User talk:Scolaire

Ulster Special Constabulary

Hi I liked your approach to the Easter Risng article - especially on shortening and summarising material.

Although I think that article needs more work, would you have any advice/input on the re-write I'm doing at Ulster Special Constabulary?

Your help would be appreciated.

Jdorney (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a list of articles I want to work on. There's eight articles on it at the moment (not including Easter Rising) and I'm a very slow worker. The chances of me being drawn into Ulster Special Constabulary before the end of the summer are slim indeed. Thanks for the invite, anyway. Scolaire (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'll talk to you on the Easter Rising page. Jdorney (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind but I thought you could maybe use this

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. John (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It's always nice to be called a "trusted user". Pending changes looks to me like a good idea, especially given some issues I've had on a page that's now indefinitely semi-protected. I don't know whether or how much I'll use my new privileges, but I'm certainly going to read up about it. Scolaire (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

An apology

Scolaire i want to apologise to you for my recent attitude, i let another editors continuing attempts at what i see as blurring the border and lack of will to make concessions piss me off big-style and let it harden my position. I really do want a concensus on the county ledes issue and i hope we are able to reach one that we can all agree with. I am an editor who is quite willing to make concessions if something reasonable is given back in return, as the new IMOS placenames issue shows. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted and thank you. It's never easy to do, and I have great respect for anyone who has the bottle to do it. I don't think I'll rejoin the discussion, though. My ideas are there for anyone who wants to read them, and I'll go along with anything that gets a consensus. Scolaire (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your input will be missed. Superfopp is quite unwilling (RA to a lesser degree) to move or give something in return in respects to anything on Northern Irelands position, and Laurel_Lodged and Canterbury_Tail both standing firm on their beliefs in regards to Northern Irelands position by not discussing alternative proposals. Even if i had of reached a deal with you there still wasn't a concensus without LL and CT backing it. I fear (along with other facets i've had to raise) the issues will have to be taken further along the Content Dispute Resolution path, i.e. the Mediation Committee, for RA and Superfopps unwillingness to discuss and ability to remain silent when it suits them when i raise questions is stifling the other issues and making me more unwilling to compromise with them. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to stepping in, Scolaire -

Mabuska, I think you're being a little narrow sighted and unfair. From the very off-set, I've said that the NI context should be emphasised above the Ireland context. I suggested that we explicitly state that NI in the UK and avoid any arrangements of words that might lead a reader to believe that all of Ireland forms one jurisdiction. I've supported suggestions by both yourself and Scolaire. I've made suggestions for new wordings that place the NI context foremost. From my first breath on this topic to my very last one, I have said that the NI context needs to be explicitly stated, given precedence over the Ireland-context and not be overwhelmed by the Ireland-context (in contrast to the current wording in the articles). That is hardly the position of someone who is "unwilling to move or give something in return in respects to anything on Northern Irelands position". --RA (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To avoid hijacking this talk page of anothers user i've responded over at mine. Mabuska ^(talk)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing sourced material

Any reason for that? The Heraldry WikiProject said the arms are accurate and the images were sourced. It is disruptive to remove sourced information. So I would like an explanation. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to explain ad nauseam. The "WikiProject" said nothing. You're deluding yourself. The images are not sourced. WP:OI says: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". The fanciful elements in your fanciful design are not published anywhere. You won't listen to me but that's fine, you're only beating your head against a wall. Scolaire (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Tamfang said "It's true that any two renditions of argent a sinister hand gules are legally equivalent". Seven Letters said "Coats of arms, full achievements, etc, are defined by words, not design. If different illustrations have the same blazon, they represent the same coat of arms, baroque or not. The style is entirely up to the artist". While only two, there are no Heraldry contributors that refuted this, so you should have at least considered I was not lying to you. Yet, instead of going with me and two other editors, you decided to ignore them and go with "I still don't think so". So, I found the American Heraldry Society article, which stated "With the exception of the lozenge (diamond), there is no significance to the shape of the shield. The lozenge has traditionally been distinctive of the arms of women in the heraldry of certain countries, including much of the United States (see section 3.2 on heraldry of women). Other than that, any style of shield is available to anyone." But you deleted it without concern. Since it is not an original nor unique idea, and it illustrates centuries-old blazons, it does not violate the original research policy. Oh, and it was posted there already and they ignored it. That might be a hint. So, again, why did you remove it? And please do not argue in circles with any of the points which have been refuted here yet again. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I must argue in circles, since you are arguing in circles, making points which I have refuted again and again. That is why I said I am happy to explain ad nauseam. The "WikiProject" said nothing. Three editors do not a Wikiproject make. Your quote from Seven Letters is a general comment on matters heraldic; he specifically said he was "not familiar with the particular arms in question", so it was not possible for him to say that "the arms are accurate and the images were sourced." Tamfang said "It's true that any two renditions of argent a sinister hand gules are legally equivalent, but that doesn't oblige me to blind myself to the image's inappropriateness on other grounds." You say I "should have at least considered you were not lying to me", but deliberately editing somebody's comments to make them appear to say the opposite of what they do say is as near to lying as makes no difference. The consensus (1 - 0) on the Heraldry talk page is that the image is inappropriate.

