User talk:Setanta747/Archive1

This page is an archived record of discussion. Please do not add to or change its contents.

Provisional Irish Republican Army

I changed your edit in relation to the fact that the Provos killed more people then any other group. I did this because it was not it did not seem to belong in the first paragraph. The numbers of people killed by the Provos in the troubles is given in full in a section where it belongs. SCVirus 05:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

hi, re your latest edit on the Provisional IRA page, I have no problem with it factually and I don't have alternative figures, but could I ask you to please cite your source on the page? We have to be very precise in this article so that people can't just come along and write whatever they want to suit their own point of view (not implying that you are doing this btw). Thanks, Jdorney 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've forgotten what it was I added. I'm gonna look into it now. I'm still getting to grips with Wikipedia editing etc, so I hope this reply is readable to you. I'm going to leave a short note on your own talk page to let you know I've made a reply here, and you can let me know if that was necessary or not. :) --Mal 23:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, its re the loyalist killings and at what point they began to outnumber the IRA's killings. A pretty gruesome topic. We have a problem with certain people, I thinl you can see who, just writing whatever they want on this page. So I'd just like if you could cite the source you've used for this info. Cheers

ps. You can reply to messages either on your own talk page or on the person who sent its page. Its a good idea toput something on their page because then they are alerted to the fact that you have replied. Jdorney 00:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dorney - I figured out which addition it was because my other edits had just been spelling and link corrections. I added a source (the CAIN website), though I don't know whether the way in which I added it conforms to Wiki style.

And yes - many pages I have added info on have been reverted with no explaination, time after time. I'm actually worried that I will be in breach of the 3 revert rule because I usually revert them back when there is no valid reason or challenge. Obviously there are cases which I consider, if valid and reasonable explainations are offered. For example, regarding the 'Constituent Countries' article in which the user 'Mais oui!' has reverted my information several times. Finally he came out with an explaination and I re-worded my additional info to reflect his concern. I'm not sure that will be good enough for him though!

PS. Thanks for your help. --Mal 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do in most situations is, if your changes are controversial, to leave a note explaining them on the talk page of the article, then you can reach a consensus instead of getting into a revert war. The only revert war I've gotten into here is very recently on the PIRA page with a user who keeps writing garbage and won't listen to reason. In normal cases, people are fairly reasonable however and you can come to a compromise.

Oh yeah, and the citation of the source is fine. Jdorney 00:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Bloody Friday

No 22 bombs all in Belfast city centre. The details are on the Bloody Friday page. See also The Provisional IRA p231-232 or Secret History ofthe IRA page 116-118. Re being direct retaliation for Bloody Sunday, I don't think this stands up. It happened six months later and in a different city and was part of a concerted commercial bombing campaign - one of 1300 bombing attacks by the Provos in 1972. It happend just after the end of the IRA's 1972 ceasfire and talks with the British government and according to Moloney and Mallie/Bishop, was intended o show that the IRA were determined to continue their campaign until British withdrawal.

I understand the the name "Bloody Friday" was intended to be a sort of unionist eqivelant to Bloody Sunday, this is the explanatin Ed Moloney gives, but I'm not positive about this. Jdorney 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Jdorney 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That is accurate. Republicans refer to it as the 'Belfast Bomb Blitz', there was no intention of it having any link to bloody sunday, the name was 'given' by Unionists.SCVirus 04:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the name was applied solely by Unionists. It was named 'Bloody Friday', like many events and procedures, by the media. --Mal 06:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that the term was first coined by Unionists and simply caught on, I was unable to find a news report from the time, so I could be wrong. In any case whether the term was coined by Unionists or the British media, it was certainly not intended to be revenge for Bloody Sunday by republicans (there only link is the name which was not given by republicans). SCVirus 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did you Change the User NI template?

Well? What was so wrong with the old version? I thought it was pretty funny.

Rowlan 14:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see you created another Northern Ireland Userbox, could you not just have kept the other one, just a thought. - TheKeith 16:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Keith. Yeah - the Template:User NIR one? The other one being the Template:User NI one? One has the flag of NI and denotes that a user comes from Northern Ireland - its geographical. The other (the NIR one) denotes that the user's ethnicity and ancestry is Northern Irish. I'm trying to create some consistancy between the userboxes. People can add other boxes from more personalised templates. --Mal 17:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, I re-created the preveous NI one at User:Keithgreer/User Norn Iron which is basically the old template, with a bit more added on. - TheKeith 00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

England User Template

Why have you changed this template? You've made it so it doesn't look like any of the others (particularly with flag width). See my user page for examples: Scjessey 17:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Your change didn't work properly. I've restored the original template. Your version is now the alternate, and the original remains. -- Scjessey 18:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes must follow these guidelines. Many of the examples given here are non-standard. Notice the width of the icons in examples. Also, it seems a bit weird to be editing a userbox that you aren't going to use. -- Scjessey 18:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Setanta747&action=edit&section=4 Please leave the original template alone. Your new version should be the "alternate", since it is non-standard in layout. -- Scjessey 18:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with the userbox project which is ongoing, I had decided to standardise the names and the layout of all the main UK-related boxes. Is it not simple to change your user page?

