User talk:Setanta747/Archive4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glorious reversion[edit]

Thankyou for reverting Rex Germanus's edits to Glorious Revolution. I was bored of doing it. BillMasen 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well its not the first time.. hopefully it will be the last, but I somehow doubt it to be honest. I can't quite see how the sentence can begin with "Jumping at the chance to ally with England.." and end with ..he invaded it! There is a category I'm not quite happy about either, but I've left it alone until I spend some time thinking carefully about it. If he can convince me that it was definately an 'invasion' though, I will accept it. So far, he hasn't convinced me though. He suggests we both look up the definition of the word invasion in a dictionary..
  1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
  2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
  3. An intrusion or encroachment.

Number 1 doesn't fit, as William and Mary didn't conquer anything. Number 2 obviously doesn't fit. Number 3 doesn't fit as they were invited. --Mal 18:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning[edit]

Mal, please be careful on Northern Ireland. Though I actually agree with you on this point, you have still violated the three revert rule (you have at least four edits that begin 'rv' - a slight give away!). Under no circumstances should you revert four or more times a day, unless a user is engagaing in blatant vandalism. In cases of fatual/content dispute, you should stop reverting and use other dispute resolution processes such as WP:RfC or the talk page. If you break the 3RR rule once more, then you will be blocked. --Robdurbar 06:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning Rob. I think Djegan is likely guilty of it also with this particular article. Anyway, I think the problem has possibly been solved, as I recently included citations (in my last edit). I think I remember having a conflict with Djegan before with a different article and that he had been reasonable (we both compromised?). Perhaps he is simply a stickler for the red tape. I hadn't the time before to copy the citations from the article on Constituent country, as I was using the time I did have to go through a number of articles. That's why I'd suggested that he read the constituent country article.. hoping that he (or someone else) would perhaps take the time to insert the citations that could be found in the other article. I think he misunderstood me though, as he had said that another Wiki article cannot be used as a citation source. --Mal 11:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the guidance there - I thought the pronunciation of the placenames here needed some IPA given their unpredictable pronunciation. All the best, THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]

Regarding reversions[1] made on August 15 2006 (UTC) to Northern Ireland [edit]

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to protest this as I have conformed to the requests made regarding my previous reverting of this article, and it still isn't good enough for some. I also hope you've been monitoring the other people who have been reverting the article and have taken action to block them also.. I'm prety sure at least one other is guilty of violating the 3RR.
Again, I cannot stress enough how strongly I protest this action, as I have conformed to requests made regarding the inclusion of information in the article as can be seen in the article's talk page.
I would like you to provide me with any and all means of 'official' complaint regarding this matter, though bear in mind I do not bear any ill-will toward you yourself as I do not believe you have been involved in the editing of the article itself, and you aare probably merely acting on behalf of editors who have issued complaints about me. --Mal 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You were given fair warning of WP:3RR above, which is more than some people get. You need to learn to abide by it William M. Connolley 22:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary - it was requested that citations be given for the changes to the article in question, which I provided. Again, I state: this was not good enough for some editors. One such editor even reverted my edits and marked it as minor. Are you going to fulfill my request for help regarding an official complaint? --Mal 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're blocked. You can't complain (except by emailing people; or writing here). You seem to have missed the fundamental point: you are required to abide by WP:3RR William M. Connolley 22:46, 15 August 2006
And you seem to have missed my request: can you provide for me here any and all means by which I can make an official complaint please?
Futher to this, I would like to point out that both Jtdirl and Djegan (who nominated me for block under 3RR) are both guilty of violating 3RR with that article themselves. As I cannot edit the relevant page, perhaps you could enter a complaint on my behalf. --Mal 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a "no" then shall I? --Mal 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite obvious you need a tutorial on what constitutes the 3RR rule as well. If you can find where I broke it then by all means report me, in the proper place. Remember its more than three reverts, in twenty-four hours, that constitute the rule been broken.

Djegan 17:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so cheeky. --Mal 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make an 'official complaint', then you could check by the admin's noticeboard when you return. In the meantime, please think about your actions - when I warned you had actually broken it, an many admins would have blocked you. Maybe you should take this opportunity to rethink your personal reverting policy and remember that if you follow the Wikipedia:One Revert Rule, then you never run the risk of reverting more than three times. Robdurbar 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I count three revrts each by Jtdril and Djegan, which is pushing the limit, but within it. --Robdurbar 19:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for UK places[edit]

What is the Northern Irish take on this naming convention issue. NI is a critical aspect of this debate, and yet no-one has raised the subject once. Please see the (rather confusing I'm afraid) "Straw poll" and related subsections; starts at the top of the page. Thanks. --Mais oui! 12:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mais Oui! I had seen this poll about a week ago, but decided not to vote on it. Obviously I cannot speak for all the Northern Irish people, but in my own personal opinion I think that whatever option makes Wikipedia articles less cluttered looking.. while at the same time letting readers or researchers know exactly where a certain town/city/place is within the country.. should be the best policy.
To that end I think that an entry stating "Newtownards, County Down, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom" for example, is excessive.
Perhaps I'll have another look at the poll (I have the page open right now) and read through others' comments to see if I can see a logical solution that I would be happy with personally.
Thanks for the notification. --Mal 12:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

I'm not sure peer review is what you want. I deals with improving the general standard of the article with other users supplying so general comments. WP:DR deals with disputes and the like. josh (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh. I wasn't exactly sure where to go tbh.. WP:DR did point to peer review as one of the steps that were suggested should be taken on the way to solving disputes. I wanted to get the dispute out to as wide a range of potentially non-biased people as possible. I guess I'll leave it as a peer review for the meantime and see what happens. What do you think? --Mal 13:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:John_Marshall_Watson.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:John_Marshall_Watson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dundonald/Comments[edit]

The proper place for this sort of thing would be Talk:Dundonald. VoiceOfReason 17:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a test page for the new Belfast Project I have started. :) --Mal 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland 3RR[edit]

Mal, just be careful you don't violate the 3RR. I know you're aware of it but just be careful. Ben W Bell talk 06:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentially Mal you did violate the 3RR and a "block" was decided but the admin forgot, etc to actually block you, see this. And by chance of luck the reviewing admin decided not to block you as a consiquence. Djegan 21:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That block was made on the 15th of August, where as the report mentioned above was made on the 21st of August. These were two separate cases, and in the second one you were mistakenly not blocked by Voice of All. Prodego talk 22:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification and quick response Prodego. I don't think this is a case for 3RR anyway. --Mal 22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Its increasingly clear you have not the slightest grasp of wikipedia policies (or indeed decision making in general). The reason you where not blocked is because someone forgot to, not because you did not warrant it, which it clearly did. Djegan 06:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. It is clear that you haven't a clue how to read. I don't remember suggesting I did not warrant a block. The fact that I do not believe any of this action against me is warranted is besides the point however.
Now, if you don't mind, I'd prefer you stop littering my talk page with your snide and childish goading. Thank you. --Mal 08:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think this is a case for 3RR anyway"??? Djegan 17:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2000 AD[edit]

