User talk:Scolaire/Archive 3

Easter Rising 2

Hey, Scolaire, I guess you're still on break, but we could use a few sensible minds at the Easter Rising talk page again, if you have the stomach for it. -R. fiend (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm replying on your talk page because of the time lag - you may not be still watching me. Scolaire (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. What you are proposing seems to make sense. In general, I am in favour of making choices such that we can move on and improve the article with the minimum of further drama. I sense though that this may be out of our hands; and I have to say too that R. fiend has done himself no favours in the way he has approached this matter. --John (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The RfC isn't about the easter rising article, its about F. Fiend abuse of his admin powers whilst being involved in content disputes, this is not a isolated case, he has done it on other articles and I believe he even blocked a editor that he was involved in a dispute with. What I want to see come out of this is a warning to admins not to abuse their powers in these cases, as first and foremost admin are just editors and have to abid by the same rules as everyone else.--Padraig (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to see R. fiend's attitude and behaviour discussed. However there is other stuff going on that I want to bring out into the open and have a discussion on. The alternatives are two user RfCs or one article RfC in which the approach of all editors is discussed, hopefully with a view to improving understanding rather than imposing sanctions. Scolaire (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Let us await developments. --John (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• It has not appeared at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. Aatomic1 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that. I was giving it a few minutes. I'll put a comment on the talk page now. Scolaire (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak over

Welcome back to my talk page. It's a New Year and I'm talking to people again. Scolaire (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I thought we were going to be starting a RfC for the users' conduct, not the content of the article. You can reply there as several people are watching that page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The user conduct RfC has now been filed - Alison ^❤ 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that statement. It adds a little balance and perspective to the situation - I'm more than aware that Domer is not exactly an angel and an innocent in all this, too - Alison ^❤ 18:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted to be sure I got it right before I posted it :) Scolaire (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Peadar Clancy

Thanks re: the Clancy Article. Over the coming weeks I hope to do one on Conor Clune, and expand the Dick McKee article. Any help or suggestions would be more than welcome. On Conor Clune I have a number of sources which say that he was a Volunteer, and an equal number which state the opposite. One example being the plaque in the picture over the guard room on the Clancy Article. Now my own opinion is (which means nothing at all), is that when he is described as an innocent victim, it means he was innocent in relation to the events planned for the morning of Bloody Sunday. That is, he had no involvement in any of the planning for the attacks on the British Spies. Any ideas on this yourself?--Domer48 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my understanding - that he was a Volunteer from Clare (?) who was in Dublin for talks of some sort, and because he was in the company of McKee and Clancy when they were arrested they took him for a leader as well. I'll have a look and see if there is anything on my bookshelf. Scolaire 07:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the only book I can find that talks about it is The Squad, which I'm sure you've read. One interesting thing I did see though - his uncle was Patrick Clune, Archbishop of Perth, who became peripherally involved in negotiations after Bloody Sunday and discussed Ireland with Pope Benedict XV. Scolaire 07:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Came across this which seems to suggest he was a civilian, scroll down to November 21--Padraig (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, only that he wasn't one of the planners. According to The Squad he was arrested in Vaughans Hotel because he wasn't registered and he hadn't a toothbrush. He had come with Peadar Clancy and then been "forgoten about". The question is, if Clancy went to Vaughans just for an IRA meeting, why would he bring a civilian? Doesn't it seem more likely that he was in Dublin on IRA, but not Bloody Sunday, business? Scolaire 08:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Squad also has Collins refering to the death of Two soldiers of Ireland, which would be strange if Clune was also a Volunteer that he didn't mention him. Its possible he was on the fringes but not a volunteer, and knew Clancy.--Padraig (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made a small start to the Conor Clune article. Should we move this discussion over there? --Domer48 (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I've copied this to the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

If the vote ends up at no consensus I'll ask as the Wiki IRC channel to see where we stand Gnevin (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Talbot tag

The reason I tagged it is because: 1) I'm hardly an expert--or even someone who had heard of Mr Talbot before reading that article--on this subject, and frankly have neither the time nor interest to become one. 2) That article is rather egregious by any standard in its lack of citations/sources, and again, time/interest as previous. 3) I don't believe adding the tag endows me with a special responsibility. I'm simply informing others of the problem. Crunk (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to pass comment at Talk:Football in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move

Hello, I am leaving a friendly notice to invite you to participate at a requested move from 'Football in the Republic of Ireland' to 'Association football in the Republic of Ireland', due to your participation in a previous requested move. Hope to see you there! EJF (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the invite. Scolaire (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

?

