User talk:Scolaire/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ulster Special Constabulary

Hi I liked your approach to the Easter Risng article - especially on shortening and summarising material.

Although I think that article needs more work, would you have any advice/input on the re-write I'm doing at Ulster Special Constabulary?

Your help would be appreciated.

Jdorney (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a list of articles I want to work on. There's eight articles on it at the moment (not including Easter Rising) and I'm a very slow worker. The chances of me being drawn into Ulster Special Constabulary before the end of the summer are slim indeed. Thanks for the invite, anyway. Scolaire (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'll talk to you on the Easter Rising page. Jdorney (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind but I thought you could maybe use this

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. John (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It's always nice to be called a "trusted user". Pending changes looks to me like a good idea, especially given some issues I've had on a page that's now indefinitely semi-protected. I don't know whether or how much I'll use my new privileges, but I'm certainly going to read up about it. Scolaire (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

An apology

Scolaire i want to apologise to you for my recent attitude, i let another editors continuing attempts at what i see as blurring the border and lack of will to make concessions piss me off big-style and let it harden my position. I really do want a concensus on the county ledes issue and i hope we are able to reach one that we can all agree with. I am an editor who is quite willing to make concessions if something reasonable is given back in return, as the new IMOS placenames issue shows. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted and thank you. It's never easy to do, and I have great respect for anyone who has the bottle to do it. I don't think I'll rejoin the discussion, though. My ideas are there for anyone who wants to read them, and I'll go along with anything that gets a consensus. Scolaire (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your input will be missed. Superfopp is quite unwilling (RA to a lesser degree) to move or give something in return in respects to anything on Northern Irelands position, and Laurel_Lodged and Canterbury_Tail both standing firm on their beliefs in regards to Northern Irelands position by not discussing alternative proposals. Even if i had of reached a deal with you there still wasn't a concensus without LL and CT backing it. I fear (along with other facets i've had to raise) the issues will have to be taken further along the Content Dispute Resolution path, i.e. the Mediation Committee, for RA and Superfopps unwillingness to discuss and ability to remain silent when it suits them when i raise questions is stifling the other issues and making me more unwilling to compromise with them. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to stepping in, Scolaire -

Mabuska, I think you're being a little narrow sighted and unfair. From the very off-set, I've said that the NI context should be emphasised above the Ireland context. I suggested that we explicitly state that NI in the UK and avoid any arrangements of words that might lead a reader to believe that all of Ireland forms one jurisdiction. I've supported suggestions by both yourself and Scolaire. I've made suggestions for new wordings that place the NI context foremost. From my first breath on this topic to my very last one, I have said that the NI context needs to be explicitly stated, given precedence over the Ireland-context and not be overwhelmed by the Ireland-context (in contrast to the current wording in the articles). That is hardly the position of someone who is "unwilling to move or give something in return in respects to anything on Northern Irelands position". --RA (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To avoid hijacking this talk page of anothers user i've responded over at mine. Mabuska ^(talk)