Of course it is simple. But it would also be wrong. The original version follows standard userbox guidelines. Most of the UK-related boxes you are talking about are non-standard, so you would be better employed making those adhere to the correct guidelines. -- Scjessey 18:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess England will remain as the odd-one-out for the time being.. perhaps until such time as the Userboxes project deems it necessary to overrule your decision to constantly revert this particular name.

I don't understand your point of view with this issue. Please read these guidelines. You will see that it is actually the others on the UK page that are odd. The project is highly unlikely to rule against me, because I am following their own guidelines. Also, why should you make all the English users change their template usage to satisfy your own, non-standard template? It simply doesn't make any sense at all. I know you are trying to do what you think is best, but I'm afraid it simply isn't the right way to go. -- Scjessey 20:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As I already said to you: the userboxes do not conform to any particular standard for layout. The couple of examples on that page do conform to the standards you suggest however.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. Almost all userboxes follow that same design: Category:Wikipedia userboxes -- Scjessey 14:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't even think about it

Your suggestion about recreating political party userboxes is most unwise. Don't even think about it. This is your only warning. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As you don't want Mark to warn you about anything, allow me politely point you to WP:CIVIL. Physchim62 (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re : Vandal alert

Hi Sentanta747,

Surprised as you may be, but anonymous IP addresses are able to receive messages while they are editing. The message will appear when the IP's next edit is made, immediately after you have added something to their talkpage. For example, in this case it would be User talk:199.216.95.253. Of course, there will be issues of shared users in IP on occasionally, but that'll be a whole separate issue altogether.

For vandalism, AIV is considered somewhat a last resort. If the vandalism is not frequently repeated, a warning usually does fine. There's four levels of warning for simple vandalism, Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace is a whole good lot of list. {{test4}} template is the last level of warning, in which then you ask for a block at AIV. Hope that helps. Any questions, feel free to ask me on my talkpage. Happy editing! :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and I almost forgot about 'NOT EMPTY'. That's just to tell fellow sysops whether the list at WP:AIV is empty or otherwise, to attract their attention if the case is latter. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Bangor

Hi from one Bangor person to another Bangor person. I know that Bangor, Northern Ireland was founded in 555 AD and it comes from Gaelic meaning "The pointed hills" (although I've heard also that it might mean "Valley of the angels" or "Angels' Choir" or something). Can you tell me about Bangor, Wales - is the name an Anglicisation? Do you know the original Welsh if it is? Cheers. --Mal 09:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mal. Are our two Bangors twinned? I think there is some relationship, and also with Bangor, Maine. The name Bangor (here at least) is said to come from two Welsh elements "ban" and "cor", and to mean the enclosure surrounding a Celtic monastery. One was established here by St. Deiniol around the 6th century. Rhion 09:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like the two places were founded in the same period. I've always known the NI one to have been the original and founded in 555, though the Wiki entry for it states it could have been 559. Bangor in NI is twinned with Bregenz in Austria though. I checked up on Bangor in an atlas in a library many years ago, and I found that there were something like 13 towns named Bangor across the USA and Canada. The one in Maine is probably most famous, seeing as Stephen King is from there. There is a Bangor in the Republic of Ireland too I think.

I'm sure most of the Bangors across the world come from the original, the Welsh or NI ones.. but I always thought it was interesting that two towns of the same name were founded in different parts of these Isles at roughly the same time. --Mal 09:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

template

{{Female media bio}} is now where it should have been in the first place. -- RHaworth 13:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Added note from passer by Bangor is called "Valley of Angels" by St Patrick who saw literally in the Spirit a Valley of Angels and then the monastry was build on that site. It is also the Cradle of Celtic Christianity and reported once by CBN to be the the Town that saved Europe during the dark ages. When travelling into Bangor from Belfast you will see that the town is twinned with some town in Austria. Geoff Conn

IP 217.65.149.50

I did not make the block, and being a fairly new admin, I tend to tred very lightly on this stuff. That said, longer blocks for school IPs is a fairly complicated situation. I've seen a couple of lively debates raging on the admin notice board over them. On one side, longer blocks here tend to have lots of collateral damage, blocking those students that want to be useful editors. On the other side, some admins say that schools that are the source of major, frequent vandalism should be blocked until the school takes action to control the vandals. I don't yet have a really strong position on the issue, so I was mostly just reporting the actions of another admin. The IP was blocked, so there was no longer a reason for the alert. After the block expires, if the vandalism resumes, feel free to put the IP right back up on alert. - TexasAndroid 15:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning explanation request