Thanks for that its helped improve things. As someone interested in the comic you might want o have a loot at the talk page as there is a lot of work that still needs doing and if you don't have the time to spare there is a lot of discussion on improving the various related entries and we are always looking for input. I know you have suggested going for Featured Article and so I'd like to get it polished up before submitting it. Thanks again. (Emperor 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. I thought the 2000 AD thing should become more intrinsic to the comics project, which appears to me to be slightly US-centric really. I suppose 2000 AD could almost warrant a mini-project of its own to be honest! Anyway, I'm glad to have been of some use.
I'd be happy to help out in what ever way I can, though its been a long time since I last read 2000 AD, and there are plenty of people out there with far greater knowledge than me. Still, I have a good command of English and a reasonable knowledge of Wikipedia, so expect to see some more edits in the near future. :)
I was curious about your adding Tharg as one of the creators. I had actuaally considered adding him as a writer myself! The reason I didn't is of course because he is a fictional character (or is he..? lol). I feel I should point out though, that some editors may have a problem with including a fictional character as a member of the magazine's creative team.
I'm sure you're aware of this anyway, and also that 2000 AD set a precedent for this phenomenon.
If you need any specific help with the article that you think I could deal with, feel free to ask any time. --Mal 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its a good point but if people check the Tharg entry they can see that it is a nom de plume or character used by the various editors so I think it is a legitimate addition (especially as Pat Mills and Kevin Glosnell were both Tharg at one point), especially as I've listed who they are and added in the editor succession boxes on those entries. Then again I won't lose much sleep if someone removes it. ;)
Also not reading 2000 AD for a bit isn't a hinderance as the most work is needed on early series. Current ones are kept very up to date. You can see the list of the main ones that are needed (also see the Judge Dredd page for "epics" that are red linked). In the end if something takes your fancy get stuck in. If you update the to do list someone else can follow it up quite quickly and over any gaps there might be so we can get stubs up to standard quite quickly. There are also issues like merges and splits where we need opinions so we can reach a consensus - at the moment see, for example, Rogue Trooper and Judge Dredd.
I also agree that the Comics Project can be rather US-centric which is one of the reasons I pitched in on 2000 AD - obviously there is some crossover but this way the creators who don't also work in the US get a mention too. A 2000 AD project is sort of what we already have going although it'd be interesting to formalise it but I wonder if a better approach might be a British comics mini-project as there is a lot of crossover with Eagle, Action, Tornado, Starlord, etc. (Emperor 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
With regard to British comics - I added a border colour for the infobox to the comics wikiproject here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Color scheme. I really do think that the impact of comics on British culture was huge, and resulted in an impact on culture in other countries throughout the world, to a lesser degree.. just like the American Batman, Superman and Spider-man et al.
The red colour may be a bit too bright (#ff0000). Any dimmer though, and it looks a bit too similar to the one for Marvel comics.
I'd certainly help out with formalizing a project, whether it be 2000 AD or British comics (as a sub-project of the existing one perhaps?), although I'm busy at the moment with the creation and maintenance of the Belfast Project (feel free to watch it develop for ideas for a possible comics sub-project). --Mal 03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That red seems fine - the only other alternative is to go darker towards crimson and then the text wouldn't show.
As you say we seem to punch above our weight on the comics front - the Brit Wave helped revitalise American (and from there world) comics and old comics have proved a great source of inspiration for things like Albion and there are quite afew entries missing from the older stuff. Anyway no rush on a mini-project as I've already got plenty to do ;) (Emperor 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Feel free to add any changes you think are needed to the main entry as it will be a few days before I can look at things (Emperor 00:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

OK mate, I'll take a look at some of the grammar and technical blurb in relaation to what the auto-review came up with. :) --Mal 00:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast Project[edit]

Hi Mal. I'll have a look at the project and see what I can do with it. Some of those other users can be a bit difficult sometimes, sometimes I agree with them, other times I don't. I must say I've avoided getting involved in the current dispute as I'm not convinced myself of Northern Ireland's status as a country, it is ambiguous at best and there seems to be no right answer. Oh and thanks for the belated congrats. Ben W Bell talk 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish American article[edit]

Hi! You reverted an edit I made in regards to labelling the PIRA. I suggest leaving out a label to prevent pigeonholing the organisation and leaving the blue link there. If readers are curious as to the nature of the PIRA, they can simply click on the link and make their own inferences. The PIRA was not simply a violent organisation; they were involved in a broad scope of activities. I now have your talk page on my watchlist so we can continue the discussion here or on the article's talk page hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert it - I changed it. There were two things I could've done about your edit: 1. Change it back to the original with an edit to clarify the grammatical sense; 2. Remove all mention of "activity". I chose the first option first. Now I'll go for the second.

Incidentally, I believe the PIRA pigeonholed themselves. --Mal 00:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BT[edit]

No problem at all. The full list of district/post towns is here: List of postal districts in the United Kingdom. Mrsteviec 20:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Irish cricketers are "not British"[edit]

This is a new one:

Jeepers creepers! --Mais oui! 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its just not cricket! --Mal 16:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe. Surely the whole point of the NI cricketers category being seperate is exactly so that it can be in both the Irish and British parent categories?! --kingboyk 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from what I remember, that's the way it had been. Then the British bit got selectively removed. Go figure, as our American cousins might say! --Mal 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland[edit]

I kind of understand your use of Template:dubious. I also understand that you dispute the wording in the first sentence. However, I do not see a clear claim of a fact in dispute, so I removed Template:disputed. If you want to brand an article with Template:disputed, please, please explain in Talk exactly which fact in the article you dispute. Preferably in words of four letters or less so that we can all understand. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I have plenty of experience of editing articles and other aspects of Wikipedia, this kind of policy and action are new to me Hroðulf. I seem to remember having read in the instructions that you're supposed to put the dubious tag after the sentence or fact that you believe is inaccurate, and then to also add the disputed tag at the top of the article.
Having had a quick look, I can't find now where it says that, so I'll not re-add it and I'll assume your action was the correct thing to do. I was tired last night when I added it! Thanks for letting me know. :) --Mal 15:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - you removed both tags? I don't think that's right to be honest. --Mal 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Britain[edit]

Since you made the eminently sensible suggestion of moving said article to History of the British Isles, I thought that you might be interested in helping to address this hornets' nest. In five months on the article's talk page, nobody has explained why it's currently where it is. At the same time, I asked the same sort of question at Talk:Economic history of Britain, to no avail. What do you say to either proposing or supporting a move? Bastin 15:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I had proposed a change to the archaeological category from Britain to United Kingdom I think, rather than to British Isles. It makes sense to me in that other similar articles are categorised by country. The UK of course has undergone several changes over the past few hundred years.. but that is no reason not to note the history (of archaeology or economy.. or anything else) of the country in all its previous forms, as well as its current form.
Its been 85 years since the UK was last changed, and there's plenty of history there. Overlaps with Ireland and the Republic of Ireland can be, I feel, dealt with sensibly. I'm leaving a comment on the economics article talk page. --Mal 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Council[edit]

Hi Mal. As you're a Mr Big in the world of WikiProjects these days ;) perhaps you'd like to sign your name here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council#Members. Seriously, it's just a bit of a talking shop for WikiProject fanatics, and you'd be most welcome I'm sure. --kingboyk 20:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*bows* I'd like to thank Kingboyk and Lar and my mum...
lol .. thanks for the heads up and the invite. :) I've added myself, and I hope I continue to learn and help coordinate efforts on Wikipedia. --Mal 01:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scotland[edit]

Just a heads up that I started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland yesterday, but still "under development" so we are not going to promote it properly until it is ready. I hope we can have good teamwork with the NI, and other UK and Irish WikiProjects.