Hi Peter! I only tried to bring all the athletes in line and 99% have a date of birth written in the style May 20, 1877. Also 99% of all have their nickname written in the style "Pat" and I placed the nick "Pat" behind Patrick, because Pat is short for Patrick and not for Joseph? Maybe this are not the biggest problems, but I only want to explain why I did my changes. Kind regards and :) Doma-w (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. I knew why you did it. But a nickname should always come immediately before the surname, and articles on Irish and British subjects have dates in the day, month, year format. It means that some of your 99% might need to be changed. Regards. Scolaire (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

FUBAR

Exactly what it says on the tin! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I had guessed the "FU" bit. Thanks for the link :-) Scolaire (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Rising

Possibly in the next day or so, I'm busy finishing an article that must be finished today for reasons which will only be apparent when it's finished. I kept meaning to do something with the Rising article, but after seeing the warzone it had become I didn't think it was a productive use of my time. However after spending this weekend in Dublin seeing various places including Glasnevin I'm slightly more inspired to get something done with it. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Looking forward to it. Scolaire (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it took a few days longer than I'd hoped for, but that is what I've spent what seems like an ice age working on. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, Hackney. I took a 36 hr wikibreak so I've only just seen it now. All I can say is I wish I had your energy! Scolaire (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It was only finished a few hours ago, it was quite heavy going so didn't get it done in time for 1 April when the riot actually started. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So what's the chances of Easter Rising being a Good Article by 24 April? Scolaire (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends really, there's several factors involved. Firstly on how motivated I am for the next few days, I've still got some tweaks and additions to do on the article above but I'm mentally burned out right now. Secondly based on recent history World War 3 could break out over something as minor as the wording of a sentence, and given most of the sentences in the article are unreferenced and may need rewording depending on what sources say, there's all sorts of possibility for time consuming arguments to make things grind to a halt. Thirdly the GA nomination procedure is generally quite backlogged, and it can take up to a month to get a review done. There's an editor I know who's generally happy to review specific articles within a few days rather than waiting an eternity and this should be one of them, but we'd still need to get to that point first. All in all, I'd lean towards it not being done by 24 April, as it'd be better to get it done right than quickly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed now. I meant to put in a smiley after that question 'cause it was only tongue-in-cheek. I'm in this for the long haul, but it would be nice if people now started making substantial, referenced edits and took a rest from arguing over angels on the head of a pin. We shall see! Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything's possible. After all, I did create an article that was promoted to GA in just over 14 hours. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Surprise Draw

You have won the Irish Wikipedians surprise draw!! Just leave a message on my talk page to receive the prize of USD 1,000,000 or EUR 638,442.37 or GBP 505,871.414 Markreidyhp 07:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's quite funny...I guess! Scolaire (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Free Derry

Great work on the article. Left a few initial comments on the talk page. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rating, and the comments. The latest re-write was a bit of a rush job so I'm not surprised that some of the writing was a bit sloppy. I'll get down to it soon. As well as more detail on Motorman I hope to write some aftermath/legacy stuff. Scolaire (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it sloppy really. It's more a case of different people have different perspectives, so a fresh pair of eyes always spots things. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Pierre Cour

A tag has been placed on Pierre Cour requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. kickenchicken 03:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete was speedily declined. Scolaire (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

Scholar, I humbly ask your pardon if I bored you to tears talking about my"offspring" .I will refrain from using GDD1000's talk pages, but in future I'll be asking you to keep a civil tongue when addressing me. A man in his fifties should know better, especially one who refers to himself as a scholar.jeanne (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is my post - a bit irritable, certainly, but I don't see incivility. You should see some of what gets said on talk pages! Anyway, I apologise for any offence caused and thank you for your prompt response. Scolaire (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted and thank you for your speedy reply.Again I'm sorry if I occupied talk pages for personal chat.In future I'll send e-mails.My e-mail is also available-that way private opinions or domestic problems do not become public domain! Cheers,Jeanne.

Phantom Taoiseach & Mature Recollection AfDs

Hi Scolaire, you've nominated Phantom Taoiseach & Mature recollection for deletion. You didn't quite complete the process so I took the liberty. The full instructions are at here - Template:AfD in 3 steps.