You are now a Reviewer

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing sourced material

Any reason for that? The Heraldry WikiProject said the arms are accurate and the images were sourced. It is disruptive to remove sourced information. So I would like an explanation. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to explain ad nauseam. The "WikiProject" said nothing. You're deluding yourself. The images are not sourced. WP:OI says: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". The fanciful elements in your fanciful design are not published anywhere. You won't listen to me but that's fine, you're only beating your head against a wall. Scolaire (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Tamfang said "It's true that any two renditions of argent a sinister hand gules are legally equivalent". Seven Letters said "Coats of arms, full achievements, etc, are defined by words, not design. If different illustrations have the same blazon, they represent the same coat of arms, baroque or not. The style is entirely up to the artist". While only two, there are no Heraldry contributors that refuted this, so you should have at least considered I was not lying to you. Yet, instead of going with me and two other editors, you decided to ignore them and go with "I still don't think so". So, I found the American Heraldry Society article, which stated "With the exception of the lozenge (diamond), there is no significance to the shape of the shield. The lozenge has traditionally been distinctive of the arms of women in the heraldry of certain countries, including much of the United States (see section 3.2 on heraldry of women). Other than that, any style of shield is available to anyone." But you deleted it without concern. Since it is not an original nor unique idea, and it illustrates centuries-old blazons, it does not violate the original research policy. Oh, and it was posted there already and they ignored it. That might be a hint. So, again, why did you remove it? And please do not argue in circles with any of the points which have been refuted here yet again. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I must argue in circles, since you are arguing in circles, making points which I have refuted again and again. That is why I said I am happy to explain ad nauseam. The "WikiProject" said nothing. Three editors do not a Wikiproject make. Your quote from Seven Letters is a general comment on matters heraldic; he specifically said he was "not familiar with the particular arms in question", so it was not possible for him to say that "the arms are accurate and the images were sourced." Tamfang said "It's true that any two renditions of argent a sinister hand gules are legally equivalent, but that doesn't oblige me to blind myself to the image's inappropriateness on other grounds." You say I "should have at least considered you were not lying to me", but deliberately editing somebody's comments to make them appear to say the opposite of what they do say is as near to lying as makes no difference. The consensus (1 - 0) on the Heraldry talk page is that the image is inappropriate.

Secondly, you say you found the American Heraldry Society article, which stated Blah, but can you find the Wikipedia guideline that says an article in a heraldry journal is the arbiter of what is original content in WP images?

Oh, and I have looked in vain for the image that was "posted there already" and ignored. If by "there" you mean O'Neill dynasty, that image appears to have been deleted, so how can I judge it? The article is not much watched or edited - I myself was not watching it - so the fact that it was ignored does not indicate approval. If by "there" you mean the Wikiproject page, the fact that it was ignored definitely does not indicate approval. Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? Three members does not a WikiProject make? It is three people that know about heraldry that were in agreement that the drawing was within normal and acceptable guidelines of heraldry. Seven Letters did not refrain from siding with that, he refused to comment on whether the arms were supposed to be a left or right hand. Tamfang said the arms are not an acceptable style for Legendary Ireland, which I never claimed them to be. They both still said my shield does not need to match exactly a pre-existing shield-shape, which was the point of your argument, that you could not find the hand on that shield.

Now, since there was a consensus that a coat of arms must be sourced and show a link to a photograph where one may see an exact replica, then you must apply the same standard to any new images you wish to add. So, stop being hypocritical and live by your own standards. Source the images before you add them again, per your own consensus. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR & Edit warring

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at O'Neill dynasty. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 13:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This applies also to all the other articles you two are edit warring over. Canterbury Tail talk 13:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Scolaire, The RfC should be moved over to Leo XIII. I don't think anybody over there will get the posts. What do you think?Malke 2010 20:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Won't get what posts? Nobody has commented. Xanderliptak should take the hint and just close it, period. But I won't withhold permission if that's what you're asking.

By the way, are they still tinkering with the "Suggestions of improper behaviour by some rowdy elements who have nothing whatever to do with the movement" section on that other article? I daren't look in case I get dragged back in. Scolaire (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Ireland

Hi Scolaire,

Just dropping a line to wonder if you would be interested in participating in setting up a Wikimedia chapter in Ireland. It took a year (almost to the day) but ten editors have expressed an interest, which meets the criteria for a "critical mass". How would you feel about it? Know of anyone who might be interested?