I have been forced to ponder yesterday just how much our new project should get involved in articles that are not specifically Scotland-related. Eg, it would be a good idea to stick our template up on the Talk page of Scottish Enterprise, but probably not on the Book of Kells (despite it probably having been created in Scotland). So, I was a bit surprised to see you put the NI project template on the Talk page of Constituent country. Are we going to have 4 templates on that Talk (Eng, NI, Sco, Wal)? Where does that end? What would the Talk page of World War II look like? Just a thought, but, in my opinion, it would be better if no WikiProjects "laid claim" to that particular article (unless politics/govt project perhaps?) Anyway, all the best. --Mais oui! 07:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I just added that there now (the WPNI template to Constituent country) because it was in the main Category: Northern Ireland page. To be honest, I'd thought about that myself. I believe there is a separate active project .. something along the lines of sub-national entities or something... which might tag this article as well.
My initial instinct was just to tag it anyway, and let any contributors to the project decide by consensus how important it is to the project.. or indeed if it should be removed. I didn't give too much thought to it in all honesty, as it was there on the NI category page.
For the WWII article, I believe the Military History Project will probably have the most shout for that one! I won't be adding it to the NI Project (even if its included on any of the NI categories). But I might add (initially anyway) something like the Battle of the Somme (even though NI didn't come into being for several years after the event - and there will be other articles too, I'd imagine, where it might look odd that NI has tagged).
A member of the NI Project has tagged a warship for inclusion. Having looked at the article, I noticed that it was only refitted in Belfast. Apparently though, it is residing in "Alexandra Dock, Belfast, Northern Ireland". As it turns out though, the creator of the article must have not known that Alexandra Dock wikilinks to the dock in Liverpool and not in Belfast! The ship currently resides in Belfast... so I was confused for a while!
Still - that's what its all about I suppose. :)
Feel free of course to look through the Belfast Project pages and the NI project pages and edit histories. If you need it, I'm more than willing to help if I can. I assume you're using the Mathbot for the Scotland article, yeah?
Incidentally, I'd tag the Book of Kells with the WPScotland template personally, because of the obvious connections. It might not have an extremely high importance, but plenty of Scottish people may have knowledge of the book, and may be able to help improve the article. And that definately is what these projects are all about.
Anyway, I hope that's food for thought. Good luck with the Scottish project. --Mal 07:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mal,

You might want to look at talk:Prime minister. The page was moved to the litterate form Prime minister by a vote of 3 people. A new RM is taking place but the illiterates seem to be queuing to endorse such a crazy move. Feel free to contribute to the debate. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification Jtd - I wasn't aware there had been a problem. --Mal 05:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It really is crazy. The whole logic of having a Manual of Style and Naming Conventions is to create universal standards to be applied across WP. It is crazy that some users can call local votes to in effect opt out of the MoS and NC and instead make up their own (usually wrong) format that breaks the MoS, the NC and indeed all other usage off Wikipedia. Unfortunately one of the problems with Wikipedia is that it pays no attention to the expertise of people with expertise in an area. So historians' contributions in history articles are routinely bulldozed out of history articles by non-historians whose contributions show that they don't know what they are talking about. Ditto with politics, sport, religion, science, etc. The contribution on the talk page show that most of those contributing don't know either the requirements in the MoS and NC or indeed the basic rules of English. Here endeth the rant!!! lol Feel free to mention this case to others if you wish. Be careful however not to tell people how to vote. That is against WP rules. But AFAIK you can tell them there is an issue that might be in their area of expertise or interest.

Take care
FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I fully intend to familiarise myself with the information on the MoS page soon, because I never actually read it. As a person who contributes a reasonable amount to Wikipedia I feel its my duty. So far I have basically learned some of the MoS by trial and error - by other, more experience Wikipedians informing me. Some have informed me nicely, and some not-so-nicely! lol I had one or two arguments when I first started contributing heavily I'm pretty sure. One guy I had an argument with turned out to be a really decent admin who has constantly been a source of information, knowledge and help. Anyway - I'll check back on the PM article style soon no doubt. --Mal 03:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles related deaths by town/village

Mal, thanks for the query. I had posted proposals on the notice board, but heard nothing further, so I proceeded as I proposed. I have set up cats under History of NI for The Troubles in NI/by county and have already added about 25 new articles detailing 2 deaths or over. I have a load more in the pipeline. All are linked to the relevant town/village and to main articles on particular incidents/bombings. Seems like a good starting point for further troubles work to me. Hope you agree. Haven't really looked at the Belfast & NI Project, but will do so and will try to get involved. Ardfern 22:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do me a favour and tag any new articles with {{WPBelfast}} for Belfast articles and {{WPNI}} for other NI-related articles? You don't have to tag everything you've already done, nor assess them (unless you want to).. but it'd be of great help. Once you've feel you've made good progress on the Troubles-related deaths, and wwhen you have some spare time, maybe you could check on the Projects' progress and see if there's anything you'd like to help out with. I'm still busying myself with them, but if there's any help I can give with what you're doing, like I said, feel free to give me a shout. --Mal 03:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unionism[edit]

I meant to mention: I've been working on a series of Irish politics templates covering five topics: Irish Republicanism; Irish Nationalism; Irish Monarchism; Irish Unionism and Irish Loyalism. I have done the first three. The fourth is being worked on right now at {{IrishU}}. Feel free to contribute. There is a limit to the amount of space — we cannot make it too big, because it then might not fit on pages. It particularly needs additional cultural links (music and song, for example). The idea is that each template will give a list of articles that someone interested in the topic should look at to get a broad view. They aren't necessarily explicit organisations that are part of Republicanism, Nationalism, Monarchism, Unionism and Loyalism, merely organisations that played a part in the evolution of the concept and in shaping its ideas. Each template is linked with the others, so users can just between them, and through doing that then find a list of links to explore. (I'm thinking maybe of creating a general reading list that could be attached to the templates via a subpage. I'd welcome your participation. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jtd. Hopefully this won't be a POV minefield.. I'm equally hoping that the Belfast and Northern Ireland WikiProjects won't turn out to be a POV nightmare too! If you've got some time, being a significant editor of the 'pedia where Irish-related articles are concerned, maybe you'd like to have a look to see how the projects have come along by the way. At the minute, I'm basically working my way through the Northern Ireland categories and tagging each article with the template for the Mathbot automated assessment facility. Over 650 Belfast-related articles tagged so far, 99% of them by me! Eek! You might be interested in taking a look at User:Mais oui!'s comment above here regarding overlaps. Any suggestions you have about that would be great. Cheers.
I'll get around to looking at your project and templates either very soon, or in the next couple of days (some busy time coming up relating to Real Life™!). --Mal 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership/scope[edit]