I've left a comment on each AfD page on what should happen to these articles; Phantom Taoiseach merge with Taoiseach; Mature recollection merge with Brian Lenihan, Snr and/or 1990 Presidential election. Tx, Snappy56 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't nominate either of them, I {{Prod}}ed them. If you have replaced the prod template with an AfD that is your right. Or have the rules changed in the last few months? Scolaire (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD is a better way, you create a discussion page, people discuss it, and there maybe a consensus to delete it, or to keep it or to merge it. Snappy56 (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not a rule. If you want to nominate that's fine, but don't accuse me of sloppy housekeeping. Scolaire (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

New poll on The Great Hunger

You've started a new poll and indicated that the current move request has failed. Just to point out that it has not, and that it is more likely this time that a move will take place. I'd hate to see your new poll been taken as fact that the move request is over..... --Bardcom (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to this. Bookworm's re-opening of the MR just hours later was against convention, did not follow procedure and has been left hanging ever since, that is, there has never been a vote, just a series of straw polls. If it's not over it should be! Scolaire (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake! It was you who added the template without going through procedures. It is closed then. Excellent! Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Without going through procedures? Can you explain what you mean by that please? Kindly revert your removal of the template - it is currently listed in Requested Moves, and procedure was followed as far as I am aware. --Bardcom (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[egg on face and goofy grin] Here is where you followed procedure. Because there was no mention of the new RM in the body of the discussion, I jumped to the conclusion that there had not been one (and as a result I was completely baffled by the Discussion moved from WP:RM section). Humblest apologies and I will restore the template immediately! Scolaire (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Too late. You already have. Just humblest apologies then! Scolaire (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

:-) No problem. I've kinda jumped across your latest poll - just to try to get closure on the previous process. I suspect that many people that selected Option 1 would have no objections to Option 4 - and your poll so far also seems to support this. If this is the case, and the original editors that selected Option 1 indicate that they have no objections to Option 4, then perhaps we'll have a consensus for Option 4. Anyway, we're both rowing in the same direction... --Bardcom (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah! I left a comment at the bottom just before I read this. It miight have come across as a bit peevish. Sorry again!  :-) Scolaire (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(reduce)A number of editors who participated in the previous discussions have not - as far as I can see - been invited to participate in the latest one, e.g. Relata refero, Alai, Cameron, etc. Will you fix that? Better if you do it! Wotapalaver (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Scolaire (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just thought it was "neater" if you did it. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Still appears to be going well. At what stage do you think we should ask people to state their position via a "final" poll or the table thingy? --Bardcom (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, I've been thinking about that. It's interesting at the moment with dates v no dates, end date v open-ended, Great Irish v Great Famine, in Ireland v (Ireland) etc. Since everybody is thinking hard, I'm inclined to give it at least another 24 hours. What you do then - well, although the table looks good on the finished page, on the edit screen it's a bit frightening; Sarah made a correction that time and I never quite figured out what she'd done. That might conceivably put people off voting. I was thinking of maybe asking people to vote in the format "Prefer Name A, Oppose Name B, Name C, Name D, Will Accept Name E, Name F". The selected name would be the one with the most prefers AND the fewest opposes. Scolaire (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The next question after that is, how do you conclude the RM. I have no experience of - indeed I have never seen before - an "options" move. How do you go for a final vote without bracketing all the acres of redundant discussion about discarded names? If you know the answer and the answer is simple - great! If not, I was wondering if the best course might be to, first, make a new request, then, replace the template with a "The Great Hunger → Everybody's favourite name" one and, finally, add a note on Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog (pretending you don't see my foot-in-mouth moment) that the request has been superseded by a new, named request. How does all that strike you? Scolaire (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My money is on Great Famine (Ireland) at the moment. Sarah777's imprimatur a few minutes ago has clinched it for me. Scolaire (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. By moving my comments on the Great Hunger talk page you "broke" a couple of references to other comments being below mine. Can you move my comment back to where I put it please? Wotapalaver (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, don't bother. Just please don't move my talk page comments again. Wotapalaver (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And please don't wedge your comments into the thread of the discussion again. It "breaks" the flow and makes the rest of the thread unintelligible. Scolaire (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I put my comments where I think they make most sense. You can put your comments where you think they make most sense. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You could save yourself the trouble. They don't make any better sense wherever you put them. Scolaire (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil. I've detected an increasingly sarcastic and unpleasant tone in some of your posts recently. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to say this in a tactful way. Obviously you believe that you are presenting logical arguments in a reasonable way, but to me - and I can't help this, it's just the way it is - it comes across as provocative, especially when you make a point of responding to my every post to tell me (so it seems to me) that I don't understand anything about it! After a certain time of responding in a civil manner and trying to put across my POV in a coherent and uncombative way, I eventually begin to feel I am being baited, and if I am baited for long enough I will bite. The best advice I can give you is to make the assumption that I and others have read, digested and understood your arguments already, and so it will not be necessary to drive the point home yet again. And if you feel you must comment, try to read over your post before clicking 'save' and ask yourself whether it is likely to be seen as throwing light on the situation, or getting up people's nose. I don't really know what else I can say. Scolaire (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)You need to add "Irish Potato Famine" to your poll, for completeness, even if it's just to show that a lot of people object to it. Without this option, this poll cannot be accepted as the final poll. Do it quickly before too many people register their selection. --Bardcom (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sergei Baltacha and Olga (?)