By the way, you might also be interested in joining the Wikimedia Ireland mailing list, if you are not already on it. --RA (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I do have an interest in media, and some of the "What could a Wikimedia Ireland do?" items are very attractive, especially the idea of persuading individuals and organisations to make certain media free. I also like that so many of those who've expressed an interest are actively involved in uploading or using media. On the other hand, I'm not currently in "dynamic" mode: if you look at my contributions you'll see I've scaled down my activity considerably. I'm reluctant to add my name just for the sake of making up numbers, especially when there are so many "curiouses" and "interesteds" already. I'd love to see the project work but I'm not sure I'd be able to commit myself in any meaningful way. Thanks for asking, anyway. Scolaire (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this. Completely understand. If you're subscribed to the list, keep an eye on developments and if you can make it on the 25th I'm curious about meeting other editors in real life.

p.s. my real reason for coming to your page was to give a thumbs up to this: "I had to laugh when you said the dispute goes back to the Crusades. I didn't become a user until well into this century, but I can well believe it's true." You're a great wit when you get angry. --RA (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, I have to cool right down before I'm capable of that kind of wit :-) I knew you'd appreciate it, though. Scolaire (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Leo XIII

Hi, Given that you were involved in that, I think you might be interested again. History2007 (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken, I'm afraid. Beating my head against a wall is not actually one of my hobbies. Scolaire (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The war to end war

On 3 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The war to end war, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Images of pictures

Hi Scolaire, if you object to the pics so much then just remove them. Despite their standard, I do think they give some historical context, aid understanding and show their continuing relevance as they are in a current exhibition. These are relevant contemporary media, useful for readers and for their understanding. I will add this to the discussion too. Ardfern (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BISE

If editors wants to particpate at BISE? they can. The more who participate there, the more effective BISE becomes -per article-. If editors don't want a thing to do with BISE & go straight to the articles themselves? so be it. The more who don't participate at BISE, the less effective it becomes. It's up to the individual, all BISE is is a collaborative idea, a place to keep an eye on all related articles. Wowsers, there's editors out there who can't stand WikiProjects for similiar reasons. Remember what Groucho Marx said? "I never wanted to belong to a group, that would have me as a member". It's up to you Scolaire, if ya wann disregard BISE or kill it & bury it? that's your choice. You'd be neither right or wrong. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, see, my problem is I don't care about the British Isles dispute and I don't want to hear about it. As long as it keeps the feuding parties in one place and away from "my" articles (i.e. the ones that interest me) I think BITASK/BISE is great! When they start coming onto my articles and telling us what they've decided we're going to do, all I want is for them to go back in their hole, and not try to "pull" anybody else with them. I respect you, GD, and I don't mean this in a sarcastic or hurtful way, but talk of BITASK/BISE becoming "more effective" is a pipe-dream. It's only effective as a soap-box, and it will never be effective as anything else. Still, It's nice to chat to you again. Our paths don't seem to have crossed for a while. Scolaire (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

BISE is whatever editors make of it. PS: 'tis good to cross path with you. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put a counter proposal for the BISE template here. I'd appreciate it if you would comment. --RA (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

avoid ad hominem please

Scolaire please avoid ad hominem remarks like these[1]. This kind of comment is unhelpful and violates WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG--Cailil ^talk 18:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem is "an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." The post you link to does not relate to any premise; it is a post to a user talk page asking that user to modify his attitude and behaviour towards me. Throwing trilogies of abbreviations at me (thank you at least for not linking them) is a rather lazy way of saying that you think "behave like a grownup" is a trifle over the top. You say it is unhelpful, but I haven't seen the same behaviour from LB since, so I conclude it has helped me. However, if the phrase bothers you, I will strike it. Scolaire (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire an ad hominem comment is a remark (usually belittling or offensive) made about a person (it's the equivalent of 'playing the man not the ball' in sport). And yes please strike that remark.
Also note that your comment above is tendentious and uncivil. I would suggest that is not the best idea to test the limits while operating in an area under probation (as the British Isles naming dispute is). And I'm afraid I have to warn you once more for misuse of the talk space. Please modify that behaviour--Cailil ^talk 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

