Jump to content

User talk:Eamonnca1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chrisl1924 (talk | contribs) at 12:27, 11 April 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Eamonnca1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. And remember, no question is "stupid"; if you have anything, absolutely anything that you'd like to know, feel free to drop on by and leave my a message! :D Happy Editing!

Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

GeorgeMoney ☺ (talk) ☺ (Help Desk) ☺ (Reference Desk) ☺ (Help Channel) 18:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I received a sickening message from someone involved with this site and it was nothing more than rotten filth. This is the message I received from someone called Epbr123 connected with this site.

False accusation removed. lifebaka++ 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilwilkie (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Club infobox

Me and User:RDeane where/are having a discussion about infoboxs for gaa clubs overseas , you might be interested in adding to it here(Gnevin 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)) Eamonca1 is a knob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.123.75 (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

If i maybe so bold too suggest the following minor changes for your user page

Based in San Francisco. Mostly into Gaelic Athletic Association overseas, particularly North American GAA and San Francisco GAA. Wouldn't mind educating more people about the great work we're doing to grow gaelic games out here. I keep an eye out for POV, there's a lot of it out there where the GAA is concerned.

As i said only a suggestion (Gnevin 23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Done. Thanks. --Eamonnca1 18:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the GAA

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Structure of the GAA, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Structure of the GAA. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. FirefoxMan 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If i could direct your attention to

Talk:Philadelphia Division Board(Gnevin 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Irish Republicanism

Eamonn, I notice you are more interested in Irish cultural nationalism and sport but I was also hoping a good editor like yourselves would help out over at {{WP:IR}}

regards--Vintagekits 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easter

Hi, Thanks for your comment on the Easter talk page. I'm inclined to agree with you that the article gives undue weight to the Christian festival, which is why I have proposed page moves to rectify this. See Talk:Easter#Proposed_major_change_-_remove_Christian_POV for a link to the discussion page. Many thanks, --Rebroad 10:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CYC video

[1] I assume this eamonnca1 is you ? If you where to state on youtube that you tube eamonnca1 is you , we could add this link too the CYC page (Gnevin 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That's me, but I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. --Eamonnca1 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it's a little late here , i assume you made these video or know the copyright holder, for the to allowed to be used on wiki you need to state somewhere on your youtube site that you release these videos for use on wiki (Gnevin 21:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Done --Eamonnca1 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston GAA

Hi I renamed the Boston GAA article from Northest Board to Northeastern USA GAA. It's is a bit more transparent from outside the GAA community. Gnevin said that i should tell you that. --Gael-wh 13:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC) (moved from user page Gnevin 13:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Washington Area

Hi i recall some time back that Washington was going to split from the Philly GAA board . Did this ever happen is so what's the name of the division so i can add to {{Gaelic games in North America}}Gnevin (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should i add them to the template as a Metropolitan or Regional division ? Gnevin (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok box updated,would you know enough about these boards to start a stub on them maybe Regional division of Northern American GAA Gnevin (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAA

Hi you are receiving this message because your as listed as a member of WP:GAA as the project has died a little you may not list being watching the talk page how ever i would be greatful if you could have a look at this discusion Gnevin (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically was just asking you have a look at this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gaelic_Games#Notability and reply if you if wish Gnevin (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Achievements of the GAA

I have nominated Achievements of the GAA, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achievements of the GAA. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland

Would you mind self-reverting your edit to this article. The previous (i.e. recently changed) wording was not "fine":

  1. It omits to state that people in NI are British citizens.
  2. It refers instead to the legally meaningless "identification" as "Irish citizens, British citizens or both", rather than actually stating the legal position.
  3. It refers to passports which is of little relevance.
  4. It has no consensus, whereas the other text was well-established and the result of collaboration and consensus.

Thanks Mooretwin (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAA

If you are only disputing the issue about the parish unit, would you mind please restoring the rest of the text? There are a total of seven changes that the three of you have made, and it would simplify the dispute resolution process if we were able to concentrate only on the parish unit question (which is the only one of the changes that has thus far been discussed).

Thank you. Mooretwin (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is disappointing that you have elected not to restore the rest of the text. I am now assuming that you support all the other unsourced changes, even though you have only brought one of them to dispute resolution. I shall, therefore, have to extend the remit of the dispute. Mooretwin (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You 'assume' a little too much. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you communicated with me, I wouldn't need to assume? Mooretwin (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you take it up with the people who made those edits, you wouldn't need to communicate with me about them? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is your view about the edits made by those people? Mooretwin (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have, by the way, proposed a compromise. Mooretwin (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Field Hockey In Ireland

Hi,

I changed the phrase back there, but i'm happy to revert myself if you have a link showing that people in Ireland use the term "hockey" to refer to field hockey, as there's also a part about ice hockey in that article and it can seem somewhat confusing without external referencing. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NACB