Ta. I don't know if you spotted it, but kingboyk had left his contribution to this topic just after your comment at my Talk. --Mais oui! 19:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 5, September 2006[edit]

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
Issue 005 – September 2006

Beatles News
Project News
  • Unfortunately, the Featured Article badge on The Beatles was revoked. The article was immediately nominated for Good Article status, which it received later that same day. Project member Kingboyk said of the nomination, "I'm quite happy about it really, as I feel that GA is about where we're at and gives some incentive to work on the article."
  • We have a new category for Beatles articles needing attention. If you're looking for something to work on, the articles in this category and the subcategories need some TLC. To put an article in this category, tag its talk page with {{WPBeatles|attention=yes}}.
  • Kingboyk has given {{WPBeatles}} another major overhaul, and has assessed all of the Beatles articles. He would be grateful if other editors would leave comments on the state of articles, needed improvements and so on, by clicking the Comments link in the template. Also, feel free to revise the gradings—the assessments were done quickly, and article quality can change.
Member News
  • Liverpool Scouse has offered to take any desired pictures of the Liverpool area, upon request.
Issue of the Month

The featured article status of The Beatles was revoked.

From the Editors

A month of slow progress and some amazing efforts. Still need help getting comments shifted. Don't forget to log your accomplishments!

If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 006 – October 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Contributors to this Issue
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Northern Ireland mediation[edit]

I know you have already agreed to mediation, but just for completeness, here is the notice:

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

scope[edit]

I am unconvinced that Early Irish literature is a particulalry Northern Ireland specific topic. I am sure there is a project template for articles the scope of which extends to the whole island (or if there isn't, there should be). dab (ᛏ) 14:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with you. Early Irish literature has as much to do with Northern Ireland, as it has to do with the Republic of Ireland, or with literature itself. Like, for example the Irish language. Just how important it is specifically to this Northern Ireland project is a different matter.. and that's what the importance variable in the template is for.
I agree with you that there should probably be other projects higher in the category of projects, such as one about Ireland as a whole, another about the UK and another about the British Isles and another about Europe.. etc etc. For the minute, there isn't though. I will leave it to those who are interested in participating in the project to decide for themselves how important this article (and others) is(are) to the scope. There is a lot of overlapping - for example, a person who was a famous writer born in NI, but who grew up in Australia and lived and worked there all his life. But that writer still has some connection to Northern Ireland. A person who was born in Belfast prior to 1920 still has connection with Northern Ireland, as Belfast is in that region. An ancient folk hero such as Setanta is also of some relevance to Northern Ireland.
I'm facing similar scope-related issues regarding the sub-project Belfast. But, given time, the relevance to the projects will be sorted out by the members and contributors to the projects. --Mal 15:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well? If you're into tagging talkpages into categories, why don't you just create a "history of Ireland" template? It is pointless to tag articles about periods of Irish history before 1920 as a "Northern Ireland" topic, except for a few articles that are clearly about the history of the regions itself, such as Kings of Ulster (which I note you haven't tagged). It is simply beyond me how you could think that Bard merits your tag. Of course there were bards in Ulster. Are you going to tag foot with your template because people in N Ireland have feet? dab (ᛏ) 08:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
on second thoughts, I do not want to sound too pedantic about it, I apologize. I realize you're just tagging talkpages. The situation is not ideal, but it will be easy enough to replace the tags once somebody does initiate a (sorely needed) Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland). peace, dab (ᛏ) 09:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably there could also be an argument against tagging any articles with a Republic of Ireland project (if one had existed) which related to pre-1920 (or pre-1947) events. I disagree that event before the creation of the state shouldn't be tagged: whatever the name or current constitutional status of the region, event that happened before its existance are still relevant to the people who live there, or were born there. Similarly, for example, with the Scotland project I believe that articles such as Dal Raida should be tagged for it (and for the NI project) even though it existed before Scotland came into being.
I haven't tagged many articles that are in the NI categories yet! There are literally thousands of them, besides Kings of Ulster. Bard is an article that relates to Northern Ireland given it is categorised under Northern Irish culture or some such. I don't think any country has ownership of that particular article.. but this tagging process isn't about ownership.
I wasn't interested in creating a History of Ireland template, or any other template because this template concerns the Northern Ireland WikiProject and is used by the Mathbot to automate and catalogue article assessments.
By the way, if an Ireland Wikiproject gets started there is no reason to "remove" tags of any other project when they already exist. I do not remove tags from the Biography Project or the Military History Project when I go to add the NI Project tag. To remove one project's tag in favour of another would be to claim ownership - and that is NOT what WikiProjects are about. --Mal 02:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these tags aren't about ownership. I also agree that there is no need to remove a tag when another is added. But it is unnecessary to add a tag when the article is already in a parent Wikiproject. The military history project is not a parent of the NI project, so an article can well be in both. In the hypothetical case of a Wp Ireland, Wp NI would be a daughter of that, and for any article tagged as within the scope of Wp Ireland, an NI tag would be redundant. Seeing that there is no Wp Ireland so far, this doesn't apply to the present case, and I am not opposed to your edits. Although other editors may be ([3]). dab (ᛏ) 10:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Ireland has two parents, as I see it: the United Kingdom and Ireland. The Belfast project has Northern Ireland as a parent, and both the UK and Ireland as grandparents. In the absence of any parent, I have of course tagged a lot of Irish-related things with the NI project tag.. and I've also left out a few of the more generic articles. You can probably see that there might be instances when NI project would be damned if it did, and damned if it didn't tag certain articles. For example, the Irish language, which is a major part of NI culture, and specifically so.. as opposed to its relation to Wales, Scotland or England. Articles are frequently categorised as being ..of Northern Ireland as well as ..of Ireland and/or ..of the United Kingdom. I believe that, in many cases, it is prudent to do so: if a researcher want to look up Wikipedia for things specifically relating to Northern Ireland, I believe s/he should find categories such as Irish language, GAA clubs etc.
I believe its the same with the projects. Some people might concentrate on more specific areas.. like Northern Ireland or even Belfast. If articles belonging to the category GAA clubs have been tagged with the NI project template, then that might encourage a higher number of editors to contribute. There are articles I have tagged as being within the scope of Belfast aas well as being within the scope of Northern Ireland (or vice versa) because my initial feeling was that they had relevance to both projects. Some Belfast Lord Mayors for example, weren't born in Belfast. While they may be notable to Northern Ireland as a whole, for other reasons, they are also notable to Belfast for having been elected as its Lord Mayor.. if you see what I mean.
The short version is that I think we can afford to be quite liberal with the tagging. Its better to be safe than sorry, and it also has the added advantage of possibly attracting more editors to any given article. Overlaps aren't necessarily a bad thing. So if its already tagged, basically don't worry about it. :) --Mal 12:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, it is pointless to invest time in Wikiproject-internal content disputes. I think we all agree that a "Wikiproject Ireland" is desireable and would solve a lot of these problems. dab (ᛏ) 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're really interested, maybe I could set up the groundwork for a WikiProject Ireland Dab. Let me know, and I'll create most of the necessary pages and the Mathbot template. --Mal 04:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I originally added these edits. It took 2 days to get them together. The edits will stay as I originally edited them. I may consider your reverts as an act of vandalism. Please stop your abject nonsense. Red blaze 00:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the test template I left on your talk page, then I'm afraid you must have misunderstood me. The Irish language article is within the scope of the Northern Ireland project. Please do not remove the template again. --Mal 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you vandalize Scottish Gaelic Language, or Oliver Cromwell with your template that covers a whole page. You would get a quick reply! Red blaze 00:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because Scottish Gaelic Language does not fall within the scope of the Northern Ireland Project. However, the |Scottish Project has recently started, so you can expect to see that project's template on that article's page.
Adding project templates to article talk pages is not considered vandalism. I suggest you familiarise yourself with WIkipedia a bit more before making spurious accusations like that.
The template does not cover the whole page. It is no wider than the Language Project template, and it is pretty much standard size for most newly-created and updated projects which use the Mathbot article assessment aid.
The Oliver Cromwell article may or may not be added to the Northern Ireland project soon, depending on whether or not it is listed in the Northern Ireland categories. --Mal 00:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the Scottish Gaelic Language one on your behalf. Now, see how long it lasts! Red blaze 00:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict): You are not doing anything on my behalf, thank you. Perhaps you didn't read my reply properly. You are acting very strangely, and although I am quite bewildered by your behaviour, I feel I must place a warning on your talk page regarding same. --Mal 01:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Actually your vandalism is the adding of POV, and deletion of facts from Irish articles. Red blaze 01:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour warning[edit]

