User talk:Tóraí

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Heteracanthocephalidae

Hi you edited this page, but I'm afraid you've lost information by doing the citations in this way. Author citations are written in brackets if the species in question was originally placed in a different genus. Otherwise no brackets. It is also tradition to do the small author citations after each species, and not in the reference section. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mattximus. This is a general encyclopedia. Atypical referencing conventions from specific disciplines will be unknown to our readers. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, nevertheless, thousands upon thousands of wiki pages of taxonomic classification already uses this convention, it would be wonky to have one page on parasitic worm be the one out, and the current way does convey more information to those who do care about the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. There's merit to it and it doesn't hurt. I would suggest however that the sub heads be de-linked. Having links in subheadings can cause problems for users with accessibility issues (as well as looking bad IMHO) - but I'll leave it to you to make your mind up on that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"A Rugrats Passover"

Hey, thanks for taking interest in that article, but even though its a special, it's still an episode of a TV show. Therefore, the title should be in quotes, not italicized. I reverted them back to quotes, so I hope you understand. Thanks :) The Flash ^{talk} 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the distinction and had thought practice was to use italics in all cases. Learn something new every day :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

lol, Yup, no problem. The Flash ^{talk} 22:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation for the typeface collaboration

Requesting editors' help There is currently an oppened collaboration which aims in improving articles related to typefaces and font categorization. If you´re interested in this subject, please visit the collaboration page, add your self and see how you can help.

I hope you can contribute in this section. Happy editings! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Hi there. I'm sure, like me, you believe that Northern Ireland should not even exist - that is irrelevant in the present discussion. The reality is that a consensus was achieved that each of the four 'entities' that together constitute the United Kingdom would be described as 'countries that are part of the United Kingdom' with 'part of' linking to the Countries of the United Kingdom' article. If you attempt to change the article, you will find yourself being reverted by a large number of editors. I do not say this as a threat, but just to suggest that you may end up wasting a load of time on this for absolutely no benefit. Could I suggest there are many areas where I am sure your interests and knowledge could make a real contribution - how about the articles concerning the use of Irish language in Northern Ireland/expansion of Irish medium education etc? I have tried to do some work on Gaelic Medium Education in Scotland in the face of opposition from some editors who objected to articles in English wikipedia having titles in Gaelic, even when the name of the school the article was about was a gaelic name! My point is, I am sure you could make a real difference if you devoted your efforts to issues where you can achieve something - your efforts to change the lead sentence in this article will certainly prove fruitless. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fishiehelper2 - First, we need to leave politics behind. What we (you, I or anyone else) want for the future of Northern Ireland is irrevelent. The same goes for Scotland/England. I hadn't looked at the Northern Ireland article for a while. I can remember a long time back the trouble WRT Scotland ("nation", "country", etc.). The present solution may work well on the Scotland, England articles (or at least I'm not going to comment). Specifically, with regard to Northern Ireland though, it's a crud that I can only imagine was designed to resolve problems elsewhere.

Describing Northern Ireland (baldly) as a "country", as one of the sources I supplieds says, is "blatantly absurd". "Constituent country" is fine (although it would not my prefernce). If, as you say, removing the claim will result in a shed-load of editors coming down up me then the way forward is a community RFC, dispute resolution or so forth. Do you really want to air your dirty lenin in public? (That's not a threat either.)

The content for one article cannot be decided through horse-trading on another two. The (bald) statement that "Northern Ireland is a country" is contradicted by published sources (and the sources that proportedly support the claim are a synthesis that has been given undue weight). Our POV on the matter is independent of that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't know what 'dirty linen' I have but in any case have no problem if you want to push this matter. However, please don't misrepresent the argument to make your point - the article does not state "Northern Ireland is a country" without further qualification. It states "Northern Ireland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom". Anyway, we may just have to differ on this issue - Cheers for now Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"A bear is an animal that lives in the woods." In order for this statement to be correct, the two insdividual statesments that it makes must be true: "A bear is an animal." and "A bear lives in the woods."

