User talk:Danny Invincible: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:38, 26 June 2007

This user is not to be confused with the footballer, Danny Invincibile.

This is Danny Invincible's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hello, Danny Invincible, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Oldelpaso 09:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derry City FC

I said to Elisson:

Is there any reason in particular why you believe the article to be B-class as opposed to A-class? I feel it's a model football club page and certainly the most informative page regarding a football club in the League of Ireland/FAI National League. I see you're an IFK Göteborg fan - perhaps you hold something against Derry? ;)--Danny Invincible 05:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that's a good theory! No, I don't hold anything against Derry. :) The reasons that the article is not A-class includes amongst others:

Recentism in history section. The years 1928–1985 (57 years) is covered in about half the text that the years 1985–2006 (21 years) are covered in.
Many unsourced "controversial" or "non-obvious" sentences. For example "Even though the club, to this day, still carries the reputation of being a nationalist-supported club with support coming in the main from Derry's nationalist community".
Using far too many fair use or missing license images. And remove the sponsor images, they provide no more info to the article than text does.
There really is no need to list other clubs that play in leagues of a country which they do not come from. What has FC Vaduz to do with Derry City?
Far too many lists.
Trivia section should be incorporated in other sections.

All in all, the article is a good B-class article, but much needs to be done before it is A-class. I suggest you take a look at articles on clubs that are featured, such as Arsenal F.C., Everton F.C., Manchester City F.C., Sheffield Wednesday F.C. and IFK Göteborg to get ideas on how to get the article further up on the assessment ladder. Hope this helps! – Elisson • T • C • 11:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied:

Thanks for your help. I have been trying to access older historical information in relation to the club as well getting other people with knowledge and interest involved. I will take your other points on board also. --Danny Invincible 12:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Are there any published histories of the club? A jubilee book published by the club or something? Finding such publications help a great lot when improving the older history of the club in question. Good luck! – Elisson • T • C • 14:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied:

I have been informed of the existence of a 1986 publication, The Derry City Story, by Frank Curran. Now, to get my hands on it somehow ...--Danny Invincible 22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Harps players AfD

I said to Oldelpaso:

As you admit in your confessional area, your "football knowledge has more flaws than [you] think". I feel that your nomination of the Finn Harps-related articles is highly ignorant, downright careless, wholly unnecessary and utterly incomprehensible. In no way can I see how it benefits Wikipedia's Football Project which aims to collect as much notable information as is possible from the national leagues of every country. You seem to have adopted a lazy broad-brush approach by nominating them all simply because of their association with a club you personally perceive to be minor/non-notable. This subjective method of "cleaning-up" really isn't good enough. Have you investigated the case of each individual? Please do. Do you have any form of authority in the area of League of Ireland/FAI National League football at all? It would be unfortunate to lose these articles, especially to someone who is part of the football project. I would be content if you withdrew your nominations. Thanks. --Danny Invincible 03:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the AfD is due to close tomorrow and looks like the consensus is to keep, it may as well run its course. My issue is not with players of clubs such as Finn Harps per se, but more with articles that consist solely of Player X is a footballer with team Y and are never expanded beyond that, and are completely unsourced. From the evidence of the AfD discussion, there is a group of editors dedicated to Irish football, who have made efforts in the discussion to prove notability, but not one of the articles nominated has had a single edit to improve it and establish notability beyond doubt (which is what I was looking for when talking about withdrawal). The overriding principle in any decision I make regarding deletion is Wikipedia:Verifiability - that in order to be included, articles need to be based on cited material from verifiable, reliable sources. The research I did on these players indicated little of this, hence the nomination. Its likely to be a keep anyway, no harm done.

On other matters, I noticed the message you left on Elisson's talk page (I was checking back for the response to my message, the one above it). I assure you, he's about as experienced a Wikipedian as you'll come across, and he wouldn't let something so petty as a cup match alter his perception. Derry City F.C. is a pretty good article, it is better referenced than most and looks fairly comprehensive, but the criteria to be considered A-class are pretty stringent. To be A-class, an article must be somewhere between good article and featured article standard. A class articles are likely to have undergone a process such as peer review. As it stands now, the article probably isn't too far off GA, "B" looks a fair assessment. If you want me to go through the article to point out what is required for it to become a good article or A class article, please do not hesitate to ask. Oldelpaso 09:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied:

OK, points taken on board. I agree that it is frustrating when such articles are never expanded beyond an uninteresting stage. But I don't feel that the best method of dealing with that is to delete them altogether, unless your overall aim is to provoke a debate which will pull more information out as well as test and verify notability in a roundabout fashion. I will try to include and verify the notable material discussed in the debate later when I have more time.

Yeah, I know that Elisson is quite experienced. He seems to have created the football project. I was only toying with him as (maybe you're aware) Derry City knocked IFK Göteborg out of the UEFA Cup qualifying rounds earlier this season. I knew full well that this wasn't the real reason behind his belief that the article is B-class. Hence my use of a ';)' smiley.

Although Elisson has given me some pointers, you can go through the article if you want. That would be very helpful. Cheers.--Danny Invincible 13:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with all the points Elisson makes about the article. A couple of additional points:

The bit about UEFA coefficients looks to be mainly about Irish football in general rather than Derry specifically, and should probably be removed, though a sentence or two could be moved to the European football section.
The large number of subheadings disrupts the flow of the article, merging some of the sections may be beneficial.
A list of notable former players is entirely subjective unless there is specific criteria for inclusion. Notable supporters is a verifiability nightmare, the consensus in similar cases in the past has generally been that is someone's support for a club is truly notable it should be mentioned in the article of that individual rather than that of the club.
Current season transfers should not be included, that is the remit of Wikinews rather than Wikipedia.

The article is progressing well, it has reached a stage where refinement is the priority rather than expansion. Oldelpaso 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said:

The result of the Eloka Asokuh debate was 'no consensus', but the other players remain nominated for deletion it seems. I have developed a number of these pages. Tell me what you think. Do you have the power to remove the nominations? Also, thanks for your support regarding the name debate - I had no idea it could cause so much trouble. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 23:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tags should have been removed as part of the procedure for closing the AfD discussion. As they were there in error, I've now removed them. My main bit of advice in terms of the additions you made would be to make sure you cite your sources (just in case you hadn't had enough policies and guidelines quoted at you in the past few days ;-) ), preferably using templates such as {{cite web}}. The citation templates for can be a bit tricky at first, its probably easiest to find an article with several footnotes and copy-paste the relevant bits. If you need any help, just ask. Oldelpaso 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hi, under the terms of the policy WP:USERNAME it would appear you are not entitled to use this name on Wikipedia as it is the name of a notable person. The account will be blocked, and only unblocked if you can prove that your legal name is Danny Invincible. I've included the specific clause below. Regards, Deizio talk 18:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Names of well-known living or recently deceased people, such as Chuck Norris or Ken Lay, unless you are that living person. If you are, please note this on your user page. These accounts may be temporarily blocked pending confirmation, if in an administrator's best judgment, or per discussion, there may be doubt over the validity of the claim. "

This block seems harsh to me. Danny Invincibile is not particularly well known, indeed, his unusual name is probably the only reason a lot of people have heard of him. Would a simple note atop the userpage such as the one on User:John Reid not suffice? Oldelpaso 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Danny Invincible (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Danny Invincible is not the name of a notable person - Danny Invincibile is the name of the guy I assume you are talking about. I admit my user-name is a play on his name as my own name is Daniel and I found his surname rather amusing. The two do vary though.

