User talk:Scolaire/Archive 10

Demographics

Thanks for editing my edit and your clear explaination..." "two-and-a-half times", not "two-and-a-half times more than" which would be three-and-a-half times "...AlwynJPie (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem :-) Scolaire (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Gaelic Ireland

It's glad for me to meet a rational wikipedian like you :). Btw thanks for backing me dude. Feeling those guys are a bit 'amateurish' that they read too few articles. XD Pktlaurence (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Scolaire! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've been putting off doing that for so long. I never dreamed it would be so easy! Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Pope Joan. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) (Not watching)

Help with rebarbative editors and administrators

Hello, I don't know whether you can help with editing assistance, but I was impressed by your fair-mindedness on the Pope Joan page (don't worry I have nothing to do with the fair lady). But I am a supporter of progressive Catholic causes, and in looking on Catholic Wikipedia I have become aware of a large number of very conservative heresy hunters, and have fallen foul of them myself firstly in writing a short article on the UK group A Call to Action, ACTA, which was deleted on grounds on non-notability, when it had a number of references in national press and on BBC news, and over 2000 members. The administrator who first welcomed me gave voice to a series of conservative opinions himself, and then passed the details on to another administrator, who deleted it forthwith, and refused to enter into any discussion about it. It is true that there was a majority arguing for deletion, but not a consensus, and several of them were readily identifiable as part of the conservative mafia. I can send you the deleted file if you are interested, but can't remember how to access the deletion page. Meanwhile I tried to re-edit the pages about a similar but unlinked US organization called Call to Action. An editor on that has threatened me with banning for adding a sentence at the end saying that the climate towards dissent has changed since Pope Francis has come in. She has accused me of various violations. The original article was a bland piece but it has been rewritten to focus entirely on an excommunication process in one diocese of the US in 2006, and that is the note the editors insist on ending on. If you are prepared to you could look up this one as it is still on wiki. Anyway, sorry to trouble you if that is not cup of tea Tomcapa1 (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I do occasionally let myself get involved with oddball Catholic articles, like Pope Joan or Ngô Đình Thục. But I'm not an editor of Catholic articles generally, and certainly not of articles on current Catholic organisations. Anyway, I have my fill of excitement elsewhere at the moment, so I think I'll pass on this one. Thanks for the kind words, though. Scolaire (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks anyway Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Southern Ireland

NUTS? Shall I add, or maybe over kill? PS thanks for the disam page, I am busy and just pop on and off lately, life its, well life. Murry1975 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

NUTS 3 (I had to chase it up; you should really link to things like that) has a "South-East" and a "South-West". "Southern Ireland" doesn't denote either of these, and I don't think you can add them together to give "South". The "South of Ireland" in that sense is a concept rather than a precise geographical area with boundaries, and it would be OR to try and put boundaries on it. Best leave it as it is. Scolaire (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

WT:DRN Comments

Thank you for your clarification, and for what half reads like a slight apology. I will see that your repeated use of the word "ultimatum" to refer to what was not a threat or a warning but simply a setting of conditions for our willingness to provide a service was hurtful and did sting. It did read as if you were making a demand as to how we provide a service. I don't think that you were fair to the volunteer mediators. To the extent that you apologized, I accept the apology. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I was fair to the mediators. I noted that you are doing this out of the goodness your hearts for the well-being of the project, and asked only that you recognise that I and other participants also are, and that you not apply different standards of timeliness to us and to yourselves. I have expressed regret for the use of the word "ultimatum", which was not intended to be hurtful. It would have been nice if you could have acknowledged that comments like I can't continue it without some collaboration, when Cuchullain and myself were breaking our necks collaborating, are also hurtful and do sting. I have more to say, but I will say it on the DRN talk page. Scolaire (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection

I think that (in an over-written comment) you referred to the semi-protection of Pope Joan. I think that it was fully protected until 4 February due to edit-warring. I don't think that you or I would have noticed semi-protection, which has no effect on established editors. Maybe the article should have been semi-protected rather than fully protected, because it appears that IPs were part of the problem. Anyway, it can be untagged now. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It said "Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users". I took that to mean semi-protection. I realised afterwards that the protection had expired, and deleted my comment accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

