User talk:Scolaire/Archive 9

Gun control RfC

As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFCGaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't expect to follow the discussion for very long. Re-phrasing the question does not get around the fact that there are two diametrically opposed positions, and zero chance of either side convincing the other. I imagine the war will go on in one form or another for many years, and in the meantime that silly section will remain as it is. Scolaire (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, probably true. I came here to ask your opinion as to whether you think that a straw poll on the subject of the Gun control article was likely to serve any purpose at this point? FiachraByrne (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting! For a long time Yes had a clear lead; now it seems that all the yesses have had their say and there is a slow but steady stream of No votes. I make it 20 – 16 for No as of now. It will almost certainly end in a No consensus, but you never can tell, and I'm enjoying it the way I enjoy the voting in the Eurovision Song Contest. Meanwhile, the debate just gets longer and still goes round in circles, but I think the recent excursion to AN/I has got a few more neutrals interested now. Certainly, I think that it would be pointless to try to get a discussion going on the wider issue of the scope of the article as long as the same few editors continue to argue the one point back and forth. But, having said that, it could be months or even years before they tire of it. Scolaire (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you've reminded me to change my vote! FiachraByrne (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you did. It felt strange counting you as a "yes" ;-) Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was a highly qualified "yes" and I do think the use of the Hitlerian trope, amongst others, in NRA international lobbying efforts can be mentioned but not treated in any depth as a valid theory. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

FiachraByrne There are multiple levels to the argument.

• Historical facts of registration and confiscation of jewish weapons
• Arguments to what degree the registration enabled and precipitated the confiscation (very strong arguments since there is copious documentation as to how the confiscation happened)
• Arguments regarding how important (or not) such actions were to the overall holocaust
• Arguments as to general associations/patterns/correlations between registration, confiscation, and tyranny/genocide
• Arguments as to how the historical cases inform modern debates on gun control in the US/UK/AU etc
• Rhetorical devices largely not based on the history that motivate the base (Raise your hand if you believe in gun control : Nazi salute) etc

The further down the line you go, the weaker the argument is, but the top two certainly are historical facts that are completely undisputed (and directly admitted to by the sources arguing against). The third is a matter of valid historical debate, and counter-factual alternate histories (If the Jews had had weapons they still would have been killed) are also very weak (See the Warsaw Uprising). The later elements are Certainly POV arguments, in which there is strong disagreement, but to say that one side is "settled" and the other is "fringe" is WP:OR wikipedia should not be taking sides in the argument. We should be neutrally describing the arguments (both pro and con). It is frankly irrefutable that the argument is notable and influential within the topic of gun control. To neutraully say that "The Nazis disarmed the jews. Gun rights advocates argue that this was one of the factors that enabled the Holocaust. Other people say this is bullshit (etc)" is perfectly accurate. WP:NPOV specifically mandates that all significant viewpoints be included in a neutral manner.To say that the NRA's viewpoint on gun control, or multiple federal judges, or sitting congressmen, or lawyers who have won multiple gun control cases from SCOTUS are not significant is an obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it's wise to carry on a side-discussion on a user talk page. Fiachra and I were only chatting informally about the way we see the discussion heading. Scolaire (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I was replying specifically to Fiachra's comment that "not treated in any depth as a valid theory." and that such a statement is too wide to be effective. "Not a valid theory" must be applied only to the parts that are in fact "not a valid theory" and not "undisputed historical facts". Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know you were, but Fiachra was not offering his comment for discussion. It was directed at me only. Scolaire (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gaijin42. As Scolaire indicates, put the above on the article talk page if you want me to address it. The discussion at Talk:Gun control is already sufficiently diffuse without bringing it here. Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania 2015

Hi there! I was just wondering would you be interested in making a bid for Dublin in Wikimania 2015? Lucky102 (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Why me? I don't even know you. Scolaire (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun control 2

