User talk:MelForbes/Archive 1

Wikipedia:POTD/November 17, 2024

Welcome, from Terrancommander

Welcome!

Hello, MelForbes, 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! --T e rran command e r 11:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'with sprogs, bollix and maybe a possible sock'

I'm intrigued by that sentence from Talk:British Isles. Is it a common phrase? It's not one I've heard before. What does it mean? --Robdurbar 23:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I see, sock as in sockpuppet. I did recognise 'sprogs' from one rant but hadn't noticed the bollix comment. --Robdurbar 09:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TharkunColl

Check the edit summary. John didn't want to look at a redlink any more. CQJ 23:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I created a redirect there because I find it irritating when long time users don't have user pages, and a click on their signature goes to an "edit talk page" kind of thing. I've had several encounters with Tharkun over several months (not all of which have seen us agreeing) and decided to do that so that his user page wouldn't be red anymore. There is most certainly no sockpuppetry going on. john k 01:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive terms!

Have a look at my talk page, but thanks anyway for your comment. Oh, and regarding the above you might like to personalise your user page, or change it to a redirect as above to save visitors from seeing the welcome that shouldn't be on that page..dave souza, talk 08:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

Thanks for the comment. Normally I would avoid the British Isles article like the plague. I have been watching it before and know that it can be a minefield. But when I saw the rascist attacks being launched on Irish contributors I had to come in. There are a few extremists pushing their agenda on the page, but also some good guys. Rob is fair, as is Alun, and after a rather strong disagreement with Dave I have come to respect him also. Both of us said things we shouldn't. But then both of us are under off-Wikipedia stress; he is a carer and I have been battling extremely painful sciatica for some weeks. So we both were grouchy. I think we can achieve a fair balance that explains all viewpoints. I don't want to see the article turned into a POV piece for either side. I think there is growing understanding of the complexity. To be fair to them, I don't think various British contributors had a clue that what to them seems a perfectly innocuous term, actually is so problematic in Ireland. I think they are starting to realise it.

Thanks for all your support. Irish contributors do tend to avoid these sort of pages, though one or two did turn up. It must have seemed funny to El Gringo to hear me being attacked as a Nationalist POV pusher and extremist. I've clashed with him and he sees me as a West Brit. But then for the exact same edit I've been called an "Australian republican" and an "Austalian monarchist". (Both users were caught in an edit clash while saving. They were stunned when they saw the other's comment. I just laughed my head off. I've been called a republican, a unionist, anti-American, pro-American, a Catholic POV-pusher, anti-Catholic, etc etc. (I was once accused of having been "sent to WP by Cardinal Ratzinger to push a Catholic agenda" on one page, while being accused on another the same day of being "bitterly anti-Catholic". That's the fun of WP. Today I could be editing "British Isles" and be accused of being an Irish republican. Tomorrow I could be editing an article on the Queen and be called a "monarchist POV-pusher".

Thanks again for the comments and the support. I think we are starting to reach a consensus at last that can accomodate all sides' viewpoints in a neutral way. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

British and Irish Isles stub

I suppose the only excuse I have is inattention. I was (and still am) in the midst of sorting through over 100 stubs, and I didn't look closely enough. I see now that the British and Irish Isles are composed of both Ireland and the UK, so I don't see why I put {{UK-geo-stub}}. {{EU-geo-stub}} is indeed a much better stub. Thanks for the correction and I'll try to pay more attention from now on. Have a great day and happy editing! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

-

- Robdurbar has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

-

--Robdurbar 22:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

Thanks for message. The only reversions are when there are substantial points i.e. removal of verifed facts and dodgy verification (which should be strightforward to fix), and I think these things need resolution rather than ignoring- jtdirl only discussed the first para. changes. Hopefully, if everyone concetrates on applying WP:V to the letter, we may make progress.MAG1 11:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it looks like jtdirl made an editng error, and only wanted to change the opening paragraph. MAG1 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Celtic Isles