Hello, your message came just in time, when I'm switching to sports, and perhaps mostly Soviet sports-related topics. And I'll keep needed clarifications in the article on Sergei Baltacha on my to do list. Cmapm (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks a million. Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

GDD1000

My take on the whole situation. To be honest I think you're being slightly hard on Domer and Dunc. Regardless of what they (and others) did, he really didn't help himself. You know as well as anyone the problems he had with self published sources, you were even involved in at least one discussion about them. Time after time he was told, and yet there's still edits like this use of a self published source, and there's plenty more where that came from. I had no real dog in this battle other than neutrality, sadly most people didn't get that because of the inherent systematic bias with the "IRA are murdering terrorist bastards" opinionated editors (ie, anyone who reads The Sun for starters) being in the majority meant that the articles were similarly slanted so most of the POV removing only went in one direction. Now I was here long enough to recognise POV editing when I see it, and I see plenty of it in GDD1000's editing. For example an uninvolved third party (you know, the ones GDD1000 supposedly listened to?) removed unsourced POV commentary, which was clearly a good edit. So what did GDD1000 do? Reverted, and suggested the page be protected. That's an indefensible edit by anyone's standards. Now we'll moved onto his editing of The Troubles, and there's plenty of dodgy editing went on there. However the best example is this edit where he "Removed commentary". Now commentary or not, the perspective that the Republican Movement saw the level of support during the hunger strike as a "potential for political and electoral strategy" is indisputably true and easily sourced, the addition of {{cn}} would have solved that rapidly. However it was quickly removed, which on its own isn't a major problem. But he neglects to remove the Unionist perspective despite it being unsourced and commentary, and he definitely knew it was there because he edited the sentence. Tag both perspectives for sources? No problem. Remove both perspectives? No problem. Leave both unsourced perspectives in the article? Not ideal, but no problem. Remove one and not the other? POV editing, and the sort we can do without. So while it's easy to paint him as the victim of the piece, it's just as easy to paint him as a POV pusher who just didn't get the way Wikipedia works despite it being explained time and again. In my opinion he made no real effort to conform to Wikipedia expecting it instead to conform to him, and as recent events have shown it's play by our rules, or don't play at all.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is one thing I can be criticised for: I didn't say, and I should have, that that guy had major problems with adhering to consensus, that he dug his own grave time and time and time again, and that I opted out of the article as soon as I decently could because he was driving me mental! But that's all beside the point. I was involved in far more than one discussion with him. I was talking to him on his talk page as well as the article talk page. As I do when I'm trying to work through a problem, I was engaging in dialogue with him. And it was maddening beyond belief to have that dialogue interrupted over and over by shouts of "OR", "reliable sources" etc. etc.! Each time I thought he might be about to take something on board, the two of them goaded him again for no other apparent reason than the sheer sport of it. Even if your adversary is the worst POV-pusher on the wiki (and GDD would certainly be in the finals) the use of those tactics (Domers famous quote in another context of "I know how to handle that gobshite") is disruptive not just to the editor but to the article and the talk-page themselves. And here's a question: GDD walked away from WP - a golden opportunity to correct all the POV slants in the UDR article without opposition! So why did editing on the article stop dead the day he left? I can't help asking, how much of it was desire to produce a good article and how much was just the thrill of battle? And isn't it great when another editor on another article starts adding outrageous POV-ridden material like "infamous coffin-ship" so you can go out and die for your country again? That's my take on it. Scolaire (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, it's a classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don't you've just pointed out. If Dunc or Domer had made drastic changes since GDD1000's departure the vultures would be circling with arguments of "They chased him off Wikipedia so they could have their own way on the UDR article", yet because they don't edit the article they are criticised too! There probably is a good article to be written about the UDR, ideally making use of The Ulster Defence Regiment: An Instrument of Peace by Chris Ryder and the exorbitantly priced regimental history, and Troubles books which cover the regiment, rather than relying on bits and pieces cobbled together from questionably researched news articles. I've got my own take on the arguments surrounding the last point you raised, but it's too much effort to present them coherently right now. Maybe later... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! I'll talk to you then. Scolaire (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had some time to think. We'll take this post as a starting point, and rather than get into specifics we'll use that type of situation (but not that exact sentence) for a hypothetical argument:

Now it's constantly said that academics don't regard Wikipedia as reliable, because it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and at any given moment, so it's only really as reliable as any cited sources. So the situations is this:

At some point in the history of an article somebody will have added a sentence that says "x, y, z", and maybe they cited a source and maybe they didn't as that's largely immaterial as my next point will make clear. Another editor comes along and says "I can't find where in the cited source the text that supports that is, can you quote it please?" For whatever reason the editor won't provide a quote, so really it should now be regarded as unsourced to all intents and purposes. So the editor looks for another source, finds one that doesn't quite source the wording but is being told that unless he's reason to doubt the original wording is wrong to leave it alone and just add the source.

Am I the only person that finds that sort of advice downright wrong? The objective of the exercise is not to "preserve the existing wording at all costs", who knows whether it is right or wrong? It might have been added by a practical joker or vandal for all we know, or (more commonly) a POV pusher, editor who didn't actually understand the source, or other type of [insert whatever wording here] editor. When we add a source it should be cited accurately, not compounding the problem by making people think a sentence is properly sourced when really it isn't. As pretty much everyone is aware, the Hunger is a controversial article. If admins are telling editors of that article "oh it doesn't matter if the source doesn't match the existing text, just add it anyway and leave the text alone" then the blame for Wikipedia's poor reputation for accuracy rests squarely on their shoulders. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject... the difference in the case you cite is that there are a number of editors (lets call them summarizers) who affirm that the material queried is an accurate summation from the original source. There is also one or two editors demanding that the exact wording in the article be reflected by the source (i.e. our entire article must be quoted, not just sourced). Lets call these verbatimers. My attempts were to find another source that, as much as possible, would satisfy the verbatimers concern. My advice "unless he's reason to doubt the original wording is wrong to leave it alone" was made in that context, because the summarizers are affirming that the source provided works. If there was not editors making that good faith claim, the advice would be different. Rockpocket 06:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find you actually mistaken there. Here is the section, and not one editor other than Colin4C (who doesn't produce the quote) affirms the original source cited does source the part about emigration. So now I've corrected your error, can we agree that as you say "the advice would be different"? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I was counting Wotapalaver among the summarizers. He affirms that his alternative source states the same thing. So we have two editors confirming that the sentence is is an accurate summation and two querying it. I wished to know why. My point was, rather than requesting a (5 page) quote just because you canask yourself if you have good reason to doubt the veracity of the statement. Thats all. Rockpocket 16:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You said "because the summarizers are affirming that the source provided works". Where? Not one person other than Colin4C said that the source provided sourced that sentence (Wotapalaver said he didn't even have that source!), and in the absence of quotes (and don't give me that five pages malarky, nobody can really believe it takes five whole pages to source that one sentence) it is unsourced. There is one editor asserting that the original source is an accurate source for it, and he evades, dodges, wikilawyers and prevaricates rather than provide even a single quote to substantiate it.

Wotapalaver asserts another source may be acceptable, but what if the wording is similar to yours? My point remains exactly the same, people are trying to fit sources to wording instead of fitting wording to sources. The latter is good practice, the former is poor editing.

Which brings me neatly round to the verbatimers versus the summarizers or the paraphrasers. After a lengthy look at the talk page here is the best example of the problems the summarizers cause:

• Source - The famine left hatred behind. Between Ireland and England the memory of what was done and endured has lain like a sword. Other famines followed, as other famines had gone before, but it is the terrible years of the Great Hunger which are remembered, and only just beginning to be forgiven.

• summarizers version - The famine caused a sense of lasting bitterness by the Irish towards the British government, whom many blamed — then and now — for the starvation of so many people.