Decline reason:

Sorry, the names are far too similar. I actually had to compare them in a text editor to find the extra 'i'. -- Yamla 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well that's ridiculous. Now, you're moving the goal-posts during play. I am not claiming to be the footballer, Danny Invincibile, nor is that my user-name. The problem is yours if you have trouble spotting the extra 'i' in his name. Your own inadequacies of perception have nothing to do with me nor do I understand why you are attempting to pass them off as a problem of mine. The rule is simply against using the name of a well-known person, living or dead. I am not guilty of this, as I have proven. The rule is not against similarity. The guideline rules accord me the right to create my own pseudonym if I so wish.--Danny Invincible 18:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the block I will express the distinction on my userpage. Would that satisfy you?--Danny Invincible 18:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support Danny Invincible on this. However small the difference is, there is a difference and he should be allowed to keep it. HornetMike 19:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the editor given that he will add a note to his user page. Danny, you may wish to re-request an unblock. Other admins, please note that this is not an abuse of the unblock template as I am specifically requesting that he do so. I would like another admin to make the decision here. Note that I am not the blocking admin. --Yamla 19:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Danny Invincible (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will provide an expressed distinction on my userpage if that is what is necessary.

Decline reason:

offered compromise, on hold. Deizio talk 20:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Any chance of unblocking me any time soon? Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 19:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ranting about "inadequacies of perception" is not constructive. There are many examples why one very minor difference does not exempt you from copying or impersonating someone else, even if it is not your intention to do so. There has recently been a debate about User:Starblindy copying User:Starblind, and let's say opinion has been unanimous that one is very definitely copying the other.

I know this is frustrating but the rule is there for a reason - I hope you would accept that "User:KennyDalglish" would not be acceptable, and as you're editing on football topics a good number of editors will see your name and think "Wow, doesn't he play for Kilmarnock?". Another editor has pointed out that User:JohnReid shares his name with more than one famous person, but that's apparently the user's real name which isn't the case here. However, I will offer a compromise, if you use a signature which isn't the name of a notable person ("InvincibleDanny" would be ok, for example) and put a note on your user and talk pages disclaiming being the footballer, I'd be OK with that. This means that DannyInvincible will still appear on history and other pages, so if in the future any confusion is caused by the name we might have to look at this again. How does that sound? Let me know if you want help with the signature. Deizio talk 20:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that "User:KennyDalglish" would not be acceptable as that is the actual name of a former footballer-turned-manager. In my case, my username is neither spelled nor pronounced the same way as Danny Invincibile's name. His surname is pronounced as "in-vince-a-bee-lay" as far as I'm aware. Furthermore. in my name, I use the word 'invincible' - this is simply a common adjective as opposed to an actual name of a person. Would a simple disclaimer or note of distinction on my user-page not suffice? I like using this moniker and use it elsewhere on other sites and fora. To be frank, the fact that people fail to spot or are not aware of the extra 'i' in Invincibile's name really is not my problem. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 21:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Wikipedia often relies on the concept of user-consensus, I would like to point out that the current consensus favours my unblocking by 4 to 1. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 21:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny, you really don't want to meet me halfway, do you? If you put clear notices on your talk and userpages asserting you are not the footballer, I'll unblock you while I take a look into this. Be aware that your protestations about the "i" being entirely the problem of those who fail to spot it are falling on deaf ears. Deizio talk 21:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to seem stubborn or be argumentative about all of this, but I have an attachment to the name as I have been using it as an internet moniker for some time now. That's why I don't really want to meet half-way. I hope you understand. I have included a distinction at the top of this page (Is it clear enough or have you any alternative suggestion?) and will do the same with my userpage as soon as I am allowed to edit it again. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have recently noticed your plight, and have sought more information on your name's RFC. I have yet to make up my mind, but I am glad you have been unblocked until a decision is made. I am of the cursory opinion is that the likelihood that you chose this name independent of Danny Invincible and the distinction both in spelling, pronunciation and your declaration of distinction on your userpages leads my to think this is a valid name.

However, this opinion is based on my current belief that Danny Invincibile is not that well known. If I am shown to be wrong about this belief then I may think differently. The good news is that discussion has begun here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#.5B.5BUser:Danny_Invincible.5D.5D. Your explanation was very well worded, and should carry some weight. I advise you to calmly review the discussion and response politely to comments. A polite editor will be given so much more credibility than one who is not polite and you seem to have that on your side.

If you are made to choose a new username I hope to take it in stride and continue to contribute. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#User:Danny Invincible

I've requested comment on your username. And Danny, I'm just the messenger, we have policies for good reasons. Unblocked in the meantime, your note at the top is just fine. Deizio talk 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~By the way, can I remove that block-box from my userpage?~~ It has been deleted. Cheers. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The request for comments went as follows:

Username very closely resembles Danny Invincibile (spot the extra "i" for a free back rub from Jimbo), a professional footballer (soccer) with Kilmarnock FC in the Scottish Premier League. User was blocked by myself pending discussion, unblock was requested and block was upheld by Yamla (talk · contribs). The user edits on football topics and is a member of WikiProject Football, hence there is ample room for confusion between the username and the real player. Danny took several positions as to why he doesn't wish to change his name, but this quote: "The problem is yours if you have trouble spotting the extra 'i' in his name. Your own inadequacies of perception have nothing to do with me nor do I understand why you are attempting to pass them off as a problem of mine" neatly sums up his main position. He admitted the name was based on that of the player, and having received an email from him I can confirm his second name is not "Invincible". He also claims to be attached to the name as he uses it on various forums.

