Talk:Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland

History

Due to an OTRS request, much of the history of this article was removed with oversight. The complete history of the article, for GFDL purposes, is as follows:

    * (cur) (last)  11:35, February 14, 2007 Historyexpert (Talk | contribs | block) [rollback]
    * (cur) (last) 11:31, February 14, 2007 Historyexpert (Talk | contribs | block)
    * (cur) (last) 22:28, February 13, 2007 125.29.113.237 (Talk | block) (info and reference to recent news report added)
    * (cur) (last) 11:19, February 8, 2007 SmackBot (Talk | contribs | block) m (Date/fix maintenance tags)
    * (cur) (last) 17:06, December 31, 2006 Jack McNamee (Talk | contribs | block) m (I have changed The Republic of Ireland to Ireland because the Republic of Ireland is a discarded name no longer used by the Irish government)
    * (cur) (last) 20:32, November 9, 2006 87.113.27.137 (Talk | block)
    * (cur) (last) 20:30, November 9, 2006 87.113.27.137 (Talk | block) (Problems locating addresses in rural Ireland)
    * (cur) (last) 20:20, November 9, 2006 87.113.27.137 (Talk | block)
    * (cur) (last) 23:54, November 7, 2006 Thryduulf (Talk | contribs | block) m (wikify dates fully)
    * (cur) (last) 21:30, October 23, 2006 Djegan (Talk | contribs | block) m (→See also - rearrange)
    * (cur) (last) 13:57, October 22, 2006 Djegan (Talk | contribs | block) (→External links - An Post - PrecisionAddress)
    * (cur) (last) 22:24, October 18, 2006 Jnestorius (Talk | contribs | block) (Category:Republic of Ireland postal system)
    * (cur) (last) 22:20, October 18, 2006 Jnestorius (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved Postal addresses in Ireland to Republic of Ireland postal addresses: Ireland ambig; article relates to Republic of Ireland)
    * (cur) (last) 23:30, October 17, 2006 Ww2censor (Talk | contribs | block) (slight cleanup - needs more work)
    * (cur) (last) 21:51, October 17, 2006 Jnestorius (Talk | contribs | block) (add National Statistics Board + fmt refs)
    * (cur) (last) 17:38, September 23, 2006 Garda40 (Talk | contribs | block) (new postcode system information)
    * (cur) (last) 14:24, September 13, 2006 JRawle (Talk | contribs | block) m (county codes contain letters, not digits (made it sound like they were numeric); rm square bracket)
    * (cur) (last) 01:58, September 5, 2006 Quiensabe (Talk | contribs | block) (Irish Examiner link)
    * (cur) (last) 01:41, September 5, 2006 Quiensabe (Talk | contribs | block) (added reference)
    * (cur) (last) 15:56, July 24, 2006 194.125.97.225 (Talk | block)
    * (cur) (last) 12:23, July 4, 2006 81.144.251.46 (Talk | block)
    * (cur) (last) 20:56, June 15, 2006 Ardfern (Talk | contribs | block) (cat adjusted)
    * (cur) (last) 23:36, June 13, 2006 Luisdile02 (Talk | contribs | block)
    * (cur) (last) 00:47, May 10, 2006 81.79.252.211 (Talk | block)
    * (cur) (last) 00:46, May 10, 2006 81.79.252.211 (Talk | block)
    * (cur) (last) 18:09, January 28, 2006 83.71.18.181 (Talk | block)
    * (cur) (last) 21:15, January 12, 2006 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs | block) (cat order)
    * (cur) (last) 12:12, November 3, 2005 86.41.204.165 (Talk | block)
    * (cur) (last) 11:16, September 7, 2005 Pne (Talk | contribs | block) m
    * (cur) (last) 02:37, July 31, 2005 Hooperbloob (Talk | contribs | block) m (+cats)
    * (cur) (last) 10:41, July 20, 2005 82.141.200.54 (Talk | block)
    * (cur) (last) 10:41, July 20, 2005 82.141.200.54 (Talk | block)
    * (cur) (last) 17:59, July 19, 2005 Quiensabe (Talk | contribs | block) (→External links - An Post is against codes plan)
    * (cur) (last) 21:26, July 18, 2005 Quiensabe (Talk | contribs | block) m (rm comma from address)
    * (cur) (last) 22:04, June 12, 2005 Quiensabe (Talk | contribs | block)
    * (cur) (last) 22:01, June 12, 2005 Quiensabe (Talk | contribs | block) (External links)

