User talk:Scolaire/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Peer review

Hi. Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Slovenian presidential election, 2007/archive1. I have some questions there, could you give me a piece of advice? Thanks in advance. --Tone 22:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm about ready for bed now. I'll try to get back to it tomorrow :-) Scolaire (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I will nominate it for a FA now, my experiences show that this is the most effective way to make the final improvements to the article. Greetings. --Tone 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving, deleting - same difference if it has the same effect.

The section on international references was conveniently removed from the discussion to be parked up some back alley while I was away. The result is that the archive that puported to show the discussion as having reached a break point was a false one because of this deliberate piece of gamesmanship, because the citations it was giving were too inconvenient. So I reinstated the true record. --Red King (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland dab Task Force

Hi Scolaire, are you still interested in helping to move this task force along. I think the recent lull on the task force might turn out to be a good thing as it. Also, what do you think of asking a mediator to join in also, to help with the sticky bits? --HighKing (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume you meant to say Ireland dab task force - I haven't been involved in the BI one at all. In principle, I want to stay involved; in practice, I've been much busier in real life in the last month so I've far less time to devote to it. I hope to post a statement shortly. I'm afraid that I don't agree with you when you say that the lull was a good thing. I felt when the proposed deletion was on it was the best chance to get everybody together from across the spectrum and get them to make a clear statement of their positions. At that stage a mediator or "independent assessor" might have been able to develop a framework for tackling the issues. At this point in time there is no point in approaching a mediator because there is nothing to mediate - everybody has gone home.

What I had in mind when I was talking to Matt Lewis was something along the lines of WP:RFC/U or ArbCom, where you have "Statement by User:Scolaire", "Statement by User:HighKing" etc. Ideally the statements would be standalone - they wouldn't include an answer to, or a rebuttal of, somebody else's statement, although they might rebut an argument that was made in a previous discussion on ROI or IMOS. Any response to the statement would be confined to the talk page, and of course an editor would be free to choose not to enter any discussion on their statement. Once the arguments were clearly stated (and not forked off into increasingly emotional/personal spats) either the participants themselves or an "independent assessor" might be able to see where there was ground for consensus or room for compromise. What do you think? Scolaire (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire, I understand the format and it is probably worth a shot. Works for Arbcom... Downside is probably that we will still get extreme views but hopefully a neutral 3rd party or mediator or independant assessor will be able to figure out if there is grounds or not. This might be a good format for RoI where it seems there is a bigger split. Would you also participate in the BI discussions? --HighKing (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It works for Arbcom, because they can enforce it, we can't. Now this may need to go to Arbcom on this, and they are starting to pay attention to all sites with any connection to Ireland (see recent draconian sentences handed down). If you look back on the history I think we were making progress with a set of principles but then we lurched into a full blown policy (using some controversial words) before the principles were agreed. I would prefer to go back there (and have some drafted). Happy to discuss. --Snowded TALK 11:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see both of you engaging. One thing I want to say, though: I would like to see an end to phrases like "extreme views" and "controversial words". As far as I'm concerned, consensus is about accomodating the extremes and dealing with controversy. The wider the range of views being expressed, the better the chance of dialogue leading to consensus. If you're well within your comfort zone, as this task force was at the start, you're probably going nowhere. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We are dealing with extreme views and controversial words from both sides on this one, its one of the reasons I think we need to move away from the subject itself to agree the principles under which the dispute will be resolved. Then those principles can be referenced in the subsequent conversations. I also think that interludes of "state your opinion once" as we go through that would help. --Snowded TALK 21:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you didn't take me up wrong there - I didn't mean that I thought you were calling the "other side" extremists, only that I think we need to move away altogether from the idea of "extremism" (on both sides) and begin to think in terms of "diversity of opinion" instead. I think that "state your opinion once" is a great idea, in fact rather than just have interludes it might be worth having that as a guiding principle from the start. As to agreeing principles in general, I kind of feel that if everybody stated their opinion once, it might be easier to design a framework around that. If you or I tried to lay down principles at the start, we might leave ourselves open to accusations of trying to corrall the discussions or slant the argument our way, and the arguments on principles might stop us ever getting to the issues themselves. That's just my own view, of course. Scolaire (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Its OK! I interpreted it the way you did. I think we need to take it away from Ireland (the island) for a bit and talk about general rules for geography references, then agree geographical (not political terms) for this issue and then take some real cases. Actually I think the Shannon and Loch Neigh have worked out well and may give some hope. --Snowded TALK 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you've nicely illustrated my point there. You see, my entire focus and my only interest is in what you call "Ireland (the island)". I have no interest whatsoever in the British Isles issue per se, but I am uncomfortable with what I see as the undertone that this task force is about "getting Ireland out of the way" before getting back to the serious matter of the British Isles. Now, how are you and I going to agree on "principles" if our two views of the task force are as far apart as I think they are? Scolaire (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Now you are misinterpreting there, the two issues for me are intertwined with many of the same editors. The issue of the correct name for Ireland (the state) intruded on the British Isles question and vice versa. The question is which to resolve first and how. My formal position is that British Isles is a valid but increasingly archaic term that is being over applied, but should not be removed and that ROI is the wrong term to disambiguate the state of Ireland. We know that there are people who insist on ROI and will not countenance any other form of disambiguation and people who object to any disambiguation; there are people who impose BI wherever they can including some very obscure areas, there are people who want the term abolished. Its a mess of extremes and finding a compromise difficult but both issues have to be tackled. --Snowded TALK 11:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, when I talked of an undertone I meant in the discussion generally, and not you specifically. I think when I post my statement you will understand better where I'm coming from. I don't think that, for myself at least, I can divorce the question of structure from the question of my own stance on the issue, and there's really no point in trying to explain my stance here while I'm trying to draft a statement for the task force itself. Once I have stated my case you might see why I think that the kind of structure you're talking about won't work well for me. Scolaire (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This looks like good progress. On the question of which task force, my opinion would be to work on British Isles first (since Matt has already put together a lot of guidelines and it appears to be very progressed), but I'm open to working on the RoI one first. Or maybe it is possible to work on both in parrallel, but we'd need to avoid a dependency being contructed between them.