FA template on Easter Rising

OK. Agur, Slán leat. Euskaldunaa (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

WOT Services - ANI

Please have a look. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.1.178 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward O'Dwyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Brothers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be at my computer, ready to refute any arguments (which still has no source for "a lone wolf is rarely classified as a religious terrorist") or you would feel free to wipe out the section again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a discussion. You took part in it, but only to make a snide comment similar to the one above. The consensus among the three editors who provided substantive arguments was that Breivik did not belong in the article. I see you are actually engaging now. Perhaps you can establish a consensus to restore the section. We'll see. But coming on people's talk pages to whine achieves nothing. Scolaire (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Covers

Yes, I do agree with about "Man of Constant Sorrow". Notable songs should certainly show notable covers. Don't tell anyone, but I regard this article as perfectly encyclopedic. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be too big of a list for me :-) Scolaire (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I'm using the term "perfectly" loosely. Maybe too long for me too. But if I was researching the song, I'd probably find it invaluable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Michael Collins

I take note of why you have deleted his entry from the table in Records of members of parliament of the United Kingdom listing sitting or former MPs who were murdered. After reading his Wikipedia article and having a clearer idea of the context in which his death occurred, I have created a new category table in List of MPs who died through active service in war for Inter-World War Years. I blame my misunderstanding on a remembered portrayal of his death in the British TV series The Life and Times of David Lloyd George, which showed the victims and perpetrators in civilian clothes and not uniform and the vehicles as civilian cars.Cloptonson (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Scolaire (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Manchester Martyers

Hi Scolaire - I note that you reverted my edit on the grounds that it was insignificant so to give you an idea of its significance. The trial of Father Larkin in New Zealand was the first trial of an Irishman for a purely political reason in that country. The trial arose solely out of the sad events surrounding the Manchester Martyrs and the response of the Irish community at Hokitika, New Zealand to it. I think a brief sentance referring to it in the paragraph titled Aftermath is a balanced response and simply confirms the statement The executions gave rise to an enormous groundswell of feeling among Irish communities the world over. There was considerable interest in the trial within New Zealand. It was well covered in local papers The Political Trials, West Coast Times , Issue 838, 30 May 1868, Page 7 I leave it to you to decide if the sentece should remain or not, as I acknowledge you are more knowledgable on Irish issues. NealeFamily (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The source that you gave me there is far better than the one you used in your edit. I added back a short sentence based on it. Please note, though, that mere mention of New Zealand is not enough to add it to the New Zealand category or the New Zealand WikiProject. Scolaire (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Scolaire. The reason I added the NZ Category and project is to ensure it is followed up in an article on the Irish in New Zealand along the lines of Irish Australian. There is to my mind a link between this event and the development of New Zealand's underlying social character in that as time progressed New Zeland moved from being a very English settlement to developing its own more independent character. NealeFamily (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You were going the wrong way about it, though. What you need to do is create an article on the Irish in New Zealand – you'll find source material in Google Books, and you've shown your ability to do research – and then publicise that on WikiProject New Zealand. Scolaire (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Noted, thanks NealeFamily (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. :-))

Dear Peter,
Thank you for adding a wikilink to "Arthur McBride" in the track list section of the article on the album Andy Irvine/Paul Brady, yesterday. Your edit brought to my attention the fact that I made a mistake when I created the article!
On this album's back cover, the song is called simply 'Arthur McBride', whereas it is called 'Arthur McBride and the Sergeant' on the back cover of The Missing Liberty Tapes!
I think what happened is that I first drafted the former album's track list by using parts of the latter's, and then forgot to reduce the title of the track to the shorter 'Arthur McBride'.
So, my grateful thanks to you for helping to correct my earlier error, albeit unwittingly!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 15:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It's nice to know that my edits are appreciated. Scolaire (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Sands

Hi, if you have time could you check recent IP edits to the above, listing him in the category British politicians etc.. I always consider NI as being Northern Irish, not British. Regards Denisarona (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on the talk page. --Scolaire (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

How to add a fact that isn't necessarily 'source-able'

You recently reverted an edit I made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Ireland&type=revision&diff=661965078&oldid=661928986

Now we have a problem, because the article is presenting a half-truth or presenting the truth in a way that doesn't tell the whole story.