Editing

User:Garydubh, the reason I removed your paragraphs is contained in the edit summary: "Rev essay, crystal balling, unsourced, POV, etc., from COI editor." Please actually read the policies contained in the welcome note on your talk page. You cannot engage in original research, insert your own point of view, speculation and unreferenced material - especially so when there is a clear conflict of interest. I've removed some of your latest addition for the same reasons and reworded the remainder. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting criticism and commentary about the system that Gary Delaneys company is developing can be read on this blog with another blog and more info here [1]discussing Ireland's postcode needs in wider terms. Remember that we do not use blogs as verifiable reference sources for Wikipedia. ww2censor (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl - the content that you have just deleted was not mine it was Bastun's I just corrected the grammer. However, you have deleted on the following grounds: "removing unsourced commentary which confuses post codes with addresses. There may be multiple addresses per post code, as in the UK" yet the last sentence of the article as it now stands says: "which include a 6 character format postcode, giving a sample of "DO4 123" where "DO4" corresponds to the current Dublin 4 postal region and "123" is a specific building"

Your editorial effort is now reactionary and and done without consideration, therby contradicting yourself. On the matter of Geodiredctory - as stated to Censor I find it amusing that persons holding editorial ransom on this article are now only finding out about the address database that is the Geodirectory. You want me to look at it - I have been looking at it for quite a long number of years - it is a commercial product costing in the region of Euro 45,000 per license and is not a Post Code. The property coding it uses is not suitable as a post code and Noel Dempsey TD stated this on the Dail record in 2005 - but then anyone who understands postcodes would know that already. Why do you now feel it necessary to advertise another commercial product here whilst also mentioning two other commercial organisations An Post and the Ordnance Survey of Ireland both of which operate in the commercial market and have a growing number of competitors and neither are proposing a Post Code System. You are now confusing both the article and the discussion and again are back to been hung up on the opinion that the only ones that can provide a Post Code are An Post!

On the matter of advertsing my business - That I am not doing - I am using these discussion pages to highlight errors in your current article, to emphasise the need for mention of other proposals and for the last few days I have been asking for an independent rewrite of the article - how is this advertsing my company?? - is the current article's mention of An Post and the Irish Independent and now your own refernece to Geodirectory advertsing for these companies???

Look all I want is for this article to be re written by someone knowledgeable of the subject - given all the inconsistencies I have highlighted both with content and edirorial control this is now the only proper outcome!!!

Enjoy your Easter - thanks Garydubh (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Brown Haired Girl - below for your benefit on the matter of Geodirectory which you raised - From the Dail Record - statement of Noel Dempsey 29th June 2005 - "Whilst the GeoDirectory has already been developed and adopted by some organisations and goes some way towards solving the problem of identifying individual addresses in townlands, it has certain characteristics that impact upon its suitability for use as a public postcode system and it is not consistent with the generally accepted definition of a postcode as a “unique, universal identifier that unambiguously identifies the addressee’s locality and assists in the transmission and sorting of mail items"

"An Post has also advised that the GeoDirectory product is not a publicly available postcode system. It is a commercial, proprietary, address database that is linked to geographical co-ordinates to provide a unique identifier for buildings and has been developed by An Post and Ordnance Survey Ireland. The cost of the GeoDirectory product supplied by An Post is expensive for most businesses and comprises a once-off fee of €57,000 plus an annual licensing fee of 14% of the initial cost. These high costs reflect that keeping the GeoDirectory database updated is a continual and labour intensive exercise and that geo codes are not automatically assigned and require manual intervention.

While a postcode can be used with automated mail process systems, it must also be capable of being used with manual systems. The GeoDirectory product is a building identifier and the purpose of a postcode system is to make it easier to process and deliver mail. The GeoDirectory’s design means that it is only when combined with An Post sorting technology that it can be employed as a technical postcode. However, because approximately 40% of Irish addresses are not “unique”, the An Post sorting technology, when deployed, cannot always match the address written on the envelope with the list of delivery points. If a postcode system were in place a much greater proportion of letters could be automatically sorted, and when human intervention is necessary the time needed would be shorter.

