Talk:Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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:Vanished user 399291003, 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 Vanished user 399291003 (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. " - Vanished user 399291003 (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. Vanished user 399291003 (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] Vanished user 399291003 (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:

'''Vanished user 399291003''' - 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 Vanished user 399291003'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 Vanished user 399291003 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 Vanished user 399291003 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. Vanished user 399291003'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 Vanished user 399291003 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--Vanished user 399291003 (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. Vanished user 399291003 (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! Vanished user 399291003--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 Vanished user 399291003--86.41.143.79 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't 'chastisement', it was firm-but-friendy advice. You can choose to accept it in the spirit it was given, or you can ignore it - that's your choice. But if you ignore it and continue to edit in the same fashion and in contravention of the policies and guidelines, then I suspect you will end up getting blocked from editing.

The onus is always on the person making a claim to WP:PROVEIT. The onus isn't on me to find a citation for you. As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with the citation anyway - the problem was with the assertion that you attached to it. And that assertion was simply your own opinion - not fact. If you are convinced that the the final three characters will be all numeric, and you have a verifiable, independent source to prove it that - one that also explains why such a systejm is undesireable, then post it here. Otherwise it says out as it's tainted by your WP:COI. Guesswork isn't good enough - see WP:NOTCRYSTAL.

There's no mention in the article of your code now, but there was until I removed it. Even without any mention of your code, your edits have shown a bias of positive comments in favour of your solution and negative comments about rival solutions. That much was obvious to me within a minute or so of reading the article. I'm not defending anything in the article - you seem to think there's some sort of conspiracy against you. There isn't. I have no interest in you. All I am am doing is what all editors should do - challenge and remove unverifiable facts and biased opinion.

What am I going to do to improve the article? Right now, nothing - I have other things that I'm doing right now (but that doesn't mean I won't remove blatant WP:COI, WP:NPOV or WP:SPAM if I see it). What you should do is ask what you can do to improve it. I gave you two suggestions earlier, why not investigate them? There are also two Wikiprojects associated with this article, you could also post there to ask for expert help. Have a look at some of the links in my earlier post - you will find much useful information on how to become a constructive editor and build WP:CONSENSUS. Oh and by the way I have no more 'power' here than you or any other editor. The only reason your edits get reverted and moved is because you fail to build WP:CONSENSUS and contravene policies and guidelines. If you think the article should be deleted, there is a procedure for it - have a look at WP:DEL. DrFrench (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Continue to remove my edits all you want - I really do not care - but I do seriously object to persons like yourself flying in to dictate rules and then take no responsibility. For these reasons this article has become an orphan - left in care but no real interest in it and as it says on the bottom " An Article From Ireland of Low Importance"........carry on and enjoy using the red pen and if you happen to be Irish - Slán Leat Vanished user 399291003--86.41.143.79 (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

DrFrench - Small Tip for you - it is very annoying to have hyperlinks quoted at you every second sentence - try having a discussion on the basis of rational argument not rapid fire hyperlinks...glad you have the hyperlink phaser in your armoury - it must be a great comfort!!! I have no interest in Wiki rules because they are being applied in a virtual environment by persons with power but no responsibiliy!! Keep it up.... but be careful that all the links do not chain you in.......Vanished user 399291003--86.41.143.79 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, small tip for you. It's very annoying when people decide they are more important than community consensus, whe they refuse to co-operate with others in a civil manner.

The hyperlinks are there to help you. Read them. Understand them. Act on them. Then other editors will respect you.

You keep telling all and sundry that you want this article to be improved, but will do nothing to help that process - seemingly you prefer to insult people instead. If you have no interest in the policies and guidelines that the rest of us adhere to you in order to improve the project, then you need to ask yourself if you should be here. DrFrench (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

DrFrench you have made it very clear that I cannot offer anything for this article as I have a COI. Therefore I cannot improve it - those that wrote it need to do it. Since 24th of March I have stood back to allow those with no COI bring this article to date and no -one has - all because like the Mr. censor they believe nothing is right unless An Post says it is - is An Post controlling what is in this article? The funny thing is that An Post is not interested in a Post Code of any sort or this article for that matter. You seem like a reasonable person - tell me who it is that will take responsibility for properly investigating the content of this article - please tell me this and I will gladly contribute to the discussion associated with their published content?