Hi, I hope you note my edit on the talk page of the above article. I don't want to censor anyhting, merely applying my inpterpreation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) --Robdurbar 21:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect vote

Hiya Mel. Great page, great spirit and great heart regarding that British Isles nonsense. If you're bored sometime you might want to vote on this redirect as the article's current function is to say that part of Ireland is part of Britain (as opposed to the UK) El Gringo 14:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defence of Anglo-Celtic Isles article required

Hi MelForbes, we need to defend the 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' article again...some users of the term 'British Isles' are trying to get a 'redirect' set up. I'm 100% against this, naturally. Best regards, Pconlon 15:11, 12 August 2006

You might want to have a look at U2. A character (I could call him other things) is insisting that the article cannot say that U2 is Irish because 2 of its members are "Britons" (in his words). He has edited nothing on WP but that article, and made clear on his user page that he is on a crusade to get the reference changed on WP. Keep an eye out. Having been shot down on his attempts to generate a consensus behind his supposed NPOV idea, he is now trying unilaterally to force the edit onto the page, and say simply that the band was formed in Dublin! FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 04:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Thanks for your back-up and support there MelForbes. Let's keep on the ball eh?! Best regards, Pconlon 19:08, 14 August 2006

Hello again MelForbes. I must apologies that I've only become a Wikipedia user recently (joining the BI battle when it really kicked off), so I've been trying to learn its wonderful ways of operation! Thus, when you left me a message on my user discussion page before, I replied there and didn't think to reply here! Anyway, I've added a nice reference into the ACI article which is so well verfied that Ian Paisley himself couldn't find a way to remove it (I've got a feeling that one of our user colleagues actually IS Ian Paisley...with the old voice going, he's resorting to Wikipedia!!). I wanted to ask if you still have that map you temporarily put in the ACI article - it had Anglo Celtic Isles in circular writing on it. If the map were cropped to just show the ACI bit, it would be a nice bit of extra material for the article. We need to get away from these 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary attacks'. What do you think? Best regards, Pconlon 11:58, 15 August 2006

Hi, You might want to keep an eye on Northern Ireland. Mal is up to his old antics there too. Because there was a clash between Northern Unionists and Northern Nationalists on the usage of constituent country to describe Northern Ireland, a consensus was agreed whereby the term constituent entity with a footnote was used instead. As usual with Mal, he is doing his bull-in-a-china-shop routine, ignoring other discussions and ramming in his views. *sigh* FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi PConlon, it just gets a bit tiresome to see the same old faces trying to delete things from WP, when what they should be doing is editing, and making WP a "world class encyclopedia". The map is still there[1]. Probably someone will delete that soon too. MelForbes 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi MelForbes, I'm right with you on that...I do laugh at the 'I'm bigotted but not political in any way' stance of some people!! Just a question on that map (thanks for showing me where it is)...who created it? If it is a respectable source, it is good verification. Best regards, Pconlon 16:12, 16 August 2006

Oh great. *sigh* The pricking around with British Isles has started again. Two of the usual gang have started their deleting of stuff yet again, while Thar is just being Thar. Better keep an eye on the page. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 16:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi MelForbes, unbelievably, some *** has gone and put a redirect on the Anglo-Celtic Isles article, completely ignoring the continuing discussion! Do you know how to undo this? Best regards, Pconlon 15:04, 21 August 2006

'British Isles'(again) redirect vote

Requested move on the terminology page needs your vote, Mel. El Gringo 19:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly something odd about him, whether it is that he is taking something, or is just mentally like that. He really is weird. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Jonto is back again on British Isles. Yippee. *sigh* Keep an eye out. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 17:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

You requested my apology

Now I request yours. You are filling the British Isles article full of crap. Can you not see this? TharkunColl 23:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in a RM going on at talk:Prime minister (sic). Some individuals moved the page to that ridiculous name (if it stays at that form WP will be a laughing stock!) Feel free to contribute to the debate if you wish. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