@Cailil, if this example is characterized as an ad hominen remark, I look forward to your future warnings to participants at BISE. I'll start holding my breath .... 3 .... 2 ... 1 .. now! --HighKing (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This time, Cailil, I'm going to have to ask you to spell out your objections. You have a right to warn me if you don't like my language, but you don't have the automatic right to a grovelling reply. If your use of a term is wrong (and yours is - I quoted from Wikipedia while your definition is unsourced) I have every right to say so. If I think your warning is pompous and overbearing, I have a right to say so. You could have said, "Scolaire, please avoid the sort of gratuitous insult you used on LB's talk page" and I would have replied, "you're right, I'm sorry and I won't do it again." However, I am not a school-child and you are not a master and you don't have the right to address me as though that is what we are. In particular, I resent your suggestion that I am "testing the limits" by simply standing up for myself. I am well-known in "areas under probation" and anybody in any of those areas will tell you that I never even go close to the limit. All this is, of course, assuming that what you object to is what I think you object to. So will you now, please, list every part of my original post that you believe is against policy and explain why, and every part of my reply to you above that you believe is against policy and explain why, and provide diffs if there is any other post to a talk page that you consider is against policy? Scolaire (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The only issue I can see is the use of "grown up" and to be honest its very mild compared with what we normally see from LevinBoy. The rest of the comment seems reasonable but it would be good to have some clarification. To be fair here Cailil has been prepared to temper LB's outpourings on ANI and elsewhere. We need admins prepared to do that. Can I suggest striking "like a gownup" and replacing it with "behave more reasonably" then drawing a line under this? --Snowded ^TALK 07:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As always, Snowded, your input is eminently reasonable :-) However, one of my issues with Cailil is that he did not check whether I had struck the comment before posting his reply to me. I had, immediately I said I would and a full ninety minutes before Cailil's "second warning". I have already forgotten my tiff with LB, but I won't draw any line under this current discussion until Cailil either justifies his "second warning" or withdraws it unreservedly. Thank you for your words of encouragement. Scolaire (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire that warning will not be withdrawn.
Describing my second warning as "groveling" and "pompous" while repeatedly behaving in a tendentious manner (after being warned for such behaviour) is inappropriate and would be worthy of a 3rd warning - but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt not issue a 3rd warning for it.
Secondly for the benefit of clarification this part of your comment above is inappropriate as it is incivil, ad hominem and tendentious: "Throwing trilogies of abbreviations at me (thank you at least for not linking them) is a rather lazy way of saying that you think "behave like a grownup" is a trifle over the top. You say it is unhelpful, but I haven't seen the same behaviour from LB since, so I conclude it has helped me." It also shows contempt for our polices on No personal attacks as have your further responses to it. And as this area (the British Isles naming dispute topic - over which you were in argument with LevenBoy and for which you have been warned) is under probation users are to be especially mindful of policies [2].
And no I did check about your striking but as you raised a question about doing it I answered it.
Furthermore if it was unclear your second warning is for your response to me[3] and continuing use of ad hominem abusive labguage. By a) claiming LevenBoy was being immature you're comment attempted to invalidate his points by belittling him. And by b) claiming my warnings are in the first instance "lazy", and in the second "pompous" and/or "groveling" your comments attempt to belittle my warnings by belittling me that is ad hominem abuse. If this continues I will have another sysop review my conduct and unless they contradict me I will then proceed to continue to enforce site policy--Cailil ^talk 15:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This heading made me curious, apologies if my intrusion here is unhelpful but I really felt like commenting. Seriously, these warnings do come across as "pompous", and rather much so IMO. Pointing that out should not be seen as belittling the one who wrote them, any more than pointing out that Scolaires initial comment to LB might be perceived as a personal attack. (That comment has been redacted, so I suppose that matter is settled.) @Cailil: You should consider how you communicate to other users when trying to enforce site policy. The tone of your warnings here do sound like a master addressing a school-child - most editors would not be very happy to receive warnings in that tone. @Scolaire: You've received two and a half warnings - just say thanks and move on. After all, you are a grown up and (in my experience) very capable of behaving like one. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I may be grown up, but I'm Irish. We don't take things lying down. I've brought it to AN/I. You can eavesdrop here. --Scolaire (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Propaganda"

I'm sure you realise this, but my edit summary quip about "believing the propaganda" wasn't meant to be a criticism of either you or LevenBoy - LevenBoy is entitled to their opinion, I disagree, and you can form your own opinion. In hindsight "propaganda" probably wasn't the wisest term I could have used...!