I found your help immensely valuable on the gun control article, and wish you would reconsider. I am willing to leave the content out of the article for now until ArbCom gives some guidance. (I have not included you in the case, but feel free to add yourself if you feel inclined). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer if you had said, "I am willing to leave the content out of the article for now until we have some sort of consensus on the talk page." I think going to Arbcom was a big mistake (and I certainly don't want to be included in it). If you're lucky, they'll take a week or more to say they're not going to take the case because it's a content/policy dispute and they don't do content/policy disputes. If you're not, they will sit for months on end, during which time it will be impossible to make any progress on the article, and deliver f-all at the end of it. I advise you to withdraw the request ASAP, and go back to trying to resolve the question on the article talk page. If you are willing to do that, and if you don't edit-war on the article, and if you try not to rise to the bait every time AndyTheGrump or goethean provokes you, then I will withdraw my withdrawal from the discussion. However, I can't force the anti-Nazi-argument editors to put forward a proposed text, and if they don't, getting a balanced text will be very difficult. Scolaire (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think andy and I have both clarified that we are looking for a clarification of policy and how consensus is to be determined, and not looking for a ruling on the "truth". I am certainly not expecting arbcom to bless my version. After arbcom says whatever it has to say, we return to the talk page to continue discussion with whatever guidance they have given us. As there have been two other commenters on the case (3 if you count the Japan thing) I don't think withdrawl is an option any more. I think you will not get a proposed text from the other side, since their proposal is essentially "this cannot be mentioned", regardless of how many sources we use, or how we balance the pro/con argument within the paragraph. However, I will not edit war the article any longer. I think my proposed text is pretty solid in terms of policy adherence (although as with anything it can always be improved) , so Im hoping it can gain some traction on those who were undecided (or even those that may have opposed the previous admittedly bad text) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The page is locked again, with my proposed text inserted (not by me), so perhaps this will be an opportunity for people to discuss it. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is a good opportunity for you to prove your bona fides by making an {{edit protected}} request (see here) to have your text removed pending agreement. They will do it for you, as the originator. Then, when we have a consensus, we can make another {{edit protected}} request to add the agreed text (or request unprotection if AndyTheGrump can be pacified). If you're not willing to do that, and if you're determined to go down the ArbCom route, you can count me out. Scolaire (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but...

Thanks for expressing, better than I've been able to so far, your opinion of the recently-merged state of the Gun politics in the United States page, including the (IMO) POV lead. However, I just realized that I am being Wikihounded, so I am dropping working with Anythingyouwant on the lead - or anything else - until I get some advice about what to do about the hounding (and FWIW, Anything is NOT the hounder.)

Thanks again.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that.I hope it's resolved quickly. But if you're dropping out so am I. I was hoping to facilitate a dialogue; I'm not interested in leading a crusade by myself. Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have dropped it as a point of contention with the lead, for now, but have opened a new discussion on the series of edits by the same editor that preceded the change to the lead. Also, I wouldn't qualify my work on that page as a crusade. As these things often go - for me anyway - I was working on another page that linked to the page in question and when I read it, I became concerned with several items. I've been actively editing on Wikipedia less than a year, and this is the second time that a recently-merged article has hit my radar. Is that common in your experience? Lightbreather (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I expressed myself badly. I didn't mean to portray what you were doing as a crusade, I only meant that if I find myself taking the lead on an issue, I always go into crusader mode, and I'm not prepared to put that kind of an emotional investment into a Wikipedia article at the moment. The irony is that I started contributing to the discussion at Talk:Gun control as a kind of light relief, to get me away from some of the unhealthy arguments I've been involved in on pages that I'm actively involved in. Just when I thought I was helping to make some progress in the discussion, somebody decided to go to ArbCom instead. Then when you left a note there about the issue on Talk:Gun politics in the United States, I thought I might offer some assistance there. But when Sue Rangell decided to restore an edit that nobody agreed with on the grounds that it was "in line with consensus" (it was barely even in English, for God's sake!), I knew that I would be hitting my head against a brick wall. So I've unwatched those two articles and ArbCom. I might check back in a couple of months to see if anybody's made any progress, but I wouldn't be optimistic. No, I don't remember ever seeing a situation develop on a merged article before, but then I don't think I've ever seen a merger that wasn't straightforward and obvious, or one that touched on such a contentious topic. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for a positive exchange on Easter Rising. Our last few exchanges have been "hairy". It was nice to be back working well together again. Tóraí (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :-) As you can see above, I took a break from Irish topics and found myself enmeshed in a proper wiki-war, so I guess that put our disagreements over words and phrases into perspective for me. Actually, what started me on the Six days thing was that that particular anon (working on an IP range) has a history of mixing "reasonable" edits (of which the "six days" was one of his favourites), blatant POV-pushing, and extravagant claims that his grandfather was the man who shot Michael Collins and his great-great-uncle was in the Black and Tans. If it had been anybody else, I would have ignored it. But the end result was that the article is slightly improved, so I'm happy. Scolaire (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the mix of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" edits. And there's a lot there that should be WP:DENYed.