Please don't edit other's user pages. Messages for other users may be placed on their "talk" pages, accessible by clicking the "discussion" tab on their user pages. What is "experimenting with Wikipedia" that you believe Boothy did? What was the test edit that was reverted or removed? — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw this on RC Patrol, and i'm curious what the story is, if you don't mind. Don't worry, i'm neutral. Karmafist 21:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I left a message with Knowledge Seeker about it. To be honest, I suspect Boothy might have made a mistake in his editing - it happens. I placed a warning on the wrong page (his user page instead of his talk page) because he had done the same with two or three different articles I had been working on with no explaination on the discussion pages of any of them. I suspected it was just vandalism. I am about to leave a message on Boothy's talk page too regarding more recent edits - but nothing serious. I'll probably apologise too, for sticking a warning in the wrong place. No biggie, though I see Boothy is under some kind of investigation at the minute for some reason. I wouldn't want to jeapordise that for him to be honest - I don't know the guy. --Mal 22:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It does, although Boothy's margin of error has gotten down to around zero, largely because he put things so high for others that he became a huge jerk in the process. I wouldn't expect Boothy to listen, that's not one of his strong suits, but I wish you luck in trying to send some sense over that way. Karmafist 22:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that warning policy is intended towards those who are vandalizing or testing how Wikipedia works, not for those making edits you disagree with. Using such a vandalism template may be inflammatory. I understand that Boothy removed text that you wrote, but sure you can't have considered it "experimenting with Wikipedia", which is why I asked you what he'd done that you considered experimenting. To me it appears that Boothy did leave explanations in his edit summaries, though since you declined to actually demonstrate the edits in question, I cannot be sure I did not miss something. The "test" to which I refer is in your message: "Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed." Since Boothy was obviously not testing his editing ablility, the use of such a template is inappropriate. Feel free to leave messages for or otherwise warn users who are engaging in actions with which you disagree, but be sure that the text matches the message you wish to send. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

: I'm afraid you obviously misunderstand what had happened. Boothy did not make any edits that I "disagreed with" - he had removed information I had added to several articles. At first I thought it had been a mistake - an error on his part.. until I noticed the other pages had been changed in a similar manner. That is when I decided that he was either deliberately vandalising, or had been testing.

• He left no explaination as to why he removed the text I had added - other than the category changes he had made, which was only a small part of what he had changed. Therefore I was certain that the warning was appropriate, albeit put on the wrong page (his user page instead of his talk page).

• I don't know what you mean about me having "declined to demonstrate the edits in question" - I don't recall being 'invited' to demonstrate them.

• Again - Boothy had not made edits that I disagreed with.

• Finally, I have since been talking with Boothy about this, and it turns out he had in fact made some kind of mistake with his edits, for which he offered explaination after I left a message on his talk page. I consider the matter dropped (as I'm sure he does also), and we are now in fact collaborating on improvement of the articles. I am sure he feels the same way.

I would ask you to have a little faith in my judgement. Had you looked at the articles in question, you would have seen clearly what had happened. Combined with this, if you had looked at our respective discussion pages, you would see that sending me this message was now irrelevant and unnecessary. --Mal 13:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My intent was to affect future interactions, not to affect the course of this one. I still maintain that using vandalism templates for these sorts of encounters is likely to lead to unpleasantness, but I can accept that we have different views on civility in interactions. I’m glad that you two are collaborating successfully. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

NI footy clubs edits

First off i would hope you disregard the comments made by Karmafist (talk • contribs), in that his comments are nothing less then a personal attack aginst me, in which he shows that he rather vilate WP:NPA, WP:AFG, WP:CIVIL, as well as WP:DICK, and maybe WP:POINT, to make a comment about my behaviour, but thats left for antother time. As for the posting on the wrong page, thats no problem, i have done it many times my self, and i do appolgise for any information i mistankley removed from the articles, as that was not my intention, i might have edide the wrong verson or it could have got lost in editing at the same time. As for the cats, i removed the Category:Northern Irish football clubs category, due to the fact that {{IFA league}} it should automaticaly include the category in the articles in which it is used, so their is no need to dual list, but looking at the cat their seems to be a listing problem, i'll have to look into it. As for Category:Sport in Northern Ireland, in the heirarchy for categories, Category:Northern Irish football clubs is a sub to Category:Sport in Northern Ireland by way of Category:Football in Northern Ireland. It is perfed that articles are listed in the most exclusive, might not be the word i am looking for, category based upon it subject, which would be the Category:Northern Irish football clubs. WP:CG is a good place to look on category guidelines. Feel free to ask anything else. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I figured out what the auto cat problem is, you have been adding the category [[:Category:Northern Irish football clubs], their is a cat alerady set up for the clubs though, and this is the cat that is used in the template, Category:Northern Ireland football clubs. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well were getting things clear up. Umm i am not sure exactly what you mean by working properly. I am taking it to mean the listing in both the football clubs and sport in categories. If that is the case i would say, yeah, i think. I have allways taken it the sport in cat to relate more to the sport it's self rather then the makeup of thoses sports. Look at some of the english teams, i'll take Charlton Athletic F.C. for example, it has three cats, now realsitialy it's a dual listing, but the nature of the cats kinda allows it, but cats are still uder the sport in cat in the heirachary. It's confusing i know, but as you see it work in principal you get the jist of it. As for the Northern Irish name i get that, when i created the first one for Northern Ireland, it has since been changed, i did it on the heels on the Republic of Ireland, so i was not thinking. But i see where your coming from, i would do a {{cfr}} though, just so it goes thew the system. I dont see their being a problem. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it iwll take a day or to to go threw, and the change so only be done to the template so, hopefully, the change on all of the related articls should be automatic, if not and i dont catch it before you, just let me know. I am guessing you dont have a problem with the Sport in cat beeing taken out of the article it on, i'll hold off removing it for now. I might in the mean time, depening on what else i get caught up in, change the stubs over from uefa to ni. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries, yeah onec the rename and stuff happens, i'll just double check to see iff everything is lining up. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC) FYI: I just happened to look to see why the cat had not had a rename yet, and just as i though some people are rasing a stink about it. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the guy is a canuck, either way all it takes is one person, regardless of the valisity of the argument, to raise doubt. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crowd (disambiguation)