I don't contend that he is trying to impersonate the player, simply that the name is inappropriate per Wikipedia:Username. After he refused to use a different signature I've agreed to unblock him (hey, it's Christmas) pending further discussion if he makes clear on his talk and user pages that he is not the footballer. I believe that the name violates WP:U and the omission of the "i" and fact that "invincible" is a common English word don't stand up, despite his wikilawyering. If the footballer had a higher profile this would likely be an open-and-shut case. Deizio talk 22:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the user in question. The initial discussion along with my argument can be seen on my talk-page. I think it would be to unfairly misrepresent me if the idea of failing to spot the extra 'i' in his name not being a problem of mine was accepted as a concise version of my main argument. I admit that this is a pseudonym influenced by Danny Invincibile's name and have never had any problem in doing so. My main case is as follows:

My name is Daniel (and I am often referred to as "Danny") - I felt that the name of the footballer in question was quite an amusing name and decided to have my own take on it.
"Invincible" is a common adjective and not a name.
I am not attempting to impersonate Danny Invincibile, nor have I ever pretended to be him or attempted to do so.
The two names vary in spelling, even if it is just the difference of an extra 'i'.
The two names are pronounced very differently. "Invincibile" is pronounced as "in-vince-a-bee-lay".
I have placed notes of distinction on both my user-page and my talk-page so as to prevent any possible confusion.
There was an eventual consensus of 4 voices (including another administrator) to 1 for unblocking me when I agreed to place a note of distinction on my pages.
The rule in question is one that prevents users from adopting the name of a well-known person, living or dead. I am not guilty of this as there is a difference in my user-name and the name of Danny Invincibile. The rule is not against similarity. The guideline rules accord me the right to create my own pseudonym if I so wish.
When Yamla commented that he/she "actually had to compare them in a text editor to find the extra 'i'", I responded by stating that his/her failure to note that there is a difference of an 'i' should not be a problem of mine. I still believe this and feel that it is the responsibility of the individual viewing the name to take the care of reading it correctly. There is an 'i' in there. There is no illusion, nor am I trying to trick anyone.
As an almost trivial point; I objected to amending the user-name as I have grown an attachment to the name and use the moniker regularly as an identity on various other websites and fora. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 23:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm interesting one. I have a question, is Danny Invincibile the players real name, or just a nickname? I would say, in my opinion, that if you are not using the real name of a celebrity it does not have to appearance of impersonation. For example, User:The duke would be okay even though it is a nickname for a celebrity. However, if the players real name is Danny Invincibile it may be in violation. The question remains in either case, is Danny Invincibile a notable enough name to consider blocking. The policy is in regards to well known person, I see no sources of any sort showing this person's notability. Once I have more of this information I can give a yes/no opinion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name is the player's real name. He plays at the top level of football in Scotland, has previously played professionally in England and Australia and has represented Australia at international level in at least one age category. In short, Danny Invincibile is the real name of a notable person. Deizio talk 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs editors who are reasonable, which I'll define as works well with others. If the this user feels that consistency and other matters important to him have a higher priority than addressing the concerns of other editors (what, exactly is wrong with, say, User:Danny the Invincible, for example?), then it's not clear to me that this community really should want him to a member. I'd really like him to display some flexibility here. John Broughton | Talk 04:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are blowing this slightly out of proportion to be honest, and I almost get the feeling as if you're trying to alienate me simply for liking the user-name under which I operate. I don't believe that wishing to keep my username is that unreasonable, nor do I see how something as subordinate and secondary as my user-name would be of such grave concern to the community at large. Actually, I feel that I am reasonable in the sense that you speak of. By placing notes of distinction on both my user and talk pages, I complied with the eventual wishes of the two moderators who initially debated with me. I'm sorry that you should have to question my future membership of this priceless and worthwhile community. I still have much to contribute. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 05:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, I think Danny is acting reasonably within the community. Remember this user is new to Wikipedia and cannot be expected to know all of our rules. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I see no real grounds to block this username. -- Netsnipe ► 05:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this sort of play on a famous name is not completely unheard of on Wikipedia. There are administrators with names including: FeloniousMonk, which is obviously based on Thelonius Monk; GeneralPatton, which is directly taken from the name of General George S. Patton (that editor contributes to the WWII articles); Master Jay looks like Jam Master Jay; John Kenney is one letter away from being John Kennedy; and RoseParks is one letter away from Rosa Parks. I know. All of those historical figures are dead and not likely to edit articles here, but it shows a sort of history of this matter. It's not unheard of elsewhere. Look at band names, such as the Dandy Warhols and Gnarls Barkley. I have never heard of Danny Invincibile and I would imagine that the majority of Wikipedia editors could not name a single Scottish football player. If User:Danny Invincible clearly states on his user page that he is not this footballer in question, I can't see how he's doing any harm. I mean, they are spelled differently. - Justin (Authalic) 05:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your last sentence is the fundamental point here. It would take the most stretched and stringent of interpretations of the rule in question to say that I was wrongfully using the name of Danny Invincibile. In fact, I'm not even sure if it is possible to stretch an interpretation so far. Technically, it's a different word altogether and there is no such person as Danny Invincible. I simply am not using the name of which I'm accused and I shouldn't have to make it any clearer as it's right here in front of us all.

The aforementioned rule also forbids the use of names of well-known persons who are now deceased. Yet, Justin (Authalic) highlights numerous examples of administrators playing on the names of the famous dead. If their user-names do not fall foul of the rule then, similarly, I cannot see how mine does either. Invoking the idea that similarity fails the test for an acceptable user-name seems to be an application of a purpose to the rule I believe it doesn't possess in its current wording. The rule doesn't state its purpose or function. It simply states a prohibition - that names of well-known living or recently deceased people are not to be used - and, thus, I feel it is left closed to interpretation. To interpret the rule literally, I am not guilty as I haven't used the name of a well-known person.

Nevertheless, out of good will and due to the fact that there exists the potential for confusion, I have no problem with pointing out the distinction on my user and talk pages, as I have already done. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 07:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me. Very very direct reference, but not actually the same. It does give me an impression of slight arrogance on the part of the name holder, but that's certainly no grounds for blocking either. Allow. --tjstrf talk 07:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the ambiguity and I'd prefer the name be changed, but I don't see any reason to MAKE the change, as long as he keeps the disambiguation on his userpage. The only problem here is that he may be confused with the footballer, correct? It would be nice to avoid the issue entirely by changing his name, but I think just keeping the "I'm not the football player" on his userpage is enough. -Ryanbomber 13:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as the note of disambiguation is on his userpage I think the name is okay, however Danny the Invincible or Invincible Danny or Danny Indestructible would avoid the whole issue. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find this RFC a prime example of "making mountains out of molehills". -- Netsnipe ► 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I support a close as allow at this point. The distinction is adequate, and the disambiguation notice the user has put up is enough, in my humble opinion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't feel strongly on this one way or another, so "allow" is fine with me. John Broughton | Talk 15:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAI National League

I said to Candlewicke:

I've carried out some development on the FAI National League pages you created. However, would it be possible to enquire as to whether it was you who included this quote by an unnamed Dundalk F.C. official?:

"What was the point of the league taking our players and fans all the way down to Waterford if it counted for nothing?"