I'm curious as to how structure and statement need to be entwined - I'll wait for the statement to understand why this is so. In general though, I believe identifying what we can all agree on (call them principles) and then discussing and identifying what we can't get a consensus on easily, is a good structured approach. --HighKing (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland

Having read over [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll in selecting five proposals before an RFC in which it will be against the current main page. You're input would be appreciated. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Free Derry

Hi Scolaire! I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that I completed the GA review of Free Derry several days ago. There are just a few things that I'd like to see changed in the article before I promote it to GA status, so if you could drop by and take and look, it would be great. Also, if you're no longer interested in taking this article to GA status, could you let me know? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dana. I've had a busy week in real life so so I hadn't had a chance to check up on the Free Derry situation. I'll get on it soon as I can, at the latest this weekend. Scolaire (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you still working on this article? There has been very little done on the GA review comments, especially the most important ones about referencing and coverage. Let me know if you're still interested. If I don't hear from you within a couple of days I'm going to have to fail the article, as almost two weeks have passed since I reviewed it. Dana boomer (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. When I nominated the article first I had loads of time on my hands, which I intended to use to bring it up to GA standard. Unfortunately it took a full month to be reviewed, and by then I was up to my eyeballs in other stuff. I know just what needs to be done to address your concerns, and as soon as I have the time (hopefully this weekend but maybe not, depending on how things go) I'll sit down and do it. Please give me a little more time. And thanks for your continued interest. Scolaire (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I feel you deserve this award in recognition of your particular sense of balance, fairness and logic, given particularly divisive situations. You remain objective despite your personal point of view. Setanta747 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scoláire. I don't know how you feel about these 'awards', but I have been meaning to let you know that you are appreciated, even though we might disagree with one another (and we seem to be disagreeing with each other currently!). While I've known of you as an editor for some years now, I've noted some of your comments recently and I find you to usually be clear headed and civil (though I'm disappointed that you view my latest proposal as merely "mischief"!) I hope you appreciate this gesture as it is intended. Thanks. --Setanta747 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

TBH, I thought I didn't believe in the things, but I find I'm quite chuffed to get one, especially from someone of whom I've just said that their proposal has "an element of mischief". Thank you very much indeed, Setanta. Scolaire (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Kearney

Thanks for adding the history cats - I meant to look at doing this after I created it, but it slipped my mind. I'm on a break, but am checking my talk fairly regularly (for things like this!). I'm pretty busy, but I bought a lot of history books over the last few months (Britain, BI, B&I and some Ireland and some multiculturalism), and am at least getting some sporadic reading done. I should be getting some time for Wikipedia fairly soon, though not for a week at least.

I can seen the Ireland taskforce has started up again - I haven't read through it as I'm trying to be relatively 'stress-free' right now (typical about Kearney!!!) - but good luck. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. You were missed. --HighKing (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The latest Ireland proposals

What do you think of my comment here? I'll be supporting the Evertype Island (state)/(island) poposal if people decide to run with it, but I'll also support you putting forward your recent suggestion, and us collectively re-polling both of them alongside the status quo (with no multiple voting allowed over the 3 polls, and the winning poll needing the usual 2/3 of the combined total). You guys will have to get behind something though, because there is a bandwagon going with the Evertype proposal, and I can see it easily picking up speed, esp with new voters. The status quo (ie the 'against' votes) alone, won't stand a chance against it. If things continue to be messy on the opposing side, I favour moving it through (as do many now, I think).--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was pleased with your comments; I think they're very fair. In general, though, I feel I have failed with the task force. I've consistently tried to initiate a proper debate on the names, and I've just been met with poll after poll, each of them just alternate proposals involving two permutations of the same page moves. I made my own proposal only because I was being accused of not having anything to offer, but I hoped at least it would stimulate a bit of discussion. And what did it stimulate? Another poll! The point I keep trying to make is that this "consensus" that is supposed to be arising is pure illusion. Not one person has changed their mind since the start of the current discussion. All that has happened is that the ROI faction has not got involved with the task force, with a couple of exceptions. If this "new consensus" is translated into page moves without notifying the community first, there will be war! Scolaire (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I can probably resist the temptation myself to push it through without the wider community getting involved (just about!). But I can't speak for others of course - with the admin involved I expect it will be done properly. Personally, I think the poll(s) (when we have settled on them) should be re-polled in another neutral place. The taskforce was always just to discuss and determine - never to make law itself.

I don't think you've failed in creating discussion - you got more going than I did. I think, unfortunately, your problem was seeing that these polls are always going to happen with something that so has many 'directions' to it. You probably would have been better always insisting they were 'straw polls', and getting your Ireland 'hatnotes' proposal in earlier - it might have had some success earlier on. Ironically, it was very similar to my opening proposal, but keeping Ireland as the island.

I think that now, much of the 'other side' genuinely sees itself as having discussed to the max, and there is a feeling of wanting to close it now. If it is going to the wider community, you need to sort out whether you are going to present something yourself (ie be part of how it is presented). IMO, you guys for years have been the more organised 'side' - but the table seems to have radically turned there. When arbcom has accepted a new consensus for Ireland of course, dissent will be difficult - especially if there are no ambiguities, and pipelinks to play with etc. Any changes we make will clearly have to be solidified by arbcom, IMO, so any future changes must be requested at through arbcom. The whole thing has adversely effected actual articles (jumbling them, getting them locked, clogging their talks, turning people away, generally frustrating progression), so I think that is fair enough.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Scolaire. I've changed my opinon on Ireland, Republic of Ireland & related articles. I no longer have any. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think I'm closer to GoodDay than to anybody else at this point. The thing about the polls is that they have the effect of minimising discussion, while allowing people to kid themselves that they're making progress. If you look at my proposal again, you'll see I suggested it only be accepted in principle, so that we could get down to talking about how it would be implemented in other articles - that's where the real crunch is going to come. But I've really come to believe that the majority of people are afraid of genuine dialogue, and that's why they keep trying to railroad through their proposals via these polls. I'm pretty sure I'm going to quit the task force at this point. It at least has the benefit of keeping the endless circular arguments off the other talk pages, but it no longer has anything to offer me. BTW you say "with the admin involved I expect it will be done properly." I'm not sure who you're referring to there, but the couple of "outsiders" that I've seen have become more intransigent and less tolerant of opposing POVs than any of the old-stagers. Scolaire (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I just left those articles (United Kingdom, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Republic of Ireland & Ireland & their related articles); 'cause I was viewed as a trouble-maker. I prefer RoI, Ireland & Ireland disampig moved to Ireland (state), Ireland (island) & Ireland. But I withdrew my supports, as I felt I wasn't helping matters. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of railroading in the past from the other side, though, (to say the least!), and a refusal to properly discuss from some people too. I think you are feeling negative now partly because you don't actually have that much back up in debate - you mainly have people who have said their piece, and simply place their vote. Ultimately, polls happen when directions are multifarious (and positions need to be found), and also when positions are entrenched - both are the case here.