Other potential drawbacks to the use of the GeoDirectory as a postcode system, as identified by ComReg, include that there may also be data protection and privacy issues as the database requires an occupier’s name to be recorded on the database in rural areas. It is also a sequential technical code that is not intuitive or easy to recall and this could impact upon the public adoption rates of any new postcode system based on the GeoDirectory. " - Garydubh (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is inconsistent and the content is controlled by editors who are not knowledgeable on the subject. I have asked that it be rewritten by an independent party who has researched the subject fully. Garydubh (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Some dicussion on two seperate independent PostCode proposals can be seen here - a link to download a PDF File [2] Garydubh (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A report of a discussion of a thread on a blog, which apparently can be found at an email addres... If this is for general information, fair enough, if its to provide a reference, please see WP:EL and WP:VER. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

'''Oh my God'''....what's going on ??? I have been a reader of Wikepedia for a while and I have not contributed until this dispute started to emerge. I have an interest in this subject as a Truck driver and now feel I have to act as a moderator. Here are my comments:

'''Garydubh''' - you have a COI so nothing you say will be accepted here inspite of the fact that you have a lot to offer as commented on by BrownhairedGirl and I would urge readers to have a look at your ideas carefully.

Users: '''BrownHairedGirl, Bastun, ww2censor''' - you all have removed garydubh's input on the basis of COI but you have chosen to operate here anonymously so it is not clear if you too may have a conflict of interest so it is not appropriate that you should be removing content on that basis

'''Garda40''' - your user name suggests that you are a memeber of GS so as a Government employee - you do have a conflist of interest and could reasonably be accused of supporting the government position as outlined in the article.

'''ww2censor''' - it is inappropriate that you who are operating in a position of authority on here with editirial control that you should be using a user name with reference to "censor" in it. It gives the wrong impression however well intentioned you may be.

'''All editors''' listed above and others have removed garuduh's input on the basis that is not approved by An Post - this is not a requirement as highlighted by garydubh and also confirmed in the test of the article itself. Any further editorial removals by editors on this basis would deserve a misconduct report. There also is no justification for the "lets join in" type editing - there can only be one editor - you should avoid the pack defence instinct!

I understand that Wikepedia is not a place for original research or ideas and in this regard it is a poor reference source. However, as it is a rule, then editors - i.e. those listed above please removed reference to the D04 123 systemn in the article as it is new research and un referenced. Consistency please.

'''BrownhairedGirl''' - your recent conduct is emotive ... You removed a one line comment by Bastun and your reasons given were shown by garydubh to be unjustifiable. When he did to this you then decided that you would cry Harrassment and started removing legitimate comment from your page. Your position in an admin role requires fair consideration of comment and input and you have not done this - you have the power to block as an editor and you are operating anonymously. You have quoted rules ad infinitum but nowehere have to made an effort to encourage a new member and suggest how input could be used. garydubh's mistake is that he should have come on here also anonymously and this dispute would not have started. In this case honesty did not pay.

'''All would be editors''' of this article - you should remove reference to the do4 123 system as it is not satisfactorily referenced and it is new research.

Finally I would be very interested in seeing this article scrubbed and rewritten by someone independent and who has not chosen to operate on here anonymously and definitely no COI.Baggywrinkle (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

'''Garda40''' - your user name suggests that you are a memeber of GS so as a Government employee - you do have a conflist of interest and could reasonably be accused of supporting the government position as outlined in the article.

Except of course my user name has nothing to do with my job.

removed garuduh's input on the basis that is not approved by An Post

No ,I removed it as advertising but possibly gave wrong impression by copying previous editor's edit summary.

Incidentally all but one of my edits to Garydubh and his IP address was to remove comments he was placing in the article and not on the talk page and I so indicated in my edit summary .Garda40 (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And even if Garda40 was a member of the Gardaí - or any of the other public and civil service bodies bar An Post, that wouldn't preclude him from contributing in any way.

'''All would be editors''' of this article - you should remove reference to the do4 123 system as it is not satisfactorily referenced and it is new research.