I feel I must draw attention to something about your behaviour that has been troubling me for the past couple of days.

  • Your insistance in removing Irish usage of the Irish word craic as used in Ireland
  • Your twisting of facts on Irish Language page, this edit has been agreed upon 3 months ago.
  • Your repeating of a fact on Irish Language, which looks suspiciously akin to POV pushing.
  • From your contributions history it appears as if you have almost exclusively followed my own contributions and reverted specifically edits that I have made to articles with a certain theme.
  • We have both entered into a revert war with at least two articles because of this.
  • The tone you have taken with me has been unsettling.

I would ask you to read WP:CIVIL, and to examine your personal motivation - particularly in regard to enhancement of Wikipedia and with your attitude towards myself.

Thank you, Red blaze 01:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you acting like a parrot? --Mal 01:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saves me some time, which I don't have to waste on this sort of nonsense! Red blaze 01:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how your massive number of 70-odd edits in 6 or so months on the main space could be marginalised by your "wasting time" right enough!
I suggest you stop reverting and adding irrational edits, which might save you even more time.
I see you have added more bullet points to the list I had added originally to your talk page. A quick explaination of them:
  1. Your insistance in removing Irish usage of the Irish word craic as used in Ireland
  • I have not removed the Irish usage of the word crack. The Irish adoption of theword is clearly noted on the specific article's page, and nothing I have done has altered the facts therein. What I had tried to do though, was to revert the article to the state it had been in, before you arbitrarily decided to replace nearly all instances of the original spelling of the word with the adopted Gaelic spelling.
Craic is an Irish word, and it's also a Hiberno-English word too, and Hiberno-English is English, maybe not BBC or Belfast English, but still English. Red blaze 20:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crack is a Hiberno-English word that was adopted into the Irish language and suitably spelled to fit the rules of that language. Hiberno-English is Hiberno-English. --Mal 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Your twisting of facts on Irish Language page, this edit has been agreed upon 3 months ago.
  • I have not twisted any facts on this page. The article, as it stands now contains incorrect information. I should know: I'm Irish, living amongst Irish people.
People in Ireland call the Irish Language, Irish. And that's a fact. Any edits that deny that are POV. Red blaze 20:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People in Ireland also call the Irish language "Irish Gaelic". And that's a fact. Any edits that deny this are POV. --Mal 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Your repeating of a fact on Irish Language, which looks suspiciously akin to POV pushing.
  • I would suggest that, instead of reverting my edit, you actually do a complete copyedit of both paragraphs.
Silly response. You do it, and if it's good and POV-free, it stays. Red blaze 20:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its a silly response, and I suspect neither do you (otherwise you wouldn't have suggested I do it instead of you). However, I will possibly attempt to copy edit both paragraphs in such a manner that we're both happy. --Mal 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Your deletion of "Roman Catholic" from Penal Laws (Ireland), more POVpushing
  • On the contrary, I believe my edit to be less POV than the original. See for example, my edit summary, the last of which read: "native Catholic" is POV; "majority" is POV; "to a lesser extent" is both incorrect and POV. These issues need addressing.
No. You totally deleted Roman Catholic, and left in non conformist, that was a totally POV edit. It just goes beyond logic, no matter what ideology an editor holds! Red blaze 20:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article concentrated on Roman Catholics quite a lot. I had considered Roman Catholics to be non-Conformists. However, I agree with the edit you made subsequent to mine, in that many people distinguish the Roman Catholics from the non-Conformists of that period. --Mal 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. From your contributions history it appears as if you have almost exclusively followed my own contributions and reverted specifically edits that I have made to articles with a certain theme.
  • This is hardly the case: I edit a great many more articles than you, and I am quite busy at the minute with the Northern Ireland and Belfast WikiProjects, and other issues - far too busy to follow some random editor around, or to even notice.. until it was obvious (te me) that you were chasing after me and reverting edits I was making.
I make on average 2 edits a day, often when not logged in (over 600 good,honest and pov-free edits). I'll make sure to log in when an issue is a stake! Red blaze 20:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I make on average over 11 edits per day, - over 3,000 good, honest and pov-free edits in total. I always log in to make edits. --Mal 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The tone you have taken with me has been unsettling.
Forget this tone nonsense! I thought you was a bloke! Red blaze 20:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
? --Mal 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is surely a blatant untruth. I have been nothing but civil with you. The only thing I have neglected to do is to put comments on the talk pages of the articles we were revert-warring on - something which you have also been guilty of. I felt I hadn't the time, as I was busy with the aforementioned projects.

For this last point (of not taking our issue to the talk pages of the articles in question), I apologise. I suggest a break period whereby we both can think of compromise edits to the two contentious articles: I have listed my issues with your/the original edits.

In the meantime, I suggest you remove the Northern Ireland Project template from the Scottish Gaelic article.

I look forward to your co-operation and any sensible suggestions you might have regarding these issues. --Mal 02:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC) --Mal 02:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You persistantly kept on reverting me, then I had a look at some of your other edits. Other than that, have a nice day! Red blaze 20:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's as good an explaination as any. Thank you. A nice day to yourself as well. --Mal 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention[edit]

Mal. Okay I have looked at the edits you have made and the user I think you are talking about, User:Red blaze. First, stop reverting or you'll get yourself a 3RR block again (you seem to chalk them up, it's not a good idea).