Finally, I have no desire to seek the favour or respect of anyone here - I live in the real world.... however if wiki editors decide to write about the real world, especially subjects that are topical and dynamic, then it is mine as well as others responsibility to make sure that readers are given some balanced and factual informatiom. Perhaps it is not wiki's place to comment on subjects that are are dynamic and requiring frequent updates to reflect daily changes which editors cannot commit to keeping up with or hope to have sufficient background information to understand --Vanished user 399291003 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, I did not say that you had nothing to offer. I suggested that you should refrain from editing the article yourself due to the obvious COI and I asked you to bring constructive discussion about the topic to this talk page. Now, "who will take responsibility for properly investigating the content of this article"? Well, no-one and everyone. Wikipedia works on community consensus (you would know this if you had read the links I gave you). Editors work together to discuss points of contention to achieve a consensus, whilst adhering to the 'five pillars' of policies and guidelines (again, link provided earlier). Nobody here is paid, or an employee. Nobody here has to do anything.

You said that you "have no desire to seek the favour or respect of anyone here" and you "have no interest in Wiki rules". Well that's a real shame, because you'd find it much easier to get people to help you out if you did - and if you worked with people rather than against them. One of the things I do on Wikipedia is to fact-check; to research, find, improve and expand citations and help other editors out when I can. (Remember, I had not been involved in any of the discussions here before yesterday. I just happened to read the article when I was looking to see if a date had been set for the introduction of postcodes.) After reading the article, I removed one spam link and one sentence - and I gave you a full and polite explnation of my reasons for doing so. In response, I have had a tirade of aggressive responses and wild accusations. Now, think long and hard about the things you have posted over the past day or so. Do you really think I want to spend my own free time to help you after that? Would you want to do that if someone was so aggressive towards you and had treated you so contemptuously?

I'll be blunt. If you're prepared get off your high horse and stop all this aggressive posturing; if you stop accussing people people of being in some sort of conspiracy against you; if you just stop shouting the odds and simply discuss the topic in a calm and adult manner - then you'll find people much more receptive and who knows what might happen. Quite frankly, if you can't treat me and other editors with respect - then this discussion is at an end. Your choice. DrFrench (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Very good - please then don't just drop in and start removing stuff without discussion and preach to others who are in involved and know a little more about this subject as it is happening than you do! That's what everyone does with this article - drop in have their little say about rules and procedures and then disappear - again power without responsibility - you want to get dates from it, you want to remove stuff - then please take some responsibility for what's in the article....... I will be gone now another 3 months and I wonder if anyone will have bothered correcting it or bringing it to date by then - or will the rule of conensus have meant that Mr Censor continues to dictate that An Post must agree so we cannot say anything other than what's there now....Thanks Vanished user 399291003 --86.41.143.79 (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Oh and by the way Mr. Censor you will note that I sign my name even if I am not logged in - not trying to avoid anything - just do not have passwords set up on all my PC's - Bye all do some good for this article when I am away - you can conatct me at gary@gpsireland.ie if you want some information on my system and perspective and my research into this subject !!!! -Vanished user 399291003--86.41.143.79 (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Sadly, you seem to have learned nothing. Any editor is entitled to remove content from any article if it does not comply with Wikipedia policies. Core to those policies it verfifiability. The 'burden of proof' is on the person adding material - not on the person removing it. As Jimmy Wales (the founder of Wkipedia) said "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

If you think the information in the is article is wrong, then bring the facts here. Verfiable, independent and unbiased facts. Not your opinion. But facts. Discuss them here; openly and honestly and without slagging anybody off. Then, when consensus is reached - someone will add them to the article. You'll find it far more productive than abusing people. Still I guess it's much easier to sit on that high horse of yours shouting at people - becasue that's going to improve the article, isn't it?

Good luck with your commercial venture. (Although if you treat the authrorities in the same contemptuous manner I can't forsee you winning any contracts.) Just don't come back here to advertise it. DrFrench (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) DrFrench, I don't think I could have put it any better than you have here. Believe me I have been waiting for word of an official Irish post code system and on verification I will certainly add appropriate information despite what Vanished user 399291003 says or thinks. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

DrFrench's points are very well put - and I think Ww2censors comment about "waiting for word of an official Irish post code system" is also nicely succinct. While I (partly) understand Gary's point on this article needing review/improvement, the simple fact is that (right now) any improvements/additions would be based on future state speculation. (Of a kind that would be potentially dodgy from a WP:CRYSTAL point of view). And so, if or until there is more concrete and officially sanctioned moves towards one or other of the proposed post coding systems, then any attempts to add to this article are potentially hampered by COI, POV, speculation, commentary and other issues. Therefore, the current wording ("several proposals are under review. none have been decided yet") is perfectly fine. There definitely shouldn't be any debate/discussion on this project on the pros/cons of one proposal over another. So, we should leave this largely as it is, supplement with "updates" on the proposal progression through official channels (as necessary), but WAIT until a system is introduced before describing the ins and outs of it. With relevant cites. Guliolopez (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Government Poscode Proposal Update