Since when has "British government" been an acceptable paraphrase of "England"? Since when has "British government" been an acceptable summary of "England"? "Bitterness"? That's a bit of a wishy-washy word, I'm bitter at plenty of people for various things, it's a long way from there to "hating" them. I could really pull that whole sentence to bits, but it's pretty clear that even though it can be sourced elsewhere without too much difficulty, it isn't sourced by that passage. And check the history of the article, that was an existing sentence which has now been supposedly sourced by two different sources, neither of them particularly well it seems. If anyone thinks the summarizers version is an adequate summary or paraphrase of that source, well words literally fail me. So in my humble opinion, given that is the standard of their "summarizing" or "paraphrasing", I think it'd be best for the integrity of the encyclopedia if the people responsible provide direct quotes on request, just so other people can check what the original source says, compared to their rather unique interpretations. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I was counting Wotapalaver (who I knew had supported it). On reading it again, it turns out he is using an alternative source which he says supports the sentence.

Your example illustrates the point I was trying to make quite nicely. If you know (or even think) that something specific in the sentence is incorrect, misleading or inaccurate then say so. That was it can be addressed, and anyone can find a source that supports or contradicts it, and we can move on to the next detail. I simply don't think repeatedly demanding a source for a sentence just because it doesn't have one is an effective way of improving articles or working well with others. That appears to have been proved correct, since all that happened was tempers flared, people began to insult each other and Domer got banned. I believe if Domer has been specific about his concerns ("I would like a source for X because my understanding is the Y, not X, is a more accurate term"), those could have been specifically addressed (or removed) and it might have ended less painfully for everyone. My provision of sources was an attempt to pre-empt what it was that concerned him about the sentence (because I still don't know what it is). Rockpocket 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I was specific in what I asked. Yet ignored. BigDunc^Talk 23:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to skip past the famine stuff and answer the original question, paraphrased slightly because a specific answer requires a degree of specificity in the question. Somebody has added a sentence that says "x, y, z", and cited a source. Another editor comes along and says "I have the cited source and I can't find where in the source the text that supports that is, can you quote it please?" The editor responds, "it's on page 222, but not in so many words and I don't want to type out the whole page" (NB it is still sourced to all intents and purposes, but the source is currently under discussion). Editor B reads page 222 and comes to one of two conclusions: that the sentence does express the gist of page 222—and I use the word "gist" deliberately; the sentence doesn't have to, and shouldn't, quote or paraphrase the source exactly—or it says something quite different. If it is quite different in his view, he then says "it seems to me that the cited source says that Gladstone liked girls to wear frocks, not that Gladstone liked to wear girls' frocks." He might consider himself quoting a short sentence from page 222 that supports his view. What he cannot do, IMO, is demand that Editor A produce the specific sentence containing the word "frocks", when he knows the source uses the word "dresses". If the sentence does not sufficiently agree with the cited source, but it does express the gist of another source, then replace the citation. If the sentence is not sufficiently supported by any reliable source, then change it or remove it. BUT, there has to be a consensus that it's not supported by the source(s); Editor B's word alone is not enough (see here where an editor said "The source in question also does not reflect the content" and took the trouble to prove his point). In this way we ensure that the articles are properly sourced and practical jokers, vandals and POV pushers are effectively combated. Does all that seem reasonable to you? Scolaire (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD

This is an interesting proposal. I expect it is going to be controversial and I'm not entirely sure what my opinion is yet. I intend to think about it for a while before commenting, but I expect a lots of knees will be jerking... Rockpocket 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It has an interesting history: see here, here and here. I've been meaning to nominate it ever since the Rome Rule one ended. I'm still not sure which knees are going to jerk :-) Scolaire (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing/re-opening a requested move

