User talk:Red King/Archive 5

Northern Ireland

I have reverted the flag / arms descriptions to the previous stable version (from a sample of previous versions), hopefully this is suitable. Thanks/wangi 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You know wat mate, if Liam Neeson is from Ballymena he's not from Ireland, he's from Britain. If youre on this site so much u shud know that. (Pixel2metal 16:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

Damn rite im not your mate, youre the one commenting me about having my facts wrong and youre sitting there calling great britain a country?? look it up, if your whole discussion page has stuff to do with ireland and northern ireland u shud know that ballymenas in northern ireland which is britain. its got nothing to do with wat he wants to be, like i cant just randomly decide i wana be french. get your own facts rite, theyre separate countries (Pixel2metal 23:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Template talk:IRAs

Hi User:Red King, I noticed that you were involved in the last discussion at Template talk:IRAs, and I'd like to discuss a few changes I'd like to make. When I started last, someone reverted me, so I'd really like some other folks' input. I'd appreciate your thoughts at Template talk:IRAs. Erin Go Bragh

Description/Descriptions

Why does a minor correction need discussion? (Sarah777 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Red you said: The change you made is not a minor one. It implies that the description "Republic of Ireland" is incidental - that it is just one of many, with the same status as (say) "Emerald Isle". Not so. I reckon the RoI is one of just TWO arguably 'official' descriptions (RoI and Ireland). But two is plural. (Sarah777 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the tip-off Red - but I already have it covered!! Only 30 more days to go now.....(Sarah777 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

Coat of Arms of Ireland

I would like to know why User:Djegan insists in put back the old PNG file of the COA, since the SVG one is exactly the same, appart from the brownish color (which, in my opinion, is not the correct one). I think that it is almost vandalism, since he reverts the editions without reasonable arguments. If there is any problem in the SVG file, it can be corrected, instead of put back the PNG file. --Tonyjeff 14:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, Red King. Actually, for the strings, it's supposed to be silver, according to this article; in the link you gave ([1]) seems to be so, indeed. In fact, each of the sites you found seems to use different versions of the harp, don't they? I used CMYK colors in order to be less "high" compared to RGB colors, and really think Brian Boru should be yellowish instead of the brownish one of the PNG version. Anyway, I'm going to try to find the pantones -- If you could help me, I'd appreciate. = ) Thanks for your tips, pal! --Tonyjeff 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks Please

I should like to remind you of WP:NPA, which you violated on your RV summary of Ireland edit regarding my earlier edit. Manopingo 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• o_O - since when has using the word pedantic become a "personal attack"?? - Alison^☺ 12:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment--any personal attacks against me, from this on, whatever the nature, will be met with a robust response, and that especially applies to User_talk:Ali-oops too. You have been warned! Manopingo 13:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• You going to bring it to WP:AN/I like you did with Kathryn?? You're totally overreacting here - Alison^☺ 13:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact of changing 83% to 82.75% is pedantic. That is a factual statement, not a personal attack - I even had doubts about my own change from five sixths to 83% in interests of readability. I did not say that the editor who did it is a pedant, which would be. I don't take kindly to threats. Take your tanks off my lawn. --Red King 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ireland Flags

I only voted "disagree" because I was simply answering the question as it was presented. Simply removing the flags would not place the article in the position that I think it should be. Re-state the question, then I will change my vote ( to an unqualified one). I will even help in the reformatting of the article.Gary Joseph 22:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pan-European identity

212.83.71.69 placed an undated comment at the talk page, to make it look as if you and two others support his proposal to restore the title 'Europatriotism'. For the record I still have no objection to a European identity article, but it should be founded on reliable sources, on that controversial issue.Paul111 11:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

British Isles

In what sense do you consider the edit you just reverted to not be neutral, to pick up from your comment, please? MarkThomas 22:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. On the BI dispute page, the semantic section you've added seems to be suggesting that the objections to the term are political. I'm not sure that this is the case and have asked on the BI talk page for anyone to show a ref saying so. From my experience the objection is much more on of "identity".....simply that "Ireland isn't British" or perhaps more explicitly "Irish isn't a subset of British". Not sure it's a political question as such. What do you think? Hughsheehy 09:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

HFM:Parity of sources

In response to your comment [2]: LOL! Exactly! --Ronz 22:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

James Stronge

Thank you for your edit. You're rihgt, the opening paragraph makes it sound as if he fell down the back stairs! --Counter-revolutionary 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting invloved with the likes of this editor are we Red King - your going down a dangerous path if you are. What happened the Stronge's is clearly set out - however if you want to slap politically motivated label on it then I am not going to stand ideally by and allow.--Vintagekits 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Who on Earth do you think you are, Vintagekits. Do not use that tone with someone. --Counter-revolutionary 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Dad! get a grip of yourself. It's Red Kings talkpage, he's a big boy if he has a problem with my tone when describing a rampant bigot who got his just deserts then he is more than welcome to take it up with me.--Vintagekits 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that you could both do with some Truth and Reconciliation. --Red King 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Navigation Acts