Good, we're back on positive terms :-) I wouldn't have liked it if any negative lingered. Thanks again, --Tóraí (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Achaidh Leithdeircc

Thanks Scolaire for doing that editing on Achaidh Leithdeircc - you have really tidied it up - looks good - many thanks mervs68|talk 19:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No probs, Mervs. Tidying is one of the things I do best. I don't have time for real writing, and joining discussions sometimes gets me in hot water ;-) You're doing a lot of good work on medieval Ireland. Keep it up! Scolaire (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Billy McGuire

Peter, Billy McGuire is the Current President of the IRB Billy is the keeper of the Sovereign Seals of Éire and has been turning the Seal on the 21st of Jan at Noon for fifty years. You removed my adding of Billy McGuire as President of the IRB twice now, it has been stated clearly in the press that he is the President of the IRB. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/war-of-words-as-the-irb-is-barred-from-mansion-house-29931277.html I would appreciate it if you would check your current out of date information and reinstate my addition. Thank you, Ray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrinoconnor (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ray, I would appreciate if you would read my post at Talk:Irish Republican Brotherhood#Billy McGuire, which will show that I am fully aware of what is stated in the press, and that it fails the relevant Wikipedia policies. Billy McGuire can call himself what he likes, but there is no documentary evidence that the organisation that is the subject of the Irish Republican Brotherhood article existed after 1924, or that it exists today. Scolaire (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

arb reply

Here, so as not to clutter the Arbcom with conversation. I apologize if you think this is out of line, but I do respect your arguments, and am trying to find an acceptable compromise.

You admit the facts are true, and in a prior comment (before you withdrew) said you thought the argument was notable. If you have a problem with the way the facts/argument are presented, is that not just an editing issue? Is there some rewording that you could envision reducing the issue? (stating the facts as part of the argument, rather than prior?) (Although I think that could make a cumbersome wording).

You object to the facts as turning the objection into a "yeah but" argument - A point I see, but removing the facts turns the initial argument into a ufo conspiracy theory. Yes the argument is controversial and not widely accepted, and you can certainly argue flaws in their conclusions - but they aren't just making it up without any basis in history. The counterfactual result is basically unknowable , (not to mention highly dependent one which particular alternate history you are working from) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I would happily have discussed all this with you on the article talk page, but in the space of only three hours you proposed your text, I made my "edit-conflict" proposal, AndyTheGrump began to edit-war, you engaged in the edit-war, you added your proposed edit without consensus, the page was edit-protected, you made an arbitration request, and I withdrew from the discussion. Now, before the page was edit-protected, you said that you were willing to leave the content out of the article until ArbCom gives some guidance, but after it was edit-protected, you ignored my suggestion, repeated several times by FiachraByrne, that you request its removal pending discussion. Therefore, I have put forward my views in the form of evidence at ArbCom. It is now up to ArbCom to make what they will of it. I see no advantage in discussing your edit either on the article talk page or here while there is a parallel process going on. Scolaire (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire. At the workshop you said: "As long as goethean abides by ArbCom's decisions, he has an important contribution to make to the discussion." But it's in a section on North8000. Maybe you meant North8000 instead of goethean?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thanks for pointing it out. Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir Henry Wilson, 1st Baronet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Nicholson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 17:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

RE Operation Flavius

Hi. Just wanted to let you know I reverted my last edit as I didn't wish to be in violation of 1RR. However, I believe the edit is salutary, and most certainly not tweaking for tweaking's sake. I believe the term "judicial personnel" is quite unclear, almost intentionally vague, whereas "members of the judiciary" is far clearer.