I agree the Ireland/(state) and (island) solution is not a massive compromise, other than to not use 'Ireland' as the name of the state - which many people absolutely insisted upon when I first got involved, so you could perhaps take some heart from that. There is no real law regarding compromise. Consensus - ie a significant number advantage - is what always does it in the end, and so many people feel that some kind of change has to happen.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW Scolaire. My 'crystal ball' tells me (to my disappointment) there's gonna be a heck of a fight at Republic of Ireland & Ireland, when those articles are moved. There's alot of editors out there, who haven't been involved with the Taskforce & may get aroused by the page moves. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There will be a fight, but I'm not convinced they're going to be moved - the vote has gone from 13-5 back to 12-7; that's probably not enough for a consensus. Either way, my negativity is not due to the fact that "my side" may lose, it's because the "other side" had a clear chance to make a cast-iron case for itself and threw it away, and now it's back to the numbers game. I have no taste for the numbers game, so I'm going to do a GoodDay, say "good day" to them all and let them get on with their voting. Thank you both for continuing the dialogue. Scolaire (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately consensus is down to numbers of people - nobody could move in life if that wasn't the case. It sounds crude, but it's the 'end of the day' truth. I certainly don't support GoodDay's rather provocative view that there will be 'heck of a fight' after the move - in fact I find such negativity unproductive. And with arbcom involved there couldn't be one anyway (certainly in the sense of moving back articles). I'm not afraid of the people I've dealt with - I actual think they are largely without substance, and will ultimately have nothing left to say (most of them have had nothing to say anyway). If Ireland gets to be a disam page will it really be the end of the world? No - and both Ireland and Northern Ireland (certainly) will start to get better articles out of it, although it might take some time for actual article improvers to come back into the fold. I think that the general state of the island's article's are a sad indictment on all involved.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire, I certainly hope Matt is correct about me being pesemistic. If those articles get moved successfully (i.e. little squabbling); I'd be more then happy to 'eat crow'. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, I'll end on a positive note and say if the articles get moved it won't be the end of the world for me, and hopefully there won't be a fight. Scolaire (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, fellow self-exile. We've outlived our usefullness on those articles. Time to let the new generation handle the load. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no way to make a "cast iron case" here. The only way forward is a solution which makes everyone equally unhappy. I've said this three times! I like Ireland = the State, and I don't like Republic of Ireland for that. You like Ireland = the island, and don't like Ireland (island) for that. There's NO WAY to resolve the ambiguity and the differences of opinions by lawyering (wikilawyering or otherwise) and "proving" with a "cast iron" case. The case you made was valiant. It did not convince. Had I tried to make such a case, valiant and "cast iron" as I might try to make it, I doubt I'd have convinced you. The only way forward in negotiations like this (and in my Unicode work I have negotiated much more difficult issues with people from much more different cultures than ours) is to choose a solution that nobody is exactly happy with but which, at least does not offend. Did I want to try to make an "iron clad" case therefore? No. I wanted to get to "solution". That's the better negotiation tactic. Best regards, -- Evertype·✆ 23:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I accept we'll never see eye to eye but I think the 'filibuster' accusation was grossly unfair. Whatever. When I say I'm out of here I mean it. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire, please reconsider your decision to retire from the task force. It looks like your departure is going to be to the detriment of Wikipedia. Attempts to cut up the terms of reference and impose majority-decisions separately have already begun. Mooretwin (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I expect he just needs a break. He can can easily vote on the move, anyway (and still keep out of the TF if he wants too) - it's at Ireland talk. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why doesn't anybody aske me, to return? GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't, because I like being a fellow-exile :-) Scolaire (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't resist. I gave my 'votes' at Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation), but that's all. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we're semi-exiled, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help being a little bit smug. They were so sure they had their "consensus", and it's still at exactly 50:50! Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The more 'votes', the better. It adds legitimacy to the RMs, no matter what the results are. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute

I have filed this Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute and named you as one of the involved parties. I would appreciate it if you could make a 500-word-or-less statement there. -- Evertype·✆ 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've voted to support. However, I have an uneasy feeling that despite the raft of supports in the poll section (not so much in the comments section) it will ultimately go the way of all the other polls. Stil, never say die! Scolaire (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion - much appreciated --Snowded TALK 19:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem! You were quite right to say that I had advised Evertype one thing and then done the opposite myself. Scolaire (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

request

Any chance you could work your examples up into a preliminary protocol? Happy to help/review. I think with that we could make progress and need the old debates come up again. --Snowded TALK 18:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• In Northern Ireland articles or articles that primarily relate to Northern Ireland, and in a context in any article that touches on the relationship between the state and Northern Ireland, or where there is a significant danger of ambiguity between the state and the island: in the first mention, the state is referred to as "the Republic of Ireland"; in subsequent mentions, it is referred to as "the Republic".