The Crowd (disambiguation) is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crowd (disambiguation). NickelShoe 05:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Assassing

I removed the proposed delete tag from Assassing, added the content to the main Fugazi page, and made the page a redirect. The problem is not notability as such, but that the article did not assert the notability of the song, nor was there any reason to put the content in a separate article. You should only consider content forking when the main article gets too long. The Fugazi article is short enough that it could be expanded with analysis of key songs without getting so long that it needed to be split. When writing an article about a specific song, you will want to be able to demonstrate why the song is considered notable (by the rest of the world) by referring to critical reviews, sales figures, etc. And you will need to demonstrate why the article needs its own page rather than being part of the main album or band page. I have seen a lot of song articles get merged back into the main article for this reason. In cases where a song title is notable but you really don't have much to add, you can easily create a redirect page with the song title but put the analysis/comments in the main article, since that will be the result of most AfD reviews anyway. (Marillion without Fish is just "ill" :) Thatcher131 04:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard some Fish solo work on the internet prog radio station Auralmoon.com; it sounds a lot like "classic" Marillion.

I appreciate your comments, however, don't confuse my having ideas with having good ideas. If you feel strongly about something just do it and eventually a consensus will form for or against it. Regarding individual song articles see the guidelines here WP:MUSIC/SONG which pretty much sums up my opinion as well. I think that to have its own article a song has to be notable in its own right and be long enough that it should be split from the main article. If you add a Songs section to each Marillion album, you can include comments about all the songs without worrying whether the deserve separate articles. A lot of the comments one could make are pretty basic anyway; Forgetten Sons is about the Irish troubles, He Knows You Know is a about drugs, and so forth. Too much analysis could venture into original research. (We also have to be careful of copyright violations. We can't, for example, post all the lyrics of Garden Party and explain them, no matter how entertaining it might be.)

I also think each album of the Fish era could have a subsection Album Art which discusses the symbolism in the album art. Although one would have to be careful to describe it from the point of view of an encyclopedia (summarizing what is known) rather than giving your own analysis (Wikipedia is not for original research).

I also agree that a page could be made for all the singles that were never on an album, linked back to the main band page.

Above all, have fun. Thatcher131 14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:68.117.217.115

The IP hasn't vandalized for a while, so there's probably no reason to block. Wikipedia admins rarely indef block IP addresses, as they can change hands, and a short block when an IP is vandalising a lot is usually enough to take care of the problem. If this IP were posted on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism right now, it would probably just be removed with no action because it's unlikely that anyone would even try to use it before the block expires. -- Vary | Talk 05:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for being concerned about the vandalism! -- Vary | Talk 05:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's been a busy night, hasn't it? The magic of Slashdotting. -- Vary | Talk 05:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected tag

Hey there, please don't just plop a protected tag into an article. You probably don't realize this, but just placing the tag in the article doesn't actually protect it -- only an administrator can do that; it requires a special button to be pushed. However, it gives that appearance, when in fact it's not true. The template is only intended to tell people, once the actual protection is done, that it's been protected. If there's a problem on a page and you think it needs to be protected, you should request an administrator review the page at requests for protection. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I was just doing a sweep of articles with the protected tag that weren't actually protected. I've got to head out in a minute so I didn't evaluate this specific article, but if you think it needs protection, you should list it at WP:RFP for someone else to look at. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Category CSD

When I deleted it, the category said per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_9#Northern_Irish: "The result of the debate was Rename all.". Sorry for any confusion I caused. If it hasn't been renamed then you can create another one under a better name. BTW, the category was empty too. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well since you dispute the deletion, I don't mind recreating it, and you can use the category's talk page to figure out what to do. I'm pretty sure the cat was empty though, so I'd check up on that. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: RoI

Hi there ... no problem. While the results of the poll are self-evident (and personally disagreeable), I find it troublesome that some editors (and not necessarily you) blustered their opposition ad nauseum and contrary to the polling instructions. The poll was modelled on a similar one at Talk:Georgia, where oppose votes didn't take place and simple, single assertions were sufficient.

In fact, I think the inability or failure of some Wikipedians to follow said instructions might necessitate a reopening of this issue at some point. In any event, I'll summarise the results of the vote shortly ... and this will exclude all negative votes made.

Let me know if you've any questions and thanks again for your input. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Northern Irish Formula One drivers

Category:Northern Irish Formula One drivers was deleted in accordance with the decision at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 9#Northern Irish. Please do not re-create it under that name. The problem is not with having a category for Formula One drivers from Northern Ireland, but rather with the adjective "Northern Irish", which consensus holds should not be used. Angr/talk 19:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Marillion - POV, reversion, citatations

Hello. First of all, please don't use revert to rollback rationalised edits wholesale. If you disagree with certain things, change them, explain why in the edit summary, and take it to the talk page if necessary. Rolling back my entire edits is plain rude and very bad form. Note that my only interest in these matters is as the closing administrator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crowd (disambiguation).

I'm concerned that you are adding your own point of view to Wikipedia. You seem to consider it a tragedy that Marillion didn't reach number one, thanks to those nasty people releasing a charity record. I've attempted to tone down those edits.