Anyway I don't want to get into any kind of edit war regarding good faith editing, so I wanted to know if you could look again (via edit history) at the rewording I used and let me know if you have any problem with it (and why) so I can TRY to reword it for mutual agreement, if possible.

Yours, Quis separabit? 20:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, I can look at your edits again. How about you bring it to the article talk page, where things of this nature are usually discussed? Scolaire (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Document titles and news headlines

Hmm... life is never simple, is it? Thanks for your comments and edits. Looks like I'm going to have to go back and check/fix a bunch of articles. CmdrObot (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I ruined your day :-) Thanks for taking the trouble to go back and check. Scolaire (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your comments

Up until a few days ago, I had quite a lot of respect for you and even supported your workshop proposals in the ArbCom about the Gun control article, but wow - what a difference a few days can make. Here are some of the things you've posted to or about me on the Gun control talk page:

• RE the proposed Nazi gun control article stub: "With all due respect to yourself, this new article proves my point; it is unmitigated rubbish, and I can't see a way even to begin to improve it." [1]
• "Finally, please stop telling me that you want to work with me, when what you want is for me to follow your agenda." [2]
• "Your whole post only confirms what I said in mine, that the edits were only tinkering for the sake of tinkering. ... You have my critique, and if you try something like this again I will revert you again. ... Otherwise, please just leave the paragraph alone, and let other concerned editors give their opinions. ... And, by the way, underlining is a form of shouting. It doesn't make your case any stronger, it just makes you look aggressive." [3]

The first one may be about content, but it's not WP:CIVIL. The others are also uncivil and personal. I don't think I've done that to you, and I'd prefer if you didn't do it to me. It's hard enough to edit these kinds of articles. Like you, I'd rather not be working on these, but they need good editors.

Thanks. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the way you trample over other people's edits and then come across all hurt when you are reverted or criticised. I don't like the way you fawn over people ("I TRULY appreciate your efforts here", "I really want to work together. ;-)") and think that makes you immune from adverse comment. And I don't like the way you started up that proposed Nazi gun control article stub when there was a clear consensus against it on Talk:Gun politics in the United States. I'm not saying these things to be hurtful. I think that you think you know better than the rest of us and write better than the rest of us. But you don't, and you need to face the fact that you don't. You're edits are not good; if they were they would not be disruptive and nobody would make a fuss. And your defence of them is too combative. If they are reverted, and another editor does not come rushing to your defence, you need to accept the fact that they weren't as well-thought-out as they seemed to you. Thank you for explaining about the underlining. I've never seen that advocated as a way to insert more text into already-posted comments. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted it as shouting. Scolaire (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

First, remember that I'm a chick. Not to say that all of us behave the same way, but my experience has been that women really do try to stick with the niceties. Also, I truly do appreciate your efforts, and I don't think telling people what I appreciate about them, instead of only focusing on what I dislike about then, makes me immune from criticism. And I certainly do not think that I know more, or write or edit better, than the rest of you... but I certainly think I'm not inferior. I do think I'm pretty much a lone, female, moderate supporter of gun control editing among a group of male, (some) quite extreme gun-rights editors, and that makes for a lot of anxiety on my part.

