In the first place, the individual in question was ''not'' a priest - he was a member of a brotherhood. In the second place, a vow in his case was an oath taken before God, and, at the time it was made, a ''lifetime commitment''. Renouncing these vows can be considered unfortunate in the context of the original intention behind making these vows. In the case of marriage vows being broken, a person can claim that there was abuse by the spouse, or some other problem in the marital arrangment. The same cannot be said in this particular case, for it would be casting aspersions on the Catholic Church. In a situation such as this, renouncing vows can be considered ''unfortunate'' by those placed in some negative situation, as a result of this action, and similarly it can be considered ''fortunate'' by those in a position to gain from the same action.
In the first place, the individual in question was ''not'' a priest - he was a member of a brotherhood. In the second place, a vow in his case was an oath taken before God, and, at the time it was made, a ''lifetime commitment''. Renouncing these vows can be considered ''unfortunate'' in the context of the original intention behind making these vows. In the case of marriage vows being broken, a person can claim that there was abuse by the spouse, or some other problem in the marital arrangment. The same cannot be said in this particular case, for it would be casting aspersions on the Catholic Church. In a situation such as this, renouncing vows can be considered ''unfortunate'' by those placed in some negative situation as a result of this action, and similarly it can be considered ''fortunate'' by those in a position to gain from the same action.
You have made no remark on your qualifications in the English Language or the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and I suspect you have undertaken a job for which you do not have the proper training; remember you are all anonymous, and no one knows just who you are, and what sort of background and education you have... <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jrwboyd|Jrwboyd]] ([[User talk:Jrwboyd|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jrwboyd|contribs]]) 04:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
You have made no remark on your qualifications in the English Language or the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and I suspect you have undertaken a job for which you do not have the proper training; remember you are all anonymous, and no one knows just who you are, and what sort of background and education you have... <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jrwboyd|Jrwboyd]] ([[User talk:Jrwboyd|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jrwboyd|contribs]]) 04:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Click here to leave a new message. If you leave a message here, I'll reply here; if I leave you a message on your talk page, please reply there. Or just tell me what you'd like, I'm easy...
It's a small world ! So you were one of the guys coming around in balaclavas robbing me for tea money ! He He ! What's your name ? Would love to know who's editing. --Kobroinstc (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the Cronan's page name
I wanted to change the page name to "St. Cronan's Boys National School" so that It might get hits on google when it is searched. at the moment it only shows up in a google search where "Saint Cronan's" is used. please advise if you can, or change the page name so that that this google hit will occur. Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobroinstc (talk • contribs) 12:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Florence edit
Hi,
I'd like to understand your justification for your recent revert on the Florence page. Your edit comment reads: "here there is a recognisable sub-national flag, it may be used in circumstances where an exact geographical location is needed". This seems to me to be entirely contrary to the relevant guidelines - and also common sense. Why is a slightly more precise geographical location required in this context? For the record, MOS:FLAGS discourages the use of subnational flags where there is no direct relevance, and favours the use of the flags of sovereign states.
There is a specific section about it at Wikipedia:FLAGS#Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations. I completely understand where you're coming from, but I think the point of this section is that, particularly in the case of UK sub-national states/countries/nations, it can come down to the personal choice of an editor; in this case, I honestly believe that Edinburgh is almost always known as being in Scotland specifically, which is why I've placed that flag here. I'd like to think that I'm not being biased either way here, I am Irish after all, but if you really wish to rv back to a UK flag then I won't be too perturbed! (What does slightly piss me off is someone like User:Malarious who changes without any explanation.) --Schcambo (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to you whether you want to continue to try to get UKIrish spelling in this article, but I suggest that if you do, you should be consistent about it. The UKIrish spelling of "kilometer" is "kilometre". All, "center" appears under "Line three" and "Ticketing". These would have to be changed to "centre" to be consistent. Regards, Ground Zero | t11:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks. (Although being Irish, I'd like to call it European spelling, but that might completely confuse the matter). --Schcambo (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have to say, I'm glad to see it. I've mentioned to the guy who did it about the IP addresses he was using, if they're not blocked I can see Firstwind coming back at some stage. Thanks for your help anyways. --Schcambo (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi to both of you. After weeks of reverts I brought this up to AIV, thinking no one would care as usual, it seems however that for once someone did. I hope that at some point it will become possible to reason with him/her. Mthibault (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You being Irish has nothing to do with the name of the spelling dialect. It is British English - that's the standard written form of the English language in the British Isles (inclusing Ireland). You're interpretation of your nationality is very much irrelavent. D.de.loinsightalk 00:06, 19 May 2008
[rollseyes] I was joking. But since you're talking this so seriously, there's no set law saying we must use British English spellings; from Hiberno-English: "The standard spelling and grammar of Irish-English are largely the same as common British English." It the goes on to state that: "Due in most part to the influence of the US media abroad, many words and phrases of American English have become interchangeable with their Hiberno-English equivalents, most especially with the youngest generations."