If it was you, where did you get it and is there a verifiable source available? I've tried Googling it, but to no avail. Cheers. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 23:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your help with the development of the above article and its sister articles. They look to be much improved since I last visited them. In relation to the quote perhaps the source from which it was obtained has been removed, in which case it should really be deleted. I'll check now and remove it if it's still there. Thanks again. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied:

I think the quote fits in well and helps the continuity of that specific paragraph. It would be useful to keep. Maybe it's in the Argus link. I haven't registered to view it. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matchwinner

I said to Jimfbleak:

Do you have any reason for deleting the Matchwinner brand article?--Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 08:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a deletion review of Matchwinner. Since you deleted and protected the article, you might want to participate. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 11:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. There could be an article for this company, but advertisements are not acceptable. Unsupported statements such as "acknowledged as one of the leading suppliers of top quality football clothing" are basically just spam, the only external link is to the company's website, and information that would be expected in a genuine article (such as where the company is based, how many employees, turnover, etc.) is missing. Good luck with your appeal, it's nothing personal. Jimfbleak.talk.13:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:No1527r.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:No1527r.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Derrycity2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Derrycity2.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derry City FC

I said to Niallc99:

Maybe you could help out with uncovering some further information regarding the club for the article. I've written a non-exhaustive list of tasks to complete in the article's talk-page. If you have any information (or know where I can access it) regarding the pointers it would be very helpful. Cheers. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 11:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Molyneux (footballer) etc

After the title article was nominated for a speedy deletion, the following discussion took place on its talk-page:

Molyneux has played with Portsmouth FC of the FA Premier League, Oxford United in the Football League 2 and Derry City FC of the League of Ireland Premier Division. He clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion as a footballer. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 21:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I would add is that many players who are now 23 once were with Premier League clubs, but now he is with a club too far down the football pyramid at such a young age to pass notability. If he was winding down after a long and successful career with a team in the Southern League, then I'd accept inclusion. As it is, I think precedent suggests that a player must be at Conference North or Conference South level and a first-team regular to get an entry. If every player from such a low level was included, Wiki would be swamped Gretnagod 21:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But as a secondary thought, I wouldn't be against creating profiles of footballers ALL the way down the pyramid if that was decided as policy. Gretnagod 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having played at the highest level in Ireland with Derry City, he meets the following criteria:

Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. (See WP:BIO)

It's as simple as that. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gretnagod responded here:

You're quite right, I haven't been around for a while and I was sure the criteria had changed, whereas now I can see I was mistaken. Sorry for the mix-up. And all the best for the next season - though hopefully not the same outcome in the UEFA Cup...! And my offer stands re: helping to bring more player bios in, etc. All the best, Gretnagod 02:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAI/FAIFS

Your recent edit note on Template:IRLf states that the FAI did not have that name until 1937, but the para you edited today on the same page dates that body from the 1921: I wonder if a little clarification is needed. Meanwhile, the history section of the FAI page is almost intractably twisted, and you might be just the man to make sense of it. Thanks Kevin McE 22:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FAIFS actually changed its name to the FAI in 1936 just prior to the impending enactment of the 1937 Constitution of Ireland and the upcoming official name-change of the state from the Irish Free State to Ireland. The character-limit in the edit note didn't permit me to explain that in such detail. Both are the same body so I think it would be correct to date the organisation back to 1921. It seems that this name-change was a re-adoption, however, as I've since read that the organisation was set up as the FAI but was given permission to join FIFA as the FAIFS in 1923. I would need to confirm this before contributing any further edits on the topic.

The whole issue is very confused though and in need of clarification. It is not helped by the fact that both the FAI and IFA considered themselves the representatives of the island of Ireland simultaneously, even after partition, both calling themselves, "Ireland". The FAIFS's team didn't actually use the name, "Irish Free State", as far as I'm aware. However, I included that name in the "Key historical games" section on the Republic of Ireland national football team page in order to distinguish the new association's team from the old IFA all-Ireland team. Do you think that is the best option to take or should it be referred to as "Ireland", which I believe is techically correct, but extremely ambiguous given the context? Cheers. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 22:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have carried out a bit of research into the name issue and have found this page on the FAI's website, whish seems to suggest, contrary to what I had read, that the organisation was, in fact, set up as the FAIFS in 1921. It states:

A meeting of southern associations and clubs was arranged and on June 1 1921, the Football Association of the Irish Free State (FAIFS) was formed in Molesworth Hall in Dublin.

While the association amended its name to the FAI in 1936 to conform with the forthcoming constitutional change, it continud to refer to the team it fielded as "Ireland" until 1953, when a FIFA intervention ensured that the IFA's team would from then on be known as "Northern Ireland", with the FAI's team being known as the "Republic of Ireland". Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 00:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello I' am the Prime minister of the United Kingdom.--The Rt. Hon Tony Blair 11:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dia duit/Hello

I said to Eog1916:

I've never ever heard of St. Columb's being referred to as an English-medium college before and I don't really understand why it should be called that. Could you explain to me what exactly such an institution is and why you believe St. Columb's ought to be classified as one? Thanks.

(Eog1916 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)eog1916 16/01/07 13:29 (GMT+0)[reply]

Sorry if this has upset you.

I am simply giving the visitor to the site a clearer knowledge of the nature of the college.

If you read my article on English-medium you will hopefully have a clearer understanding of my intent.

Le dea-ghuí

With good wishes

Éamonn Ó Gribín

PS I was born in the city!

I find your labelling odd more than upsetting or anything like that. I have looked at your article but I still fail to see why St. Columb's should be considered as an 'English-medium school'. First of all; the article is rather sketchy in defining what exactly such an institution is. Secondly; as far as I'm aware, the college was not established by British Commissioners of National Education (who seem to have been the organisation building such schools), but, rather, by the Irish Catholic Church. Also; Gaelic is taught as a subject in the school and I would assume that it always has been, in contrast to the 'English-medium school' idea of teaching only in the English language. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 14:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, St. Columb's was built in 1879, wheras your article claims that English-medium schools were built in Ulster up until 1870. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eog1916 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)eog1916 Wednesday, 17 January 2007 You raise some interesting points which I will deal with in order from top to bottom.[reply]

You write ; First of all; the article is rather sketchy in defining what exactly such an institution is.

I am sorry that my article has not made this subject clearer to you. I have given an extensive list of further reading etc so perhaps you might take the time to read some others more expert on the subject. To me an 'English-medium' school is one which uses that language as its normal working language. I did not suggest that 'ALL Lessons' take place in English ( that would not be factually correct) but that usually most if not all lessons would be offered in English. Lessons in other languages would be restricted to the use of the target language in the normal course of instruction. For instance Latin would be spoken in Latin lessons etc. Other languages apart from English( which is only taught/offered as L1), would be taught as second or L2 languages.

You wrote that as far as I'm aware, the college was not established by British Commissioners of National Education.

The National School(sic) system was offered (freely) at primary level only, and not at secondary level. They were all 'English-medium' and made no provision for Gaelic speaking children ( the majority of pupils). Thus the likes of Pádraig Pearse objected to them!

The 'Murder Machine' is a seminal work in this field and I have given the URL to it in the article.

The Catholic Church did of course found colleges to educate the children of RCs who could afford the fees which they charged! ( some 5% of children I believe benefited ). They were all 'English-medium' and made no provision for Gaelic speaking children ( the majority of pupils).

Your 'alma mater' was initially founded as a Catholic Seminary and I dare say that it was an English-medium college for most if not all of its existance. After all the priests who taught in it were probably mostly graduates of Maynooth, which likewise was English-medium only.