But the main problem with this personal stuff is that it's pointless. We can't either truly know what the other's intentions are. As for other editors rushing to my defense, there are numerous explanations for why that might (not) happen, so I am not going to assume it's because my contributions were bad. Just please, keep it on content. Lightbreather (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have tried not to remember that you're a chick, because if I had made a reference to it, I would have been branded as sexist. If you say that that is the explanation for your attitude and behaviour, then I'm not going to argue with you. But it doesn't make me like your attitude and behaviour any better. I won't make any personal comments on article talk pages any more, because I'm not going to interact with you any more. I will, however, continue to revert any edits that I consider to be tinkering for the sake of tinkering. Scolaire (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My gender probably isn't the reason for all of my attitudes and behaviors, but in this case, it's a big part of what you call "fawning." As for reverting my edits, all I ask is that you don't follow me around to do it, and leave edit messages that are about content (citing a policy or guideline when applicable), and not character. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, an olive branch. If you will strike your "reprehensible" statement on the Gun control talk page, as well as your statement explaining why you didn't want to strike it, I will strike my request for you to strike it, plus the "And since you insist on making this personal" paragraph I wrote in response to your explanation. Lightbreather (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As long as you understand that "strike" does not mean "delete", I'm happy to do that. I'm always receptive to olive branches, because I don't enjoy fighting – even if I sometimes seen to. To balance it out, I'm changing the heading of this section too. Scolaire (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I was going to use the "del" and "/del" way that I learned (when I learned "ins" and "/ins"), but I used the "s" and "/s" code that you used instead. Though they seem to accomplish the same end - to strike through, but not delete, what was written - I thank you for teaching me something new. I hope that when/if we work together in the future that we do so in a manner we both find collegial. Lightbreather (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather The difference between the two tags is subtle/non-existant for those using a full webbrowser, but they can behave very differently in some circumstances. del means deleted, which in a web browser, renders as strikeout (likely via CSS). In alternate editors (mobile, screenreader, alternate CSS schemes (Vector vs Mono etc) del may do something else (not render at all, use a tooltip, a popup, etc) . Strike will always behave as strike, regardless of the form (unless strike itself is overridden). Using del is probably better, (even though its fairly rarely used) because it gives intent as to why something is struck, so that the browser can intelligently do something else if it needs to for those alternate renderings. Similarly, ins could underline, or bold, or have a tooltip with a second signature saying when the insert was made, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Although we frequently bump heads one some things, I do appreciate that you take the time to explain some jargon and technical stuff that I'm unfamiliar with. But to be clear, are you saying it's better to use del over strike? And should I use insert, or is there a better alternative for that? (So others don't think I'm shouting. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In general, there's no need to flag when you insert something. It only becomes an issue if somebody has already replied, and adding something will make the reply seem puzzling or combative. If I think I need to flag an additional edit (which I rarely do), I simply preface it with [edit at xx:yy]. Personally, I find the underline disconcerting. It makes me think of a stress rather than an insertion. Scolaire (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Those are questions without good answers. Del and Ins are theoretically better, because wikipedia can retroactively change how the render if they don't like it. Thats much harder to do with something like strike that was explicitly chosen. However, if ins is doing something annoying (like shouting) then the theoretical benefit is probably outweighed by the concrete annoyance. (The correct solution is to perhaps make an RFC or suggestion somewhere to have ins do something other than underline, perhaps a dotted underline, or subscript, or prepend **INSERT** or something like what Scolaire mentioned just above). I would use del over strike since there is no downside, but maybe not use ins since it currently shouts. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That insert RfC isn't a bad idea. Where would be the best place for it? Lightbreather (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not completely sure. Wikipedia:Village_pump perhaps, or https://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page or https://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Your_Opinion Also, since talk pages are going to be radically changed in the future Wikipedia:FLOW will be where the solution is in the future (where it may be automatically handled as each comment will have its own revision history I believe) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I answered you before I read what you had written on Talk:Gun control. You will find that I have addressed some of the things you said, even though you said you would strike them. I'll say no more here, except that "don't shoot the messenger" is the most outragious thing you've said yet. An edit-warrior cannot be called a "messenger", and no matter how hard I try to AGF, you are most definitely an edit-warrior. Scolaire (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Our posts seem to be overlapping. I did (4-5 min ago) strike what I said I'd strike. Did I miss something? Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I simply decided, having read what you had actually written, that simply striking my previous comments on the promise that you would strike yours was insufficient – I needed to make my position clear. Now I have. Scolaire (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. I don't enjoy fighting either, and I am sorry that you have a poor opinion of me. I won' try to change your mind, but of course, I disagree with you on this point. Lightbreather (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I hope you don't mind that I obliquely referred to you at ArbCom.[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind you referring to me, but I'd prefer if you clarified. Yes, I do think that she is disruptive, but it is, and would have been, too late to add her as a party on ArbCom. As I said here, "the behaviour of new people can't be examined without closing the case and re-opening it." So it's only half true to say you're not alone. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

When ArbCom was considering Lightbreather's request to add me to the case, I said that I had walked away from the gun control article last year, which I did, and said that if I'm added then Lightbreather should be added. They added me but not Lightbreather. The whole thing seems messed up to me, which is not the least bit surprising given my past experience with ArbCom.