My addition of the {{fact}} tag is not a slight on the article you have created in any way. I've even added it to my own edits on occasion. All it does it tell you and other editors that words have been attributed to someone else without attribution. Why should an encyclopedia reader take your word for it?! Instead of reverting me, click on the citation link, and you'll find out how to cite a reference. Once it's done, remove the tag, and everybody's happy. --kingboyk 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied on User_talk:Kingboyk. Let's chat there to keep it threaded. I'll help you with your citations. --kingboyk 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied again on my talk page. Will you watchlist my page or check back there, or do you want me to let you know if I've replied to you? Cheers. --kingboyk 00:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Re Sindo etc

Fair enough, if it was widely reported then that can also be included. My only point here is that the papers will, after any event of this nature, print all kinds of lurid speculation, much of it untrue. There's not much point in repeating every single reported incident in our article here, people looking at it in a year's time might wonder how much of it is true and how much is sensationalism. Jdorney 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one has to agree on everything all the time! Lets face it, no one on the island of Ireland is ever entirely neutral on NI politics, no matter how unbiased they are trying to be. My policy is that the facts are neutral, whether we like them or not. More importantly, we do not have the right to use wikipedia to forward our own opinions, only to state facts as honestly s we can establish them. Actually, I never intended to start editing articles relating to NI because of the controversy of even the smallest edits, I just seem to have been drawn into it.

The point I'm making about the riot article is that I was there and some of the coverage is somewhat far fetched. This is not a defence of the rioters but more a disrespect towards the Sunday Independent as a newspaper. If a pregant woman was punched, clearly that should be in the article, my query is with the source of the rumour. However, I'm happy for the article to say that it has been reported that this is the case and if it was reported in proper newspapers incl the Belfast telegraph, then I would have less problem with it. Jdorney 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Northern Irish" or "of Northern Ireland"?

Hi Keith. I was wondering if you had any opinion on this. I have noticed that the vast majority of, for example, sports categories for UK regions all seem to follow the collective demonym pattern... English.. Welsh.. Scottish etc. We folk from Northern Ireland... that is - the Northern Irish - seem to be treated with exception for some unknown reason. A person from Canada suggested that "Northern Ireland" was a less "controversial" usage (presumably he'd prefer the term "Northern Irelander"!). A person from New Zealand suggested that people on IRC do not particularly like the "non-standard" term "Northern Irish".

Personally, I can't see that either of these two suggestions ring true and I can't understand why these suggestions have been made. As you probably know, I'm Northern Irish born and bred. I've never known the term "Northern Irish" to be controversial. Several polls taken throughout the last couple of decades (usually by the Tele) suggest that "Northern Irish" is a favoured cross-community national description. It rivals both "Irish" and "British", though I can't remember if it is more popular than either or than both.

Anyway, I've given you my thoughts on the matter. As someone from Northern Ireland(!), and a Northern Irish Wikipedian, I wonder if you'd take a look at the notice board and give your vote if you feel strongly one way or the other. My sole reason for renaming the particular category (and hopefully the others) is standarisation and correct usage.

In all honesty, I think that more people who are actually from Northern Ireland should voice their opinions, instead of leaving 'concensus' in the hands of people NOT from here, who don't necessarily understand.. or worse - those who think they understand.

Anyway, if you're interested, or have the time, please look at both the Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board and the UK Wikipedians' notice board.

Cheers. --Mal 12:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, consider myself Northern Irish (of the Provence), Irish (of the Island) and British (of the United Kingdom) the tri-nationality is one of the pluses of living in Northern Ireland. Generally there are very few of us from Northern Ireland on Wikipedia and so are usually outvoted, which is something you get used to, lol. I haven't taken a look at the notice boards for a few days, going straight there. Northern Irish is usually used by people of both sides of the political divide, it's kind of a middle ground which seems to be growing especially among young people, I have noticed it used alot around uni. - TheKeith 18:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider my identities on the exact same lines as you, and would include "Ulsterman", though not out of political expediency. Your point, as well as mine, is that there is nothing contentious about the use of the label "Northern Irish" specifically because it is the "middle ground", as you say. I should point out that the categories I created that had the adjective "Northern Irish" have, I think, now been deleted. What I propose is to create another vote on ALL of the categories, and to hopefully attract Northern Irish wikipedians to vote on the matter, regardless of their political ideology. To start this, I have made an admin aware that I might ask him how to go about this from a technical (wikipolicy) standpoint... but I think Northern Irish wikipedians should be made aware of a possible vote before it starts.

You know, its strange, but I think some of the non-native Wikipedians seem to think "Northern Irish" is somehow contentious. I've never known anyone (except for perhaps one or two extremists from BOTH 'sides') to have been in any way offended by the term. Thanks for taking time to read what I've had to say etc. Its kind of a minor issue in the grand scale of things, but I consider my proposal to be logical, and to be driven by logic 100%. --Mal 18:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may butt in for a second, I think you should argue that "Northern Irish" cannot be considered POV since there is a legally defined place called Northern Ireland, and the people who come from there are correctly described as "Northern Irish", no POV involved.