Here's the thing: Having grown up in Northern Ireland, a number of decades ago, my grandparents and other people of their generation referred to "the Free State" and even "Free Staters", as I suggested in my edit comment. Some people of my own generation also use the term. Now, I know what you're going to say: "Editors are not sources", right?

Yet my edit remains true and factual. A more expansive explanation would include the fact that some of the more radical and militant republicans would refer to the country as "the Free State" (and/or "the 26") specifically because they do not recognise the legitimacy of it, as compared to a historical declaration. But I digress...

The fact is pretty uncommon: due to systemic bias (there are many more people from other countries in the world than there are non-Republicans in Northern Ireland), it would probably be next to impossible to find a source that explains how non-Republicans refer to the Republic of Ireland as "the Free State".

With respect, this is how I see your action:

Alice bakes a pie and puts it on her window sill.

Jimmy does not see a pie on her window sill.

Therefore, Alice did not put a pie on her window sill.

Furthermore, Alice did not bake a pie.

Here's another example:

An editor had his account 'hacked'.

Unable to log into his account, he continued to make edits, considering that at some point in the future perhaps he'll address the situation once he's found out exactly what he can do about it other than writing an e-mail which was ignored.

Other editors, perhaps with agendas, accuse the now IP-named editor of being a 'sock puppet' merely because he continued editing and didn't have time to put effort into having his account restored.

The editor appeals to admins and asks if the IP of the last persons to use the former account can be traced, so as to identify possible culprits who are working the system, but is told that no such records can be found.

Jimmy, however, does not see a pie on the window sill.

Therefore, the editor is a 'sock puppet'.

Furthermore, the editor does not edit again.

Just because there is no evidence of something, doesn't mean it's not true.

I see a couple of options open for the 'pedia. Firstly, it continues to ignore my edit and therefore sends a message that is in error because of context (ie: republicans are the ONLY group of people who use the term).

You can fix the problem by placing it more into context by making it more ambiguous, whilst still ignoring my unproven fact about non-republicans using the phrase.

You can visit Northern Ireland yourself and speak to some older people, ask a number of them how they refer or referred to that country, and record them and then upload the soundbite to wikimedia and then cite it as proof.

You could assume good faith and perhaps use a bit of common sense (I don't mean that as harsh as it may read) or intuition, and just accept that trivial information inserted, with a decent cursory explanation, is likely not to be a 'joke' or politically motivated or vandalism or what ever.

I dunno - any ideas yourself, for this really minor edit which I've now written a bloody essay about?! Maybe something a little more helpful than "that's not what it says in the citation"? Maybe, with some conscience as a person who wants to provide facts to the world, a little bit of extra... something? --24.88.64.22 (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that I totally understand your frustration. I've had the experience where I've had an apparently uncontroversial edit reverted with what looked like a dismissive edit summary, and I know that it's really maddening. I'm sorry that my edit summary came across as dismissive, but that's a problem with edit summaries: they have to be summaries so it's hard to make them warm and fuzzy.

Now, I'll tell you a bit about my own history: I proposed a re-write of the "Name" section in February. Like you, I thought that it would be uncontroversial, but a major row developed that lasted the best part of a month: see Talk:Republic of Ireland#'Name' section, Talk:Republic of Ireland#Name v description and Talk:Republic of Ireland#'Name' section part 2. After two months of quiet, I still can't be completely confident that the edit is stable, so I have to be able to say that it is 100% verifiable. That's why, with the best will in the world, I felt I had to revert your edit.

I might also mention this thread. You can see that before my edit to the section, the text emphasised the "republican" angle a good deal more than after: it said, "Many Irish republicans, and other opponents of partition, avoid calling the state Ireland. They see it as reinforcing partition and fuelling the perception that 'Ireland' and 'Irishness' are restricted to the Republic (see partitionism). Instead, they often refer to the state as the 26 Counties...and sometimes as the Free State." If I could have replaced that with a sourced statement that "some people" call it the Free State, I would have. As it was, I did the best I could.

