Baggywrinkle

Welcome!

Hello, Baggywrinkle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Reply to your question

You asked me why I removed all of User:Garydubhs discussion from my talk page. Actually if you look at the history I did not just delete his discussion. Let me explain; previously I moved his initial posting to his talk page (where I replied in detail) because I like to keep discussions in one place that is most appropriate and not have be jumping back and forth to try and keep track of a discussion, and so that other editors could find everything in one place too. This is quite a usual practice for many editors who dislike disjointed discussions as I do. What I did was actually remove his reposting and duplication of the discussion to my page without any explanation why he did not want to discuss it on this talk page BUT, despite his accusation that I deleted the discussion, it is all still on his talk page and can continue there without any problem. He is the one with a conflict of interest who is edit-warring and pushing his company's product, so, to me, I find it best to discuss his issues on his talk page. Hope that help you understand what I did and why. And in case the irony of my userID (read my user page) is of interest, I replied to Gary's improper assumption in the post just after yours on his talk page too. There is no censoring going on by me, I follow the policies and guidelines, just like most other constructive editors around here. BTW, because I started a discussion here I will watch this page, for the reasons stated above. I hope you will start to contribute constructive and useful sourced information to Wikipedia soon. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

have you any idea why you have aggrivated him so much?? From the outside whilst I would agree with you that he does want to promote his proposal - he is also making a valid point about decision to allow one unsubstantiated Irish Independent Article and not allow the Irish Times one. I have noted that Browhaired Girl advised that it was acceptable but as yet you have not allowed it. I can understand why he may be aggrieved - and I think possibly you are now blinded from the crux of the argument. Baggywrinkle (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Beacuse several different editors have removed his conflict of interest edits for that and other reasons, such as Guliolopez noting "Wait until it's published, and acknowledged as an accepted standard". If he was a reasonable person he would wait until an independent editor found suitable sourced references. Unfortunately he is a pedant pushing for an encyclopaedic entry for a product from his own company that may or may not become a postcode system for the Irish postal authority An Post. Remember that until it is accepted as such it is unproven as a postcode system despite his own website's use of the word postcode. That is for the future to decide but as of now it is a gps location system with no postal address status. See the UPU Irish postal addressing reference for that is the article Gary is trying to add his information to. His issue with the Irish Independent reference is not a valid comparison because that reports on "proposals being brought before the Cabinet" while the Irish Times article repeats practically verbatim a press release from his own company as released here.

The question that BHG replied to was concerning the use of a subscription based website as references, not whether this particular article was suitable. Her answer was: Oh, the reference is very useable. Subscription-only sites are fine for reference (otherwise we couldn't use books!), but are banned for external links. and in particular to the use of the gpsireland reference in the IT she wrote: I think that their system is an interesting idea, a sort of simplified grid reference which could serve all sorts of purposes. I think that its status at the moment could be best regarded as a novel approach to the problem which might be used to make a formal proposal to the govt/An Post, who so far as I know have yet to clarify how they would design a postcode system. It could actually be quite good for an article such as this to discuss difft methodologies for postcode-creation, but that would need some more reliable source than a lazy journalist using a single source. BTW, I respect BHG's opinions as she is one of the most prolific editors and admins on Wikipedia with more than 121,000 edits.

You might also wish to look at the talk page gary used before registering to see some more of his POV pushing and edit warring. I can assure you I am not blinded by anything and specifically let others deal with Gary more recently, just to see what any other editors reactions were - we are proven correct in that they too have removed his edits. As I said, if and when something significant is sourced, I will be very happy to edit the Republic of Ireland postal addresses page to include something which may well be about Gary's company product, but right now is not the time. Sorry to be so long winded but seeing as you asked, I feel it needs a clear explanation. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For Your Info Baggywrinkle......

Bastun I am struggling to understand how people who obviously know nothing about this, obvious from their comments, persist in holding the article ransom to their ignorance. You refer to our system as a GPS System. The code is not a GPS System it is a geographic code - it can be used on a GPS system as it can on a GIS system and routing systems - and , of course manually if you wish. The tools used do not define a system. The current Post Code system in use by An Post is an OCR based system but you would not call it an OCR code - it is their Post Coding system. Perhaps it may also be a revelation to you if I highlighted that An Post firstly does not want a Post Code system (Quoted in the Article) and secondly will no longer be the only Postal organisation in the country from next year onwards - so any "Post" Code system developed will not be for their use - although there is nothing stopping them from using it. So your comment relating to requiring An Post to adopt the system is not relevant at all and unfortunately highlights again the common mis-conceptions on the subject. Adoption of a Government backed system will be managed by ComReg and the system adopted may not be that recommended by consultants to the Government. There are several other systems recommended by private players such as mine (two others I am aware of) and to be absolutely correct none require backing of the Oireactais - all that is required is popular use!!

