User talk:FiachraByrne

Template:Blocked user —Talk. Don't Talk. Please bEgIn @ ThE eNd

History of psychiatric institutions

I am editing this for a grade and I have not finished it. Thanks though  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgstoves (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC) 

If you want help or sources, I have a PhD in the general subject area (history of psychiatry). If you're doing this for a grade, don't plagiarise (I wrote the section you copied and pasted into the article). What course and institution are you enrolled in? FiachraByrne (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your professional closure of the discussion on Talk:Jews/infobox#English_as_the_predominant_language. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome Debresser. Precision123 had good source-based arguments for his proposals. He just failed to establish a consensus for the inclusion of that item in the infobox. Best. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I modified some of your cite formatting

I modified the way you were doing footnotes at Gun control.

I changed the inline ref from this...

{{refn|Composed of 'insurgents and militias, including dormant and state-related groups'.<ref>{{harvnb|Small Arms Survey|2007|p=[http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2010/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2010-Chapter-04-EN.pdf 101]|ps=}}</ref>|group=n}}

to this...

{{refn|group=n|Composed of 'insurgents and militias, including dormant and state-related groups'.{{sfn|Karp|2010|p=101}}}}

And the citation from this...

*{{cite book|title=Small Arms Survey 2010: Gangs, Groups, and Guns|last=Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (Geneva, Switzerland)|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2010|location=Cambridge|isbn=9780521146845|url=http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2010.html|ref={{harvid|Small Arms Survey|2010}}}}

to this...

*{{cite book | last = Karp | first = Aaron | chapter = Chapter 4. Elusive Arsenals: Gang and Group Firearms | editor-last1 = Berman | editor-first1 = Eric G. | editor-last2 = Krause | editor-first2 = Keith | editor-last3 = LeBrun | editor-first3 = Emile | editor-last4 = McDonald | editor-first4 = Glenn | display-editors = 1 | work = Small Arms Survey 2010: Gangs, Groups, and Guns | year = 2010 | publisher = Cambridge University Press | location = Cambridge | isbn = 978-0-521-14684-5 | url = http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2010/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2010-Chapter-04-EN.pdf | ref = {{harvid|Karp|2010}}}}

They are functionally equivalent, but I'll be happy to put it back if you don't care for it. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No ArtifexMayhem, that's an improvement. The only reason I didn't cite the chapter authors and yearbook editors is I couldn't find any reference to them and just relied on the WorldCat info. I guess, though, if we're citing chapters for this source there's less need for pagination and we could instead use a predefined reflist which might be a little cleaner? Mmm, I'm sure there's a reason that I use harvnb instead of sfn in the refn template but it quite escapes me now. I like referencing too much ... FiachraByrne (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it (I found the author and editor information for the small arms surveys in the introduction pdf of the respective yearbook).

What do you think about using {{notelist}} instead of {{reflist|30em|group=n}}? E.g.,

Markup	Renders as
Some information.{{sfn|Smith|2009|p=1}} More information.{{efn|A clarification.{{sfn|Smith|2009|p=2}}}} ==Notes== {{notelist}} ==Citations== {{reflist}} ==References== * {{citation|last=Smith|year=2009|title=Smith's book}}	Some information. More information. Notes Citations References Smith (2009), Smith's book

I think it simplifies the template syntax (for ease of maintenance). I also think the ^[a] notation is cleaner than the ^{[n 1]} form. Comments, dirty looks, harsh language? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I like {{efn}} - I've tried it. There's some reason connected to a specific article that I don't use it (perhaps because you can't get two notes in the article text to point to the same explanatory note?) but honestly after every hiatus from WP I just go to the last article I substantially edited and try to relearn the reference method I most recently used. The short answer is that {{efn}} is fine - go for it. However, my suggestion in terms of reflist was that we could, for journal articles and chapters in edited volumes but not monographs, use a predefined reflist such as in this article (despite my association as peer-reviewer I'm dubious about articles founded on such recent events, but that's irrelevant) and using the {{r}} template. So we could use {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} for monographs, the latter being handy for bundled citations, and {{r}} for everything else. The only problem with {{r}} is that it's a pain for bundled citations so maybe a bad idea (sorry I'm rambling but I have a toothache and have been self-medicating for pain relief). FiachraByrne (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I'll make the changes. - Is this what you mean by getting two refs to the same note? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Ps. Single Malt Scotch is good for a toothache (Tequila blanco would also be an excellent choice).

Yes, that is exactly what I meant so there must be some other reason I didn't go for {{efn}}. Perhaps it had to do with bundled citations. No matter. It's whiskey in this part of the world, although at the moment I'm limited to some tawny port which is substantially improving with increased consumption. Anyhow, sorry about the glacial movement of my edits - domestic issues distract - but the idea is to just write a good article, with absolutely no consideration for POV, rather than waste aeons talking about it. 00:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, FiachraByrne. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Remember you were gonna send me that Moniz/lobotomy paper? I send you an email about that a while back -- check your inbox. EEng (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry EEng - I have a near pathological avoidance of email. I'll check now. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You received? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing plans

Hello, you indicated a desire to edit a section before it is moved. Any schedule for that? I would like to move it soon, because it's absence may be exacerbating tensions. Also, if arguments on one side of the issue are uniform around the world, but arguments on the other side vary from country to country, then it would seem problematic to exclude the latter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anythingyouwant. I'm afraid that I don't have a schedule and, to be honest, just keeping up with the reams of text on the talk page at the moment is taking up a lot of the time I have free for WP. I also don't share your perspective that the failure to move this text is exacerbating tensions. Rather, while the current dispute continues, editors are unlikely to give other additions the scrutiny that they require and may regard the proposal with suspicion whether warranted or not.

Before we move we probably need a definitive answer on the current issue. I'd suggest a well-crafted, neutral RFC that all major participants can sign up to and which would be formally closed. We'd also need all current contributors to agree to abide by the results of a formal close for some stipulated period of time (6 months to a year, minimally).

Nevertheless, give me a few days to go through the proposed material and I'll post on the article talk-page how I think we might integrate, what studies, if any should be added, etc. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Two quick things. First, it seemed there was remarkable unanimity to move the material, except for your request to delay. Second, the reason I think moving the material would ease tensions is because that section is the obvious place to summarize major arguments for and against gun control, including the belief that stricter gun control might remove a check against possible conquest or usurpation of the Nazi variety. Such material does not belong in the "history" section, where it is currently provoking an ongoing editorial war.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're reading of consensus and mine, in this instance at least, are significantly different. There's no consensus on that talk page for the Nazi gun control content in any form. Can I ask you why that content is not currently in the article Gun politics in the United States - it would seem more relevant to that topic. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)