I recently said to ArbCom: "In my opinion, she is now the most disruptive editor in this area, and I am apparently not alone." I did not say whether I was alone in protesting ArbCom's decision to not make Lightbreather a party. Therefore, I don't think that I need to write any correction at the workshop page, and in any event a clerk has decided to hide the sentence that I have just quoted (along with hiding some other stuff). In any event, I was protesting a decision made months ago by ArbCom (when they rejected my request to add Lightbreather), and they could have done so then without closing and re-opening the case. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

All I wanted was for you to change "and I am apparently not alone" to "and I am apparently not alone in thinking she is disruptive". I'd still like you to, but it's no biggie. Scolaire (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do, though I think it's already implied.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Clontarf 1000

Hi Scolaire, HJ Mitchell gave me your name as someone who might be interested in a Dublin event for Clontarf 1000, would you like to get involved? Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, and I think I'll be free that day (Holy Saturday, right?). Keep me posted. Scolaire (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, all is confirmed and I have requested a geonotice so people who look at watchlists in Ireland will get an invitation. I will also post on the Ireland mailing list. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, hoped you enjoyed that. I have started reports for the Signpost and on Outreach, feel free to adapt from the perspective of one who was there. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Clontarf, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Clontarf and Cork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration proposed decision

Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• Talk:Gun control#RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'll bother. You made shit of the half-decent paragraph that Gaijin and I had worked out through collaborative, and civil, discussion. The paragraph as it stands definitely belongs in the bin, but as to whether there should be any paragraph or not, well, I'll just leave the rest of you to work that one out. It looks like Gaijin and the others are going to be topic-banned, so the argument is going to pretty one-sided anyway. But meanwhile, in Gun politics in the United States the far worse paragraph has been left completely untouched! How can you justify that? Scolaire (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Disappeared (Northern Ireland)

WP:STUB - "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." Hence why WP:BOMBARD also exists. FYI, you also may have broken WP:TROUBLES, so I will be reporting you at WP:AIV to see if another admin agrees. WP:BRD! GiantSnowman 14:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that WP:BOMBARD applies to Disappeared (Northern Ireland)? Do you contest the notability of the topic? Are you saying the author (not me, or even anybody I know) put in all those refs to make it appear notable when it's not? I don't think you are. I think you are just rhyming off all the Wikipedia policies you can think of, just to show how clever you are. BRD? I posted to your talk page to discuss it. So:

• WP:STUB – the article, though short, does provide encyclopaedic coverage of the subject.
• WP:BOMBARD – very obviously does not apply.
• WP:AIV – wrong forum, since my edit does not come under the heading of vandalism,
• WP:TROUBLES – intended for contentious content, not for housekeeping.
• WP:BRD – I did.

Maybe you should have a read of WP:NOTBURO while you're at it. Scolaire (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The "author" of the article you mention is - me! So of course I don't contest the notability of the subject; I was merely mentioning BOMBARD to highlight the fact that lots of references is meaningless. No, if you or me or somebody else was to use the existing refs to expand the article to over 1,500 characters (excluding tables and references) then I would remove the stub tag myself = 1,500, of course, being the usual benchmark for a stub article. And no you did not use BRD; you were B (removing the stub tag), I was R (restoring the stub tag), I was also D (explaining at your talk page) - but then you went and reverted again! So no you did not use BRD, and yes you broke WP:1RR as you yourself admitted. GiantSnowman 14:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that it was you who created the article. I can't believe that you got this worked up because I said it was a decent article and not a stub! I shudder to think what you might do if somebody criticised your work! I admitted nothing; I covered my ass because you seem determined to get me into trouble for doing something nice. Please try to get a sense of proportion. And please strike that stupid AIV complaint. Scolaire (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that this says it all. Scolaire (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You will note that I reported you for a "potential" violation; an uninvolved admin has decided that is not the case, which I accept. I'm not worked up in the slightest, and I didn't try to get you in trouble. We're not naughty schoolboys! GiantSnowman 15:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been acting like a schoolboy! Please don't bother me again. Scolaire (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In terms of project assesments, six short descriptive sentences and a list makes this a List-class article. BUT, tagging the article itself as a stub article is different from assessing the aricle itself for wikiprojects. Such a short article with a list may still be regarded as a stub though I think calling it a stub is not accurate. I don't think the amount of references really affects its stub status. On the otherhand as someone who has been asessing articles for the Ireland project since 2007 and was involved in developing the quality scale and importance scales, it is my opionion it is a list-class article even though I initially assessed it as a stub. On reflection it is neither a stub nor a start article at all for project assessment purposes. On the talk page GiantSnowman just added the project tag without an assessment leaving that job to those more in tune with the project criteria. As an admin I expect he is aware that project members are generally more familiar with their own projects than those who have wider interests. That applies to both article stub status and the project assesment. The final paragraph of WP:STUB#Stub types, WikiProjects, and Assessment templates is worth noting in so far as it tends to avoid controversy over te placement of stub tags in articles. ww2censor (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to explain all that to me. It's so nice to have a civil and helpful post from somebody who knows what he's talking about. What you say makes sense – that should indeed be a list-class article. But I see you've come across the same ownership issues that I did. I still think, though, that it should be mid-importance. It's a fairly significant episode in recent history, and certainly known about outside Ireland. Scolaire (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Strange edits?