I hope that this makes sense!

Slán Éamonn

St. Columb's is indeed an English-medium school in the simple sense that English is the primary language of communication within the school, but that is different from implying that it is an English-medium school in the British institutional sense with which your article deals. At the time the college was established, English was already the primary language of use in Ireland. Would you refer to a recently-established school in, say, Cork as an English-medium school in the institutional sense deriving from Britain's colonial expansion simply because English was the primary language used in the school? It would certainly be a de facto English-medium school by convenience, but that is not the same as the concept of the school being an English-medium establishment by principle that your article deals with. St. Columb's was not founded by the British for the purpose of aiding the spread of their English language in Ireland - it was set up by the Irish Catholic Church, and English just so happened to be the language used for teaching as it was the language used by the majority of Irish people in their day-to-day lives at the time. Besides, the prohibition on Irish being used in schools ended in 1871 - 8 years before the founding of St. Columb's. Thus, the matter of in which language to teach was within the discretion of those running the school - the Church. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)~eog1916

I'm glad that you now admit that St.Columb's is an English-medium school, but I still fail to understand what you mean by " that is different from implying that it is an English-medium school in the British institutional sense with which your article deals." Perhaps you could expand on this further?

You then say "At the time the college was established, English was already the primary language of use in Ireland". Perhaps if this were true ther might have been an excuse to establish a seminary for the education of students for the priesthood through English but the facts would suggest otherwise.

It was in a remote country area, at Clady on the banks of the Finn in Urney parish, towards the end of the eighteenth century that Dr. Philip McDavitte, Bishop from 1761 to 1797, set up such a school. (ref: http://www.stcolumbs.com/Portal.aspx?tabindex=9&tabid=3692)

In the mid 18th century around two-thirds of the population still used Irish as their everyday language. However, by the close of that century, this number had declined to just over half. (2.4 million out of 4.75 million). 800,000 of these were monoglots.

By the time the British Government undertook the first language census in 1851, the number of Irish speakers had dramatically reduced to just over 1.5 million, or 23.3% of the population. A much higher percentage still was to be found in Donegal and Derry. It should be noted that the census was held after the terrible famine that swept Ireland, in which 1.5 million people died of starvation and another million were forced to emigrate.

You pose the question "Would you refer to a recently-established school in, say, Cork as an English-medium school in the institutional sense deriving from Britain's colonial expansion simply because English was the primary language used in the school?" What I am attempting to say is that English was used by the establishment in Ireland ( both Church and State) as a deliberate means of assimilation or as Douglas Hyde termed it Anglisization. ( See The Necessity for De-Anglicising Ireland http://www.gaeilge.org/deanglicising.html) In his article in the European Journal of Education Prof. Ó Buachalla states " During the first four decades of their existance, there is no mention of the irish language in the programme of regulations of the Commissioners of National Education; furthermore no provision whatsoever was made in 1831 when the original scheme was drawn up for education of those children who spoke Irish only. According to the official opinion of later Commissioners, expressed in a formal reply to the Chief Secretary in 1884, " the anxiety of the promoters of the National Scheme was to encourage the cultivation of the English language..." ( Ref: European Journal of Education,Vol19,1,1984. 'Education Policy and the Role of the Irish Language from 1831 to 1981.' URL http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0141-8211%281984%2919%3A1%3C75%3AEPATRO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K&size=LARGE)

That this type of system of education should continue to the present day is perhaps due to the overall effectiveness of the original colonial policy and I would accept that it may not be done in a deliberative fashion but really its effects are esentially the same.

You initiated this debate with the sentence "I've never ever heard of St. Columb's being referred to as an English-medium college before and I don't really understand why it should be called that." I would suggest that the normalization of the use of English has its effects on you too!

You go on to write "It would certainly be a de facto English-medium school by convenience, but that is not the same as the concept of the school being an English-medium establishment by principle that your article deals with." Again one should pose the question why it is seen to be more 'convenient'?

You write "St. Columb's was not founded by the British for the purpose of aiding the spread of their English language in Ireland.."

You forget ar maybe don't appreciate that the British Government set up Maynooth College so that Catholic priests would be taught through English and when the National Schools were founded that only English was allowed between the four walls.

You further write "it was set up by the Irish Catholic Church, and English just so happened to be the language used for teaching as it was the language used by the majority of Irish people in their day-to-day lives at the time." The census of population (in 1851) of course does not back up your argument!

You write "Besides, the prohibition on Irish being used in schools ended in 1871 - 8 years before the founding of St. Columb's."

The Diocese establish the original seminary in 1761. I don't know what 'prohibition of Irish' you are refering to in this instance.

Finally you end thus "Thus, the matter of in which language to teach was within the discretion of those running the school - the Church. "

I totally agree, the RC Church willingly adopted the same policy regarding language as did the English Government and its agents in Ireland!

Slán go fóill Éamonn

St. Columb's is an English-medium school in the sense that the English language is the primary medium of education used. However, I would argue that that is as far as referring to it as an 'English-medium school' can go. My reasoning is that your article deals with English-medium schools as a form of anti-Gaelic, political or cultural tool employed by the British in Ireland during their past colonial era. It doesn't relate simply to the former, nor does it provide any substantial distinction. If your article also dealt with English-medium schools in their simplest, English-being-the-language-in-use form and you clarified this with distinction in relation to schools that were not established for the aforementioned purpose, I don't think I'd see a problem with referring to St. Columb's as such. Currently, your use of the loaded term in the St. Columb's article could very easily cause one to think that the continued use of English in the school is, and always has been, an attempt to stamp out the Gaelic language.

You refer to a school being set up at Clady in the late 1700s as if the modern-day St. Columb's is a direct continuation of that establishent. From the link you provide, you'll notice that its ultimate descendant seminary closed in the aftermath of the Famine. As has been mentioned, St. Columb's was established after English became Ireland's primary language, even though its founding may have been inspired by earlier English-speaking seminaries in the then mainly Irish-speaking area, but I don't feel that this is wholly relevant to this debate. You may argue that the continued use of English by religious and state institution was/is a continuation of this policy but, with Irish already 'stamped out' as the major language, I feel that may be stretching the application of the label somewhat. You seem to be well acquainted with the matter but I notice from viewing the page's history that there are others who also dispute your use of the term in relation to St. Columb's. Maybe I will try to initiate some form of debate on the St. Columb's College talk-page.

Although I would tend to agree with the following:

That this type of system of education should continue to the present day is perhaps due to the overall effectiveness of the original colonial policy and I would accept that it may not be done in a deliberative fashion but really its effects are esentially the same.

and I would concur that the continued use of English as a primary language in Ireland only contributes to the country's complete Anglicisation and serves to reinforce that of the process which has already occurred, I feel that the important distinction lies in the fact that the policy with which your article deals was a deliberate one (as you recognise) aimed at ridding Ireland of Irish while many, if not most, modern-day English-medium schools in Ireland make provision for the teaching of Irish while the State itself pledges protection for the language. They have no such intentions of ridding Ireland of Irish in contrast with the old English-medium system of the British.