Hi!
After several months working together on articles related to Nantes, I would like to nominate you for adminship based on your contributions, patience and handling of difficult situations. Is this something you would be ok with? Mthibault (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't think I'd have enough chance of getting it right now; not enough contributions, not enough experience, etc. But maybe in a few months! Merci, de toute façon, et aussi bien fait pour trouver WP:AIV, je l'avais pas vu avant ça! A bientôt. --Schcambo (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you like, tell me when you change your mind. If you have some time, I'm trying to work on the North Korea article, it's a sensitive topic so I don't want to rush any changes, but the article is a mess in my opinion (probably one of the worst for any country). It definitely needs grammar/spelling corrections if you can spare some time. A bientôt j'espère ! Mthibault (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - the choice of which map is displayed is nothing to do with {{Location map Edinburgh}}. It's all selected by {{Infobox UK place}}. Initially it displayed a Scottish map, then a local one for Edinburgh, then the Scottish one again, the UK one, the Edinburgh one (due to a botched attempt to make it show Scotland), and now the UK one again. I could implement the Scottish map if there's a definite decision that this is what is wanted, but it would mean adding more code to the Infobox UK place template, which is used by several thousand pages, and there's a general consensus not to create special cases for the maps. Warofdreamstalk20:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie Irvine
Hi - thanks for digging up some refs on Irvine and the ever-vexed issue of nationality. Sadly, I'm still not convinced (sorry!) - have a look at the talk page and see what you think. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, bien sûr, c'est le moindre que je puisse faire! Je pense aussi qu'il a besoin d'être réorganisé un peu; je ferai ça quand j'ai plus de temps. --Schcamboaon scéal?18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Schcambo,
Eddie Irvine always refers to himself as an Irish man in interviews, when asked as to his nationality. So why do you persist in having him described as British. That is not a neutral standpoint. As the "Good Friday" agreement says, any person on the island of Ireland can have Irish citizenship if they so want.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.118.87 (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the nationality section on his page, where this is all explained. Yes, Irvine self-identified as being Irish, which is acknowledged. So do millions of Americans. It doesn't really mean anything. All evidence and references suggest that Irvine did, and does, have a British passport, which is why the British flag was always flown above him on podiums, except for Argentina '97, when the Irish flag was flown by accident. That too is explained in the section. Thus, in his driver infobox, we show the flag of wherever that person's passport says they are from, which in this case is the UK. --Schcamboaon scéal?11:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting unprotection
Just a pointer: it looks like you added an editprotected tag to Talk:Silent Cry top request unprotection. As the template says, you need to make the request at WP:RFPP. The editprotected tag is just for small changes to protected articles, not to request protection or unprotection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to your edits, being a TD does not necessarily mean you are in government. Ahern is now a backbencher, for all intents and purposes. So that's why I made the edit, and I believe the article should be changed to reflect that. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
State flags
Your recent edits to Brno and Poznań popped up on my watchlist; is there a consensus expressed anywhere to use the state flags instead of national flags for twin-towns in the United States? If so, please could you indicate where. I find it strange that subnational flags should be used exceptionally for one country and one country alone. I can't think of a good reason to distinguish the United States in this regard off the top of my head. Knepflerle (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally done for the countries within the United Kingdom as well. Basically, the whole point of sister cities is that cultural ties are created. Culturally, Toledo is part of Ohio. It describes itself as such on its official sister cities website. Similarly, in relation to Brno and Dallas, on Brno's own twinning website, apart from the use of the U.S. flag once, Dallas is solely described as being part of Texas. They even have "Texan cultural days" apparantly. Thus I think it falls under WP:FLAGS#Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance, since the state each of these cities is in is clearly relevant to the whole sister cities thing. (The only reason I actually came upon these cities was that I noticed this single-purpose account was actually deleting all mention of the states.) --Schcamboaon scéal?17:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have my reservations, but thanks for your quick response and explanation. If there is to be a widespread change to every article either way, then a prior centralised discussion might be a good thing, but otherwise I suppose it's best to let each article's editing community decide. Reverting