It also may shock you to understand that predictions show that 80% of all items delivered in Ireland will be packages and parcels in 20 years time and are already a significant proposrtion now - tahnks to E-Bay and Web Purchases. Therefore, the current quest is not to design a "Post" Code but rather a Post, Parcel, Goods etc Code. Difficult to get these all in one neat "package" so the word "Post" is still used for popular understanding but it would be a mistake in designing a MODERN code to take this litteraly. It may also surprise those who persist on blocking expansive consideration here, that any item delivered to any location in Ireland (post included) travels 95% of its journey by vehicle. Therefore the Code adopted must take this into account. The Postman on the ground has no need for the code -It will have done most of its work before the postman gets on to the street. In fact, with deregulation in 2009, the days of a Postman's "round" will gradually disappear due to dilution of services to many providers who will be hopping from one area to another to carry out their route - all being achieved directly from a vehicle. Therfore, in its widest sense;- Courier, document, parcel and delivery services all require the capabilitities of any adopted Code whatever it is called and 95% of its influence will be everything but to those on foot!! Essentially, therefore the role of a modern "Post" Code is a logistics and navigation one i.e. all deiveries in Ireland, mail or otherwise, thereby requiring routing calculations which are achieved on specialised software where geographic coordinates and road/street digital map detail is critical. Web based purchases comprise part of modern mail and many of these are done by couriers in vehicles. After the routing calculations the next part of the task is navigation - i.e. the driver finding the delivery location or property! The driver does not have a daily route on an exact set of streets/houses - it varies day to day and indeed the driver may never have been that way before. For this reason the final part of the delivery must be designed to improve fuel efficiencies, time economies - this is even more important with the competition generated by deregualtion, the rocketing cost of fuel and the need to minimise carbon emissions. For this reason SatNav/GPS is an eessential tool for the final delivery phase. Near 100% road mapping for Ireland on these devices is leading to a greater demand for a solution to non unique addressing. Furthermore, the nature of modern deliveries is such that nowadays in a growing number of cases, deliveries are made to non structures. A prominent Dairy COOP recently adopted GPS systems on delivery trucks for delivering Grain as this is delivered to Silos which may not be associated with a property and the client may not be around when the delivery is made. Consequently, they were experiencing signifacant additional costs when they delivered to the wrong silo by mistake and had to pump it out again. So Delivering anything is a logistic and navigation exercise for which GIS, Routing Software and GPS are now routinely used. All of these tools have two things in common - the need for digital mapping and geographic coordinates. Therefore, any so called "Post" code developed must take all these requirements in to account. Codes which focus only on the delivery of mail by the traditional Postman will be doomed from inception as, ultimately, there is a greater demand from vehicle based deliveries than foot based postmen. There are many proposals about - one only of which is being currently mentioned in the article on Postal Addresses In Ireland and even then this is being reported incorrectly as that which is reported is technically unworkable. The system I am proposing is designed with Logistics and Navigation in mind using my background in supporting vehicle management and my deep knowledge of Air, Marine and Land navigation (MSc Degree) and near 30 years practical, support and teaching experience. It has at its basis geographic coordinates, which are the primary need of any proposed Code. (My local postman wants to use it straight away on his SatNav in his van as he is new and has taken up to 11 hours to get around his route, not knowing the area!!)

You should also be aware that I was consulted as a stakeholder by the Post Code board more than 3 years ago and I provided seperate advice to a member of the board on matters GPS and and geographic coordinates, position etc.

So hopefully this will have widened the knowledge of all those who are persistant in theire "Undos" in this article and absolutely refutes your assertion that what I have designed is a GPS System and that I have not been involved in the "Post" Code development. Furthermore, the misconception that An Post will have to accept any adopted system should now be permanently dispeled. Perhaps now at least so called "all knowing editors" will not be so quick to write off by input in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garydubh (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

'''Oh my God'''....what's going on ??? I have been a reader of Wikepedia for a while and I have not contributed until this dispute started to emerge. I have an interest in this subject as a Truck driver and now feel I have to act as a moderator. Here are my comments:

'''Garydubh''' - you have a COI so nothing you say will be accepted here inspite of the fact that you have a lot to offer as commented on by BrownhairedGirl and I would urge readers to have a look at your ideas carefully.

Users: '''BrownHairedGirl, Bastun, ww2censor''' - you all have removed garydubh's input on the basis of COI but you have chosen to operate here anonymously so it is not clear if you too may have a conflict of interest so it is not appropriate that you should be removing content on that basis

'''Garda40''' - your user name suggests that you are a memeber of GS so as a Government employee - you do have a conflist of interest and could reasonably be accused of supporting the government position as outlined in the article.

'''ww2censor''' - it is inappropriate that you who are operating in a position of authority on here with editirial control that you should be using a user name with reference to "censor" in it. It gives the wrong impression however well intentioned you may be.

'''All editors''' listed above and others have removed garuduh's input on the basis that is not approved by An Post - this is not a requirement as highlighted by garydubh and also confirmed in the test of the article itself. Any further editorial removals by editors on this basis would deserve a misconduct report. There also is no justification for the "lets join in" type editing - there can only be one editor - you should avoid the pack defence instinct!

I understand that Wikepedia is not a place for original research or ideas and in this regard it is a poor reference source. However, as it is a rule, then editors - i.e. those listed above please removed reference to the D04 123 systemn in the article as it is new research and un referenced. Consistency please.

'''BrownhairedGirl''' - your recent conduct is emotive ... You removed a one line comment by Bastun and your reasons given were shown by garydubh to be unjustifiable. When he did to this you then decided that you would cry Harrassment and started removing legitimate comment from your page. Your position in an admin role requires fair consideration of comment and input and you have not done this - you have the power to block as an editor and you are operating anonymously. You have quoted rules ad infinitum but nowehere have to made an effort to encourage a new member and suggest how input could be used. garydubh's mistake is that he should have come on here also anonymously and this dispute would not have started. In this case honesty did not pay.

'''All would be editors''' of this article - you should remove reference to the do4 123 system as it is not satisfactorily referenced and it is new research.

Finally I would be very interested in seeing this article scrubbed and rewritten by someone independent and who has not chosen to operate on here anonymously and definitely no COI.Baggywrinkle (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)