I referred to the use of English being more convenient as it was the primary language of use in the city of Derry and Ireland at the time - that being 1879, and not 1851. Terming the college an 'English-medium' institution would nearly suggest that there is something uncommon in the fact that it functions mainly in the English language - as if teaching in English was not the Irish norm. If we are to be realistic, we must accept that there is nothing adnormal surrounding this in modern-day Ireland where English has become the primary language of use. I do admire your passion on the subject, but I feel that a lot of clarification is required. We can't simply refer to all schools which use English primarily under the ambiguous and politically-loaded (in the old sense) label of 'English-medium scool'. Being honest, the use of English in Ireland has been normalised. Of course, the history and development of this current state of affairs is noteworthy, but I don't think there is a real need to point out that St. Columb's is an English-medium school in an English-speaking country.

You conclude by confirming that the Catholic Church in Ireland also implemented the policy of Anglicisation. Perhaps you could expand on this in your article. If the Church employed such a policy officially in 1879, maybe I would agree that St. Columb's was set up as an English-medium school in the old sense to which your article relates.

In summary, I can see two distinct forms of English-medium school: the first being the type deliberately implemented by British colonialists and their agents in Ireland in order to stamp out the Irish language; and the second being that which is set-up for reasons of convenience in the English-speaking Ireland resulting from the former official policy and does not carry the intention of wiping out the Irish language. Unless you have something to prove otherwise, I am inclined to believe that St. Columb's fits into the second bracket. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eog1916 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)eog1916[reply]

Dear Danny, I will give your letter a fuller reply shortly. Perhaps you would look at the British Council's Website URL http://www.britishcouncil.org/northernireland-education-irish-language-assistants.htm This British Government body spends millions every year promoting English-medium education around the world. Recently it has thrown a few coppers towards Gaelic-medium education. The website above gives details of the scheme which will allow English-medium schools in Northern Ireland to employ Gaelic language assistants. St Columb's is one such education establishment which could apply for a grant! Perhaps if you read some of Gandhi's thoughts on this subject you might have a more open view on this issue? See URL for starters http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/foreign_medium.htm

Eog1916 16:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)eog1916 RE: The Your paragraph "St. Columb's is an English-medium school ......i[reply]

Answer: I added the words 'English-medium' simply to describe the college, not to depricate it in any way. Why you should fing my use of the term 'English-medium' loaded perplexes me, as I am simply saying that in St. Columb's the English language is the primary medium of education used. This is I'm sure you would agree factually correct. The recently published Independent Strategic Review of Education, carried out by Professor Sir George Bain for DENI mentions English-medium and Irish-medium schools in Northern Ireland ( http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/8-admin_of_education_pg/101-strategic-review-of-education.htm). The Irish-British Interparty Body ( http://www.biipb.org/biipb/committee/commd/90302.htm )stated in its report that;

" Problems of the status of Irish-medium education at secondary level were more acute outside Belfast. In Londonderry and in the border counties, there were Irish-medium primary schools but little provision for secondary education. Pupils often had to revert to English-medium schools at secondary level and parents were proving reluctant to commit their children to Irish-medium education at primary level if there was little prospect of its continuity."

You will notice the use of the term 'English-medium'.

I think that the problem you may be more to do with your own background, which has probably not taken notice of the existance of an 'Irish Gaelic-medium' sector in Ireland or Scotland. You view 'English-medium' as 'normal' and therefore not needing any differentiation or explanation.

To be continued!

Indeed I am aware of the Gaelic-medium sector. My mother was taught in Irish and speaks the language fluently, while I know that there are such schools even in Derry. I edited your article in order to provide some clarification. As it stands, I don't think I would have a problem with you referring to St. Columb's as an English-medium college. In modern-day Ireland the use of English is the norm, whether you wish to recognise that or not. It would be unrealistic to deny the fact that English has become normalised, and I don't see how my background has any bearing on that. For example, it would be an extreme rarity to walk down a Dublin street a hear individuals conversing in Irish. I would almost describe such an occurence as an oddity under the current day's circumstances. Personally, I find the situation unfortunate that Irish should have been left to rot in its home-land. I also find it regrettable from a cultural perspective Irish society's general Anglophilia and that the English language continues to take centre-stage. However, those are opinions - not facts. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 00:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eog1916 16:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)eog1916[reply]

RE: " You refer to a school being set up at Clady in the late 1700s ...... I would accept that it may not be done in a deliberative fashion but really its effects are esentially the same."

EOG: I have no dispute with you over this paragraph!

RE: " and I would concur that the continued use of English as a primary language in Ireland .....They have no such intentions of ridding Ireland of Irish in contrast with the old English-medium system of the British. "

EOG: The intentions of the Church and or State can be debated, I would just say that the process of Anglisitation has accelerated not diminished since the Free State was created.

Ireland ( 26 counties) must be the only ostensibly independent state, that offers its native Gaelic speaking children, their own language as an L2 in the state school curriculum and examination system and their L2 language at only L2 level (This state of affairs does not pertain north of the border nor in Scotland or Wales.) The State has still to provide a 'Gaelic-Gaelic Dictionary' for Gaeltacht schools. I taught Science at Leaving and A level through Irish Gaelic without Gaelic Science textbooks. I see very little difference in past education policies and the present ones. The 'Murder Machine' is still going at full throttle.

RE: "I referred to the use of English being more convenient as it was the primary language of use in the city of Derry and Ireland at the time - that being 1879, and not 1851. Terming the college an 'English-medium' institution would nearly suggest that there is something uncommon in the fact that it functions mainly in the English language - as if teaching in English was not the Irish norm."

EOG: My point was that not facility was afforded those who spoke Gaelic as their first language (L1), even when they accounted for the majority of the student population.

Certainly it was more convenient for the authorities to impose English...they did not have to provide Gaelic-medium teacher training colleges, textbooks etc. Teaching in English became the norm because Gaelic-medium was not allocated funding by Church or State.

RE: "If we are to be realistic, we must accept that there is nothing adnormal surrounding this in modern-day Ireland where English has become the primary language of use."

EOG: I did not suggest that it was abnormal, just that it was a deliberate ( unjust) policy that drove the situation in this direction.

RE:" I do admire your passion on the subject, but I feel that a lot of clarification is required. We can't simply refer to all schools which use English primarily under the ambiguous and politically-loaded (in the old sense) label of 'English-medium scool'."

EOG: As I explained before, I have no desire to use loaded terminology or indeed give a onesided insight into this phenomenon. Rather do I wish English speakers ( in the main monoglots) to have an opportunity to learn and research this subject and eventually draw their own measured conclusions.

RE: "Being honest, the use of English in Ireland has been normalised. Of course, the history and development of this current state of affairs is noteworthy, but I don't think there is a real need to point out that St. Columb's is an English-medium school in an English-speaking country."