How does that sound? I think it would cover any of the examples we've dealt with so far. Scolaire (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In several of cases it doesn't fit. ROI will not always be needed and several of the cases satisfy that. I don't think we will achieve this through rules, as there are no universals that we can agree. I was thinking more of a list of examples using your suggestions as a starting point. If you would prefer I could attempt that with your examples but not for a few days. I have a fair amount of travel and ironically four Northern Ireland Health projects to manage --Snowded TALK 19:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! The longer we take the better the chances of getting it right. Scolaire (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OK - if you post any more relevant diffs I will pick them up and attempt a summary --Snowded TALK 20:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Negotiation tactics

I wonder if it would be better if we all sat down together for a pint. -- Evertype·✆ 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt. Maybe on the Holyhead ferry so we could include the British editors. Scolaire (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Man? -- Evertype·✆ 12:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone say "pint"? --HighKing (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and you're buying. Scolaire (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be a pleasure (hic). We should design a "Black Pint" barnstar! --HighKing (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, have a look at this. Scolaire (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, very good, but it still does not address the need for Ireland to be the dab page because of the inherent ambiguity. -- Evertype·✆ 12:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Kumbaya my lord, Kumbaya. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Always reminds me of Addams Family Values. -- Evertype·✆ 12:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

		The Beer Barnstar
		I though someone said pint? You get the first one... HighKing (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, HighKing! Scolaire (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This Welsh (British) editor is in Belfast early Jan if anyone wants that beer, and probably in Dublin for the Blues-Leinster match at the weekend. --Snowded TALK 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I expect to be going to that very game myself! We usually have a pint! in Slattery's on Shelbourne Road / Bath Avenue... --HighKing (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an opportunity --Snowded TALK 17:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It does, doesn't it? Scolaire (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Sounds good to me... --HighKing (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm up for it, it would be nice to put some faces to the names - and its an evening match --Snowded TALK 07:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Deal! Saturday 10 Jan in Slattery's. Scolaire (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I will be the one in a Cardiff Blues shirt (beard, bald and glasses) so I may need protection if this place is a hotbed of Leinster supporters. --Snowded TALK 09:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Weird shirt - beard, bald and glasses! Scolaire (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We oughta strike a deal between the usage of Republic of Ireland & British Isles. If one's to be used, the other shouldn't be. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. As far as I'm concerned the whole blow-up on Republic of Ireland is the result of psyched-up editors migrating from the British Isles dispute (naming no names, but one of them might or might not have had the initials ML); before that it was a difference of opinion, after it it was a war. The two issues are completely separate and they should, nay must, be kept separate. Scolaire (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree, its about finding a route supported by citations and not bargaining names. --Snowded TALK 16:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the Republic of Ireland part, will be settled soon (by the Arbcom). GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Scolaire, I want to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a Happy 2009!--jeanne (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Archie Doyle

I need some help. Do you know who authored the article on Archie Doyle? I am trying to find out more about the man. How should I make contact? Hope you can helpRealmcd (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Scolaire (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety ^talk 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand what they did, or what they are asking to do? Scoláire? I don't. -- Evertype·✆ 09:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They're asking you to do what I asked you to do months ago: cut out the dramatics, identify the differences between you, decide on a mechanism for resolving those differences, put forward proposals that have some chance of being acceptable to all parties, and above all, show each other some respect. Notice that all of the foregoing is in the second person - now that ArbCom have been invoked and have spoken, I am having nothing more to do with it. Good luck. Scolaire (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Future Reference

Ah, I caught this too late, but normally speaking, arbitrators will not look at the opening statements again once case is opened; all new things, including changes to the statements, should go to evidence page instead. Sorry for the late reply! - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Élie Bouhéreau

On March 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Élie Bouhéreau, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New Ireland Wikimedia email list

Hi Scolaire

I'm delighted to announce that we've started a new Ireland Wikimedian email list, that you can join, at mail:WikimediaIE. For Wikimedians in Ireland and Wikimedians interested in events in Ireland and efforts in Ireland. It's there to to discuss meetups, partnerships with Museums and National Archives, and anything else where Wikipedia and real life intersect.--Bastique ^demandez 22:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Seán Ryan (Irish judge)

Thanks much for creating the stub Seán Ryan (Irish judge), and for your other work on related matters. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Please make sure you expand it, though. A web search should give you enough information to bring it up to start class, at least. Scolaire (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Ireland article names case

Hello, Scolaire. For your information, an amendment has been proposed to the Ireland article names arbitration case. As you were a named party in that dispute, you may wish to voice your opinions on this request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names. If you have any questions, please contact myself, another clerk, or an arbitrator. Thank you. For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Seán Ryan (Irish judge)

You wrote re Seán Ryan (Irish judge): "You know, it's not very clever - or polite - to ask somebody to create an article for you, stick a couple of tags on the talk page and then forget about it. It makes me look a right eejit to be creating a stub that's never going to become an article. If Seán Ryan (Irish judge) is not considerably expanded - and I mean considerably - in the next 48 hours, I am going to request that it be speedy-deleted."
I'm very sorry if I've offended you. I don't normally look at situations of this sort in that way at all. It's almost impossible for me to think of the situation as "asking that an article be created for me."
My view of the situation is that Wikipedia seemed to need an article on this fellow. I know absolutely nothing about him. I didn't even have any idea what would be an appropriate title for an article. (I thought that "Judge Sean Ryan" or "Justice Seán Ryan" or "High Court judge Seán Ryan" might be good, but really I didn't know.)
I make this kind of general request to the Wikipedia community at large all the time, in an attempt to improve Wikipedia. Sometimes people create articles. Sometimes nobody does. Sometimes people reply that they feel that we really don't need an article on that subject. * You are the first person who's ever expressed any kind of hard feeling about it. *
IMHO, my opinion on whether Wikipedia should have a given article is independent of my personal ability to do any constructive work on that article. (E.g., I think that we should have Dusseldorf, vector analysis, and lingonberry, but I couldn't personally do much constructive work on them.)
So really, IMHO, as far as I'm concerned, I personally am absolutely irrelevant to the issue of whether Wikipedia should have an article on Seán Ryan (Irish judge) or not. If you think that we should have an article on him, thank you for creating the stub. If you think that we should speedy that stub, that is of course your right.
I'd also like to point out that we have a special section of the Wikipedia with thousands and thousands of requests to create articles ( Wikipedia:Requested articles ), so I really can't feel that there's anything wrong with me doing this. Again, my apologies if I've offended you.
-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I frankly cannot understand why this situation bothers you as much as it does. I have not attempted to injure or insult you, and as far as I can tell you have not been injured or insulted.