{{helpme}} An old move request [1], which was a "move to ?" request, has finally, after many twists and turns, produced what appears to be a consensus name (which, incidentally, is very different to the apparent consensus name at the time of the request). What is the proper way to close this? My suggestion was, "to, first, make a new request, then, replace the template with a "The Great Hunger → NewName" one and, finally, add a note on Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog that the request has been superseded by a new, named request." The proposer's position is "if the older RM is still active, there's no need to open a new one", but he has not said exactly how he proposes to close the move. Note that, as I said to the proposer, "there are just short of 40,000 words (70 pages in MS Word) between the top and the bottom [of the RM discussion on the article talk page], peppered with content disputes and including a complete U-turn in consensus."[2] As it's the weekend, and everybody's pleased with themselves for finding a name nearly everybody likes, I want to "strike while the iron is hot". So what's the proper/best procedure, please? Scolaire (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I agree. A consensus has finally emerged - many thanks to Scolaire for keeping the discussions moving. I've no problem with whatever process is required. I've asked a non-involved admin to review Talk:The Great Hunger#Fourth (and final?) straw poll where the consensus was tested and to perform the move to "Great Famine (Ireland)". If the preference is for a new RM, I've no problem either way, just not sure why a new RM might be required. Thanks. --Bardcom (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest posing the question at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. {{helpme}} is great for general help, but I think in this case you probbaly need the guidance of a couple of move experts. Ask there and I'm sure someone should be able to answer you fairly quickly. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Doh! --Bardcom (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Good work. Personally, I'm happy that it has moved. --Bardcom (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too! Good call, sitting tight and letting somebody come in and close! It was sudden in the end, but it's nice to see it at its shiny new name. Scolaire (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Confused -- yes, a little, I hadn't been following that discussion, since initially chancing across it. The current name seems broadly sensible, though, so I'll file under "least said, soonest mended". Alai (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Scolaire (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Great Famine

Don't worry, it was nice to be informed but I'm not all that bothered. My knowledge of Ireland-related topics isn't all that great anyway and I am perfectly happy with the outcome anyway. = ) Best wishes, --Cameron* 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Scolaire (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom

Hi Scolaire, Thanks for the advice. I've filed a Third Opinion request for Radio 4 UK Theme and I may get around to another RfC, but about the user himself rather than any specific edit. CarterBar (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

@CarterBar, either "get around" to it, or desist from back-handed ad hominen attacks by making empty threats and alluding to improper behaviour against a specific user - me. --Bardcom (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It just seems to me that if you're going the road of 3O on one article, then an article RfC on the same article would make more sense than a user RfC which, you can take it from me, isn't going to go anywhere anyway - there just isn't the evidence of bad behaviour. Either way, my advice was spotaneous and disinterestd and I don't need to be involved any further. You needn't even respond to this. Scolaire (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock report

Hi. Could you take a look at this at all? Thanks.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've only just logged on now, but I think the opinion you've given is fair. There's no question that on one occasion GDD said "I am 82.41.187.226" and on another Thunderer said the same. But the edits Domer linked to don't look like abuse to me, and GDD wasn't under any sort of probation under Arbcom, so I don't see that he has a case to answer. I'm pretty sure the admins will take the same view. Scolaire (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

your diatribe on ROI

If you remove your numbers I'll repond below the whole post - if you keep the numbers, I'll repond under each point. I can't say fairer than that. Play fair.--Matt Lewis (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't refer to a reasoned analysis as a diatribe and then talk about playing fair. I don't understand how you are able to answer below a bulleted list but not a numbered list, and I don't care! Don't post here again. Scolaire (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm interfering here. I was watching your argument with Matt Lewis and I don't think a silly argument like that should make you feel you have to leave the article. You are both adults and must realise this will blow over within a day. Skipper 360 (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Skipper! No, I feel that, having made my points as clearly as I can, I would rather go back to real life for a day or so and let others take up the running. The whole naming dispute has a long way to run anyway and sitting at the computer for 12 hours+ to reply to each post is a mug's game. I did it yesterday so I'll take today off at least. Thanks again! Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Easy up you two. We all know how emotive Irish issues can be. Scolaire, your common sense has been of great help to me in the past and you're an excellent neutral source of opinion on Irish affairs. Matt, please try to respect Scolaire's wishes. You're obviously applying yourself to the subject well but let's not get too emotive. Some day I may need you to say that to me. The Thunderer (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Matt has apolgised now Scolaire. In the interests of harmony may I humbly request you recall your request to have him blocked? Please? The Thunderer (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Done! Scolaire (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done!The Thunderer (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an emotive issue for many. Thanks Thunderer for being a calm voice. --HighKing (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I had rather a bad start on Wikipedia due to the high emotions displayed over Irish issues. I'm very delighted to be of assistance now and to repay kindess shown to me by Scolaire. The Thunderer (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