  1. In my opinion (and this is only my opinion of course) and experience it is spelt craic even in Northern Ireland. Craic has become the common spelling used for the fun, amiable banter and entertaining good times. Peppers Northern Ireland - English dictionary even spells it that way. The origins of the word I'm not aware of as I know about 3 words in Gaelic, but it is my understanding that craic is the correct spelling of this (and I almost reverted the edits you made to the article the cirst time but held off as I wasn't sure).
  2. There is nothing wrong with you adding the Northern Ireland Project template to appropriate talk pages, it's not as if it's going on the article pages themselves. Lots of other projects do it.
  3. Irish language. Ah this old one. I refer to it personally as Gaelic, even though I am quite aware this is actually incorrect as Gaelic is a language group and not an actual language. I do think that most people in Northern Ireland and the UK refer to what the Irish speak as Gaelic in my experience, and not necessarily Irish though that is used quite commonly as well. I'd say they should be given even weighting and one stated as being technically incorrect.

I'll keep an eye out, but those are my thoughts. Ben W Bell talk 06:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please can you stop with the continuous reversions and take it to the talk page. I know you don't mean to but it is disruptive. If you take these discussions to the talk page they do occassionally work out. Ben W Bell talk 06:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fair comments Ben. I considered you'd be pretty balanced about it. I'd like to respond to your comments here.
The word crack, as can be seen on the talk page, comes from the Middle-English word, and is properly spelled crack in English. The adoption of the word into the Irish language and the subsequent rise in popularity of that spelling occured because it had mostly been a word that was spoken rather than written. This was all previously discussed on the article's talk page, where at least one academic in the field (of Irish language) corroborated that the word had been re-spelled to fit Irish language rules, when it was adopted into Irish, within the past thirty or so years. It is my opinion simply that, this being the English Wikipedia, the word should be spelled in the original form. You will note that I did not revert all instances of the word in the article. If I noticed that anyone had done so, I would undoubtedly revert their edit immediately.
With the Irish language, I generally refer to it as whatever first springs to mind: "Irish", "Gaelic" or "Irish Gaelic". The article states, incorrectly, that this last discription is "seldom used or preferred by the Irish themselves". Being Irish, and having lived amongst Irish people all my life, I can quite categorically state that this is untrue. When the following paragraph was pointed out to me by RedBlaze, I hadn't the time to copyedit the whole two paragraphs, but my instinct was still to remove the incorrect statement. I think you have misunderstood which term the dispute was about in this case. "Irish Gaelic" is more technically correct, though I vary probably equally between all three terms to be honest, in casual conversation.
I don't really tend to chalk up 3RRs - the conflict between myself, Djegan and Jtdirl was the first time I've been blocked for it. I remember being warned about it before, ages ago, when I wasn't aware of Wikipolicy. These last two or three weeks have been particularly weird in WikiWorld though!
I will take a break from the two articles in question (Irish language and Crack (craic)). However, I would like to say that the revert war itself was not exactly what I was pointing out. When I checked out Redblaze's contribution history I was horrified to discover that the only edits he had made in the past couple of day or so (at that point) were to articles I had made edits to that concerned Irish culture. It was as if he had purposely looked at my own contributions and followed after me. Whether this was actually true or not, it looked suspicious to me and I'd like you to monitor that, if at all possible.
Thanks for your time and opinions Ben. I don't take your advice lightly. --Mal 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your logs I see yes you've only ever had one 3RR against you, my apologies I thought it was more (or did I expect it was more the way things have been around the British Isles and the like the last few months). So I'm sorry about that.

Looking through his edit history I see what you mean, however it's not necessarily bad. Personally if I come across some vandalism I tend to then follow that user's route through Wikipedia for a bit to ensure it isn't happening again. True though I don't consider what you've done to the articles in question to be vandalism so it may not have been justified but it does indeed appear that Red blaze has been following you. I'll keep an eye on it. As for Irish Gaelic I'll have to take your word for it as it's not something that's really in my common vocabularly, but I don't actually live in Northern Ireland anymore so that may explain it. I've always referred to it as Gaelic or Irish myself. Ben W Bell talk 09:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devin79[edit]

I finally have lost patience with this guy. I know you have also clashed with him. The RFC is up and running here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Devin79. Please endorse! Jdorney 12:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've endorsed the request JD, and I'll keep the page on my watchlist. I seem to remember trying to 'mediate' in the situation by commenting to him on the talk page of the PIRA article in a very neutral tone.. but then I lost patience with him myself after I saw it was clear he was not going to stop vandalising the article.
I have since stayed away from the article, as I believed you and a couple of others have ample knowledge on the subject and are quite capable of NPOV edits to it. I can't believe this guy has continued to distort the article after all this time! I think you should look at his contribution history to see whether he has adding anything of any substance to Wikipedia. If his edits merely consist of vandalising the pages mentioned in the RfC, maybe you should note that there too.
Do you know what it was he had been banned for in the past? --Mal 17:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we could keep reverting him, but why should we have to? Its a year now and he's still at it, so his time here should be up imo. He's also made occasional reverts and edits to the Irish Republican Army and Ulster Volunteer Force pages, which we have reverted. Interestingly enough, when he's not praising the exploits of the provos, he exaggerating the military prowess of the US armed forces. Maybe someone should show him SF's views on American imperialism eh? Or maybe he's obsessed with dead bodies. I haven't reverted many of these edits as I can't contradict them from my own knowledge, but I wouldn't put much faith in them.

In the past, he was banned for violating the 3 rv rule, for personal attacks and for posting copyright images. He has also been warned for vandalism and defamation. Why he is still at these things after all this time, I honestly do not know. Jdorney 17:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent a few minutes looking at his contributions history (both IP user accounts that I'm aware of). It seems to me that most of his edits concern inflating the number of victims of certain military or paramilitary organisations (he inflated the estimated number of deaths attributed by ETA too). He has made one or two minor corrections of punctuation or spelling I think. The vast majority of his edits seem to be a waste of time and effort. One can easily understand how people can get into edit conflicts/wars with others (as you know, I've had those problems myself recently!), but this guy just takes the biscuit!
On balance, I'd say that Wikipedia is better off without him than with him. I might copyedit my comment here and stick it on the RfC talk page, if you think it would help. --Mal 18:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm not just being vindictive when I say that I don't think that any of his edits have been constructive as far as I can see. Actually if we look, we can probably find plenty of non-Irish related users who have had the same problems with him as we have.