You wrote: "you seem to spend far more time instructing other people to create, delete or improve articles than actually doing any work yourself."

I do primarily WikiGnome-type work. Sometimes this involves asking other people for their opinions on things. It occasionally involves asking other people to do things that I can't do for myself, or to do things that I suspect might be easy for them and difficult for me. (For example, I quite frequently post to the Talk pages of WikiProjects, because I assume that members of those projects are knowledgeable about and interested in their subjects.) If people don't feel like responding to my requests, they don't. I certainly don't try to mislead people about anything. On the contrary, I try to go out of my way to be as open and honest as possible.

(Here User_talk:Beeblebrox#Looking_for_somebody_to_help_with_possible_AfD, I recently asked someone if he could start an AfD that I though advisable, and he replied that he thought that that wasn't a good idea, and that was that. No harm as far as I can see.)

"to post as you did on WikiProject Ireland gives the impression of "I'm burning to write about this guy, I just need somebody to create a stub for me.""

I just re-read my post on WikiProject Ireland and I don't see that I said anything of the kind. No offense intended, but I can't really be responsible for what "impression" people may read into things that I don't say. As I said above, it seemed to me that Wikipedia would benefit from having an article about this guy, and I didn't feel in any way competent to do it. So I asked. I really can't figure out why that's so offensive. I don't think that I said anything misleading anywhere. If I did, I apologize.

"I wouldn't have bothered if I'd known it was just for the sake of a pretty blue link, and neither would anybody else."

Again, I don't know why you're putting this kind of interpretation on the situation. That is certainly not how I was thinking of the matter.

"I guess I just feel that if you want to contribute, you should contribute."

Thank you for your opinion.

"I can't see that WP has any need of managers, especially anonymous ones."

I don't know whether I believe that Wikipedia has any need of managers (anonymous or otherwise) or not. I would definitely say that I don't envision myself as being in any way any type of "manager". If I wanted to be a manager I'd try to become an admin.

IMHO, this largely comes down to the fact that I cannot in any way compel anybody to do anything on Wikipedia (nor do I feel that I should have this ability). I can but ask. As I said above, if someone agrees with me that Wikipedia would be improved by doing something, they are free to do so. If they don't, they don't, and there's nothing I can do about it, and frankly I wouldn't want to. Again, you are the only person I've ever met on Wikipedia who has had a problem with this.

Again, I think that Wikipedia benefits from having an article on this guy. I'm not competent to do much with it. If you agree that Wikipedia benefits from having an article on this guy, then it's good that you created one. If you don't think that Wikipedia benefits from having this article, you may take action to have it deleted. That's certainly your right.

In closing: I can't figure out what your complaint is. I thanked you when you first created the article and I'll thank you again. Thank you. I have at no point intended to do anything that would bother you, and I apologize if I've inadvertently done so.

-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll agree to differ, then. And I apologise if I've offended you. I'm not actually that bothered about it at all. I just said something that I thought was worth saying; I didn't expect you to take it quite so much to heart. I suggest we just let it drop. Scolaire (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I am in no way trying to bug you about this -- as you say, you've made your position clear and while I don't necessarily agree with it, I certainly respect it. On the other hand if anybody else should happen to be interested (and so far obviously no one is) then perhaps they'll do something with this.

I'd also like to say here that although we haven't agreed about this particular issue, looking at your edits I'd say that you are the kind of editor we need more of around here. Thanks and happy editing. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Scoláire, I've re-created the article with more detail and references. I've also left a note on the WikiProject Ireland talk page saying that next time 201.37.230.43 should just go for it, because this sort of article doesn't require special knowledge, just a bit of elbow grease. - Pointillist (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, Pointillist. Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note to me on recent activity in this article. You are a gentleman as well as a scoláire. :-) I'd say that at this point the article at least merits the title of "stub". Since you and Pointillist have gone to so much trouble on this already, I will over the next week or so try to see if I can locate and add anything constructive to the article. Thanks again. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit

Thanks for deleting that. I thought I had done so as I did realize I had put it in the wrong place. -- Evertype·✆ 08:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Michael. Just my obsessive housekeeping showing through ;-) Scolaire (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

{{ }}

You were right. -- Evertype·✆ 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I managed to not notice it for the whole of the current poll ;-) Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cards

I hope you're taking into account the likely views of the different factions as regards the presentation of the "arguments". -- Evertype·✆ 13:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Morning!

Hm I was going to e-mail you but there's no link. You can IM me at evertype on iChat/AIM or Yahoo... -- Evertype·✆ 08:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

TBH I don't believe in emails. I don't like other editors having discussions that I can't see, so I don't do it myself. I made an exception once, to arrange to meet somebody for a drink, but that was it. Scolaire (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. By the way I did laugh at your delayed signing-off last night. -- Evertype·✆ 09:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to laugh, don't you :-) Scolaire (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