Is the NACB named as such because Canadian teams where under its control before the formation of the CCB ? Gnevin (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that available on the net anywhere so we can add to the article to explain the strange name of the NACB Gnevin (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a note here about the founding of the CCB, but it doesn't specifically mention the NACB: http://canada.gaa.ie/countyboardandhistory.html --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a ref it doesn't spell out that it's the NACB because it also had clubs in Canada but gives some context Gnevin (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lurgan GA

Hi Eamonnca1. I've never did a GA review and I'm not sure that I'm up to the task but I did have a look at the Lurgan article and thought the I would let you know my thoughts and you can decide what if anything to do with them :)

1. Not sure I like the positioning of the reference in the Townlands section. They seems to be left out on their own.

2. Have you considered putting Clubs, Living and Deceased into easier to read bullet points?

3. Not sure what the Broadstone Castle and Barony, Ayrshire in the Also see is about.

4. Very small one but there is an inconsistency with your references ([12]) in that some have no space after the full stop or comma and some have.

5. You have two ambiguous links @ Stormont and Dissident Republican.

6. Craigavon Golf Ski Centre is a dead link

7. The link "A man who stood up for truth" (info) [guardian.co.uk] does a redirect from www.observer.guardian.co.uk to www.guardian.co.uk

8. Same with the link "Lurgan station" (info) [railscot.co.uk]

9. Forgot to say that none of the images in the article have an alt text.

Hope this helps and good luck. Bjmullan (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I've gone through and fixed a few of these. For 1 I'm not entirely sure what to do about those refs, I'm gonna leave them there for now. 2 - WP:UKCITIES actually prefers prose over bullet lists. 3 - Removed. 4 - Any idea whether wiki prefers to space or to leave it out? 5 - Stormont link fixed, dissident repub link is fine. 6 - Fixed. 7 - That link works fine for me. 8 - Link works fine for me. 9 - Thanks, I'll look into that. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regards 7 & 8 the links ok but the initial webpage is redirected. So the best things to do is go to the links and then paste these into the ref's. Just checked a FA and no space before the ref. Bjmullan (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where should you go?

Leading question, no? Since Mooretwin doesn't seem to have crossed your path since you left him a message, I think the answer would be that you don't need to go anywhere or do anything. If you have a similar problem in the future, you can leave me a message. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at Talk:Lurgan and, to be honest, I don't think you have a case. Yes, the timing suggests that he came upon the Lurgan article via your contributions page, but the edit itself looks like a good faith edit and the discussion on the talk page is fairly typical of the editor and his worldview. It doesn't seem to me either that the edit would adversely affect your GA nomination, whether or not you personally agree with the edit. In short, one instance, and especially where the editor follows BRD, can't really be called hounding. The trouble with "taking it further" is that, if you can't show obvious disruption, it may be you that ends up being branded as disruptive. I would take Angus's advice, and let it go. Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS "Association football" is considered a reasonable compromise on Wikipedia. See Association football in the Republic of Ireland and the move discussion on its talk page. Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Eamonnca1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment.
Message added 15:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No one seem to be looking at the assessment page, including me. Sorry for delay. ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary

Hello, sorry if I goof this up by trying to create a new section, but can you link John Cushnie's obituary to the Lurgan page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiesgone (talk • contribs) 12:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Hey, I just noticed that you left a message on my talk page asking me to look at something way back in March which I never replied to. Bit late now I suppose but I thought I'd drop you a line to say sorry for the complete lack of response. :) Tameamseo (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I understood that you're an (American) Irishman (I wish I can visit the beautiful Ireland some time soon!), so you can understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country, music and language! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linfield

Hi Eamonn, I would appreciate if you are going to reference material on the Linfield FC site, than you follow the 'NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW' policy of Wikipedia. Your existing articles do not reflect Wikipedias NPOV policy, such proof is your willingness to post linked statements, however refuse to print the rest of the article that contains the 'but' or the 'however' part that clarifies the current state of events. Your edits reflect Linfield from a completely Republican/Nationalist Irish point of view, and paints Linfield as a sectarian football club. You however fail to mention we are one of the few with true cross-community initiatives at Youth level, and the first team itself is a completely mixed set up. For example, maybe some history on the GAA section needs added to reflect its policy too? Take for example the Fermanagh County who up to a point had 1 protestant playing in the entire county, who was forced out and later begged to return. However I do not expect you to post this as it seems impossible for you to reflect facts from a neutral POV.

To end this matter, if you cannot keep your editing to a NPOV, then it will continue to be removed or undone. Maybe as such a thorough researcher you can find some facts on Linfield FC regarding the beautiful game of soccer. 21:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourkidpauluk (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the feedback. I think you'll find that the GAA page already has a comprehensive criticism section. Please continue this discussion on the talk pages concerned. Please create new section titles when starting a fresh discussion on talk pages. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the knob comment

Linfield FC has upwards of 10,000 fans in NI alone, I cannot be responsible for anyone else who may find your edits offensive.