British Isles

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to British Isles, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Also, make sure to use an informative edit summary for such edits. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 21:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit here... You need proof really before you can change 'some' to 'many'. THe article is insanely delicate, and the tiniest change can provoke all sorts of reactions, so we need to have proof before inserting it. Proof needs to conform to WP:RS as well, I'm afraid! HawkerTyphoon 22:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I avoid those pages like the plague because I have rather English views on the subject, and tbh I've been downright insulting most of the time. In your defence, you did hit the talk page beforehand, and it wasn't a horrific edit! Be safe, HawkerTyphoon 22:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vikings raided and pillaged?

I know there are many sources to back up this stock phrase in the British Isles article. But aren't you having a cartoon go at Irish history? The V's (Norse) did raid, pillage, rape, burn etc. But they also ruled, traded, established cities, introduced currencies, inter-married, raised families, navigated etc. They brought a distinct civilisation to Ireland, good and bad.--Shtove 23:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/El Gringo

I find your comments at the above talk page, frankly, insulting. Do you realise how long I - and other British users - have had to put up with El Gringo's insults? Being called an imperailist right wing blinkered whatever is not something I enjoy and not something that I am prepared to put up with on Wikipedia.

I have enjoyed editing at British Isles and would like to think that we have helped progress the article, even if work still needs doing. However, users such as El Gringo only inflame people on both sides of the debate. I do not see how you can defend him.

I know that we disagreed over the issue of having articles on other terminology, but I had rather thought that you were one of those editors who could see that most British people at Wikipedia are not User:TharkunColl and are aiming to make a better encyclopedia. This is not a battle ground. --Robdurbar 23:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thank you for your explanation, and I may have been slighlty tipsy when I wrote the above. I know what you mean about El G - he seems to swing between troll-like behaviour and decent editing - but the removal of warnings were what did it for me; this was a change between incivilty driven by a strongly-held personal belief to baltant disregard of Wikipedia policy and etiquette. --Robdurbar 23:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

Hi Mel. I must take issue with you on the Ireland article. It is a geographical fact that the island of Ireland is the second largest of the British Isles. There's no getting away from it, however unpalatable it might be for some people to associate the words Ireland and Britain. We are about disseminating facts here, and this is certainly not a NPOV vs POV issue. it is simply an accurate statement - so let's leave it in. Thanks, Arcturus 22:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the usage - I didn't realise the BBC and UK gov't refrained from using it, but I can believe it, especially of the PC BBC. I might have known there'd be a controversy in Wikipedia about this. I've just been reading British Isles and its Talk page! Arcturus 22:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Good Faith/EG

Yeah, I do appreciate your point, and I'll admit to being guilty of losing the assumption of good faith on this issue. On the other hand, this has been going on for months with no real change and I reached a point where I though 'frankly, this has got to stop'.

If El Gringo were to apologise for causing offence and just agree to tone it down a little, I'd be happy. There's just no need to make virtually every single post include some sort of reference to Imprealistic Brits or right wing nationalists; it is bordering on racism (I'm not sure if that's the right word to use, but I can't think of anything else) and suggests a certain intolerance. And moves such as deleting warnings from his user talk page - that is just trollish behaviour. Like I said, if he apologised and agreed to tone it down, then he could remove them; that's the 'Wikipedia way'. --Robdurbar 10:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jig

Muddy weasels, yes, but what you've substituted is a non-sequitur, and I don't know what it means! --ColinFine 01:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I don't understand what

While it is often stated that the jig is of Celtic origin, there are other dance types in the Germanic countries.

is saying. What have these 'other dance types' to do with it? I know nothing about the dance's origins, so the best I could do (given that the article is unreferenced anyway) would be to delete the sentence entirely. Can you do better? --ColinFine 11:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that what you're trying to say is that there are similar types of dance in Germanic countries, with an implication that they may be older than the Celtic ones; but I'm not in a position to make that change since I don't know if that's true or not. --ColinFine 12:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween

I don't understand why you removed the phrase "English and American children" from the quotation of Vatican exorcist Father Amorth. It is a true quotation. Here is the full paragraph:

None the less, Father Amorth recommends it [the movie The Exorcist]. "People need to know what we do." And what about Hallowe'en? The American tradition has made no inroads in Italy. "Here it is on Christmas Eve that the Satanists have their orgies. Nothing happens on October 31. But if English and American children like to dress up as witches and devils on one night of the year that is not a problem. If it is just a game, there is no harm in that."

— Walloon 20:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

~~If you're reffering to this edit, to be frank I don't see how either version is biased in any way. --Robdurbar 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Oh, just seen that [1] edit. Both versions include some good stuff, both exclude some good stuff. Both give pretty much the same picture. --Robdurbar 19:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live is irrelevant to my participation in Wikipedia, but I have mentioned it several times before. I presume when you ask why you shouldn't revert me you're talking about my edit to Ireland? The answer is patently simple - because Ireland is one of the two major islands in the British Isles, as demonstrated in that article and the older version on your own userpage. Bastun 11:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, they're not. Bastun 11:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tiresome, and I certainly don't have to "prove" myself to you or any other editor - but for the sake of a quiet life, I presume you mean the Yacht in Clontarf? Well known, maybe, but hardly famous. Er, what would have happened if I'd "failed" your test, by virtue, say, of hailing from the west of the Northside and not drinking in 'snobby' Clontarf or ever getting the 130 bus? Bastun 12:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it did take you 10 minutes Oh, sorry, I must have missed the bit where you mentioned a timelimit. That'd be explained by me having a job and not sitting refreshing my watch list continuously. so I reserve my judgement Well it's a good job then we don't need each others' approval :P Bastun 12:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we're only linking to the article. People can click on the links and the info is expanded. So Weasel words only applies if its unsourced - and its not, we've got a whole crock of sources at the BI(C) article.

BTW, as I've said repeatedly, I don't think the split should have happened? I wonder though, if we're not gonna mention it in the intro, or in the article, whether this little dispute might be settled by moving the terminolgoy paragraph up the page? --Robdurbar 18:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I appreciate the difficulties. To be honest, so long as we get a prominant and well written summary of the controversy article, I don't see any problem with the page though, as a whole. Perhaps you'd like to be more specific as to what you think is 'wrong'? (as you probably know by now, I'm one of those people who encourages others to propose better or new versions if their unhappy about something; I despise the endless un-grounded debates that often go on at Talk:British Isles!)--Robdurbar 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the term

Have another read of the section, I've updated again. I'm trying to make a review of use of the terminology through the ages. The ancients did use something like the modern term, even if they didn't necessarily use it to cover the same area. As far as I can see there is very little use for more than a thousand years, then a reintroduction or rediscovery or reinvention of the term in the late 1500's (probably a little of all of the above). It may well be a new term and an old term. Let's try to get as many facts as possible, then we can each develop our own POV. Hughsheehy 10:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on January 1 2007 to British Isles

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 10:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block is illegal, there was no 3rr warning issued, which is mandatory. So Connnolley, please remove the block! MelForbes 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings are desirable but not necessary. Your I haven't reverted 3 times was implausible. Please read the rules before flinging absurd accusations of illegality William M. Connolley 18:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, desirable, is enough for me. Some manners would be nice. MelForbes 18:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like not flinging allegations of illegality, perhaps? William M. Connolley 19:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is not 1940s Soviet union here. If I believe the block illegal, am I not allowed to say that? MelForbes 19:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You *can* say it but its (a) wrong and (b) impolite William M. Connolley 19:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should study some jurisprudence, I'll say no more. MelForbes 19:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]