I have made Amending Acts and Molasses Act subheadings, rather than main ones for good reasons, which I have set out in the relevant talk page. However I hope we are not going to engage in an edit war. I think the adjustment to the heading level that you made may have been due to some one not having correctly reverted some previous vandalism. In using that word, I am not intending to refer to you. Peterkingiron 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with your comment on my talk page. I suggest we leave it as it is, until the next vandal gets to work. Peterkingiron 22:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish regiments

Reply re Connaught Rangers on my talk page. Greetings Osioni 21:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement

From what I understand, it was the Irish Land Commission that bought up the rents of landlords and then collect annuities from tenants in its place. The Congested Districts Board was a source for funding and organizing of community development projects (build bridges, causeways, improve roads, improve living conditions, etc.). Yes, it certainly is true that Dev collected the annuities all the way through the Anglo-Irish Trade War and didn't pass them on to the British, and I also cannot recall if annuities were abolished after the agreement or if they continued to be collected, albeit now remaining in the name of the Irish state. I could be wrong, but I think a part of the Agreement was that Ireland was released of its burden of the imperial debt as well. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rockall

I know people don't say thankyou enough on Wikipedia, but thanks for adding the citations you did to the Rockall page. This page has been the subject of some vandalism in recent days, and I've been watching it carefully. Your citations should help clear up some of the greviances that the vandalisers have had, it's very helpful. M0RHI | Talk to me 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Project European Union

Hello Red King/Archive 5, you are member of the project European Union. I try to create a new project page for the project. You can see it at here Because this should be the project page for all it´s members, please tell me, what you think about it. Please leave your comments on the talkpage of the project.--Thw1309 11:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks Red King, I am still new to all this so am unsure of the correct protocol and technicalities of wiki. I appreciate your help. Thanks very much! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cliste (talk • contribs) 20:52, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Hi Red Knight, sorry about the delay in contacting you (re: Galway and Media edit), how can I contact you with the specifics behind my edits? I ask as my reasons for doing these are genuine. My apologies for the lack of technical details. Thanks you, paulmheaney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmheaney (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 August 2007

I've removed a helpme template in this section; helpme is a broadcast for help in general, and users will see messages you leave for them even without placing a helpme template in the section. Red King should see your message next time they log on. --ais523 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Irish Civil War

I saw that you had been editing the Irish Civil War article so I was wondering if you could check out my comment about De Valera and see what you think. Thanks! -Miranda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.233.237 (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Imperial

No problem, I know what you mean by Imperial (with a capital I)'s coming naturally, I'm sure I've left a few dozen (or hundred) around the place for others to clean up. P.S. We were editing at the same time and came up with an edit conflict. I pasted my edit into the box, saved it, went back to look for the edits you'd made and redid them. I think I got them all. Nice work on cleaning up that mess of an article. Jɪmp 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

But it was a minor edit; I only removed a few words (not a whole paragraph). GoodDay 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought 'minor', meant changes in one 'sentence'. GoodDay 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrick McGilligan

Have referenced the point you queried:[3]. See Oireachtas members database and National University of Ireland (constituency).

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you lean something new everyday! (every hour, on wikipedia). Well it was no harm to cite it because it must look odd to lots of people. Thank you. --Red King 15:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Defnitely no harm: it should have been referenced, and wasn't, so you were quite right to challenge it, and in any case the NUI link was wrong (it went to the Uni, not to the constituency). I wish more editors were as proactive as you in tagging unreferenced facts! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Rule about Notable People in Drogheda

Hi Red, I noticed you put this comment "to be listed, there must already be an article about the person" in Drogheda. Is this a rule in the MOS or elsewhere? I'm not question the removal you did; I'm just interested to read about the rule and the rational behind it. Thanks, PatLeahy (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Euros

I answered on my Talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 17:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added some more references to the "In Ireland" section. Perhaps it is time to take the Dispute tag off the English section of the article? I'd better not do it myself though. -- Evertype·✆ 09:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, the Translation section has updated the manual referred to in Footnote 2. I wonder, can we get a copy of the old one? -- Evertype·✆ 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

'Tis true, I prefer the term UK over England, when concerning post-1707 topics about England. But, I try to keep that view in check, by not participating in edit wars. Choosing to discuss it instead. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Was your Partition edit encyclopedic?

On Partition of Ireland I think your removal of the last para was a bit hasty. Obviously the dropping of Articles 2 & 3 by referendum was a major event and has to be mentioned on the page. I'd say alter the para and put it back in some new form, or else the artictle makes no sense.Red Hurley (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Revision in 1998" In terms of electoral results alone, the unionist parties in Northern Ireland have received the majority of votes cast in every election since 1921. However, the sizeable nationalist minority has felt excluded and has generally supported the irredentist claims in Articles 2 and 3 of the original 1937 Constitution of Ireland. These claims were agreed to be dropped by the Belfast Agreement of 1998 and ratified by referendum, to accept that partition will last as long as a majority of voters in Northern Ireland want to retain it. In turn, the nationalist community in Northern Ireland would enjoy 'parity of esteem' and participate in the institutions that govern them.