Possibly you can make some GAA edits to reflect its 'Mono-cultural' history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourkidpauluk (talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. The GAA page already has a comprehensive criticism section. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Patrick's Day

Can you demonstrate what makes "St Patty's Day" an "error"? Fact is that it is a common enough name for the day in the US, and so is a perfectly acceptable alternative "nickname". It is not up to you to decide that, actually, all these people are in fact wrong. Please revert your change and I will provide cites to back up its use. Personally, I don't much like the term either, but neither you nor I are entitled to decide it's incorrect and shouldn't be there.

I also reverted your addition of "mostly" as I do not believe you can support this claim. Do you have cites that demonstrate that the majority of those who celebrate St Patrick's Day are Irish? Do they out-number the non-Irish? If you can not support this, then it is best to leave it undefined. Irish People are listed first, as clearly they originated the practice, but claims about who does it most are best avoided unless they can be cited. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who changed it to "mostly Irish people and people of Irish descent". I think it's silly to say "Irish people, people of Irish descent, non-Irish celebrants". It's just a long-winded way of saying "everyone"! It's obvious that St Patrick's Day is most popular in Ireland and wherever there are big populations of Irish descendants. The obvious conclusion is thus that it's celebrated "mostly by Irish people and people of Irish descent". ~Asarlaí 11:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. Asarlaí did indeed add this, then Eamonnca1 reverted my removal of it. I shall continue this discussion on the talk page, where it's most suited. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAA

Actually Mooretwin's edit also replicates word for word what the source says, in violation of copyright. Please be aware that the article (well, nationalism and Troubles related parts of it) are under a one revert per 24 hours restriction, for future reference. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean the article doesn't remotely say what the text says? O Fenian seems to have the exact opposite view! Mooretwin (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned above about 1RR - you really need to self-revert. Mooretwin (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where else have I made this edit lately? Please refrain from WP:WIKILAWYERING and giving me warnings. 1RR is not a license for you to edit with impunity. If you object to the edit, then to use your own turn of phrase "take it to talk". --Eamonnca1 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would take serious cognisance of these warnings. The rules apply to everyone. You should read WP:3RR - and note the definition of a revert (my emphasis):
  • Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.
Mooretwin (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm a 1RR warning from O Fenian to Mooretwin however just a friendly warning to Eamonnca1. Interesting... Mabuska (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Gaelic Athletic Association, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Please don't remove another editors comments without permission from said editor. You have no authority to do so. You could hardly call it uncivil anyways. Mabuska (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was uncivil and I had every right to remove it. Have a bit of manners and try to be a constructive editor for a change. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At most all you should have done is ask for me to strike it or remove it myself. But its not uncivil and is meant in a light-hearted way. No inflammatory language was used at all either.
Maybe you should have manners and ask what the intentions of it was before going and being uncivil in just removing another editors comment without asking any questions - especially the whole thing! Can you seriously say that pointing Mooretwin out to the guidelines on quoting sources is unconstructive? Or was their another reason for removing it?
And do you want a case of pot calling kettle black?
Is that not worse than what i said?? Mabuska (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually. What I said about Mooretwin was absolutely correct. His editing is dishonest, and it's OK to say that. What you said about OFenian was incorrect. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its OK to say that? Wow now that is breeching WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. What you deem correct or incorrect is entirely WP:POV. You imply he is a lier and then explicitly call him dishonest whilst defending your right to label another editor as such and then go and remove another editors comment for something far worse less than what you just said. Astounding. Ah well its there for the record. Let people judge us by our own actions. Mabuska (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Let them. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks Eamonnca1 for taking out the trash! Bjmullan (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portadown Fc.

You are Linking portadown fc to paramilitaries. This is not the case. The incident in the social club had nothing to do with the football club. In fact the social club has nothing to do with the football club. Portadown FC is there for both sides of the community. The paragraph you wrote is misleading and untruthfull. Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisl1924 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not untruthful. The information is all cited and the sources meet WP:RS. You cannot insist on something being removed on the basis of WP:IDL. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the sectarianism bit written has twisted the source to imply something more that wasn't in the quote - like nowhere does the quote given state Portadown F.C. fans or half of what that first paragraph says. - Just realised that wasn't a quote but a seperate sentence - my bad.
Still the additions can be classified as WP:RECENTISM. Is that not the exact same reason you gave for not allowing an example of sectarian abuse by GAA fans towards a Protestant player in the GAA article? There are many reliable sources for it. If you believe your additions to Portadown are justifiable then that addition to the GAA article is equally justifiable. Or is that a case of i don't like as well? Mabuska (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told the incident had NOTHING to do with the club. The social club has NOTHING to do with PFC. At least get you facts right before posting them up on a public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisl1924 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being told something is different from being shown reliable 3rd party evidence. In regards to Wikipedia its the latter not the former that takes precedence. Mabuska (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Portadown fc and I can tell you that The incident did not happen in the club bar but a seperate social club that has nothing to do with the club. If you don't believe me a simple email or phone club to the club would confirm it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eamonnca1&oldid=423501952"