Jdorney 20:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Gringo Rfc[edit]

Mal, in case you're not watching the page, i moved some of your comments to the talk page, apparently there was some difficulty in following the instructions.EricR 23:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that was the case Eric. Cheers - not a problem. --Mal 06:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling and Grammar[edit]

Setanta, Mal, whatever your name, look, no hard feelings. I usually stick with stuff I know, some Irish stuff, spelling and grammar, and sometimes rephrasing sentences. Neither am I interested in building up a mass of edits to my credit, and that's why I don't bother logging-in for a lot of these minor very pov-free edits. My history with Unionists goes back a bit. Working as an importer in the family business we literally bought millions from Northern Ireland, mainly in linens. I remember once having dinner with Gordon Clark and finding him one of the noblest and people that I had ever met. Where I am sitting now, many a Unionist sat and delighted in an Irish whiskey, and many a night out in Dublin was had with Unionists. My dad Tom was reckoned to be the first southern Roman Catholic ever, to be a guest at Unionist headquarters in Dongal Street, or so Even told me, he's the guy who invited him. I was told that he was treated like a king, and he was kingly too. Sadly I didn't inherit that trait in quantities. But I always found some sustaining link. Yes, they were Irish, as Irish as I was, and there was a bond there, a mutual respect that permeated the air and that was all encompassing, that no sasanach could breach. And that's why I hate to see Irish fall out with Irish. Good editing! Red blaze

I dislike it too, truth be told. I have lived all my life here, and I am pretty amiable with everyone. I certainly get on well with RCs, nationalists and even republicans - that's when its even clear what a person's political pov is - because its not something we actually dwell on too much. Of all the extremist pov's, I have to say that I respect loyalists the least, generally speaking! Although I'm not an activist in the matter, I would very much like to see our heritage regarding things like the Irish language kept alive. I never got the opportunity to learn it in the (state) schools that I attended, but I feel it should be made part of the cirriculum of Northern Ireland, albeit an optional one. Perhaps at primary school level (which is apparently the best time of life to learn languages) it should be introduced the same way that French is often introduced at that level.

I think that unionism, like nationalism, is more complex than people are led to believe - there's a whole spectrum of different ideologies and personal feelings attached to it and within it. But because unionism is often pigeon-holed and simplified, it often serves as a red flag. I remember thinking hard about whether to attach the unionist userbox to my user page here because of this. I decided I didn't want to necessarily hide the fact that I am, at the end of the day, unionist. A lot of my edits have consisted of edits to, as I see it, balance out POV in Irish- and British-related articles.. and I'm only human of course - not infallible. But I have also edited some articles because I have felt they were too unionist-POV. The vast majority of my edits are, like yours, grammar and spelling corrections, or adding and correcting factual info, categorising etc. Recently though, a half dozen or so articles I've made edits to have been regarded as being 'contentious'. Unfortunately I think that's par for the course when it comes to Northern Ireland!

I really do appreciate this olive branch you have extended to me, and I hope this reply instills a similar amount of hope and confidence in me. Happy editing, --Mal 04:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NI_murals_NI_football.jpg[edit]

Why wouldn't the artist have a copyright to the work? Haukur 09:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they? Besides which, I took a photograph of a public place - there is no law in place locally, nationally or internationally, that prevents me from publishing a photograph of a public place and using it as I so wish. There is no copyright information on the mural I took the picture of and even if there were, any solicitor would have trouble defending such a copyright. If I had taken a photograph of a tree, growing in a public place, the person who planted that tree wouldn't have copyright on it. The photograph of the tree would be my property.
Nobody has exclusive rights to the mural. However, I have some rights regarding the photograph, which is my intellectual property. I have released these rights with regard to Wikipedia and Wikipedia-related web pages. --Mal 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you paint a picture you have the copyright to it. If you hang the picture on your house you still have a copyright to it - any passerby can't take a picture of it and sell it. Some jurisdictions have some exemptions for permanently installed outside artwork but as far as I understand US law that's not enough to make this a free image. Haukur 13:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I own the photograph. If I wanted to, and presuming that anyone would be interested in buying it, I could indeed legitimately sell it. --Mal 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The artist who made the mural holds a copyright to his work. "Murals are works of fine art protected by copyright laws. Reproductions of murals may be included in photographs, books, films, television and elsewhere only with the artist's permission." [4] Or, from a more authoritative site:

"Copyright protects original “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,” which include two-dimensional and threedimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art. The following is a list of examples of such works: ... Drawings, paintings, murals" [5] Haukur 16:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The object in question is my photograph. The mural was painted by anonymous donators. There is no copyright on the mural. It is in the public domain. My photograph is free for all to use within the Wiki-verse. --Mal 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrights protect murals, also murals by anonymous artists. We must assume that there is a copyright on this mural, it is not in the public domain unless the artist has explicitly licenced it as such, which we have no evidence of. Your photo is a derivative work and can only be used on Wikipedia under a fair use claim. Haukur 16:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My photograph of an outdoor scene is my intellectual property. I allow fair use of it within Wikipedia-related websites. --Mal 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put the fair use tag back. If you still disagree I suggest contacting a third party you trust to be knowledgeable about copyright law. Haukur 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: It isn't so much an outdoor scene, it's basically a photo of a work of art. See also [6] for more information on derivative works. Haukur 16:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person(s) responsible for the mural are unlikely to make themselves known. If they do, they are not likely to pursue legal action. If they pursue legal action, it would be a long process given that they'd have to register a copyright on the artwork. It is not in the public interest to restrict usage of the photograph I took. Check out the US government discussion on legislation regarding "Orphan Works". I think there is too much needless over-zealousness with regard to copyright laws when it comes to this type of work. --Mal 19:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, as far as it goes. The people who hold the copyright are unlikely to assert it (they wouldn't have to specifically register a copyright though, you automatically hold the copyright for art you create) but that doesn't make it a free image. It is not in the public interest to restrict usage of the photo - but copyright law rarely serves the public interest. In order to qualify for Sec. 514 protection on orphan works you have to show that you "performed and documented a reasonably diligent search in good faith to locate the owner of the infringed copyright; but was unable to locate the owner". I don't see any such documentation. Even if we did have it that still wouldn't make the photo a free image. I know this sucks but it's the law. Haukur 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm yielding on this for the time being, though I still think you're being over-zealous. I would also ask you what your thoughts are regarding photographs of buildings and other strutures. Surely they are automatically copyrighted too? Which leads me on to the registering of copyright - if a copyright holder wants to take legal action regarding theft, inappropriate usage, usage without consent or whatever, the person has to register the copyright first. That's how I understand it anyhow. --Mal 19:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can usually take free images of buildings and most other useful structures, the law is primarily intended to protect artworks. Those can be pretty big, though. See Atomium for an example where the copyright is (ridiculously but legally) enforced. The lighting on the Eiffel Tower and the wrapped Reichstag are other well known examples where copyright has been actively enforced. Thanks for having a dialogue with me on this. Haukur 20:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A24 road (Northern Ireland)/Comments[edit]

I did indeed delete A24 road (Northern Ireland)/Comments. If you look at Talk:A24 road (Northern Ireland), you'll see a link to Talk:A24 road (Northern Ireland)/Comments, not to A24 road (Northern Ireland)/Comments. The article namespace is not meant for assessments. That's what the talk namespace is for. Your comments should be at Talk:A24 road (Northern Ireland)/Comments, not at A24 road (Northern Ireland)/Comments. My proposal is the following:
1. I undelete Talk:A24 road (Northern Ireland)/Comments.
2. I redelete A24 road (Northern Ireland)/Comments, which will subsequently remain a redlink.
Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 13:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct. I got it arse-about-face as I've been working too hard! lol Please do make the changes you indicated above. Cheers. :) --Mal 13:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 13:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flies graveyard[edit]

Thanks for catching my error with Garibaldi biscuit --ArmadilloFromHell 06:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. I kept your version because I didn't see the need to pipe the other link with the other common name. --Mal 06:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cuisine[edit]