EOG: To me ( by the way my mother was born in Fintown, Co Donegal and although her mother spoke Gaelic as her L1, she never carried the language further to her own children,) speaking Gaelic to my children and grandchild is the norm. They are all multilingual D.V.

Well can we agree to differ?

Randomness

I said to Kerrow:

In relation to your spelling edits to the page; you do realise that "bahaviour" and "realise" are perfectly legitimate English spellings? Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed my reply, I answered here. Thank you for your thoughts and concerns. =) Kerrow 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He said:

My apologies. "Behaviour" is a an actual spelling of the word, for British English. However, I cannot find the word "realise" in the British dictionary, nor in the American dictionary. If you would like to give me a link to a legitimate dictionary that has the word "realise" spelled with the 's', by all means do so and I will step down. Kerrow 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com gives mention to the British spelling in its definition of the word, 'realize'. However, you may have trouble finding the word in a dictionary such as your standard Oxford English Dictionary. The reason for this can be found here. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 04:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, thanks very much for letting me know about that. In the future I'll do my best to be more careful about spellings and whatnot. Sorry for the trouble I might have caused you. Kerrow 13:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Derry City F.C. players' pages

I said to User:216.194.2.56:

Why are you deleting the dates of birth of several players? Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In several cases, there were discrepancies between the date of birth in the body of the article and the birthdate in the wikibox on the right-hand side. For instance, in one case the same player was cited as having been born in both November 28 and April 11.

Check edits prior to mine for confirmation.

Slainte.

216.194.2.56 15:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see that now. It seems that the day and month dates in the infoboxes were written in the incorrect order. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 15:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not change McCafferty (Maccafferty) or O'Neill (Oneill) surnames back from changes I made; Wikipedia sorters want all such types of surnames (there are others too I guess, Mac, Fitz, etc.) to be listed as follows (using Martin McGuinness' edit page as example):

<!!--Please use Macguiness, ie with an 'a' and a lowercase 'g', to assist category sorting!!-->

So, Danny, I left your birthdate corrections but also left the surname sorting (Macca, not McCa) as per Wikipedia sorter request.

Thanks for your attention.

216.194.2.56 15:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conflict between Article 2 and new Article 9.2. of the Constitution ???

It seems there is conflict between Article 2 and new Article 9.2. The first one gives citizenship to every one born in the island of Ireland, the second limits that entitlement only to born to at least one parent who is, or is entitled to be, an Irish citizen. In this situation which of these articles take precedense? Mariusz pl 01:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article 9.2 exists in spite of Article 2, and so takes precedence (see the phrase contained in Article 9.2: "Notwithstanding any other provision of [the] Constitution ..."). Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this situation which of these articles take precedence? The text of the Constitution doesn't give clear answer, because phrase contained in Article 9.2: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution ..." doesn't alter the meaning of article 2, which states that everyone born in the island of Ireland is Irish citizen. The amendment should firstly repeal the text of article 2 and then add text of new article 9.2., because in the current version first provision gives the right whereas second provision deprives of the same right. The conflict is evident. I'm thinking if the new article 9.2 is lawful and constitutional because is inconsistent with the rest of the text of the Constitution. Is there any opinion in this matter given by The Supreme Court?. It's a matter of great importance.Mariusz pl 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any court judgments dealing with these articles. However, this Oireachtas debate might be of help. I think it is clear that the right contained in Article 2 is not absolute. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 03:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Question

Hey there. I've noticed the sterling work on the footy pages - good stuff. Quick question though, I noticed this image was marked as GFDL: File:Dcfcsquad.JPG

Did you get permission for this? Cheers SeanMack 11:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the editor of the photo (who goes under the username 'Greengo' on http://www.derrycitychat.com/, in case you'd like to double-check with him) has given me permission to use the photo on Wikipedia. Similarly, he has made the photographer aware of the fact.

As an aside, I note that you are involved in the raising of the status of certain articles. Do you think that the Derry City article would now be up to scratch? I have adhered to the Wiki Football Project's suggested style template and tried to reference most of the material to online sources. There remain certain facts which are still unsourced and in need of citation due to their older nature (pre-internet), but I think the information can be found in non-electronic forms, such as books and club publications. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 16:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. Sorry I've taken so long to get back to you - I was waiting for an email back from Lorcan Doherty regarding the photo. I do know he is a professional photographer and don't think he would have given GFDL permission for the photo. I haven't heard back from my email to him - but thought I should reply to you anyway. We would need definite permission to use the picture particularly as it is marked as GFDL. In reality I think the best you will get here is fair use - with the requirement of the fair use rationale etc.

I think you've done a great job with the article. I think fair use pics might be a problem at FA - but I don't really get that much involved in reviewing personally. I came across this recently and thought you might find it useful: FAC advice

I added a ref and gave the article a bit of a copy edit for spelling and changed the format of the refs - I think the 2 col format makes better use of space. Personally I think you might as well go for GA status, see if any good review points come from that and then go for FA. IMHO it's already a good article, and with a small bit more work it will be an FA (eg consistent refs etc) - beware though the FA reviewers can be a tough audience :-)

Good luck with it!! Cheers SeanMack 04:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the difference between the reference formats? I think I'll have to re-format the references anyway. I've been told in the peer-review to use certain templates. Thanks for the help and support. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 14:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more "formalised" reference format means that the information can be automatically changed or manipulated down the line. Also the more information you provide about a web page, the more someone can retrieve it from archives if a site ever disappears.

This page should give you an idea of what's available, some tools are here. AFAIK it didn't used to be a requirement for FA and definitely isn't in GA to use the templates - the main thing is that others can verify the information.

People have different views about readability in the edit view. My experience with the cite templates is that is helps to break the data up - in the same way as normal page templates generally are - like the one at the top of the DCFC article. If you edit the Mars article or Ipswich_Town_F.C. which are FA standard - you'll see what I mean. To me it's the icing on the cake - but it all helps produce a quality article.

Hope I've helped - although it will have given you a lot of work. If I get a chance I'll try and do a few - since I've added some of those refs in there in the first place without the citeweb template. Cheers SeanMack 14:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did Lorcan Doherty ever get back to you? I also e-mailed him but have had no response yet. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 15:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing since, will let you know - I'm away from internet access at the mo at the minute though. SeanMack 09:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

I said:

I'm just alerting your attention to the new WikiProject on Irish football as you may be interested in taking part. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification on the Irish Football Wikiproject. I've added myself to the list. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 17:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derry City F.C. PR

Hey, just wanted to say well done on your work so far, I've added a bunch of comments to the peer review you've started. Let me know if there's anything more I can do. All the best The Rambling Man 15:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a bunch of comments to the FAC, feel free to ask me about any of them... The Rambling Man 12:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple of responses to your questions at the FAC... The Rambling Man 12:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rationales you've added so far are fine, you do need to add specific fair use rationales for all the other fair use images, including the crests. The Rambling Man 09:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derry FAC

Thanks for the advice. Other than the prose, are there any other outstanding issues you feel would prevent the article from attaining featured article status? I think I have dealt with most of the structural and image issues, although the team photo still remains in the article. Both myself and SeanMack have emailed the photographer, however, and are awaiting an email which will hopefuly enable confirmation of permission.