I appreciate your reluctance to get drawn into WT:BISE, and respect that. You are, of course, very welcome should you change your mind. Despite what may be being suggested at ANI, I believe that editors should be free to dip in and out of WT:BISE as necessary - I've been trying to draw in talkpage and WikiProject editors on a case-by-case basis, without expecting that an editor interested in, say, Celtic Christianity (a recent example) would stick around after the individual issue was resolved. I'd hope that you might get involved for the current issue, then feel free to depart for less contentious shores ;-) TFOWR 11:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I thought "believing the propaganda" was a perfect description of my reaction :-) I may as well take this opportunity to say that any comments that I addressed to you (or made behind your back) were not intended as put-downs. I have nothing but admiration for the way you have handled things in the volatile atmosphere of BISE. I would like to have that sort of patience and detatchment when I grow up, but since I'm not far off 60 now, the prospects aren't great. Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd missed that, but no worries - I do have an emotional involvement, in that I desperately want it to succeed - but that's not really likely with a never-ending stream of issues ;-) TFOWR 12:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

True, alas. Seeing as I have you here, can I ask you as a favour to formally close this discussion on Talk:Ireland. It's fairly brief, surprisingly civilised and should be easy to summarise. I'm a demon for the dotting and crossing. Scolaire (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As I was involved (summarising WT:BISE) in the debate early on, I'm not completely comfortable closing it at T:Ireland. I'll ping AN and get someone non-involved to dot Ts etc ;-) TFOWR 12:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an apt headline. While Rome burns (first part of the last sentence of the lead) people are still arguing about whether British Isles should be used, yet the more damaging problem of outright fiction being added by a disruptive editor into articles is being ignored. Little wonder I rarely edit any more.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

One does what one can. Scolaire (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I knew I should have been clearer. I was referring to the vandalism I've just removed. The blatantly false claim was added here, correctly removed by an IP here, then added back here. The edit summary of "re-added content with a reference - please read the rest of the article in future" is hilarious, since neither the reference or the rest of the article makes the claim that members of the RUC took part in the massacre. With good reason too, because it isn't true. So while there's admin eyes on this page seemingly, is anyone up for enforcing content policy as well as civility policy? It isn't the first time this editor has added outright fiction to an article, and it's far more damaging to the encyclopedia than calling a spade a spade on a talk page. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes , it was "first part of the last sentence of the lead" that fooled me. I was puzzled that there was no mention of taking part in the sources, but I thought "well, he apparently believes it's true, so I'd better not mess with it." Incidentally, I've never known - you may have said, but I missed it - which facts in "The Rising outside Dublin" are untrue. I haven't seen the cited source so I can't make any assessment for myself. It would be nice to have that section sorted (and sourced). Scolaire (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The fiction added to Easter Rising is dealt with here. I could have fixed it at the time obviously, but I'd rather not spend all my available time dealing with disruptive vandalism like that, since it's a Forth Bridge job doing it.

I was proved right about selective enforcement of policy, this explains the latest attempt to vandalise the article in question. Anyone up for enforcing policy or not? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your posts at ANI