"Northern Ireland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom". As with the bear example, the two parts of this statement must be independently correct in order for the whole to be true. It is true to say that, "Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom." Without qualification, however, it is not truthful to say that, "Northern Ireland is a country."

"Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom" is entirely correct. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

By your deductive logic - a 'constituent country' needs to be a 'country' and also requires to be a constituent of something - so you are happy for Northern Ireland to be called a country if if has the adjective 'constituent' placed in front of it? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of words change when we modify them with other words like "constituent". Northern Ireland is not a "country" in the ordinary sense of the word (or in the same sense that Scotland or England are called countries). In terms of the UK, "constituent country" has a specific meaning, distinct from what is ordinarly understood by "country" alone. My perference would simply be "a part of" - there is no need or usefullness in bringing in controversial or not readily understood terms in the introduction, they can simply be left to the body of an article where they can be explained in context more easily. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably risking my life in telling ya this. I actually understand the argument for 'province' (which is amazing, with my past 'consistancy arguments'). Within my country, its 13 divisions are not all named the same - we've got 10 provinces & 3 territories. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. (I thought all Canadian "provinces" were called "provinces".) The origin/significances of the distinction in terms between the unit parts Canada is of course different to that of the UK, but I'm happy you can appreciate that "consistency" is not a prerequisite.

BTW, I'm not advocating "province", but baldly saying "NI is a country" is a definite no no - whatever about Scotland and England.

(p.s. you know who I am don't you?) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I know, I never would've guessed. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm? :) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I really wouldn't have guessed. I thought you had 'retired' long ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Country

Hello, Tóraí. You have new messages at Stuart's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It would make a lot more sense to try and find a form of words that recognises the controversy you know --Snowded ^TALK 11:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't follow. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting that everyone calms down on the arguments etc (on more than one page) and attempt to agree what can be said and then see if there is a way forward. One way might be to expand a section on Constituent Country on Northern Ireland and then pipe link to that from the current lede. How about that? --Snowded ^TALK 11:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

They are three seperate pages with three separate issues (albeit topically related). This is a "Troubles" thing, Snowded. I'm not interested in opening up a new "front". Leave the battles behind and plase assume good faith. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The above note suggests trying to move forward. Nothing there that can be interpreted as WP:BATTLE or a failure to follow WP:AGF . However one can only ask people to attempt to move forward, it can't be forced. --Snowded ^TALK 11:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah ... my message was in reply to the first version of your message above - I've been away since.

Regarding the full version of the above - that's better thinking about the issue but I don't agree that we can pipe link the word "country". See my explanation on the NI talk page in reply to an earlier suggestion like this re: how Wikipedia content is used and the problem with assuming that a reader can follow a link to see what is meant by a word never mind that they will actually do it (even if they can). It's better to simply write what you mean in prose rather than relying on "tricks" or agreements satisfy differing POVs. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood, and I am sure we can find a way to move forward on this. The designation of Northern Ireland as a country was the most problematic when we sorted out the UK as a whole. The lack of a historical country (as was the case in Wales and Scotland) and the controversial nature of any terms associated with it. I was surprised when I first saw the UK Government reference. I agree that the reader needs to be aware of the disputed use of terms. How about a small section on names in the main body? --Snowded ^TALK 05:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Constituent county is my personal fav, but it was gradually rejected (months ago). GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular "fav" so long as it is accurate and neutral. What's getting my nerves up on this is the obstinance of those insisting on country - regardless of how many sources are produced or even it's pointed out that their own sources use different terms. You might have seen my last post, I'm getting ill-tempered now. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Never loose one's cool, as it tends to hurt one's argument. It's the consistancy thing that's taken hold & a majority -vs- minority situation. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Always good advice. Thanks, GoodDay. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, if only I could follow my own advice, at the Ice hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry? wowsers, ya'll really got me with that one. I'll hear heck about this latter on (for sure). GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean it in the lightest possible way - but how did it come about that you came to "promise" one thing or another? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think exhaustion played a factor. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that a complaint was raised at the Rfc, about my being 'bullied' into changing my stance. If another such complaint occurs, it'll render my participation there as 'compromised'. If this topic creates 'tension' between opposing sides, I'll have to wirthdraw completely. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Ireland naming in articles