the single-purpose account in the interim was probably the right call. Thanks once more, Knepflerle (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was thinking about bringing it up on the talk page of WP:FLAGS, or somewhere else, just to see whether an exemption would be useful, similar to the one the UK countries get for sports-related stuff. Which I shall do. Soon. When I've some more time. ;) --Schcamboaon scéal?17:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would predict that no-one outside of the US will support the inclusions of these flags in this context, as hardly anyone will ever have seen them before. In my opinion, the inclusion of the state flags detracts rather than adds to the article. I've only noticed this due to watching Wrocŀaw and agree with the editor that has been reverting you, even though the account does seem to be single-purpose. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both would seem to be correct usage per dictionary.com though I think the more traditionally educated, British-English or Hiberno_English, will plump for stadia and the Websters, quoted further down that page, also goes with stadia for the plural noun. ww2censor (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haigh, a chara :) Criochnaigh mé an iarratas checkuser dhuitse cúpla nóiméid o shin, agus anois tá ceist beag agam. As a Ghaelgóir, I'm wondering if you'd be interested in setting up an account and contributing over at the Irish language Wiktionary? We could use all the help we can get over there, having gone from a dead wiki with 30 words last August to a wiki with almost 1,000 Irish words and counting. It's fun and a peaceful break away from Wikipedia. Pretty-please? - Alison❤21:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the history. I did leave them a friendly message, per WP:DTTR, which was promptly deleted without comment. Only them did I feel it was necessary to drop them a proper warning since they didn't seem to have taken the first message with any kind of respect. After that too was deleted, and I was accused of harassment, above, I brought it to WP:WQA, which (thankfully) resulted in someone else pointing out to them that their behaviour was a bit unacceptable. And I don't mean to be rude here, but you should probably check these things out first before leaving me that note... ;) --Schcamboaon scéal?09:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respect? You're lucky I bothered to acknowlege your existence. I don't have to comment and I didn't. That's my prerogitive. And I think you'll find that the opinions of anyone other than an admin really mean nothing to me, unless I decide to see value in them. HalfShadow16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, respect. It's all part of WP:AGF, which you have not done, and don't seem like having any intention of doing. If you had any kind of sense, you'd have replied to my original note with something like "Yeah, my bad, I'll try to stay civil the next time". You've not done that, and that's why I opened the case at WP:WQA. Quite simple. Also, if you feel you should only respect admins, then maybe you should read up on WP:ADMIN: "From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else." If you don't want this to escalate, then you should take that into account, and learn to have respect for other users. --16:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You lost any moral high-ground you had when you "welcomed" him to Wikipedia. Also, I did check. Just because I didn't rehash the entire history here doesn't mean I didn't read it. Your message to Halfshadow was downright insulting, regardless of what I read or didn't. There are ways to communicate that you object to someone's behavior without doing something blatantly insulting. And I don't appreciate your assuming I didn't read what I did read. Next time you might consider asking instead of assuming bad faith. - Revolving Bugbear20:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? "There are ways to communicate that you object to someone's behavior without doing something blatantly insulting." Yes, exactly, that's why I left him a nice little note, which was promptly deleted. You seem to be avoiding the fact that he did leave a personal attack on another user's page, which he has not yet accepted. You have also avoided his above comment that he doesn't respect any user other than an admin. That needs to be addressed, and you, as an admin, are the perfect person to do it. In regards to not assuming you had noticed my original note, my fault. It wasn't clear from your comment. I apologise. --Schcamboaon scéal?21:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And entirely by the way, the user's good faith must be called into question when his only two contributions to the talk page of Sarah777 are a personal attack, and this remark of which I don't quite know what to make. It all seems a little unnecessary and inflammatory (as in his remarks could be inflammatory in a delicate discussion as is ongoing there, whether he intended so or not) on his part. --Schcamboaon scéal?21:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can call his good faith into question if he seems to be acting in bad faith. You can express that you disapprove of his behavior. You can question his motives regarding comments he has made. That is all fine. But doing so with a welcome template when he's been here for a year and a half is condescension. Halfshadow's comments do indeed need to be addressed, but two wrongs don't make a right.