Secondly, you say you found the American Heraldry Society article, which stated Blah, but can you find the Wikipedia guideline that says an article in a heraldry journal is the arbiter of what is original content in WP images?

Oh, and I have looked in vain for the image that was "posted there already" and ignored. If by "there" you mean O'Neill dynasty, that image appears to have been deleted, so how can I judge it? The article is not much watched or edited - I myself was not watching it - so the fact that it was ignored does not indicate approval. If by "there" you mean the Wikiproject page, the fact that it was ignored definitely does not indicate approval. Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? Three members does not a WikiProject make? It is three people that know about heraldry that were in agreement that the drawing was within normal and acceptable guidelines of heraldry. Seven Letters did not refrain from siding with that, he refused to comment on whether the arms were supposed to be a left or right hand. Tamfang said the arms are not an acceptable style for Legendary Ireland, which I never claimed them to be. They both still said my shield does not need to match exactly a pre-existing shield-shape, which was the point of your argument, that you could not find the hand on that shield.

Now, since there was a consensus that a coat of arms must be sourced and show a link to a photograph where one may see an exact replica, then you must apply the same standard to any new images you wish to add. So, stop being hypocritical and live by your own standards. Source the images before you add them again, per your own consensus. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR & Edit warring

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at O'Neill dynasty. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 13:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This applies also to all the other articles you two are edit warring over. Canterbury Tail talk 13:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Scolaire, The RfC should be moved over to Leo XIII. I don't think anybody over there will get the posts. What do you think?Malke2010 20:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Won't get what posts? Nobody has commented. Xanderliptak should take the hint and just close it, period. But I won't withhold permission if that's what you're asking.

By the way, are they still tinkering with the "Suggestions of improper behaviour by some rowdy elements who have nothing whatever to do with the movement" section on that other article? I daren't look in case I get dragged back in. Scolaire (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Ireland

Hi Scolaire,

Just dropping a line to wonder if you would be interested in participating in setting up a Wikimedia chapter in Ireland. It took a year (almost to the day) but ten editors have expressed an interest, which meets the criteria for a "critical mass". How would you feel about it? Know of anyone who might be interested?

By the way, you might also be interested in joining the Wikimedia Ireland mailing list, if you are not already on it. --RA (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I do have an interest in media, and some of the "What could a Wikimedia Ireland do?" items are very attractive, especially the idea of persuading individuals and organisations to make certain media free. I also like that so many of those who've expressed an interest are actively involved in uploading or using media. On the other hand, I'm not currently in "dynamic" mode: if you look at my contributions you'll see I've scaled down my activity considerably. I'm reluctant to add my name just for the sake of making up numbers, especially when there are so many "curiouses" and "interesteds" already. I'd love to see the project work but I'm not sure I'd be able to commit myself in any meaningful way. Thanks for asking, anyway. Scolaire (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this. Completely understand. If you're subscribed to the list, keep an eye on developments and if you can make it on the 25th I'm curious about meeting other editors in real life.

p.s. my real reason for coming to your page was to give a thumbs up to this: "I had to laugh when you said the dispute goes back to the Crusades. I didn't become a user until well into this century, but I can well believe it's true." You're a great wit when you get angry. --RA (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, I have to cool right down before I'm capable of that kind of wit :-) I knew you'd appreciate it, though. Scolaire (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Leo XIII

Hi, Given that you were involved in that, I think you might be interested again. History2007 (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken, I'm afraid. Beating my head against a wall is not actually one of my hobbies. Scolaire (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The war to end war

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Images of pictures

• Hi Scolaire, if you object to the pics so much then just remove them. Despite their standard, I do think they give some historical context, aid understanding and show their continuing relevance as they are in a current exhibition. These are relevant contemporary media, useful for readers and for their understanding. I will add this to the discussion too. Ardfern (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BISE

If editors wants to particpate at BISE? they can. The more who participate there, the more effective BISE becomes -per article-. If editors don't want a thing to do with BISE & go straight to the articles themselves? so be it. The more who don't participate at BISE, the less effective it becomes. It's up to the individual, all BISE is is a collaborative idea, a place to keep an eye on all related articles. Wowsers, there's editors out there who can't stand WikiProjects for similiar reasons. Remember what Groucho Marx said? "I never wanted to belong to a group, that would have me as a member". It's up to you Scolaire, if ya wann disregard BISE or kill it & bury it? that's your choice. You'd be neither right or wrong. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, see, my problem is I don't care about the British Isles dispute and I don't want to hear about it. As long as it keeps the feuding parties in one place and away from "my" articles (i.e. the ones that interest me) I think BITASK/BISE is great! When they start coming onto my articles and telling us what they've decided we're going to do, all I want is for them to go back in their hole, and not try to "pull" anybody else with them. I respect you, GD, and I don't mean this in a sarcastic or hurtful way, but talk of BITASK/BISE becoming "more effective" is a pipe-dream. It's only effective as a soap-box, and it will never be effective as anything else. Still, It's nice to chat to you again. Our paths don't seem to have crossed for a while. Scolaire (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

avoid ad hominem please

Scolaire please avoid ad hominem remarks like these[1]. This kind of comment is unhelpful and violates WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG--Cailil ^talk 18:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)