then forgot to reduce the title of the track to the shorter 'Arthur McBride'.
So, my grateful thanks to you for helping to correct my earlier error, albeit unwittingly!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. It's nice to know that my edits are appreciated. Scolaire (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, if you have time could you check recent IP edits to the above, listing him in the category British politicians etc.. I always consider NI as being Northern Irish, not British. Regards Denisarona (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
How to add a fact that isn't necessarily 'source-able'
You recently reverted an edit I made.
Now we have a problem, because the article is presenting a half-truth or presenting the truth in a way that doesn't tell the whole story.
Here's the thing: Having grown up in Northern Ireland, a number of decades ago, my grandparents and other people of their generation referred to "the Free State" and even "Free Staters", as I suggested in my edit comment. Some people of my own generation also use the term. Now, I know what you're going to say: "Editors are not sources", right?
Yet my edit remains true and factual. A more expansive explanation would include the fact that some of the more radical and militant republicans would refer to the country as "the Free State" (and/or "the 26") specifically because they do not recognise the legitimacy of it, as compared to a historical declaration. But I digress...
The fact is pretty uncommon: due to systemic bias (there are many more people from other countries in the world than there are non-Republicans in Northern Ireland), it would probably be next to impossible to find a source that explains how non-Republicans refer to the Republic of Ireland as "the Free State".
With respect, this is how I see your action:
Alice bakes a pie and puts it on her window sill.
Jimmy does not see a pie on her window sill.
Therefore, Alice did not put a pie on her window sill.
Furthermore, Alice did not bake a pie.
Here's another example:
An editor had his account 'hacked'.
Unable to log into his account, he continued to make edits, considering that at some point in the future perhaps he'll address the situation once he's found out exactly what he can do about it other than writing an e-mail which was ignored.
Other editors, perhaps with agendas, accuse the now IP-named editor of being a 'sock puppet' merely because he continued editing and didn't have time to put effort into having his account restored.
The editor appeals to admins and asks if the IP of the last persons to use the former account can be traced, so as to identify possible culprits who are working the system, but is told that no such records can be found.
Jimmy, however, does not see a pie on the window sill.
Therefore, the editor is a 'sock puppet'.
Furthermore, the editor does not edit again.
Just because there is no evidence of something, doesn't mean it's not true.
I see a couple of options open for the 'pedia. Firstly, it continues to ignore my edit and therefore sends a message that is in error because of context (ie: republicans are the ONLY group of people who use the term).
You can fix the problem by placing it more into context by making it more ambiguous, whilst still ignoring my unproven fact about non-republicans using the phrase.
You can visit Northern Ireland yourself and speak to some older people, ask a number of them how they refer or referred to that country, and record them and then upload the soundbite to wikimedia and then cite it as proof.
You could assume good faith and perhaps use a bit of common sense (I don't mean that as harsh as it may read) or intuition, and just accept that trivial information inserted, with a decent cursory explanation, is likely not to be a 'joke' or politically motivated or vandalism or what ever.
I dunno - any ideas yourself, for this really minor edit which I've now written a bloody essay about?! Maybe something a little more helpful than "that's not what it says in the citation"? Maybe, with some conscience as a person who wants to provide facts to the world, a little bit of extra... something? --220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, let me say that I totally understand your frustration. I've had the experience where I've had an apparently uncontroversial edit reverted with what looked like a dismissive edit summary, and I know that it's really maddening. I'm sorry that my edit summary came across as dismissive, but that's a problem with edit summaries: they have to be summaries so it's hard to make them warm and fuzzy.
- Now, I'll tell you a bit about my own history: I proposed a re-write of the "Name" section in February. Like you, I thought that it would be uncontroversial, but a major row developed that lasted the best part of a month: see Talk:Republic of Ireland#'Name' section, Talk:Republic of Ireland#Name v description and Talk:Republic of Ireland#'Name' section part 2. After two months of quiet, I still can't be completely confident that the edit is stable, so I have to be able to say that it is 100% verifiable. That's why, with the best will in the world, I felt I had to revert your edit.
- I might also mention this thread. You can see that before my edit to the section, the text emphasised the "republican" angle a good deal more than after: it said, "Many Irish republicans, and other opponents of partition, avoid calling the state Ireland. They see it as reinforcing partition and fuelling the perception that 'Ireland' and 'Irishness' are restricted to the Republic (see partitionism). Instead, they often refer to the state as the 26 Counties...and sometimes as the Free State." If I could have replaced that with a sourced statement that "some people" call it the Free State, I would have. As it was, I did the best I could.
- Bear in mind, "some people" who are not republicans also use the term "26 Counties" – I have used it myself, even on Wikipedia talk pages. Some people also call it the Irish Republic. I'm sure some people also call it "down there", "across the water" and various other names. The purpose of the section is not to pin down exactly how many alternative names the state has, or who it is that uses those names. As you yourself put it, what you added was "trivial information". In other circumstances it would have been harmless, and I would have left it. But it is not vital or essential information, and I did not compromise the integrity or reputation of Wikipedia by reverting it.
- I hope that goes some way towards explaining my revert. Scolaire (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- PS I don't know whether you are telling me that you have been accused of sockpuppetry. If you were, I was not aware of the fact, and it has absolutely no bearing on my edit. Scolaire (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- I was indeed telling you that, Scolaire. I have been semi-hounded by a registered user on here more recently, who keeps telling me to register or edit under my user account. I will never edit using an account again, because of the negative experiences I've had here. I've always tried to remain balanced in ALL my undertakings. I was never perfect, and I'm still not perfect in all likelihood. But I try, and have always tried. You may guess who I am, or you may not. I would appreciate remaining anonymous, however. I simply don't have the time or energy any more, to defend common sense. I did not think that your revert had anything to do with the accusation levelled against me, and I apologise if it seemed to be the case - forgive me for the rant! :)
- As for the edit I made and your response, I appreciate your honesty and straight-forwardness. I have always expected that from you, and I apologise for 'ranting' a little bit. I'm sure you know it wasn't personal. There is, I believe, WP:COMMON, which might see fit in usage to suggest that in this case the sky is blue and my edit needs no explanation... but I shall leave that up to you if you want to decide to revert back to my edit, or attempt to reword it. The problem I would still have with the edit as it stands is that it strongly suggests that only Republicans use the term "Free State", and that this is not factual. The common sense guideline suggests to ignore the rules (the flowchart there is very nice), if the change is a good one that uses common sense and improves the article.
- As I've suggested, it will not be easy to find a citation that proves the fact in this case. To start with, a plethora of books and publications have been made detailing Republican attitudes. Very little, by comparison, has been written or filmed with regard to common-or-garden unionists or apolitical people in Northern Ireland. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say. In the unlikely event that I do happen to find a source, I will surely make the change if you haven't found one or seen fit to change it yourself.