If Halfshadow doesn't respect other Wikipedians, he will quickly find himself in a situation he doesn't like. But it's not necessary to stoop to the level of insult and condescension to deal with that. In fact, I imagine you'll find it's rather less effective -- people stop listening when you don't treat them with respect. Maybe he wasn't listening to begin with, but there's nothing to be gained through insults.
I understand the intention behind our comment, and I don't begrudge you the sentiment. But it's important to stick to the standards you are exhorting others to stick to.
Happy to help. I have only blocked for 12 hours because it is an IP. I will be away for several days, so I am afraid I am not able to help after this. Ground Zero | t18:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kilmarnock
Hello. You mailed me saying stop edditing the Kilmarnock Page. I feel like there can be a bit more added to the page please. Thank You --Robert5564 (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are a sockpuppet user. You have done nothing but copy images and large sections of text from other pages, and stick them on Kilmarnock. I really don't know what point you are making, but please desist from vandalising Wikipedia, and start contributing helpfully to it. Thanks. --Schcamboaon scéal?19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well i am not a sockpuppet (what ever that is) can you please do a bit more to the Kilmarnock page. I Spent my full day today taking pictures of the town and when i put them on they will be deleted is that what you are saying?--Robert5564 (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only two images you have so far added to Kilmarnock have been been one of a pub in a village that isn't Kilmarnock, and it was taken by someone that isn't you (Image:Riccarton Inn.JPG); the other is a map of East Ayrshire which has nothing to do, specifically, with the Kilmarnock page (Image:ScotlandEastAyrshire.png). If you really have taken lots of images yourself, then I'd be quite willing to see them; remember though that the article already has a lot of images, and it shouldn't end up as simply a gallery. Maybe you should look at the Commons, where you can upload all the photos you want. --Schcamboaon scéal?19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i understand but Riccarton is in Kilmarnock. Yes kilmarnock has alot of images and i will make a gallery but i cant becuase i have only been a member for a day. The pictures what taken by me places like the Kilmarnock Bus station and stuff. What licence should i put when i upload them. It says error when i try to upload a picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert5564 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, have a look at WP:DUCK. Your editing patterns have been identical to those of about thirty other users. Please do not tell me that you've only been a member for a day, because it is quite obvious that that is not true. Thus, pending your sockpuppetry case, I'm afraid I won't be providing you with any more assistance. Sorry. --Schcamboaon scéal?19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, first, thank for the new Bratislava panoramic images. However, in Bratislava it totally messed up the layout. Also, what's the point in inserting both versions of the same area? I don't think that the same buildings with a little snow add encyclopaedic value high enough to justify insertion of both images.--Svetovid (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, feel free to support their featured picture nom here. Yup, never ashamed to do a little shameless canvassing. ;)
Great Hunger
Hi. If you've never heard the famine called the Irish Potato Famine you could review the previous discussion from the period ~15-19 May where many references were supplied of books, encyclopedia articles, etc., that call it the Irish Potato Famine. While it's not a citable source, I've spoken to many Irish people who tell me that they always heard of it as the Irish Potato Famine or simply the Famine. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"While it's not a citable source". Exactly. I'm Irish, and I can say quite confidently that in my experience, it is quite simply known as the Great Famine (for the record, I've never heard it being called the 'Great Hunger' either). Saying that the famine was caused by potatoes is a little inaccurate: famines aren't caused by food. They're caused by a lack of food, and even then saying that it was caused simply by blighted potatoes is a little disingeneous since almost nothing was done to provide people with other sources of food, which would be a contributing factor to the scale of the famine. I would thus say that the most obvious title is The Great Famine. After that, Great Irish Famine, The Great Famine (Ireland), or something like that. The most accurate, technically, would be Irish Potato Blight. Irish Potato Famine is completely wrong, unfortunately. Just my two cents. --Schcamboaon scéal?17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Take a look at Category:Ireland county templates and the base template with instructions at Template:Irish county navigation box/doc. The standard