A partial update on the Irish postcode proposal can be found here Irish Times Tuesday, September 9, 2008 .--Trounce (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So still no change. It says that government departments will save money but as yet no date of introduction or details of the system. Calling that report an update on the postcode proposal is rather overstating it I think but thanks for the info. ww2censor (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

From Vanished user 399291003 (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC) - 3 months after my last input as promised

Here I am back just a few days short of 3 months as promised and what do I come back to???? Mr Censor ww2censor acting as the ever condescending censor, chastising Trounce for his update on the evolution of Post Codes in Ireland. I have seen Trounce's work elsewhere and, believe you me, he knows a lot more about this subject that any contributors to this orphaned article! Essentially Mr Censor is preventing reference to the content of an Irish Times article when content of Irish Independent article remains part of it even though the reference is technically incorrect. In June last, I said I would back away for 3 months and I invited the wiki gate keepers to research and update the article but to no surprise;- nothing has happened.

Then when someone like Trounce dares to suggest that there is new information he is put down and no one makes any effort to research the background to the story. Nobody has contacted me over the last 3 months to get any information I might have and now nobody contacted the IT journalist, The Dept Of Communications or the Minister for an update. Is no one really interested in what in fact is going on or is that there are vested interests protecting this article in its current "D-" form???

Contrary to Mr. Censor's put down of Trounce regarding the IT article, the content is significant for 2 reasons:

1. A review of the 2005 consultant's report on a Post Code system by a second set of consultants which was due back to Government before the summer recess only was received by the Minister Eamon Ryan in early September - i.e. nearly 3 months later than expected. This delay allowed a close examination of the PON Code system at [4] which was only made publicly available around the time when the report was actually due.

2. Unlike the 2005 report, which recommended a Post Code System which defined areas (Referred to incorrectly in the Independent article quoted here as "D04 123" defining individual properties), the most recent consultant's report recommended a Post Code system capable of defining a unique Post Code for every property. This is significant as it is now recommending a system with the capabilities offered by PON Codes - the only working and proven system which is capable of satisfying the consultant's recommendations.

So can someone do some reasearch if not to update the article, then at least to correct the outdated and incorrect detail in its content which is being used and referred to as fact by those who are researching the current situation. The article is obviously out of date and, as I said before, is best removed until someone takes responsibility for rewriting it with facts.

Guliolopez - it is not enough to leave the article as it is until a Post Code system is in place in Ireland. The article in itself is misleading and should not be left as fact for others to use. Your advise should be to remove it until facts are used in its content

As for you Mr. Censor - leave this article to those who have some knowledge or interest in it - stay away from it - your current involvement is apparantly protectionist and not only hints of censorship but also a possible conflict of interest!!!! Finally and once again, change your name..... it breaches Wiki rules not only giving others the impression of undue authority but it seems that you may be convincing your self of this also. Vanished user 399291003 (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Nobody has contacted me over the last 3 months to get any information I might have and now nobody contacted the IT journalist, The Dept Of Communications or the Minister for an update." Correct. You might want to read WP:5, especially WP:OR and WP:V. And quite possibly WP:NPA and WP:COI also. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Batton - glad you quoted the rules to me - you quoted WP:5, where its states that Wiki has no firm rules and at WP:Ignore_all_rules it clearly states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I agree - so lets begin the improvement by removing the article until someone can do a better job and replace it for the time being with the following statement:

There is no National Post Code System in Ireland. Plans to introduce one by Jan 2008 have not been successful and a privately developed solution is now operating as an alternative.

Guliolopez .............it's up to you now to put this right!

Vanished user 399291003 (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some more info here:Postcode war 'in next year' -by John O'Keeffe Sunday Independent 21 Sept 2008 --Trounce (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A Critique of the Irish Post Codes Article As It Stands

The Irish Post Codes artricle is a series of bits stuck together in a non chronological or coherent manner with several incorrect statements. It is also outdated

My Comments are as follows:

Postal addresses in Ireland are similar to those in many other parts of the world. Currently there is no national post code system. This is not true as few operate Townland based systems which in Ireland contribute to 40% non unique addresses

However, Dublin is divided into postal districts, under a system which was similar to that used in cities elsewhere in Europe until the introduction of postcode systems in the 1960s and 70s. There should be mention here of Cork which has also postal districts.