-) By the way I've made some edits to the draft and its talk page, including a link to the new page on Argument summaries. Realistically, when do you think we can get this off our desks? I surely need a three-week break. -- Evertype·✆ 09:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Realistically, not before Monday, as I said last night. Off-hand I can think of three people who are not happy campers, none of whom are online right now. We cannot and we must not give anybody the opportunity to say that the poll was started prematurely and their valid concerns were ignored. Scolaire (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. What is wrong with this process? What's an unhappy camper? Someone who doesn't want to look at the proposed draft text and offer specific improvements or suggestions? "I don't like it" doesn't help improve anything. Do you know what the unhappy campers are unhappy about? -- Evertype·✆ 09:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point, Evertype, you are an unhappy camper because people can't see how reasonable you're being and how hard you're working! That's why I said to last night you need to walk away from time to time and give everybody else space to engage. Now, I deliberately didn't mention names, but (a) not everybody has signed off on only one (xxxx) option going forward - if we say it's decided before certain people have had their say we will be accused of forcing the issue; (b) by no means everybody has agreed that arguments should be included; and (c) not everybody is happy with the current text of the arguments. I have to admit I don't understand what the hurry is. Is took six full months to get from opening arbitration to where we are now; surely it's worth taking an extra few days to make sure the poll is a complete success? You said yourself yesterday that you did a complete turnaround on arguments in 24 hours, so let's give everybody a few more 24 hours's and see if we can get everybody agreeing on everything. Scolaire (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just used to people actually responding to stuff, offering edit suggestions. I don't see anyone stating what your (a) refers to for instance. In fact there is not very much feedback at all. Is it just stalling? If we (who?) agree to start the poll, say, on Monday at 18:00 UTC, we (us I suppose, as we are happy to do the work) still need to winnow and make preparations. I'm just striving for, hoping for, good will and a sense of get-a-move-on. -- Evertype·✆ 11:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If it was me...I would do nothing at all for another 24 hours, then come back and see who has posted and what they're saying. You and I may spend 16 hours at a time in front of a monitor, but it's not reasonable (trust me on this!) to expect everybody else to respond to your queries within a couple of hours. Nobody is stalling, they've just got lives of their own. FWIW, I don't think you should agree with anybody to start the poll at any given time. I think you should wait until people say, "okay, now we're ready to roll, who's willing to do the donkey work?" I saw somebody accuse you of ownership yesterday. Maybe that wasn't fair, but it does show that if you're in too much of a hurry, you can be seen as controlling, and once that happens you're in serious danger of losing the confidence of people who matter (and in this particular game, everybody matters). Please continue to keep cool. I believe there is good will all around, and I'm still convinced there is more to be gained from letting things take their course than from "getting a move-on". Scolaire (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's MusicInTheHouse, and he's after me again today. Including fairly major disruption of the Draft Poll page. -- Evertype·✆ 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes when I edit its disruption, when you do it, everyone is behind you(!) You have not respect WP:BRD or WP:3RR.MITH 14:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edits have not been careful or measured. They've been disruptive. In fact I've had to do "damage control" on them, because you're working at odds with the aims of the project. -- Evertype·✆ 14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What gives you the right to decide whats at odds with the aims of the project? I believe your actions are the ones that are disruptive! I had the right to revert the addition of text until there was a clear consensus.MITH 14:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to keep yammering on about this, but I think both of you need to have a read of WP:COOL. I haven't even looked at the issue yet (can you show me diffs?) but I know you're not going to resolve it unless and untill you both start listening to each other. Scolaire (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See this. I've rarely seen such bad faith. And I have been trying to listen. I asked for discussion at the main project Talk page. I took his feedback into account. I made the edit to have BOTH parts of the pro/con argument include appropriate reference to the UK's Ireland Act 1949, with discusson, and now he's reverted that. -- Evertype·✆ 14:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you're working on the assumption that the appropriate response to every question is for you to do the edit. There are plenty of alternative responses: let somebody else do the edit, allow the person who wants something to deal with the person who doesn't want it, leave the "wrong" version there, or enter into a civilised discussion, clarifying your position and asking them in a civil manner to clarify theirs. At times like this, any of those alternatives is better than "jumping in". Scolaire (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

One did not anticipate the edit war. -- Evertype·✆ 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you revert an edit three times, you are not only anticipating, you are edit-warring. I'm logging off now. Once again I urge you to do the same. Scolaire (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Pointless?

One wonders what all the work was for. -- Evertype·✆ 20:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For once, the words "shambles" and "farce" are appropriate. I gave given my reaction on the collaboration talk page. I don't know if I can be bothered to do any more work on the project after this. I don't even know if I can be bothered to vote, if and when the poll begins. I'm a floating voter anyway, and have been for the last eight or nine months. Whatever happens, nothing should take away the credit due to you for the effort you've put into making the whole thing work. Keep the faith, man!

Your plumbing-related comment was spot-on. I can't believe that Masem's resolve has been dislodged by immoderates. -- Evertype·✆ 11:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I just say that this type of work is *always* pushed by a small group, but that a much larger group is watching with the intention of "guiding" with a comment here and a nudge there. This is how is should be. It cannot work any other way, because with too many cooks, the fighting begins. It is hell for the smaller group though, because often times each guiding "comment" or "nudge" can be critical, or can make it seem like a step backwards. Bear with it guys, you're doing a great job and the end is in sight. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it, HighKing? Right now I see us derailed for some sort of "process" where those mini-essays will be written, with no means to determine who will write them, who will judge them acceptable or appropriate, or what to do in the case of the (inevitable) controversy. Right now I have to either quit or at least just spin my wheels waiting for Masem to work out how to get this back on the road to starting the poll. I appreciate your kind words, however. -- Evertype·✆ 13:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, it is. It's very very stressful and frustrating. I was involved in a similar workgroup for the term "British Isles" which is on hold waiting for this one to finish, and I predict the same drawn-out process to get it over the line. (Can't wait - not). My advice to you is to take a step back until Friday evening. You both are largely responsible for beaking the back of this beast and it's ready to go. If anything, it's to the point of overkill on preperation. It's time to allow infrequent editors to absorb the situation, to allow the last few objections and rants, etc, before we settle down to vote. This is an emotional subject, and most people believe they can predict the result already, so it comes as no surprise that there's gonna be some venting to change stuff. You can't be seen to be a dictator though, and the amount of time and speed-of-responses can sometimes be imtimidating to more infrequent editors. We're in the final countdown before voting... --HighKing (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of support, HighKing. You're right, I remain ever optimistic that we will get over this hump and on to the main business. The end is indeed in sight! Scolaire (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Linked statement