Please stop carrying your dispute with Cailil well beyond it's useful end. If you won't drop it, I will block you to prevent further disruption of the Wikipedia project. Jehochman ^Talk 23:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire, tell me to take a running jump if you like (I can take it) but de-escalation might be in order. This storm in a tea cup is blowin' out of all proportions. Speaking of tea, might be a good idea to put the kettle on. RashersTierney (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Rashers, I won't tell you to take a running jump :-) I appreciate your advice, as I appreciated the advice of Snowded and Finn Rindahl above. My dialogue with Cailil is over. I believe in the right of editors to be free of [whatever an acceptable word is] by admins. By taking it to AN/I, even if only one person agreed with me, I have put that on record. There's no need for me to do more. Jehochman's comment, "Go behave properly and you'll have nothing to worry about", was indistinguishable from my own comment, "can I ask you again to behave like a grownup?" for which I got escalating warnings. Go figure! His statement that he will block me if I continue to voice my concerns on the admin noticeboard is worthy of [name removed for fear of further escalation]! But I will drop it. I'm no Ghandi. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a good call Scolaire. I must say however that when Jehochman says he will block you for simply acting upon the invitation written by Cailil on their userpage - "If you have any issue with his [Cailils] editing or sysop functions he invites you to ask other sysops to review it and your concerns at the Administrator's noticeboard." - that does seem a bit excessive. Anyway, in case you did not notice Cailil and I had a little chat at my talk as well - just FYI, that discussion seems to be sorted as well. All the best & happy editing, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it amuses me that he continues his griping on your talk page, and then remarks that I am escalating. But I'm able to smile about it now. I hope we'll meet on medieval history or the Gaelic revival soon. I can't believe how unproductive I've been this summer. Scolaire (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't done anything at all wikip/mediawise since may or so - there are lots of loose ends that I was supposed to tie up. Expanding Eoin MacNeill, who's currently hardly described as a scholar at all, is one of those - I did get hold of some decent sources a while back. One of these days I might actually use them ;) Hope to see you around, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Omagh Bomb Memorial

I just have to say that I find the Bomb Memorial to be an eyesore. Couldn't they have designed something less tacky and more in harmony with the surroundings? Perhaps a statue of a dove upon a pedestal or something to that effect. This structure reminds me of a futuristic telephone booth or something nightmarish out of Bowie's Drive-In Saturday!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Irish history?

I noticed this edit of yours. Do you think such a wikiproject would be something to think seriously about? There's not to many contributing in this field and I suppose setting up and maintaining such a project does take some time that perhaps would be better spent writing articles - but I'd be very interested in joining&even in helping setting it up. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think a new Wikiproject would be another way to divide energies but a task force of Wikiproject Ireland (rather than a wholly new Wikiproject) might be a good idea for those interested in developing the history side of things. --RA (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You're always welcome here, stalker :-) If there are general issues like this that are going to come up, and we need a forum for discussion, then a task force would be one way of doing it. It's likely to have a small membership, but a small number of people actually talking things out are more likely to produce a result than a larger number of people all riding their old hobby-horses. Scolaire (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Another example would be the process we had earlier this year concerning how to title the chronological Irish history articles. I had a look at some of the task force pages, and that seem possible to set up without to much work. I'm ready if you are ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm good to give support to it. I guess a post to Talk:History of Ireland (since that had been acting as a project page from time to time) and WikiProject Ireland before anything is done would be advisable. But otherwise, the only process involved is to paste the {{Task force}} template to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/History. --RA (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think a new Wikiproject would exactly be dividing energies, just concentrating the topic into one central place which can be worked on by those interested in Irish history. Though if a taskforce can do the same thing go for it. I think it'd be good to have a concerted place to focus on Irish history - though would this taskforce be devoted to all eras of Irish history or post-United Irishmen Rebellion history, or even post-Williamite era? Both i think could merit their own taskforces. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should move this discussion to Wikiproject Ireland, or perhaps there are more people stalking Scolaire than the project ;) I think we should start with a task force on Irish history, widely construed. I'm mainly into mediaeval stuff, but I'd be interested in updates on modern history as well. Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There are probably as many history people stalking me as the project ;-) But by all means propose it there. Scolaire (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I opened a thread. --RA (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

This may cause you to rethink your position on that IP editor. O Fenian (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd seen that. I had my tongue firmly in my cheek. A short, non-confrontational answer often shuts these guys up quicker - they don't have the aggression to feed off then. Scolaire (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tongue in cheek never works well on the internet.. O Fenian (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. Scolaire (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)