Good morning. What has happened with the project on this? Has it just been abandoned? I can't even remember where the discussion was taking place. Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The in-article issue was far more important as far as I was concerned. I don't know what happened - maybe when the "headline" issue got effectively sent to bed other either got a) disinterested, or b) disheartened. I can understand people being sore about it - but it was a certainly that someone one party or another were going to get wounded.

I think the affair may have done far more harm than good to the Irish Wikipedia community. (I'm struck by a notable absense of Irish participants in my current arguments over on Talk:Northern Ireland.)

As far as I'm converned, the collaboration is either a) over; b) still on going; or c) resolved to use Ireland, except where Republic of Ireland provides clarity. That doesn't make much sense, I know, but the whole thing just seemed to fall off a cliff and I don't think anyone knows what the final outcome (if there was one) was. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I guessed that's what probably happened. Can you remind me where the page was that hosted the discussion? Mooretwin (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Exhaution from the Ireland naming dispute. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding RTG's posts. Am I the only one? GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations.

Congratulations! You have managed to manipulate an editors opinion with this nonsense. Very clever indeed. As for me bullying GoodDay? Please, do me a favour! It's no wonder I've had my fill of this place. And for the record, I was not joking on his talk page. I truly was pissed off at him for continually putting my country down at every opportunity. Jack forbes (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack, it's not a matter of wanting to "manipulate" anyone. I was genuine shocked at that exchange and I think it was disgusting. Whether we agree with it or not, GoodDay's view are common place and well supported. Just because we are of a different vew is no good reason to go harrang any other editor for their's. We are here to write and encyclopedia, not right the wrongs of history or set anyone straight on the "facts".

What particularly turned by stomach was the gang mentality. We are not here to spit in our palms and strike unbreakable deals based on honour. We are here to write an encyclopedia. It is not a theatre wherein to conduct real-word battles of ideas, we simply describe them describe them as if we were neutral observers. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, for the sake of 'keep all 4 the same', the best choice would've been 'constituent country'; Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

New stubs

Hi Rannpháirtí anaithnid, good to see a few new stub articles on places in the RoI! One request, though, if you make any more - rather than simply adding {{geo-stub}} to the bottom, could you add the specific template for whichever county or counties the place is in? All counties in Ireland have their own geo-stub templates in the form Countyname-geo-stub (e.g., {{Clare-geo-stub}} and {{Roscommon-geo-stub}}). It just saves a little work further down the line and makes the articles easier for editors to find. Cheers -and keep up the good work! :) Grutness...wha? 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob, Grutness. Wasn't aware. Will do. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Go raibh mile maith agat! :) Grutness...wha? 10:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (I hope that's right... my grandma had the Gaeilge, but I don't, sadly)

Perfect. Tá fáilte romhat, a chara! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The footnote symbol at 'Northern Ireland'

Ya may want to change that symbol, as it looks like a Catholic cross. The Protestant majority may get sore. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Duly changed to an 'a'. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even think of that when I saw it, I clearly haven't been living in the (constituent) country long enough. The NI article looks and reads well now though, thanks for the lengthy input on the talk page. Alastairward (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

'Troubles'

It's the old alleged 'Anglo-American vs Irish PoVs', that's the core of most (if not all) of those heated edit-wars & discussions. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear to everyone

I am posting this to everyone who has contributed to the Specific Examples page recently and this message should not be taken as any criticism of your editing. However, following yet more edit-warring today, I think it's needed to make some things very clear. Editors on BI-related articles may be blocked for

• Exceeding 1RR/day on any related article
• Persistent edit-warring/reverting over multiple articles even if not breaking 1RR
• Following other BI editor's contribs and reverting them, even if not related to BI

I will also, as I have today, be blocking obvious sock accounts and/or IPs if they are obviously being used to game the system. Edits by such accounts will be reverted. This issue is now very close to going to RfAR and I suspect the outcome of that would not be one that many editors in this area would welcome. Black Kite 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom RfC

Its probably not worth the time to start one during the election. You aren't likely to change the method (which arguably was chosen before the last RfC) and it won't be distinguishable from the general whining about arbcom that accompanies these elections.