You might have missed some comments I made here. Truly, I'm interested in your response seeing as how we're close to the vote. I'm a little ...surprised at what you wrote. --HighKing (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be surprised, HighKing. All I've done is to link to my statement of October last. I took the trouble to write a detailed statement of my position at a time when nobody else was bothered, and I'm sure as heck not going to sit down and write a new one now when nobody else is bothered! There are no surprises in your response. It's the same as your response elsewhere at the time. I respect your views - and you express them better than anybody else here - but I don't accept them and I doubt I ever will. We even agreed over a pint that we would never see eye to eye. Best thing for you is to set out your own view - as your own view and not as a "response to Scolaire" - and link to it. Scolaire (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I know. You're right. In my mind, this particular issue sometimes boils down to one question or thought. Let's assume that everyone agrees that "Ireland" is ambiguous. Let's assume that the island is given precendence for the article name and that therefore the state has to be called by something else. And finally, let's just allow for the possibility that "Republic of Ireland" is ... unpopular. I ask myself, what's so unreasonable about a different term to refer to the state? One that is ... less ... unpopular. One that removes itself from so many ... nationalistic/imperialistic ... arguments. That's usually where I find myself in the end. Just thought I'd get that out :-) Peace, and I of course respect your opinion and also expect a further pint sometime in the future :-) --HighKing (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Patrick Pearse

I did a history merge on the article to fix a cut and paste move, so all the edits are now in one place. The history merge on Pearse's article was particularly messy, so that's why it took up so much space on your watchlist. Graham87 06:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Navigation box

You said "Second, we have to get rid of these gaudy green and orange colours on everything relating to Ireland! I'm as patriotic as the next person but, apart from anything else, some project members are unionists and they should be able to come to this page without feeling as though they're at a Sinn Féin cumann meeting." Well, why not use the national coat of arms, a gold harp on a blue flag? It should keep everyone happy, and its more colour-coordinated than the tricolour. Fergananim (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's not gaudy green and orange, I'm perfectly neutral as to colour. I do think however that light shades are more suitable to a template than strong ones. Bear in mind also that I am against vertical infoboxes in principle. As regards "keeping everyone happy", it seems to me that everyone is happy as things are. Why do we need a new infobox? Scolaire (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo requests

Do you have a digital camera? If so, would it be convenient for you to go to the Dublin Airport area and photograph the headquarters of Ryanair and Aer Lingus? Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I do. It wouldn't. If I ever do, though, I'll upload the pics. Scolaire (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've finally done it

I've added my 'Position statement' at the Ireland Naming Collaboration. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's brief and to the point, I'll grant you that! Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, ya wanna believe it. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Position statement

Hello Scolaire. It appears the Ireland ballot may actually begin soon. I'm traveling to London on business (and a smidgen of pleasure) for the best part of two weeks, and may have limited access to Wikipedia. Should the ballot go live as currently planned, could you possibly make sure my position statement is listed and linked on the appropriate page(s)? If a brief summary is required, please feel free to provide one as you see fit (though the nutshell may be sufficient). Many thanks. Rockpocket 07:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Rockpocket, but I feel more than ever like a voice crying in the wilderness at the moment! I'll do whatever I can to make sure all the statements, including yours, are properly dealt with. Bear in mind that I'm still of the opinion that "properly dealt with" might mean "scrapped altogether" in the long run. Scolaire (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick favour if possible

Would it be possible for you to knock up a version of File:Easter rising 1916.jpg concentrating just on the rebel positions (and path of British advance obviously) around Northumberland Road? I'd do it myself, only I'm clueless when it comes to art on PCs, and it makes more sense for the maps to look consistent. I'm 99% certain you have Caulfield, who has maps of all the positions in his book? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it. I'm not fast, is the only thing. Give me a nudge in a week or so if I haven't uploaded it. Scolaire (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no rush, it's going to take me longer than a week to rewrite the article. It's probably going to take me that long I'll amend a section in the article once I've finished rewriting it, rather than changing them all at once. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming when you say rebel positions you mean 25 Northumberland Road, the Parochial Hall, the school and Clanwilliam House. If you want to include Carrisbrook House as well the map will have to be twice the size for one additional point. The action at Carrisbrook House was very brief but it was the first action of the engagement, so if you plan on dealing with it in the article you might want to include it in the plan. Scolaire (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just the first four please. Carrisbrook House can be explained easily enough in text, but the rest less so. When you read the accounts of the battle it's difficult enough to grasp the geography involved without looking at a map, and seeing as British soldiers struggled to identify rebel positions while making their suicidal frontal assaults I can imagine the reader struggling as well. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Scolaire (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy and away on holiday. Looks good, but a couple of minor improvements wouldn't go amiss if you wouldn't mind? I think to make it clear it's a bridge one of these might be useful? Also how about some information as where everything is, perhaps just a note about the approach being from Kingstown (I'll be using that rather than Dún Laoghaire to maintain historical accuracy) and where they were going to? I could do those myself, but that's only involve having to re-attribute everything to you and having two images uploaded when one will do. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So, as I understand it, you want a Kingstown→ at the bottom and a City centre→ at the top. Anything else of relevance? De Valera's position? the sideways route to Kilmainham? Scolaire (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want anything, I'm just making suggestions. But yes those would be fine thanks, excluding your sarcastic suggestion obviously... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! That wasn't meant as sarcasm! The Foresters, after they had finally captured the bridge, did not proceed into town; they were ordered to divert to Kilmainham. I was trying to figure what you meant when you said "some information as to where everything is", I didn't want to put in two or three things and upload it and then you say 'yes, but what about...' That was all. Honestly! Scolaire (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I'd forgot about Kilmainham. I'm just hoping we can try and impart where they were coming from and (in theory) going to, before any changes in orders. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish Volunteers

Hi Scolaire, I see you've commented previously at Irish Volunteers, and there's a thread there which could use more input. It's Talk:Irish Volunteers#First Volunteers meeting. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I have put myself between those two editors before, and I'm not keen to do it again. I'd have to cancel all my appointments between now and Christmas ;-) FTR, history is my passion, and specifically that period, and I think what they are arguing over is too trivial to be dealt with in an encyclopaedia at all. Scolaire (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may butt in here, Scolaire is basically right, and getting mired in a debate such as this is something I wouldn't wish to inflict on anyone. I go into it willingly because I'm a glutton for punishment. And he is right that devoting so much time and effort to such a small detail is absurd. I wouldn't even bother were it not for the fact that if I were to let it go, we'd have a nonsensical error in the article, which I'm not keen to see. -R. fiend (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22 Disruptive editor ANI request