wikiquette

Hi Scolaire. I was thinking of ending the wikiquette alert on Sarah777 but don't know the procedure as far as who is allowed to close it. I wouldn't want to step on any toes, so would you know how to go about it? The case seems to be a lame duck. Skipper 360 (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Im afraid I don't know either. That was my first visit to the page. I think if nobody posts for a couple of days somebody with experience will come along and close it. Scolaire (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Incidentally, I put forward an idea on the talk Republic of Ireland talk page. I would appreciate your view, positive or negative. Thanks. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I just left a comment now (negative, I'm afraid!). Scolaire (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As you know by now I went ahead . It could be as you say and nobody comes forward, and even if they do it might not work out, but I honestly didn't see the harm in it. As I said to Matt Lewis, if it descends into chaos I'm quite willing to take the blame. Skipper 360 (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the couple of people who did venture an opinion have been shouted down by the partisans on both sides. It must be very disheartening to state what feels like a commonsense opinion, after being invited to do so, only to get the response they did. All credit to you, Skipper, for persevering as you have! But the argument is not going to be resolved this time around, and I for one am going to bow out and let it die a natural death. Scolaire (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that Scolaire, I got myself into a bit of a fangle there. I'm sure that it's sorted. I'll just go and lie down now. :< Skipper 360 (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns Scolaire, but I would rather leave it for a little while and see if we do get more outside opinions. Of course, when it comes to a point where this is not happening, I will close it. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Main page redesign

Hello, Scolaire! Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal was recently cleared of all design entries. You may want to re-enter your design(s), based on the details here. (You can see the old list of designs here). NOTE: A survey was conducted on what users wanted to see in the new main page, you can see the results here. NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Poll headings in ROI Talk

I thought you had just created the "Discussion" heading? All the discussion in it was intended to be part of the poll, surely? Where are the links to the heading "Proposal 27" too (you say people have linked to these - where?) It looks like Proposal 27 is another poll now, but it's not - gnevin just continued his "Ireland (state)" poll again at the base of the page, didn't he? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, all RMs and similar should be divided into "poll" and "discussion". That way the closing admin can count the votes without wading through a whole mess of forked discussions. I created the "Discussion" heading on day 1, and gave my reasoning immediately under the heading. Don't worry about where I linked to "Proposal 27" - I did, that's all (and I just have, again). I haven't deleted your "(a continuation of the Ireland (state) Move poll)" note, it's still there right under the heading. Scolaire (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Augustine Birrell

Thanks for contacting me. I have tried to make a few additions to the text and references and will come back to it again over the coming days. Graham Lippiatt (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! I appreciate it. Scolaire (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rfc closed

Hi there, I have now closed the Rfc. There seemed to be no new editors coming in. In trying to help I hope I haven't confused it more. I'll be off to pastures new and wish you all the best. Cheers. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Useful comment?

Did I do good mister?  ;) The Thunderer (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On my friend's talk page? Very good, thank you! Scolaire (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you but I've hung around the entire island for years - was gagging to after years in the BA with loads of mates from all over. Did business down there for a long time too and to me it was like a gift from heaven, being able to drive wherever I wanted to and stay in half decent hotels and get to know the people whose friendship I'd been denied by been born into troubled times (and through being too bloody poor to travel anyway). When you realise that ordinary Irish people in the South are just the same as ordinary Irish people in the North then you also comprehend that there's nothing to fear from them. Sure there are eejits everywhere (especially in the Royal Hoey in Athlone one night) but they are the exception. One can have pride in one's own country, house, car, wife, dog or whatever. No need to take exception when you find that another person has the same views about what it important to him/her. As a friend of mine in Cork would often say to me, "we just wish you'd stop fighting about it". The Thunderer (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as I've been to Belfast many times - to meetings where I wouldn't have a clue if the people I was talking to were from one side or the other (though the names are sometimes a giveaway). But I've never encountered anything but warmth and genuine friendship. If only people who live hundreds of miles away from these wars didn't feel compelled to fight them for us! Scolaire (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah well now - Billy is just the first part of William and Liam the second. Or to put it more succinctly; a friend of mine called Malachy became Malcolm in Orange Hall dances we used to frequent in the 1970's. Either way we just called him Mal - and got away with it. Bearing in mind that my backside would have been kicked just as hard as his had we been found out. Anyway, if Big Ian and MMG can have coffee mornings together why can't that be seen as an example to the rest of the world ;) The Thunderer (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Scolaire, thanks for welcoming me back. You are the first editor to have done so. I daresay there are some who would rather I stayed at my beach house forever sans computer. Ah, summer like youth passes so quickly. Anyway, thanks again.--jeanne (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahem! The Thunderer (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I couldn't resist the temptation ;-) Scolaire (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I had said hello too ;) The Thunderer (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

amendments to ROI

I think I did describe it actually, but have no objections to your modification --Snowded TALK 22:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)