Those advocating an Irish postcode system point out that many people living in rural (and even some urban) areas share the same postal address. This becomes particularly confusing when there are people of the same surname living at different addresses within the same rural townland. This also creates problems for delivery drivers, the emergency services and any visitors unfamiliar to an area trying to find an address (especially since in such areas it is rare for roads to be named or houses numbered, and limited signage indicating where townlands begin and end.) The fact that Post Codes are used for more than delivering mail in modern society needs to be emphasised with reference to UK and the case of their popular use for navigation - emergency services/couriers etc - with SatNav's in the recent past.

In the light of the liberalisation of postal services, and the end of An Post's monopoly, ComReg, the Communications Regulator in Ireland, began considering the introduction of postcodes. A Postcode Working Group met in early 2005 and produced a report[3] recommending the implementation of a postcode system. Liberalisation is planned for early 2010 but the demand for PostCodes already exists for navigation and also for couriers and specialist postal services as well as many others already working in the sector.

On May 23, 2005, the Minister for Communications, Noel Dempsey, announced[4] that postcodes would be introduced in Ireland by January 1, 2008. Clearly this has not happened and therefore needs to be deleted.

In November 2005, the National Statistics Board issued a report welcoming the decision[5] and making recommendations as to its implementation. They also highlighted the benefits of a Post Code which was based on geographic coordinates and they have since analysed coordiante based Post Code Systems.

It was later announced that the postcodes would include the one- or two-character county codes currently used in vehicle registration plates, making them alphanumeric,[6] with the existing Dublin system retained.[7]. It needs to be highlighted that this presents a problem as codes would then have varying lengths depending on the whether the county has a 1 or 2 charcter code. The system receommeneded below with a 3 character preceding code uses new county codes which in itself causes problems and confusion - one code for cars and another for mail

In June 2007 a brief[8] to the new Minster for Communications, Eamon Ryan, stated that a memo was submitted by the Department of Communications to the Irish government in May 2007 seeking approval for the implementation of the postcode system. It also stated that the decision arising from this submission was that the Minister would revert to Government following further analysis to quantify the benefits, which would then be followed by a public consultation process. However, in August 2007, the Minister[9] reportedly postponed the implementation of the system "indefinitely", pending additional public consultation. This is confusing and incorrect. A further cost benefit analysis was recommened and is now complete with a report back to the minister in Sept 2008.

On October 18, 2007, Eamonn Ryan announced at ComReg's "Postal Services in the 21st Century" conference that "...[Post] codes should be introduced as a matter of priority". The introduction was stated to be subject to cabinet approval.[10] On February 25, 2008 the Irish Independent reported that the proposals were being presented to the Cabinet with a view to full national implementation before summer 2008. Out of date and incorrect based on the preceding paragraph.

It stated that Eamon Ryan was finalising the proposals, 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. This is incorrect in several ways - was not finalising plans as further cost benefit analysis was been undertaken up to Sept 2008. Also the system quoted with a numeric last 3 characters could not possibly define individual houses. However, this was the first consultant's no.1 proposal - which gave an area based postcode of 20 houses or so in Dublin Postal districts and several square kilometers outside Dublin. Furthermore, the 3 character preceding code involves using a 3 character County Code outside Dublin which has to be constructed and would differ from the existing Car Reg code - thereby causing confusion

It is now reported that the latest consultants have now recommended a system capable of defining a unique code for most properties in the country - i.e. with capabilities similar to those offered by PON codes [5] - the only proven and working post coding system presently operating in the country.

Due to these issues the article should be withdrawn or rewritten in its entirity by someone who is knowledgeable on the matter Vanished user 399291003 (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary, I am a fan of the postcodes system offered on irishpostcodes.ie. I am not a fan of some of your past contributions regarding this article. However, this contribution is a fair way for you to propose your changes to the content of the article. I am loath to make any changes myself because I do not want to get dragged into the aggro, but I hope someone else will overlook that possibility and take up the challenge. Some changes may require input from someone with knowledge of the Irish postal system, some do not .--Rye1967 (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

--Rye1967 I appreciate your comments and share your hope for a rewrite. Many thanks Vanished user 399291003 (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Eventually I have had some time to review your posts. Fir Dubh I see that despite your 3 month hiatus you are now making personal attacks and not being WP:CIVIL. It is a pity you can't constructive discuss the content and keep personalities out of the discussion. This is not constructive to getting work done. That's what we do around here, wherever possible. Remember that you got in trouble previously for various reason, so I suggest you tread with caution, not because I will censor you; I don't do that despite your previous allegations, but to get edits made that will be retained and not deleted by me or others.