I've made an ANI request regarding this editor. If you could leave some feedback, I would be much obliged. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Geraldines

Scolaire, as someone who has created several articles on some of the FitzGeralds: (Joan FitzGerald, Juliana FitzGerald, Maud de Prendergast, and Mabel Browne, I would be glad to join you in your project. I agree that this important Irish family has received precious little coverage along with that other equally-important Irish family, the Butler earls of Ormond.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Jeanne. Maybe that will give me the incentive I need to sit down and do some work on the subject. I will keep in contact. Scolaire (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, Scolaire with this project. I look forward to seeing more coverage of this historically-important family. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask. As I said before, I'd love to join you in the project.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Various parts of Northern Ireland

Hi there, I just want to give you a little nudge. I want you to think of a place or two within Northern Ireland. Can you think of one, any one, that would be commonly refered to as "not a part of Ireland" (any Ireland) without some sectarian issues? Please, name one for me. I need to understand the importance of the Republics common terminology without the concern that I have succumb to a broader sectarianism. ~ R.T.G 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In a word, no. Northern Ireland is in Ireland. Anywhere in Northern Ireland is in Ireland. Even NI unionists would say so. Certainly anybody outside Ireland would say so. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Where else on earth would anything in Northern Ireland be besides in Ireland?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a relief. Too much fear of the Republic not being in Ireland, equally ridiculous, is floating around. ~ R.T.G 12:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New FitzGerald article

I have just created an article on Maurice FitzGerald, 3rd Lord of Offaly. It needs to be fleshed out. What do you think, Scolaire?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions

As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Fein

Ehh, I deserved it. Besides, more editors in that discussion, will only make a solution more difficult to achieve. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

'Nuff said :-) Scolaire (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

USC

Hi Scolaire, you may be interested in the ongoing revamp of Ulster Special Constabulary. 16:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can only handle one revamp at a time. I'm working on Sinn Féin at the moment, and any comments you'd care to make on that would be welcome :-) Scolaire (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I'll be around but like you I'm not going to contribute to SF while I'm working on the USC one. Jdorney (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Note for you on SF talk. Jdorney (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Féin

Your outburst at Talk:Sinn Féin is, in my experience of you, uncharacteristic. I have responded to you and I hope that you will read my response. Your responses to me have not, as far as I can see, and despite what you say, answered valid points that I have made in that discussion, and ignoring me is simply failing to engage in discussion. I am not being disruptive: on the contrary, I am trying to engage in dialogue in order to achieve understanding. I suggest that your refusal to engage in dialogue is equally as disruptive as my questioning. I hope that you will return to the article in more helpful and collaborative vein. Although I am quite offended by some of your comments, I do not want to fall out with you, and - despite your comments - I will continue to assume good faith in your intentions, even if I do not understand them and consider them to be misguided (but well-intentioned). Mooretwin (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, you say "the sources all back me up". I say I don't agree. You say "the sources all back me up". I cite sources that don't back you up. You say "the sources all back me up". I tell you in detail why I don't believe they do. You say "the sources all back me up". I point out that the consensus is against you, that nobody in fact agrees with you. You say "the sources all back me up". I point out that simply repeating the same thing over and over (did you actually read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?) is disruptive. You say "the sources all back me up". I am not interested in that kind of dialogue. It is pointless and time-wasting and annoying. Therefore I am not going to waste any more of my time on it - not on talk:Sinn Féin or here. Scolaire (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, bear with me here. I don't recall you citing sources that don't back me up. You mentioned your own interpretation of Tim Pat Coogan's and Bowyer Bell's view, which I queried; and you ignored me. Is it disruptive of me to query your position? Is it constructive of you to ignore that? That looks to me like you are unwilling to engage in dialogue. And the consensus isn't against me: most people on the Talk page accept that the party was formed in 1970. I genuinely don't understand why you don't agree with this, and your answers haven't enlightened me - that's why I have queried you. OK, perhaps my exchanges have been "robust", and I could have adopted a less confrontational style - I'll give you that - but I would have hoped you could see past the style of the dialogue. Mooretwin (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I cited three books on Sinn Féin that deal with the party as one that is 100 (now 104) years old - I'm not going to look for the diffs. That some of those books contain internal contradictions doesn't alter the fact. I showed you diffs that those people (Stu, Valenciano) who you think accept your position said in so many words that the sources are ambiguous. Your "query" about the Coogan and Bowyer Bell books did not concern their reliability as sources. You asked me if I would like to have a single article on the IRA as well - I would, and I have said so already. Finally, I don't mind how "robust", or even confrontational, anybody is; my objection is to you repeating the same thing endlessly and pretending you represent the consensus view when in fact three editors (none of them with a "Provisional POV") have endorsed my view. When you are inclined to be helpful or collaborative I will work with you. I won't continue to play that other game. Scolaire (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The situation, at best, is that there are numerous sources supporting unambiguously 1970, and book titles implying 1905, but actually supporting 1970 in the text. Despite your very strict position on sources in respect of the term Provisional SF, you appear to be adopting a very lax position on this - using book titles and your inference of what these suggest as being of equal value to what the books themselves actually say inside. I think that, essentially, is the issue. As I see it, you are presenting these two positions as having equal weight, and using this as an argument either to fudge/ignore the issue or possibly to tolerate the continued implication of the article that 1905 was the founding date of the current party. Valenciano and Stu certainly do not support the latter. Valenciano has consistently supported 1970. Valenciano's argument, as I understand it, is that the article begins in 1970 but provides an explanation of the party view (perhaps supported by others as yet unsourced) that it is a continuous party going back to 1905. I also support that. Mooretwin (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Stu wrote, "I'm happy with your wording today Scolaire."[1] If Valenciano does not support my wording, let him come on the talk page and say so. As for you and me, you cannot say anything that I have not already read and noted, and I have nothing to add to what I have already said. I have told you I don't want to continue this on my talk page. Please respect that. Scolaire (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good work on this article Scolaire. I do see what Mooretwin is getting at, but your edits are a hell of an improvment on what was there before. Jdorney (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all about getting a balance, isn't it? Thanks for the encouragement. Scolaire (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)