Jdorney 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not at all JD - I welcome your input. The problem is that nobody has specifically cited it as being POV. But two comments from non-NI people suggested, incorrectly, that "Northern Irish" was incorrect usage of the adjective and implied that the usage thereof was "controversial". I think these are also the 'reasons' given as to why all the categories had been changed last September in the first place. As far as I remember, you're from the Republic aren't you JD? As an Irishman interested in and knowledgeable about NI politics and history, can you see anything particularly controversial about the term? Would it offend you personally? --Mal 19:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, merely a statement of fact. If you were a particularly ideological nationalist you could argue that NI is just an "invented state" etc, but for my money its neutral term about a legally established entity. Jdorney 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Jdorney 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup - that's what I'm going for, in good faith. I'm just making a note that the categories might fall under {{Mcn2}} policy. --Mal 15:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't be alarmed!

Your page in progress hasn't been zapped, I've moved it to User:Setanta747/Marillion discography (Fish era) (spelling mistake). --kingboyk 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Marillion singles (1982 - 1988) going to be replaced by Marillion discography (Fish era)? If it is, I can do some very fancy jiggery-pokery which (assuming no cockups) will merge the page histories of those two pages together. Since only you, I and a bot have edited Marillion singles (1982 - 1988) it's quite alright for me to do it. I'd basically merge it into User:Setanta747/Marillion discography (Fish era) through a dangerous ;) combination of moves, deletion and restores. You then work on your discography in user space. When you're happy with it, you move it to main space (no copy and paste, move!). Let me know when that's done and I'll delete the redirect from User:Setanta747/Marillion discography (Fish era). Now is that a plan and a half or what?! --kingboyk 21:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry me again. Marillion discography (1982-1988) might be a better name? Or why not just call it Marillion discography? If you only want to do the Fish era, you can just leave the 1988+ section blank and invite others to fill it in (see what I put at the top of Apple Records discography, which is only half full. Yes, thinking about it, Marillion discography would be best. --kingboyk 22:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed my speling mistake, and I'm still blissfully unaware of what it was! lol I'm happy with you moving the edit history around, and anything else that cleans up the whole thing. The name I'm not quite sure of yet. I had planned on creating the Fish era discography first, to see what kind of result the finished product would give. There are some fans of Marillion that might reject the Hogarth era, or consider the music to be different enough to be notable and therefore deserve separation of articles. I'm not particularly worried about either - I don't know much about the H era, but I don't necessarily reject it either. Maybe we could call it "Marillion discography" in my user space for the meantime, and then rename it if it looks like the thing might justify the need for two articles. What do you think? --Mal 22:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's easy to split it into two later. Always best to go with one article first (more depth). Don't edit either for a few minutes, I'll take some deep breaths and see what I can do! --kingboyk 00:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Setanta747/Marillion discography - is OK? I left 4 edits unrestored, redirects and the one where I was a bit nasty to you. If you want them restored too, tell me. --kingboyk 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine on the surface. I'd planned on doing a major copyedit anyway - the thing is still WIP obviously, so as long as the main researched parts (chart positions etc) are there, everything's cool. When I've finished major editing sessions, I'll give you a shout and you can give me a hand or advice if you're up for it. Question for the meantime though: how do you put the infoboxes on the left hand side? --Mal 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work

on the Beatles classifications and the merge list. Isn't it funny how a bit of a clash can result in goodness? Tis often the way on Wikipedia, I might add. --kingboyk 01:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. Trust me to find something to grumble about! You didn't put the Beatles project templates onto the talk pages of the articles you visited! :P There's a list of jobs to do when assessing, you probably missed it. No sweat, I'll attend to it. --kingboyk 01:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok lol! I didn't realise that was part of the assessment job. :P I'll add it in future assessesseessassasments(!). --Mal 01:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I replied to the question u asked me on my talk page. --kingboyk 01:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hold your horses mate! If you're about to go on a Beatles mass edit please halt for a moment! --kingboyk 02:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

lol ok.. what's up? --Mal 02:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK! :) You don't need to add the {{TheBeatles}} to peripheral articles. It's your call, but I think putting that large template onto individuals like Jane Asher is a bit much. She had a career and only part of her life was being a "Beatle girlfriend". The template I was referring to was {{TheBeatlesArticle}} on the talk page.

The "Yes/no" field on Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Article_Classification is for infoboxes, like the ones you used on your Marillion singles articles. So for Jane Asher it's still "no". OK?

I was gonna trawl through your assessments and add the talk templates myself, but I got as far as Jane Asher before my Talk page and watchlist started buzzing. Oh the joys of being an admin! --kingboyk 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, The Decca audition and such like, go for it. As Mark & Lard would say: "carry on!" --kingboyk 03:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

lol OK - regarding Jane Asher - I kinda did it automatically and then, as an afterthought, came to the same conclusion as yourself. And I'm now clear on the correct template too. Sorry bout that! Shall I let you change the rest then? I'll move on to other articles, bearing in mind the info you've just given me (maybe I should take the time to read everything the Beatles Wikiproject has to say! lol). By the way - {{TheBeatlesArticle}} adds a note on the talkpage that the article in question is part of the Beatles Project I assume? If that's the case, do all articles (such as Jane Asher) have to have them until they are dealt with, or what's the score on that? --Mal 03:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

		This is article is part of The Beatles WikiProject, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles and related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
	Abbey Road

It adds the above. Put it on any page we're assessing that you haven't rejected as being "outside project scope". Easy enough to take it off again later :) --kingboyk 03:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't answer the question. Yeah, I'm happy to trawl through the ones what you've done, while you carry on with new assessments. --kingboyk 03:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tommorow