Bear in mind, "some people" who are not republicans also use the term "26 Counties" – I have used it myself, even on Wikipedia talk pages. Some people also call it the Irish Republic. I'm sure some people also call it "down there", "across the water" and various other names. The purpose of the section is not to pin down exactly how many alternative names the state has, or who it is that uses those names. As you yourself put it, what you added was "trivial information". In other circumstances it would have been harmless, and I would have left it. But it is not vital or essential information, and I did not compromise the integrity or reputation of Wikipedia by reverting it.

I hope that goes some way towards explaining my revert. Scolaire (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

PS I don't know whether you are telling me that you have been accused of sockpuppetry. If you were, I was not aware of the fact, and it has absolutely no bearing on my edit. Scolaire (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I was indeed telling you that, Scolaire. I have been semi-hounded by a registered user on here more recently, who keeps telling me to register or edit under my user account. I will never edit using an account again, because of the negative experiences I've had here. I've always tried to remain balanced in ALL my undertakings. I was never perfect, and I'm still not perfect in all likelihood. But I try, and have always tried. You may guess who I am, or you may not. I would appreciate remaining anonymous, however. I simply don't have the time or energy any more, to defend common sense. I did not think that your revert had anything to do with the accusation levelled against me, and I apologise if it seemed to be the case - forgive me for the rant! :)

As for the edit I made and your response, I appreciate your honesty and straight-forwardness. I have always expected that from you, and I apologise for 'ranting' a little bit. I'm sure you know it wasn't personal. There is, I believe, WP:COMMON, which might see fit in usage to suggest that in this case the sky is blue and my edit needs no explanation... but I shall leave that up to you if you want to decide to revert back to my edit, or attempt to reword it. The problem I would still have with the edit as it stands is that it strongly suggests that only Republicans use the term "Free State", and that this is not factual. The common sense guideline suggests to ignore the rules (the flowchart there is very nice), if the change is a good one that uses common sense and improves the article.

As I've suggested, it will not be easy to find a citation that proves the fact in this case. To start with, a plethora of books and publications have been made detailing Republican attitudes. Very little, by comparison, has been written or filmed with regard to common-or-garden unionists or apolitical people in Northern Ireland. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say. In the unlikely event that I do happen to find a source, I will surely make the change if you haven't found one or seen fit to change it yourself.

I'd like to leave you here with a positive thought: at the risk of sounding maudlin, I've always respected your courtesy and integrity, even if I've not always been in agreement with you. --24.88.64.22 (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't guessed who you are – hadn't even tried – but I have now. I think you know me well enough to know that although I sympathise, I'm not going to backtrack. I think it's best to "let the hare sit". Scolaire (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I have to say I agree with the edit even though it is unsourceable. I know of unionists who have called the republic the "Free State". Mabuska ^(talk) 22:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Re Stephen Games

Hi Scolaire, Thanks for dropping by my page to say a few kind words and point me towards SGs talk page. I thought the points you made there were both sensible and appreciate also the support for my actions. I was somewhat taken aback by the response that your's and other editors received but its often the case well meaning advice to an editor found to have crossed the line is seen by them as instead an attack. I have posted a reply which I hope calms things but we will see. I have indicated there also I am considering a referal to the COI noticeboad as this all needs sorting out. A bit of back checking of edits found a draft article on SG which points to concerns on earlier edits on other topics which possibly carry similar baggage. I could do with a second opinion on this if you have the time, Many thanks again.Tmol42 (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be inclined to hold off for the moment. In my experience people who rant in that way just want to vent their frustration, and rarely go back to doing what they were doing before. My advice would be to just check his contributions from time to time. If you see any new edits that are clearly COI, that would be the time to go to the noticeboard.