Hi, I wonder if you could check out edits being made by 90.204.117.5 to articles such as Ian Paisley, Jr., William McCrea (politician) and others. There seems to be an agenda to the edits (removing references to Northern Ireland and replacing them with United Kingdom references). I have to log off now and go to work. Many thanks. Denisarona (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be a HarveyCarter sock. They all start with 92 rather than 90, and also tend to be more imaginative. I'm inclined to think it's a new editor, or one that hasn't come onto my radar before, with a "Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom" bee in his bonnet. I'll revert his edits once, because NI is the convention, but I'm not inclined to become involved in an edit war, or an extended discussion. Scolaire (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, having done the edits, I'm inclined to be grateful to the IP, because I discovered how much inconsistency there was on NI politician articles. I may not have implemented a convention so much as created one! Here's hoping it sticks. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Many thanks for your assistance. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ian Gow

Just to be clear, the so-called edit war is one abusive editor reverting multiple other editors who disagree with them. WCM_email 19:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

How many editors is "multiple"? On the talk page I see you and Izzy on one side, the anon and Born2cycle on the other, with Born2cycle eventually being persuaded to come over to your side. Not exactly WP:SNOW! I agree the anon has used abusive language, but that by itself is not a reason to revert his edits. And if Drmies believes it can best be solved by an RfC, then that is the correct way to go. Scolaire (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irish Republican Brotherhood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liam Lynch. 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) 09:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Irish Republican Brotherhood

Good job on the edits. Looks much better. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Scolaire (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Belated welcome to WP:3O

Hi! I noticed that you've answered a few posts at 3O project since a few months now. Thanks for doing the last recent one and clearing the list too. It's good to know that there are interested volunteers out there willing to once in a while help this small project. Much appreciated, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I thought a few months ago that I would need 3O. It turned out I didn't, but it occurred to me that there was an occasional dispute I could comment on. Thanks for the message. Scolaire (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I revised it

I will try to be more constructive, but I can't guarantee people will listen. As I said, my opinion counts for nothing on that page. Serendi^podous 15:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It counts with me, or I would not have asked for it. Scolaire (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't change any content; just tidied it up a bit. Serendi^podous 09:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw what you did, thanks. Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the cause. I admit I haven't been the best collaborator on this, but my dispute with this IP goes back a while, and he had really worn me down by the time he actually started posting on the talk page. Plus I was off my anti-depressant medication, so I may have said things I would regret in the morning. Sorry if I upset you. Serendi^podous 12:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