And who knows. It may turn out that secret ballots aren't such a big deal after all. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Elonka to delete the page. It is more sensible to wait until after the election and actually use an RFC to gaguge how folk feel about a secret ballot after they have had a chance to use it. If we go for it them ... well, at least we will be better informed. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Stats.grok.se

I've added a bug report to the doco. Josh Parris 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've managed to fix the bug; the anchorencode that was taken out needed putting back in Josh Parris 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh. I haven't looked at this anchor encode/url encode business. (I see you've been reverted.) I'll check it out later on tonight and chip in my opinion on the talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Turns out that it's more complex than that: there's a bug in mediawiki (documented on the /doc page now). Josh Parris 09:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Geology, geography

Jeez, I say geography and you give me a lecture. :) Jack forbes (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Don't mean to lecture. In fairness all I arguing for is the status quo. And considering the pile of references I have I feel pretty hard done by.

With respect to the issue, it really shouldn't be this much of a task. The diagrams are fine as they are, IMHO. They reveal an (admittedly) often neglected fact, which is worthwhile in itself. We can leave the rest for articles texts. There's no need to open a can of worms for the sake of a diagram. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I would though like to see the rest of Matts evidence before fully deciding where I stand on this. Jack forbes (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

Howdy RA. Don't ya thing a discussion should occur 'first', before changing 'President' to an Irish language version? GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:Republic of Ireland. It was an IP that go the ball moving but we can revert in the meantime if you think it is better? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

User boxes

Wowsers! Good work! I never thought anyone would take my invitation seriously. Did you make em all youself or were some already there? Counties was, I think. You haven't got over much time on your hands have you :))) Mister Flash (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I gotta admit, as I was doing it I was thinking, Surely, there's more I can do with my life than this?

FYI - I used the {{userbox}} template to make them "from stratch" and picked up (fairly random) pix from the Commons ... the hardest part was choosing the colours :)

If you're doing it yourself in future, this is a handy colour reference. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a bash with a couple. Mister Flash (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

• From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost

• Editorial: A digital restoration

• Election report: ArbCom election in full swing

• Interview: Interview with David G. Post

• News and notes: Wikipedia's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more

• In the news: Ron Livingston sues vandal, disclosure of IP address ordered, brief headlines

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Typo

Think you made a typo here BigDunc 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks for that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No probs, I am completely baffled with the reasoning of an editor that because he can't pronounce it we should move it to something he can say, unbelievable. BigDunc 21:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the better thing to do would be to change the spelling: Cunra na Gaylega? :) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to him, he might be influenced by a discussion on Talk:Republic of Ireland re: "Uachtarán" or "President", in which case I support his position. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ptolemy

I don't think it's a good idea to encourage our mutual friend to insert text into the article - on past practice it would lead to edit warring. Can you and I agree on something to be added, and where it should go? In my view the Ptolemy quotes are not directly relevant to the British Isles article - which refers to the collectivity of islands - but they are relevant to be included at Britain (name). Do you agree? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that, after the second sentence of the third para of Britain (name), we add: In his Almagest, Ptolemy used the term Μικρὰ Βρεττανία (Mikra Brettania) for Ireland, although in his later work, the Geography, he referred to Ireland as Ιουερνία (Iwernia)...... That keeps it simple. Then, a new para would start with "Diodorus.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sound good. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Code of conduct

RA, another rule should be added, and that is this: editors must carefully read each comment before replying as I hsve seen numerous cases where editors comments are misread or not fully read at all.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll add something. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs stats

Hi! I wanted to thank you for your comment at at VPR. I'm doing a little project management on that, and the community input is great. Did you have a notion of what sort of community impact you were expecting to see, and what sort of measures you'd look at? Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Snowdeds proposal

It would be nice if you voted on Snowdeds proposal. :) Jack forbes (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tóraí. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ath-bhliain foai mhaise dhaoibh a chara.

Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

I see that with this edit you reverted my reformatting of two sports section images in Ireland. One of the nasty formatting situation is when images intrude into the next section header, especially when they are on the left side. The solution is to add more text which may not be possible, add a hard break though that usually adds more white space between the bottom of the image and the following header, or move the image to the right though it may intrude a little into the prose of the next section but not into the header. We could also just place both images on the right and avoid the problem altogether. One of those solutions is necessary because the current format is ugly and does not work.

I also see that you are working on the references. You may find it useful to check the link with the Checklinks tool to ensure the validity of current references, or maybe the Reflinks tool to create inline citations though I usually refine the results for better citations and Ireland has few if any loose citation links. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to. I noticed that you had edited it and I actually thought it was "cool" the way the software hadn't thrown up an edit conflict - because, I thought, it was smart enough to know we were editing in different sections! I guess something went wonky that I could overwrite you without knowing it.

Thanks for the heads up re: the toolserver tools. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 03:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put it back to the way you had it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I wondered if we were going to start clashing so early in the new year but actually we are on the same page towards improvements. I just checked the refs with Checklinks and made a few small changes. The main problems arise when the reference vanishes and archive.org does not have a copy but right now there are few problems except for the missing IEI report (ref 83). There is no need to drop a talkback as I am watching your page for a while. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have read your user page earlier to discover who you were; SY. BTW, I have done little with the Ireland portal since your hiatus. So hello again. ww2censor (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No bother. I've been nipping in and out of the Portal every few weeks or so to keep it updated. You changes while I was away (random articles etc.) were great. Thanks for doing that. I think the Ireland article is on the road to being relisted as a GA. Do you think much more needs to be done before putting it in for review? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 04:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked Nikkimaria, who has a track record with GAs, to have an informal look and give us advise if there are any glaring problems. She will do so next week. ww2censor (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The OED, Channel Islands, BI etc

I'll come back to this tonight. I'm asking you again to play fairly. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt, please, I'm not out to trick you. I refactored your comments from the reference list because - TBH - having them there is not "playing fair". Let the reference speak for themselves and by all means make comments on them below. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've spent bloody ages now trying to work out what you have done at your BI/Channel Islands RFC - I feel like charging you for my time! How dare you move my work to the bottom of the page - I've only just worked out that is what you have done as you did not explain yourself - you just denied doing anything of any effect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I half believed you. I'm having to revert you as I simply can't get to grips with your bunch of edits. Seriously - DO NOT REVERT ME. I CANNOT WORK OUT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE WITH THE LISTS/TEXT. If you want to make changes, do them properly one type at a flipping time. The timing of you moving my work it is a complete wind up of course, but you knew that already.

As I said on in the edit note, you made a few different changes in one edit, and as much as anything, that is a real headache for another editor to analyse and deal with. My main objection was that you removed the words "Also, in the case of encyclopedias and dictionaries, the latest edition must be the one to use.", and then you seem to have inserted an old OED definition from 1989!

Focusing on lesser changes while ignoring the snuck-in 'controversial' changes (or ones you know damn well will be fully objected to) is a form of tricking people in my book, but I think your primary motive right now is just to wear me down, as you know that 'keeping up the good fight lads' regarding the British Isles has (unfortunately) at least as much current support as making some kind of encyclopedic sense of the term. You know full well that the real 'full OED' is my primary source (as it would be for anyone) - all you are doing is trying to water it down by confusing it with the 1989 one, and very typically without any kind of reader-bound explanation too.

Also - have you suddenly put this up for public comment? As I've said, I welcome participants and always have - It's just the way you go about things Rannparti. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)