As regards his talk page, he will probably have another rant the next time he logs on. I think it would be wise not to respond at all. He's going to want to have the last word, but if we allow him to have the last word it will take the wind out of his sails, so it's a win/win. Scolaire (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

TalkDerry

In regards to this [comment]. You can't tell someone to not post on your talk page while posting on theirs. The sort of hypocrisy that I have come to expect from you. I have not baited you, you have simply fallen into your own net. You have refused to cast a vote, or provide a rationale for said vote. Abstaining is not engagement. Ridiculous behavior.Dubs boy (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is you who is the hypocrite. I posted on your page only to ask you to stop this ridiculous harassment. I asked you not to do it on the article talk page, and not to do it on my talk page. You could have answered on your own talk page, but instead you only deleted my post. Yes, I have refused to cast a vote, because an RfC is not a vote. I have discussed the issue with you in good faith, but you have consistently failed to listen, preferring instead to flog your dead horse. In case you misunderstood me the first three times, I do not want to discuss it with you any more. Please do not post on my talk page again. If you do I will have to take it further. Scolaire (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I asked you a question on the article talk page and you refused to answer. That is not harassment, that is just plain rude. Your refusal to discuss my proposals or even state a preference, which is simple as typing 5 letters in bold is just ridiculouso. You claimed the previous RFC was a flop. Then claimed an 11-4 vote against a change. And now you are saying that an RFC is not a vote. Hypocrisy at its finest. If you do not wish to discuss an article, then don't comment in the first place, make contradictory statements or shovel pov krapola that opens you up to ridicule. If you want me to stay off your page then all you have to do is stay off my page. Got it buddy.Dubs boy (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've a suspicion that there's a block-evader in the midst of the Derry discussion. Whoever it is, he/she seems to be very knowledgeable about Wikipedia, after having only been around for a few days. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

And a nasty character too. But let's just see what happens. By the way, while you are here, can I ask you to de-bold the "Londonderry" in this post? It could be misconstrued as double-voting. Scolaire (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes talk

I will be quite happy to drop you into ANI should you feel the need to continue editing other people's comments. Doing so on the basis that you are "removing personal attack" is laughable, unless you want to strip out all such comments on the talk page. Try that and see how quickly a block will descend. – SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That was not a comment. It was a hatnote. Hatnotes should be neutral and not contain personal attacks. I seriously considered taking you to AN/I but I can't be arsed. Scolaire (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive#30_July_2015 I think you have not seen my comments because of the archiving? Jomlini (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Shhhhwwww!!

Ireland isn't the only place that this editor is pushing disruptive page moves: User_talk:Shhhhwwww!!#Warning. He's a fairly new editor and between nominating every article he can think of for good article and trying to move articles he has no business moving, he's becoming rather "problematic". --Taivo (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Different people have different roles on WP, but I've never before seen somebody who saw his role as moving every article he comes across, and opening an RM if he can't. Having said that, it's nearly two weeks since I posted to his talk page and he hasn't made an appearance on Ireland-related articles since, so there's not a lot I can do. Scolaire (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What's your view...

...on this curious editor Special:Contributions/141.6.11.25 and Special:Contributions/141.6.11.24 who has appeared out of nowhere to add a citation needed tag to ethnoreligious group at Protestants of Ulster just so soon after we sorted it out? It is clear from their edit summaries that they are not that new to certain Wikipedia policies. Most curious how/why a Swiss based IP appears on an Irish related article so soon and with no apparent edits on any other Irish related articles to argue at something me and Gob Lofa recently disagreed with. Someone looking to stir the pot and get one or both of us in trouble? Whoever they are, I will not be making any more edits to the article just in case. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Very strange! My immediate reaction would be that it is an Ulster Protestant who doesn't like the label, rather than somebody who wants to provoke a quarrel between Gob Lofa and yourself. But, as you say, the timing is weird. I do think the article is messy – I had taken it off my watchlist – so I don't think the tag makes it look that much worse. I'm inclined to leave it and see if somebody can improve the article generally. Scolaire (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys. There's nothing sinister here. I just stumbled across the article as I was browsing various stuff about Northern Ireland, and this included having a look at edits carried out by numerous users with an interest in the subject. I am an editor myself but accessed these articles via VPN on my work computer, not logged on. I did laugh when you labelled me as an "Ulster Protestant". I'm actually an English catholic :). If you're really not happy with the tag then by all means remove it, but to me, it makes sense that the very first assertion in the article - and it's an important (and controversial) assertion - should be sourced. Cheers. 141.6.11.24 (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No offence but my suspicions are still aroused, and the timing and circumstances is still quite odd, especially out of all the articles to do with NI the only one you have edited is on something that was recently argued over, even though many other NI related articles have more-obvious/pressing issues. Then again maybe it is just pure coincidence, Wikipedia does make you paranoid. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually my apologies, playing around with the last digit of your IP address seeing as it periodically changes, I see that that may not be the only random article in the topic area you've edited: Talk:Easter Rising and Cobh both attributed to 141.6.11.21, as well as Seamus Heaney and St. Patrick's Athletic Club attibruted to 141.6.11.20. On that basis I can see it as purely coincidental considering the random articles IPs located in your place have edited, quite a few of which seem to like Street Fighter ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 10:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