Why do today what can be done tommorow? :-) It's been another crazy busy night, so I'll look at your NI question - and do the templating - tommorow. One thing I'll say now about the NI debate is that if the consensus is to keep "Northern Ireland" then you can always propose in another 'motion' that the other countries are changed to match. It's best that they're all the same. In a way I kindof prefer "Football clubs from England" to "English football clubs". What do you think? --kingboyk 04:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "English...", "French..." etc. But only just tbh (also, as most categories seem to be of that form, would it not be easier to change the minority rather than the majority?). My main point is of course that they are (should be) all the same, as you say: either "English..." or ".. from/in England". I might either go to sleep, play a game, or move over to the Marillion project which I've not touched now for a day or so! Good progress on The Beatles Wikiproject though. :) I'm not bothered if the NI Football clubs category proposal fails, because it was kind of testing the waters. But proposing a motion to rename a whole host of categories is the original 'technial' question I had been wanting to ask you. Like I have maintained though - I'm happy as long as there's consistancy. --Mal 04:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

'Easier' doesn't matter. They have a bot which does the category renaming I think. --kingboyk 04:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I might have jumped the gun a little bit, hehe. Watchlist has died down so I'm back at the classifications page. Your "merge/split" list is good. I've replied with signed comments, so it can become a threaded debate. --kingboyk 05:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice Work (2)

Hi Setanta,

I just wanted to say nice work on the NI portal - it's a really good job, so keep it up! It's good to see some more Norn Irish people on here these days!

Now if only we could get the Northern Ireland article up to the standard of the portal, and cut out a lot of the political crap and waffle that is there.

Jonto 12:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - feel free to help out with the portal and/or the NI Wikipedians' notice board. I'm trying to keep the portal relatively free of references to the Troubles. At the minute, all I think I've got about it is basically the article called The Troubles, an article on 1798 and an article on 1690 (actually I was going to add an article on 1916 too, but I forgot).

I've taken a copy of the Orange Institution, put it in my namespace and I'm hoping to work n it there. The Northern Ireland article is apparently a "Good Article". I've not read through it all yet, but I was thinking of making a copy of it too, and adding it to my namespace. You're welcome to help out and comment on its discussion page after I've copied it. I'd be hoping to eventually get it to featured status. --Mal 18:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who added the "good article" tag, but there are many here who don't agree with that - needs a LOT of work before it would be featured! I hate the way that the "Demographic and Politics" section is so prominent and instantly launches into Prod v. Taig in the first sentence. The article used to mention stats mainly on Unionist v. Nationalist, but then someone came on and over-emphasised the Protestant v. Catholic.

The section on nomenclature is also completely full of inaccuracies, oversimplifications, and PoVs. Every single term there could be used by either "community" in certain contexts (except for the "occupied" one). Think this one should be reduced to a single sentence and then the main article linked.

Anyway, I'll happily comment on the noticeboard when I get time.

Jonto 00:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'd wondered about the "Good article" tag myself tbh! The layout is ok I suppose, but as you say, the content leaves much to be desired. I've not studied it in detail yet, or even read through it all. The Protestant vs Catholic thing obviously needs to be rectified... particularly to show (I think) the mainstream thinking - most of us here in NI, you'd probably agree, don't necessarily think along those lines. As you say, it should be reduced to a single line or two.. because there are plenty of other articles that 'slabber on' about that stuff already. Simply adding links to those articles should surely suffice. What's your thoughts? --Mal 01:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I say go for it - edit away! Also reduce the percentage of 'slabbering' (haven't heard that one in a long time! :D) by adding more useful stuff. I think the structure should be based on the Scotland and Wales articles. Note how in the Scotland and Wales articles that history comes before politics and demographics/religion. There also needs to be a section on NI law, and economics. Also, it could do with some decent photos. There is already a better pic of the Giant's Causeway on the Giant's Causeway article, maybe add some of the following: Glens of Antrim, one of Stormont, Mournes, Carrickfergus Castle, Dunluce Castle, Whitepark bay, Walls of Derry / Diamond, Castle Espie, Mount Stewart, Bushmills Whiskey (mentioned nowhere in NI articles!!), Ulster Fry, Scrabo Tower, Slemish, Cavehill looking like the giant from Gullivers travels (should be in Belfast article though, which is in just as dire a condition as the NI one!), Lough Erne, Belfast city hall, Big fish, QUB, loyalist mural to contrast republican, peace mural. etc. etc. There is so much that could be added!Jonto 02:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at User_talk:Setanta747/Northern_Ireland mate. --Mal 20:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hullo here

How is UUC these days by the way? Are you based in the South Buildings mostly? I'm not going to mention "Geography"!