colour for Irish counties is green, for obvious reasons. This follows from the template on which the Irish version was based, that of the U.S. There, each state has its own colours for all its counties, eg. California's are gold, Vermont's are pale green, etc. Blue is the default colour, but there's no particular reason that it should be used for everything. For example, expand the box at the bottom of Giovanni Trapattoni's page, and you'll see what I mean. ;) --Schcamboaon scéal?18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Most of what you did involved adding lots of alternate names, pipelinking articles (eg. [[Devín Castle|Theben Castle]]) so that the native Slovakian names weren't displayed, while simultaneously accusing another user of sockpuppetry. --Schcamboaon scéal?17:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I added some important Hungarian related historical events to the historical chapter and You removed these also with the location names! I am under no revert restriction controll so it would be good if You could restore these. I do not understand You that what is your trouble with the city's alternative names in the infobox or on top of the article. If You want I show You several articles where these information appears there.Nmate (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every alternate name is listed here. That's enough. Unfortuately, you deleted all the section breaks, so it is not obvious what else you have added and what you have taken away. The only thing I can see off hand is that you've decided to describe 5th century Slavic migrants as "colonists", which doesn't relate in any way to the modern meaning of the word, and is in breach of WP:NPOV. Therefore, no, I won't be restoring it. Sorry. --Schcamboaon scéal?19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to give You any answer two days later because I do not have any time to it at the moment.Nmate (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
at the moment .[reply]
An unreliable source of information...
This is why I find Wikipedia to be an unreliable source of information. In the first place anyone is allowed to interfere with the articles - like you Schcambo. The average user has no idea who you are, what your name is, or your qualifications to tell people what they should or should not put in Wikipedia. That also applies to myself. Traditional encyclopedia usually have a long list of just who is making contributions; Wikipedia does not.
I resent someone like you telling me what word I should use in an article when it is just possible that I am much more qualified in the English Language than you are. You asked me a ridiculous question as to what the meaning of the word unfortunate is - all I can say is to look it up, and do not waste my time with such silly questions. I also noticed your use of the word aint - a highly unsuitable word for a person attempting to correct another's English.
Regarding the context of the word unfortunate, I happen to be intimately involved in that situation, and the use of that word is most appropriate - again, get your (Oxford, if you please) dictionary and look it up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwboyd (talk • contribs) 06:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an administrator has warned you, describing how a priest "unfortunately" renounced their vows is your personal analysis of the event, and is not a neutral point of view. I find it quite ironic that you believe Wikipedia is a lesser encyclopedia than any written one when you seem to be of the belief that a written one would allow their editors to add their own opinions into them - the whole point of any encyclopedia is that they are records of facts, not of opinions. Also, I have reported you once more since you have repeated the insertion. Enjoy your block. --Schcamboaon scéal?16:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A vow is...
In the first place, the individual in question was not a priest - he was a member of a brotherhood. In the second place, a vow in his case was an oath taken before God, and, at the time it was made, a lifetime commitment. Renouncing these vows can be considered unfortunate in the context of the original intention behind making these vows. In the case of marriage vows being broken, a person can claim that there was abuse by the spouse, or some other problem in the marital arrangment. The same cannot be said in this particular case, for it would be casting aspersions on the Catholic Church. In a situation such as this, renouncing vows can be considered unfortunate by those placed in some negative situation as a result of this action, and similarly it can be considered fortunate by those in a position to gain from the same action.
You have made no remark on your qualifications in the English Language or the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and I suspect you have undertaken a job for which you do not have the proper training; remember you are all anonymous, and no one knows just who you are, and what sort of background and education you have... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwboyd (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