Also, have you any idea what to do about a reference link that is now dead but stored in Google's cache? I fear it may not remain there on a permanent basis. (See my comment three paragraphs from the top of the page in the FAC from 12:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC).)

Regarding the prose, if you feel that there are any other specific areas that need better explanation, maybe you could point them out, or take the editing into your own hands if you so wish? Sometimes it can be hard to spot areas which a newcomer to the topic would find difficult to comprehend when you know the topic pretty much inside-out yourself and would take some of it for granted. Cheers. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 14:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go over some of the prose and flag up any issues or ambiguities as I find them. Re dead links, try archive.org's Wayback Machine which creates a permanent archived copy. Oldelpaso 16:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no luck with the archive site. Anyway, the FAC page was closed (by a bot, it seems) even though I had dealt with many of the points and was in the middle of sorting out the outstanding issues. Have you any advice on what I should do next? Your edits to the article were fine and very helpful, by the way. The only part to which I re-added text was:

The club won the 1964–65 Irish League and subsequently became the first Irish League team to win a European tie by beating FK Lyn 8–6 on aggregate in the European Cup. The Second Round did not take place, as the IFA claimed that Brandwell was not up to standard, even though a game had been played there during the previous round.

Other Irish League teams had won individual European ties (i.e. either the first leg or second leg but went out due to an inferior aggregate score) as far as I know, while Derry were the first to win a tie on aggregate. I thought better clarification may have been needed so I inserted "over two legs" after "European tie". Also, the Second Round did actually commence with Derry playing Anderlecht in Belgium for the first leg. The second leg was not played though and Anderlecht were awarded a 'walkover'.

I think it is generally accepted the the worst of the Troubles took place during the early 1970s. Rioting, street-violence and death tolls peaked around 1972. However, I've left "despite significant improvements in the overall security situation over the years" out as the fact that the RUC ruled the area safe to stage football again would suggest an improvement anyway. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 06:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep going through it as and when I get the opportunity, and raise issues on the talk page. FAC is unforgiving, but by the time it's next nominated it'll be ready... Oldelpaso 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick request, could you possibly make use of edit summaries more frequently? It makes working out what's been changed easier when looking at the history or one's watchlist. Oldelpaso 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the verbose parts of prose have been pretty much dealt with, the article is still on the long side; it is currently 68k, and the longest of the existing featured football articles is Arsenal F.C. at 58k. Perhaps a couple of sections could be trimmed where topics are covered in more detail in daughter articles. Oldelpaso 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, sorry to harp on, but a good place to start is to cut down the recent history <ducks behind sofa, waiting for doom to descend...!>... The Rambling Man 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on Derry City F.C.

I'd just like to take a moment to wholeheartedly congratulate you on your tireless work to get the Derry City article to FA status. It's on my watchlist and just about every half and hour or so I see Mr Invincible contributing to it, tightening it up etc etc. Please let me know if you re-nom it for FAC because I'd love to support you (although since you make so many edits I'll have to review it again!). But regardless, your effort in this article epitomises the best of Wikipedia, a sheer, single-minded determination for excellence. Well done. The Rambling Man 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your praise and support. I was just in the middle of re-nominating it when you left your message. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed it and added half a dozen or so comments at the FAC. Hope they help. The Rambling Man 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP address has been blocked

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): There has been an issue with autoblocks today; it should be fixed now. Request handled by: —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image

Hi Danny, I checked this image and it has a "Do not use this tag..." style copyright notice. This may well cause the FAC to fail so can I suggest you change it to a Fair Use copyright statement? The Rambling Man 13:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll give the article one final run-through and then support, hoping others to follow... The Rambling Man 18:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derry City

Danny Invincible said: Would you be willing to add your support to the nomination of Derry City F.C. for FA status? Cheers.

The article is looking very impressive. I will take time to read through the article itself for both content and style (personally I prefer to use, for the sake of this example, Derry City are, but, different strokes for different folks as far as that is concerned, as you can see from that discussion). Once I have read the article thoroughly I shall be available to offer my opinion.

Thank you for contacting me. I shall attempt to offer an opinion at the earliest possible opportunity, hopefully this evening, but if I feel incapable of doing so, I promise to contact you as soon as I am able. Bobo . 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK sure. FACs can take a lot of time, can't they? I know only too well. I'll continue to tinker with the article over the coming days but won't make any major changes without discussing them with you first. Good luck in your exams! Qwghlm 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have not overstepped any boundaries in the edits I made tonight. Yesterday's comments were meant to be warnings about what might be less than FA standard rather than a spanner, and I came to the article having seen your invitation on Chris the Dude's talk page, because I have valued your contributions elsewhere, so please do not consider it a slight. I have no idea whether the vocab that I criticized was your selection of words or what you had worked around. Good luck with the exams. Kevin McE 00:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:DCFC.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:DCFC.PNG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 18:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derry / Villa

It wasn't mentioned in the reference given, do you have another one? Oldelpaso 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated well done

Hey, just back from hols, well done on the FAC, glad to have been of some use in it! Feel free to let me know if you chose any similar projects in the future! Cheers for now, The Rambling Man 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Dundalkfc.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dundalkfc.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Brennan

Hi there. I see you've been involved in a lot of articles about Irish players - do you have a source that gives the date of death for Bobby Brennan? I created the article for him, but all I know is that he died in 2002 - I can't find the exact date anywhere. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, and all the best - --EH74DK 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best source I can find. It is a blog archive of all things related to Northern Irish international football but does seem reliable. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 16:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 18:16, 25 June 2007 edit EH74DK (talk \| contribs) 2,527 edits Bobby Brennan ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:38, 26 June 2007 edit undo Danny Invincible (talk \| contribs) 3,901 edits →‎Bobby Brennan Next edit →
Line 547:		Line 547:

	Hi there. I see you've been involved in a lot of articles about Irish players - do you have a source that gives the date of death for [[Bobby Brennan]]? I created the article for him, but all I know is that he died in 2002 - I can't find the exact date anywhere. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, and all the best - --[[User:EH74DK\|EH74DK]] 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)		Hi there. I see you've been involved in a lot of articles about Irish players - do you have a source that gives the date of death for [[Bobby Brennan]]? I created the article for him, but all I know is that he died in 2002 - I can't find the exact date anywhere. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, and all the best - --[[User:EH74DK\|EH74DK]] 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
			:[http://nifootball.blogspot.com/2006/08/bobby-brennan.html This] is the best source I can find. It is a blog archive of all things related to Northern Irish international football but does seem reliable. [[User:Danny Invincible\|'''''Danny Invincible''''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Danny_Invincible\|Talk]]\|[[Special:contributions/Danny Invincible\|Edits]]</sup> 16:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)