Oh btw ... you can add yourself to the UUC category now. Ermm.. I added it - probably under ... Frig it... here...

lol --Mal 07:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So far so good, almost finished my first year, woo hoo! All my computing labs are in South, my lectures are all in Central, got myself added thanks. To be honest The Geography isn't that bad, 1000 word essay about the Political and Religious Segregation in Belfast, sounds worse than it really is. - TheKeith 15:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So how long is your course? Is it a 'sandwich' course, with work experience for a year, or what? --Mal 01:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, 4 years in all, two years in, a year out, and then back for a year. Did you study at computing UU? - TheKeith 15:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Aye - I only did the HND in computing though, at UUC. I had planned on going on to do a one year 'upgrade' course which would have turned my HND into a degree but, for personal reasons, I had to drop out of uni completely. Good luck at it anyway mate. :) --Mal 16:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

WildIrishMan

I see that you responded to a comment by an anon regarding this user on the Northern Ireland talk page. To be honest with you i would keep an eye on this user, i have ran across several of his edits. He has mad some changes to statistical information, that i believe is backed up by sources, but those are matters for debate, and so i can kinda let that go. But he has removed reference to the Catholic Church from several articles (which i find rather strange considering that the user says that he is "a devout Roman Catholic of Irish and English heritage" on his user page), remove of the Irish names from several articles, and the remove of other persons comments, specifically mine for some reason, from several pages. Most of his edits seemed to be centered on the Armagh region. He also blanked his talk page and told another user not to msg him. You might want to alter the users on your bard to just keep an eye on this guy, I'll put something on the Irish users board. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No big deal, just incase you come across the user. I my slef am also involved in some other projects on here and not, but the user came across my radar. BTW, apparently yor category rename was rejected, i dont know what you plan do do from here, in the mean time i guess i'll check to make sure that the current cat is set as to what was discussed previosuly. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Danny Morrison

Well he has mellowed in recent years, especially in jail in the early 1990s, but I think that this would be more appropriate info for his bio article rather than the PIRA one. In 1990 or so, the RUC cuaght him interrogating and probably preparing to kill a police informer in west Belfast. Not exactly peace people stuff. Morrison is still writing off letters to various media outlets justifying the PIRA campaign. In the Irish Times last wedensday for instance.

Btw, I'm planning to radically cut the weaponry and operations section since we now have seperate articles on this stuff and the article is over twice the recomended size. What do you think? Jdorney 10:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that anything that can cut down on POV pushers is probably a good idea. I'm thinking of pruning a LOT of stuff from the Northern Ireland article, for example. We don't need half that info about the Troubles - just a few pointers to some of the various articles about it. Its probably a bit more tricky regarding an article on the IRA to prune that kind of info of course! But yeah - if there are already articles about weaponry and operations of the IRA, then I'd agree to split the info from the main article, and put wikilinks in, and add to the 'See also' section. I'd say go for it. You might want to copy the article to your namespace perhaps, and work on it there until its ready to be published. I've done that with Northern Ireland, Marillion discography and Orange Institution for example. --Mal 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Articles

Hey there, wandered across you discussions about NI and good article status. If you believe its status a bit premature acording to the guide at Wikipedia:Good_articles, you can easily delist it, change the template and put a reason explaining what you think needs changed before it goes back on the list. Cheers SeanMack 04:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

When you get your re-write finished a useful area for feedback is here. Regards. SeanMack 05:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I'd be more than happy to give it the once over when your ready - just give me a shout on my talk page. Cheers SeanMack 06:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion needed

Have a look at Template talk:TheBeatlesArticle would you please mate? Cheers. --kingboyk 04:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Your weird

Portal

"Northern Ireland was created out of the continuation of the Act of Union 1801 in which 26 counties of Ireland were separated from the United Kingdom, in 1921 following a rebellion 1916 and subsequent Treaty" doesn't make sense, to me at least. --kingboyk 06:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. You can't imho reasonably jump from 1972 to the present day without at least a mention of and link to the troubles. I'd also lose: "culminating in the recent Belfast Agreement which has arguably been the best attempt thus far."

Stylewise and interest wise, top notch! Good work! --kingboyk 06:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I think I jumped the gun on the nomination... or did I? Nominating it has actually given me some pointers I might not previously have had. That sentence does need serious re-wording! It reads like stream-of-consciousness! --Mal 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You have any prior knowledge of The KLF (beyond maybe hearing a song on the radio every now and then)? If you don't, would you tell me if it's an interesting read for a casual reader with an interest or music, or it is too fan-crufty? --kingboyk 07:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have a look at that in a few minutes Steve. Just been catching up with some stuff. --Mal 04:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Been looking at the portal again, and the history stuff reads a bit better now. I noticed though that you have a featured biography, and a featured article - which is also a biography! How about Giant's Causeway? Don't forget, you're gonna want to rotate your biographies every month or so, so don't use all your most famous people up in one go! ;) --kingboyk 05:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We've plenty of famous people to go around! lol Actually, I had thought about both those articles being bios, and I didn't want to step on Stu's toes by changing the one he was kind enough to put in. I might just end up moving Van the Man's article across and keeping Best's article on the back burner (although he died not too long ago, so I might keep his for a while and just explain to Stu!! oooh decisions decisions!). I've not got around to looking at The KLF article because, as you may have noticed, I've had my first userpage vandal. He was kind enough to leave a couple of remarks on my talk page too. I happen to be mucking about with my userpage anyway, so I'm not bothered in changing it until I've sorted it out in my sandbox first. One thing positive has come from the vandalism though - it appears this juvenille has learned how to do strikethrough text! Ho hum! --Mal 05:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha! His user page vandalism is a classic! TODO: become gay. ROFL! --kingboyk 05:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Shhhh! If we admit to finding them funny, it'll only encourage them! --Mal 05:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I know where you live