Why would or even should anyone contact you after your last Wikipedia sortie? It is not up to "wiki gate keepers to research and update the article". Nobody will contact you to "get any information I might have and now nobody contacted the IT journalist, The Dept Of Communications or the Minister for an update" because that is not the way Wikipedia works. It is up to individual editors to add Verifiable information as they deem fit. This can take the form of a reliable newspaper story, an academic publication. or similar.

Of course, you also have not idea what I have been researching for the last 3 months, but one project has been to get more information for this article from besides many constructive edits.

Your allegations about the recent Irish Times article are ridiculous, as I think is your support of Trounce's edits. Where do you possibly get the idea that he knows a lot more about this subject that any contributors to this orphaned article when he has made three edits to this article and apparently no other edits of any postal nature from his 1,100+ total edits? Perhaps if you know his work so well you will compare this to my numerous postal service and postal history related edits made out of my 18,000+ edits, a topic I have been studying for more than 25 years concentrating mainly on Ireland. Some of his edits added information about your company, so I don't doubt you would support him. The Irish Times artcile both you refer to really adds nothing new except to suggest governments departments will find a system beneficial as will emergency service (and some others though logistics are not mentioned) but as you well know it gives no update for an expected date a system will start nor any details. Essentially it add nothing. Is there a copy of the report available to the public? If so please point to it as I could not find it. You refer to a delay because it "allowed a close examination of the PON system". Let me ask you two questions about this. The IT article does not verify that the PON system was actually examined and you well know that verifiability is a cornerstone of current wiki policy so that people will accept Wikipedia as a reliable source because some academics claim Wikipedia is unreliable. There is also no mention that "it is now recommending a system with the capabilities offered by PON Codes". It says that "the report concludes that with unique codes for each household" but gives not details as has been the case since the long winded attempt to introduce a post code system for Ireland.

Trying to twist around WP:5 at the expense of ignoring policy and guidelines will not help you or win friends around here.

Now, let's look at some of your critique because there are some positive points that may be useful to the article.

Postal addresses in Ireland are similar to those in many other parts of the world. Currently there is no national post code system. Those are 2 separate issues, the townland system could do with some explanation but there is still no national post code system, so why change that fact. Can you verify this?

Dublin and Cork postal district systems". Unfortunately I have been unable to find a verifiable source for the Cork system and actually a Dublin system was introduced in the late 1920s that lasted for about 10 years by failed besides the current 1960's system.

The fact that Post Codes are used for more than delivering mail in modern society needs to be emphasised. It is an article about Ireland not the UK though perhaps there should be a section about logistics and other non-postal deliveries and the type of systems they use, if the are geocodes or something else. Can you source this?

Postal liberalisation. That could be addressed in a "future section", so long as the statements made are verifiable with reliable sources.

On May 23, 2005, the Minister for Communications, Noel Dempsey, announced that postcodes would be introduced in Ireland by January 1, 2008. Clearly this has not happened and therefore needs to be deleted. Actually that is the last projected date available so should be rewritten in the past tense and not deleted because then there will be no information about any projected time frames. This has been verified.

National Statistics Board Can you verify the statement you made?

Postcodes would include the one- or two-character county codes. This seems much too much like synthesis to me but the essence is already mentioned in the article. You can't use WP:5 to include this conclusion unless someone reliable has said it.

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. This is incorrect in several ways Again this seems too much like synthesis unless you can supply a source that draws that conclusion.

It is now reported that the latest consultants have now recommended a system capable of defining a unique code for most properties in the country - i.e. with capabilities similar to those offered by PON codes. Where is the report that says they will use a system similar to your company's system?

Proposal to withdraw. You could always bring the article up for an Article for deletion if you are so concerned about it. However, I suggest you put aside you PON WP:COI hat and contribute constructively to improve the article by adding verifiable reliable sources, without pushing your WP:POV and let others add information about your system, if it ever gets used by the government. Go about it the way you did the last two time, or work collaboratively and we will make a better article. It is up to you. Please be civil. ww2censor (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said before being interrupted - the article needs to be rewritten or withdrawn - surely there are more than Mr Censor who have an interest - or does the censor own the last wikiword???- I am gone again for another 3 months Vanished user 399291003 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Gary has no stomach for collaboration nor the ability to reply to the questions and comments posed. It also seems Gary is neither capable of making constructive edits nor being civil either. He cannot work on helping to rewrite the article, just criticise and does not feel strongly enough to nominate it for deletion either. That's not constructive in any way. ww2censor (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.