Eh? Sorry, it is referenced. I've no idea what you mean here by "new research". Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

'''Garda40''' and '''ww2censor''' may I refer you both to WP rules on "Misleading User Names" at this link [3] - particularly the bit about giving "an impression of undue authority"!.Baggywrinkle (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are talking about .I never said I was a Garda and in fact here said I wasn't .The fact that you appear to have not even checked my contributions and seen I don't appear to be giving "an impression of undue authority and then apparently jumped to conclusions about my name are your problem . Garda40 (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see New Way of Post Coding Ireland launched at www.irishpostcodes.ie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.143.79 (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A New way of Post Coding Ireland using PON Codes was introduced on 16th June 2008--Garydubh (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A New Way Of Post Coding Ireland

PON Codes to be used as a geographic method for Post Coding Ireland were made available from [www.irishpostcodes.ie] from 16th June 2008. Garydubh (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is article is unbalanaced. It continues to refer to a proposal as fact that clearly has not happened by the date stated. Furthermore, references to a system which is now in place have been continuously removed in an agressive manner by those who have no knowledge of what is actually happening in Ireland.

I asked for this article to be rewritten by someone who has no conflict of interest and with some basic knowledge several months ago but this has not happened. Yet, fly by night editors continue to agressively remove statements of fact and persistantly preside, from virtual ivory towers, over inaccuracies and comment which is clearly out of date and beyond its best before date.

Today (20th June 2008) a sentence introduced by me several months ago and allowed to stay, even in the face of hidden text terrorists, was snapped from view for no reason other than the fact that I tried to contribute again!

A clear case of gang editing for the sake of procedural dictatorship - not fact! GaryDubh--86.41.143.79 (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, you're not in a position to demand anything on Wikipedia... no-one is. You seem to have mis-judged what the place is about. Just because WP:Linkspam hasn't been removed, doesn't mean that it should be allowed to stay - Wikipedia:SPAM#Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another. If you think the article needs expert attention, then the correct procedure is to add Template:Expert-verify to the top of the article, or ask for help at the help desk. Wikipedia has polices and guidelines for a reason. If you cannot accept that, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you.

I haven't been involved in any of the previous edits or discussions, but it's clear to me from a quick scan of the history log that there is an obvious WP:COI; that you have been using this article to promote a solution that you are financially and/or emotionally linked to and you have been trying to suppress or denigrate any competing solution. My edits today were to remove the blatant linkspam and to remove one sentence "This proposal would seem to suggest that there could only be 999 properties in each area post coded if each building is to have a specific Post Code as suggested". Quite simply, the citation given did not support that assertion (and I made that clear in my edit summary). Just because the example given in a newspaper article happened to use three numeric characters (max 1,000 combinations) does not mean that the final system will not use three alphanumeric characters (with, at a rough estimate, at least 27,000 usable combinations). Following your accusations above, I looked up UK postcodes for a comparison; the Royal Mail system of nxx for the final three characters gives around 4,000 usable combinations - sufficient for an average of only 15 properties per individual postcode. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable for a neutral reader to conclude that your sentence is merely a blatant attempt to make a rival solution seem inferior to your own.

You say that facts are being removed, but facts must be WP:VERIFIABLE ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."). In this instance your 'fact' was, a) not backed-up by the citation given and b) simply not true. It was merely your opinion and an opinion that is clearly biased against that solution.

Using phrases such as 'text terrorists' to describe other editors and making emotive statements about them 'presiding from virtual ivory towers' is not going to help you to have any credibility as a WP:GOODFAITH editor. Keep WP:COOL, keep it WP:CIVIL and assume good faith yourself. If you have constructive comments that will help to improve this article which are WP:NPOV and are free of personal commentary, then discuss them here - but I strongly suggest that you refrain from editing the article yourself due to the WP:COI issue. DrFrench (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Look - now that you are finsihed chastising me and restricting my input - what are you (because you are the latest in the list to stand guard) going to do to improve this article. If you are going to wield power - do it properly (You will know the story about power and responsibility) get this aricle scrapped and rewritten - it is a poor reflection on those who stand guard over it. STAMP Out mediocrity and Get it SORTED and I will POST no more Bills!!!--86.41.143.79 (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I must also add that if the you know a refernce in the article to be wrong - then why do you not correct it. Also how could a statement I make re a reported code cause a reader to believe it is inferior to the code I propose when there is no mention in the article of my code. The article refers to something which might have but didin't happen and makes no mention of something which has happened and was not permitted for inclusion. This article has stood uncorrected or noticed since March when I last tried to highlight errors in it. No-one has made any attempt to keep it to date - i.e there is no interest in it until I log in....

Take it down - consign it to the bin and now that you are defending it - go and write a full comprehensive and independent ariticle that is factually correct and up-to-date and then I will be happy GaryDubh--86.41.143.79 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)