I have moved User Setanta747/NI cuisine to User:Setanta747/NI cuisine. -- RHaworth 18:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks.. and thanks for telling me - I was just in the middle of editing it! :) --Mal 19:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers[edit]

Cheers, Mal. Don't worry, aint nuttin grinding me down :P

I've been very busy and tired the last inactive month or so.. I started work and just last week I was in Barcelona. I should be at work today, but I have a pretty bad stomach bug I picked up in Spain, so I have to stay at home and absorb it with copious amounts of chocolate cake and pepperami meat sticks, if you catch my drift. I'm sure I'll be in full swing in a little bit.
Dom0803 12:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 6, October 2006[edit]

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
Issue 006 – October 2006

Beatles News
  • The site of the former Casbah Club, operated by Mona Best (mother of Pete) in the basement of her house, and where the nascent Beatles played and rehearsed, has been accorded Grade II Listed status following a recommendation by British Heritage.
Project News
  • Some Project articles are having their Featured Article status reviewed, and the comments are not encouraging. The articles are A Day in the Life and A Hard Day's Night (song). (She Loves You has already had its FA status revoked.) Please participate in the discussion and help improve the articles!
Member News
  • As usual, the self-effacing individuals who contribute to the Project are far too modest to mention any Barnstars or other awards they may have received. Obviously they feel their editing/contributing is reward enough.
Issue of the Month

The lead article of the Project recently lost its FA status, and now some of the other articles are being reviewed. Citations and references within articles are again the major concern. Contributors who have literature (books, magazines, links, etc.) are especially needed to provide the necessary citations. It is not enough for editors to know the facts; they need to be backed up by other sources. All help, both within the articles and the discussion, would be appreciated.

From the Editors

If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 007 – November 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Come back, Kingboyk! The children miss you!

Contributors to this Issue
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Orange Order[edit]

Hi, since you are fixing all these links, wouldn't it be better to link the Canadian ones to Orange Order in Canada? (I have never heard anyone here refer to it as the "Orange Institution" anyway.) Adam Bishop 15:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Orange Institution is just its 'proper' name. I'm using AutoWikiBrowser for really the first time here, and there's a lot more links to the Order than I'd anticipated tbh! I had noticed that a couple of links in articles pointed to the Orange Order in Canada section in the main Orange Institution article like this: Orange Institution#Canada, but because of that I hadn't realised there was a separate article for the Canadian branch. I hope I haven't messed anything up in that regard.
There's still a few more links to do, so I'll keep an eye out - thanks for the heads up. --Mal 19:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical references to City of Derry/Londonderry[edit]

Hi, sorry to drop this message onto your page but I'm trying to invoke a discussion on the WP:IMOS page as to what to use for the historical references to the city of Derry/Londonderry. I am trying to obtain a non-POV neutral discussion over what terminology to use for this or whether the IMOS as it stands should indeed cover this. Since you have been involved in discussions over Derry or County Londonderry and the likes in the past I thought you may like to get involved in the discussion. See the appropriate talk to get involved. Thank you for your time. Ben W Bell talk 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look the Majority of the people the City call it Derry City, Derry City Council, Derry City Airport, Derry City F.C. etc. What point do you Anti-[Irish] not get. Culnacreann 21:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What brought this on? By the way, I'm not anti-Irish - I am Irish. --Mal 14:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taichung City[edit]

I am new on WikiProject Cities. I have added considerable content to the first city I am working on, which happens to be the city of my residence, Taichung City. Would you mind taking a few minutes to look it over and leave comments on how you think I can make it better to bring it up to WikiProject Cities standards in a section of the discussion page for the city’s article page that I have set up.

Thank you. Ludahai 03:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Singles discography[edit]

Hi, I noticed you created this template. I was wondering if you approve of the changes. Thanks for your time -- Ashadeofgrey 18:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the template (based on the album template, if I remember correctly) with the full expectation that it would be developed and that it would be useful. Please feel free to enhance it any way you see fit, and thanks for asking. :) --Mal 23:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland Mediation[edit]

Hi there, I have just taken on the Northern Ireland case as a Mediator. If you approve of me to be the mediator, reply here, and state whether you like public or private mediation. Thanks, ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak[edit]

I would like to ask when you'll end your wikibreak. Mediation for the Northern Ireland article will continue when you return. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 09:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 7, November 2006[edit]

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
Issue 007 – November 2006

Issue of the Month

Again, the issue of the month is inline citations. A Day in the Life, A Hard Day's Night (song), and Get Back have all been defeatured, as they failed to satisfy criterion 1(c) of What is a featured article?, and other song FAs are due for the chopping block. Inline citations are an important aspect of articles—they ensure verifiability and reliability, and they remove original research. Additionally, they give readers the option to read the original source material and view it within context.

Basically:

  1. All direct quotations attributed to Beatles members pooled from interviews need full inline citations.
  2. All critical comments about songs or albums need full inline citations to notable music critics, magazines opinions, or reviews, as opposed to being merely comments by Wikipedians.
  3. Inline citations need: author name, article name, publication date, and name of publication. Such info is still preferable even if quoting from an interview posted upon a website; when this is the case, place the URL link at the end of the citation with the date it was last accessed. (This will help editors retrieve the page using the Wayback Machine, should the link go dead in the future.)
Beatles News
  • The Beatles are due to release a soundtrack album, LOVE, at the end of November, as a companion to their Cirque du Soleil adaptation of the same name. It will feature remastered and remixed versions of their previously released songs, including some new medleys.
  • Paul's getting a divorce. Pain, arguing, and fighting abound.
Project News
  • The Wings tours are really nicely documented now (see Category:Wings tours), but Category:The Beatles tours is almost empty. Kingboyk and the rest of us would love to see (and read) articles on each Beatles tour, including the pre-fame tours of the UK—and the Hamburg trips, of course!
  • The hottest Project page this month has been Paul McCartney, involved in the Featured Article drive, as mentioned above.
Member News
  • Our project members are too modest to report any awards they may have given or received.
From the Editors

Wherever possible, editors should help to trim down on list-like prose within Beatles articles. They should convert list-like sections into fluent, cohesive prose which ties an article's sections together. Lists make articles disjointed, awkward, and difficult to read.

Be sure to take part in the Featured Article drive, and don't forget those inline citations!

If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 008 – December 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Contributors to this Issue
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Ulster fry[edit]

Mal. Can I ask why you again removed the mention of black and white pudding from the ulster fry article? I provided you with plenty of references to support it in the past. Ben W Bell talk 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you did Ben, other than perhaps anecdotal evidence. Certainly, the fact tag was still in the article in reference to the puddings. I have had the opportunity to go around cafés here though, and I didn't come across one instance of an Ulster Fry being sold with either black or white pudding.
The thing is, once you add either black or white pudding to an Ulster Fry, it essentially becomes an Irish Breakfast.. it becomes something other than an Ulster Fry. The same could be said about adding mushrooms and baked beans of course. And perhaps if the black or white puddings are mentioned at all, that is the place for them - along with the other additions and variations that some people make. --Mal 17:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Setanta747/Archive4&oldid=1136142580"