Looks much better. I'll respell "constitional" if you don't mind. It is very difficult to sum up without sounding POV to some group or other.Red Hurley (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Grandsons

Not to worry; I knew what you were saying, it just made me giggle :). Thanks for fixing the Ireland bit. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Euro

Very nice edit. Now i understand! Also great edit summary. Cheers. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

About replying

WW2censor had specified that he would be watching my talkpage. Otherwise I would have done it on his --Danfly (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland (again)

Re: your recent message

Point taken. I am a bit new to this business. I just wanted to clean up what seemed to be a rather unorthodox (and inconsistent) take on the troubles. The impression from the articles introduction is that Northern Ireland is still fully in their grip and in the history section, whereas there is extensive details on the statistics of the deaths due to the troubles there is not a dedicated section. This requires a lot of work to make it sensible. Will try to be more transparent in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William.mu (talk • contribs) 17:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

insalata caprese

hi, i own this picture but i don't know how to put it on the insalata caprese page. http://tagisu.com/gallery/1217728448-2810-775.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.220.92 (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

you certainly need to create a logon ID (it is anonymous if you like) in http://en.wikpedia.org, because you need it anyway to upload an image and also I could explain at your talk page how to go about doing the uploading. --Red King (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

ok Placeblues (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

info added to main text at WP:IDTF

Although I understand why you want to add this information, I think the taskforce will only survive with an lead that has information that no-one can possibly argue with in terms of presented fact. You may have noticed that nobody has actually argued with the accuracy of the information presented, and that it was put straight up for deletion instead!

One problem, of course, is that if people start to argue over detailsin the main text it is harder to advance.

I feel that the text covers everything you added, but without actually going into the details. It's tempting to put in the Good Friday Agreement (etc), but when it's up for a AfD is it worth risking? I reckon we should just keep to the unarguable raw facts, which I think it currently does (perhaps almost too) well.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving International usage section in WP:IDTF to its own subpage

Hi. I've moved the International usage list into its own easily referenced page. Please revert if you wish for it to be a section again. You currently are not around to ask (nor have edited for a couple of days), so please don't see me as being too rude. It's easily reversible, if you wish to. An IP of a banned user has filled most of it in, so it might need verifying link per link.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Large deletion from "History of the European Union"

Don't worry, its just been moved. All that data is now on the sub page which was 1993-1999 btu I have enlarged it to 1993-2004. I figured that that era, basically one Commissions term, was way to short compared to the others and that many of the issues spanned both Santer and Prodi. Furthermore, together they form a period where it is 12-15 members from the start of the EU to the 2004 enlargement which changed the EU radically. 2004 seems a good split (I was intending on a Prodi-Barroso page before) as it is a major change in the EU with the post-2004 era having issues of enlargement fatigue, the Constitution-Lisbon crisis and so fourth.

Hence, the data I removed was intended to be deleted eventually as Prodi Commission was not a true history page, rather the data on the main history page was to be developed and eventually shipped out as part of a Prodi-Barroso era article. Now I changed the plan (yes, I am being a tad controlling over this arrangement, but boldness and all... open to discuss, can always change it back) I just shipped the info out to the 1993 article. That all okay now?- _J.Logan`^t: 09:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A note on the deletion or a note on the move? If the former, I thought I had put it in the edit summery but I wasn't thinking and didn't explain properly. If the latter, well I couldn't be bothered to wait for replies that take ages to come and thought it could always go to talk page if someone has a problem but if they don't the issue will just be lost in the edit history with no one knowing what it was before.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well sorry about that. I just never give much time to it over such provincial pages as there is hardly anyone around on them to listen. Major pages of course, but EU history mainly attracts spell checkers. Will keep in mind for next time though.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland disambiguation task force/archive 1

Hi, RK. about your edit summary here, the material wasn't actually deleted. It was archived by Matt Lewis to Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force/International usage (labelled "International usage list for 'Ireland' and 'Republic of Ireland' in the Archive box on the top of the page). He's notified you further up the page there. Although the remark by Sarah refers to "below", it's actually part of the discussion "above". Maybe it could be linked e.g. "I see below that the verifiable sources are not supported..." I'm not bothered myself whether you leave it the way it is now or not. I just thought you should know that there was no "censorship" involved :-) Scolaire (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

By-election

Any idea when the Dublin South by-election, 2008 will be called? Why's Cowen waiting? Bad polling data? —Nightstallion 08:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sinn Féin Oath

Thanks for that Red King, I have placed a detailed responce on the talk page. Should you require additional information please let me know? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Military of the European Union: Defence Budgets

Hey, I saw your comment in the talk page of the article. I've decided to change the chart's currency to euros or, at least, include it. When were the numbers last converted to US$?

Alfa989 (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Progress on the Manual of Style?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Task_Force_terms_of_reference and in particular the subsection Compromise Proposal. -- Evertype·✆ 21:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)