1RR

Hi Scolaire, if an admin decides it comes under the Troubles remit, you may be in breach of 1RR at Ulster. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And you are going to go chasing an admin to get him to decide it comes under the Troubles remit? That's just silliness. Ulster surnames are not in any way connected with the Troubles. Scolaire (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to tell you "Save it for the judge", but fret not, I'm not in the habit of chasing. That said, they do tend to cast that net pretty wide. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ironically I was the editor who added that surname stuff into the article in the first place. I just felt it was more relevant and better at Ulaid#Name instead of at Ulster, however in retrospect it does also fit in Ulster hence why I never challenged your restoration of it. I do fail to see how it could fall under the Troubles remit, but then again we all thought that too about move templates. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre reverts

You have made some very bizarre reverts with the edit summary cats are not for making poltical statements, for example removing crime categories from an article titled Murder of Jean McConville. If you think it's not a crime, I think the title would be the first thing to rectify rather than the categories. Tim! (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

All the articles I edited were Troubles-related. Categorising anything Troubles-related as crime, terrorism etc. is making a political statement. Obviously, I don't know what was in your head when you created those cats, but I know that if I were looking in Category:1972 crimes in Wherever, I would expect to find bank robberies, gangland killings, the stuff that a civil police force deals with on a day-to-day basis. If I wanted articles on People killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army, or Military actions and engagements during the Troubles (Northern Ireland), I would look in one of those categories. I'll grant you that Jean McConville is a borderline case, but in the end I went with removing her. Scolaire (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Tim, why haven't you also reverted Scolaire's edit at Springhill Massacre, where he also removed categories? Seems a bit arbitrary of you. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I also reverted Gob Lofa's edit at Bloody Sunday (1972), with the same edit summary. It's a political statement regardless of who carried out the act. Scolaire (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello from Canada

My name is Sean and it is my pleasure to meet you. My paternal grandfather emigrated to Canada from Greystones in the 1920's. It is always nice to meet one of my Irish brothers! Please stay in touch. Yours very truly IQ125 (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your response. As the List of books about the Troubles expands, it can be broken up into fiction, non-fiction and specific events. Please do not hesitate to add more books. Currently, it has been nominated for deletion, so you might want to comment. IQ125 (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll sit it out for the moment, because I see there are technical issues with the deletion request. But I can't see it being deleted. Scolaire (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Question.

Was there some specific reason you struck out your comments at AE? Because your original post was completely accurate. Specifico and I have an occasional, recurring antagonistic history, so his post didn't surprise me. I'd like to know about your stance though. It's possible there's been a misunderstanding, or something seen out of context. If you don't care and want to blow this off I'll perfectly understand, but if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. VictorD7 (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