JCMQ

Your reversion and edit summary pointed at a place that doesn't cover what you suggest it covers. It is specifically for where an editor has made significant changes and wants an outside view on the quality etc of the resulting article. I haven't made significant changes. I came across a poorly assessed article and I changed the assessment. The article is most definitely not a start class. I'd suggest Class C but I'm open to suggestion. I don't believe that a subject with the history of the likes of John Charles McQuaid is of mid importance. He was a highly significant figure in the political, religious, cultural and social development of the island and the Republic over a period of 30 years and more. But if you feel that he is of only mid-importance then you are wrong but I'm not going to argue about it. But it is most definitely a retrograde step to leave it at Start-class. I'll leave yuou to fix it though. Patient12 (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Patient12, the assessment page is where the assessment team assess articles based on defined criteria and years of experience. Despite what it says at the top, you can simply ask them to look at it on the grounds that you think the quality or importance rating should be changed, without having to make significant changes first. They will take your views into consideration but they will rate it (or not) objectively. I thought it was strange you saying at WikiProject Ireland that "the John Charles McQuaid article is a mess", and then upgrading it to a C. If it's a mess, how can meet the criteria for a C-Class article? That's where expertise and objectivity come in. Likewise, you think he is of high importance, but there are people who have thrashed out the criteria for importance and we should leave it to them to decide. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from deciding that The Script, for instance, are of high importance? Scolaire (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It is possible for anyone to change The Script to a "high" classification. There is no law to stop it. And just as easily, if another editor disagrees with that classification, they could change it back. That would be followed by a discussion on the talk page and maybe an edit war (or not), etc etc. And that's how WP works. And if the sainted Classifiers, with their years of experience, take a particular view, then that would probably be eventually accepted by the community. But there is NO community-wide prohibition on ordinary folk fixing wrong assessments. I have already accepted that the mid vs high classification is my opinion. If others disagree, I'm not going to war over it. OTOH, any reading of the classification criteria will show that it is NOT a start class article. It's a C-class at least. One doesn't need to have a degree in wikifying to understand the simple criteria laid out on the classification page. You are the one that changed it to Start class. It's down to you to get it fixed. Patient12 (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted an inexperienced user who took it upon him/herself to bypass the established procedure for the assessment of articles. Your idea that assessments can be just changed back and forth and argued about on the talk page shows how little you know about it. That is not how it's done, and it would make the whole assessment process meaningless if people started doing it that way. Now, it's not up to me to fix anything. If you disagree with the assessment, take it up on the assessment page. If you disagree with the process, take it up on the assessment talk page. Getting angry and lecturing users of ten years standing on how (you think) Wikipedia works achieves nothing and helps nobody. This discussion is over. I will remove any further post from you, unless it is an apology. Scolaire (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

spillchuckers

The difference is between British and American spelling - reinforced by "spell checkers" - generally there is a toggleable setting, or else you simply keep "adding word to dictionary" so it will not think you misspelled a word. [5] Collect (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Great! So all I have to do is wait until it changes my spelling without my noticing, and then right-click and add to dictionary ;-) Seriously, though, thanks for that. Scolaire (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks also for the link. It really is very funny. Scolaire (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Paramilitary

Per definition paramilitary is the correct term to call them and was the term in the article for a long while until someone altered it earlier this year. It means a force based upon the professional military. Where they a professional military? I don't know what anachronism has to do with anything. Though the word came about in the 1930s not 1970s. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to, but I'll have to, hark back to WP:V and WP:RS. Can you demonstrate that the preponderance of the reliable sources refer to the 1913 Volunteers as a "paramilitary", not a "military" body? If not, then we can't use the term. Anachronism has everything to do with it. The IRA etc. of the 1970s were referred to as paramilitaries, but the term was never backdated to their earlier 20th-century predecessors. You are correct about the date insofar as the OED shows the word first appearing in the 1930s, but it also shows that its use in the sense of "paramilitary organization" dates from the mid-1970s. Scolaire (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Accession Act 1910

I added the tag and got distracted with something else. Take a look at the Talk page now.John Paul Parks (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Good question! Scolaire (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

"by convention the word "murder" is avoided on WP:" (in re Peter Wilson (Disappeared) → Peter Wilson (Northern Ireland kidnapping and disappearance))
Er, really?? (see [6]) Confused, Quis separabit? 02:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I should have added "...in connection with conflicts such as the Troubles." There is such a convention, but I can't remember now where to find it. Scolaire (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your 3rd opinion

Thank you for taking the time to give your opinion at WOT services. I appreciate your efforts. Hopefully we can reach a resolution which is agreeable for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.140.246 (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully you can, now that there is a broader discussion. I don't do 3O all that often, but it's always gratifying when it produces some sort of a result. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "goryeo". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 January 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning goryeo, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)