My original post was accurate as regards the number of times you reverted v the number of times she reverted. However, when I re-read the talk page and archives, it did seem to me that both of you have a battleground mentality. That being so, although it wasn't very clever of her to copy and paste your ANI complaint to AE, I felt that a glib "the maths support Victor" summary – from a passing stranger – wasn't too helpful after all. I had already done the reading, and was considering striking my post, before Specifico posted. HJMitchell's comment in particular made me ask myself whether AE oughtn't to take a broader view. Specifico's post only tipped the balance. Scolaire (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I can't argue against a vague characterization, except to say I disagree. I'll note that it's common for newcomers to a long running dispute to adopt a "pox on both their houses" mentality, but that's not always warranted, and it isn't here. I'm certainly not claiming to be perfect, but I'm nothing like EllenCT. I've had numerous civil, productive interactions here with editors of diverse ideologies and I'm always happy to engage in rational discussions. I actually take time to read and comprehend sources (sadly a rarer trait on Wikipedia than it should be), and, though I'm up front about my views (political and otherwise), I edit for neutrality. I don't shy away from controversy and those discussions sometimes get heated, but I rarely engage in insults (unless the other person starts it, and often not even then), when I do "disparage" an editor it's an accurate description I can back up, and I honestly think I've exhibited enormous patience in disputes. Thank you for correcting the admin on the edit warring claim, btw. If you ever want to discuss something specific feel free to ping me. VictorD7 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I note that you disagree with what I've said above, but apart from that, I have no wish to have this dispute played out on my talk page. I've deleted a post from Specifico which didn't address my contributions at all, and I can't see any reason why I'd ever want to ping you. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring

You can't have a bilateral dispute in which only one party is edit-warring - it takes at least two to make a war. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"One party" is not the same as "one person". The revision history shows EllenCT reverting multiple editors. You can't single out one of them and say that he is edit-warring with her. Scolaire (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Question re NI and IFS

You removed this section in the talk pages of Partition of Ireland because you said the subject was already under discussion. As you are aware there is some confict in the article as to whether Northern Ireland had to opt out of the Irish Free State or if it had to opt to remain in the United Kingdom when the Irish Free State was created on 6 December 1922. The section I was discussing this issue with you was entitled NI remained in the UK which did not seem an appropriate title. I thought by creating a new section with the above title it would alert a wider audience but I am happy to continue this debate under NI remained in the UK. Also, as I said before, there is another issue in that if all Ireland had left the United Kingdom would that not have meant that the United Kingdom would have ceased to exist as there would no longer have been a union between Great Britain and Ireland? There is also the issue that the Irish Free State and the Republic of Ireland governments laid claim to all Ireland in there constitutions which conflicted with that of the United Kingdom. I guess its like Taiwan claiming mainland China as part of its territory and vise-versa. AlwynJPie (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Thank you for understanding. My feeling was that if people were watching the article and cared enough they would have seen the ongoing discussion, and my edits, and would have joined the discussion already. If not, then just opening a new section, with a really long section heading, would make no difference. Scolaire (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

In the 2nd paragraph of the lead in the article Partition of Ireland you stated that Northern Ireland opted to remain in the UK. This conflicts with what is written here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Ireland#Northern_Ireland_opts_out. I think this should be addressed. AlwynJPie (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that some editor put the same incorrect statement in several different places in each of several articles. I don't have a bot or anything to find them all. If you want to address the problem, you need simply delete the sentence "With this, Northern Ireland had left the Irish Free State and rejoined the United Kingdom, after just over two days as part of the Irish Free State." The article will be fine without it. There is a similar sentence in the Irish Free State article. Maybe you would delete that too while you're at it. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Madeleine ffrench-Mullen

Hello, As a part of a college assignment we will be working on and editing the existing page on Madeleine ffrench-Mullen. Hopefully we will be adding a lot of good information. Just letting you know. Thanks Isidorafrango (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and good luck with the article. Scolaire (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with 3O for Trustpilot's article

Hi Scolaire, I can see that you have provided a 3O for the WOT Services article, and I was wondering if you would also take a look at Trustpilot's article? There is need for a neutral third party editor to help mediate the edit. I made a WP:3O request yesterday, however, it was deleted by ScrapIronIV for having more than two editors. I replied stating that there are only two editors involved in the dispute I listed, but received a reply asking me to look at WOT Services. Any help or feedback you can give would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, TrustieCPH (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You are quite correct that there are only two parties in the current dispute. I have added it back to 3O, and added a note of my own. Although my comments on the WOT Services article got some discussion going, it ultimately made no difference to the dispute or to the article. Having looked at the Trustpilot article and talk page, I think I have even less to offer there. Thanks for the invite, anyway. Scolaire (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate you looking into it, Scolaire, thank you. Cheers, TrustieCPH (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Sinn Féin Funds case

Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)