Wikipéire

British and Irish Lions

I have reverted your edit. I know that the Irish constitution does claim that the name of the country is "Ireland" rather than the "Republic of Ireland". However in this context, Ireland is more likely to be taken as referring to the entire island. The Republic of Ireland may not be part of the UK but it's somewhat misleading to imply that the whole island is not.GordyB (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

bulk rename

G'day, I see you are renaming a large number of articles. Has this bulk rename been discussed anywhere? If it hasnt, could you stop until others can review. Cheers, John Vandenberg (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, however I can't see any objections to renaming as I am just correcting the name of the articles to a more accurate and official name. Their previous article names were quite slang sounding. Having the official name of the country in the article is much better.Wikipéire (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Unilateral renaming of every article with "Republic of Ireland" in the name is not appropriate. Changing everything to "Ireland (state)" is totally inappropriate. In particular given that there is no concensus to use "Ireland (state)" as an appropriate label under WP:COMMONNAME. I would strong recommend (per Jayvdb) that you stop what you are doing, and open a discussion for the pages you are renaming, either on the talkpages for Ireland or Republic of Ireland or the talkpages of the articles themselves. This kind of unilateral action (without consideration to the previous discussions) is totally inappropriate. WP:BOLD is one thing. WP:CON would have expected that you'd have raised this SOMEWHERE before renaming THIRTY pages! Guliolopez (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree I should have said something before moving the articles. But the name Ireland (state) is much more accurate than the description of the 'Republic Of Ireland'.Wikipéire (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a position for which you'll have to gain consensus. I've reverted the pertinent changes to Ireland. Dppowell (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Dppowell, that "Ireland (state)" is "more accurate" is your opinion. And the fact that this is "your opinion" is precisely why you should have followed WP:CON. As it happens MY personal opinion is that "Republic of Ireland" is a naturally formed DAB term that meets WP:COMMONNAME. On the other hand, in my opinion, "Ireland (state)" is an awkward construct that provides for more confusion than clarity. As a quick test, ask someone what "Republic of Ireland" refers to, and most people will understand and explain quickly. Ask people what "Ireland (state)" refers to, and watch for the confusion as they try and correlate that term to any one of several possible meanings. Watch as they ask themselves does he mean: "Ireland" (the island), "Ireland" (the state), "Ireland" (any number of historical states and concepts), etc. Anyway, my original point remains. No matter what I think is most appropriate, or what you think is most appropriate, you should have referred to WP:CON before moving every single page that relates to the concept. Frankly I think they should all be moved back until this is discussed. Guliolopez (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not presume knowledge on the readers behalf. The fact is that 'Republic Of Ireland' has no official status - it is only used in the UK. The Republic of Ireland is in the constitution as a description to define the fact that its not a constitutal monarch country. Using Republic of Ireland would lead readers to incorrectly believe that that is the name of the country which its not. No matter how clumsy you think Ireland (state) is , it's much more accurate for a site like wikipedia to use.Wikipéire (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please can you explain more why I have to get consensus for removing a colloquial name and putting in the official one. It is indeed pertinent, that is why I am trying to correct the article.Wikipéire (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Firstly, "colloquial name" is inaccurate. "Colloquial" means "informal" or "more suitable for speech than writing". This is not true. The term "Republic of Ireland" has FORMAL status under the constitution and is not some slang nickname or coloquialism. Secondly, if anything, the term "Ireland (state)" is ONLY suited to written communication, and has NO official status. (It's an awkwardly contrived and invented construct used purely to DAB from Ireland (the island).) Certainly "Ireland" has official status, but that's not what you've used. What you've done is invented your own term, and applied it to half the project without recourse to discussion. And finally (and I think I've asked you to do this when you were editting as an anon) if you're unfamiliar with the history on this, I'd recommend you go back and read the various previous discussions on why the existing compromise was reached. Guliolopez (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the nomenclature currently in use was not pulled out of a hat; it was arrived at after an extensive (and often difficult) series of community discussions. In my opinion, the change you're proposing has merits, but it's also liable to start an edit war. I'm the third person who's advised you to seek consensus before proceeding. Will you do so? Dppowell (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate you not just undoing the edits and saying I have go through the proper channels to bring these effects into place. I will go about seeking consensus this evening. Again I just wish to provide more accurate articles.Wikipéire (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanking page

I'm sure it was probably an accident, but I must ask why you blanked a redirect page in this edit. Canterbury Tail talk 05:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed an accident.Wikipéire (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

I have reverted the edits you made to Republic of Ireland about the physical border issue related to the Schengen Treaty. The sources you provided do not support the text you added. There is no mention in the sources of a physical border nor any reluctance on the part of the Irish government. There is disagreement about the two government's interpretation of Article 7A of the treaty and perhaps you will rewrite the text based on what the sources actually say. I think that your interpretation of the sourced provided cannot be considered as a NPOV. I don't like to butt heads here and will of course be happy to leave any accurately sourced edit you add because extra constructive edits are always welcome. Thanks for listening. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Responding from Republic of Ireland. Sorry, but anybody can edit/post pratically anywhere. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Hello Wikipeire. Unless & until you can convince me, that the Irish Republic covers the 'entire' island? I'll have to disagree with you on that article. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: You've breached 3RR, a blockable act. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of this rule. However if I have broken it, then rules are rules and feel free to block me for the designated time.Wikipéire (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll let the Administrators decide on weither or not to block you. In short, 3RR means - an editor is limited to reverting the same edit '3' times within 24hrs (if he's breached that rule often, then he could be blocked for less then '3' per 24hrs). GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Easter

I reverted your edit regarding Pascha. It is used by Eastern Orthodox churches as the name of Easter even in English. Grk1011 (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving articles

I have proposed that the articles “foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland; civil service of the Republic of Ireland and public service of the Republic of Ireland" be renamed in each case by deleting the words “the Republic of”. As you’ve previously discussed this issue, I thought you might wish to know that this is being discussed here. Very few have participated in the discussion so far. I'm not sure how widely the discussion forum is used. Redking7 (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Hello,

A point of communication for the future: WP:3RR permits upto and including 3 reverts within 24 hours. No policy was breached. I would ask that you contribute to discussion and use edit summaries to comment on content rather than contributor. An explaination of the 3RR rule in the edit summary is not an explaination as to why you made that change.

I was actually working on ammending some uses around the Republic of Ireland as a way to achieve a compromise, but you conflicted with my changes and I've lost such an opportunity. Unlike the others, I've initiated discussion, cited policy and tried to acheive a consensus/compromise and would've preferred some recognition rather than a revert with an inaccurate summary of the situation. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also (just a note for the future), you can't be banned for 3RR ([1]), but blocked, temporarily. A ban on Wikipedia is indefinate. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Just wanted to make you aware of that distinction as a different editor may get enraged by such a claim.

I have also discussed my position explicitly too, whereas you, I note, have not, but instead reverted my changes and blocked me from working towards a compromise. Cheers, --Jza84 |  Talk  18:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Surprise Draw

You have won the Irish Wikipedians surprise draw!! Just leave a message on my talk page to receive the prize of USD 1,000,000 or EUR 638,442.37 or GBP 505,871.414 Markreidyhp 07:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious?

Can you explain this edit please at Talk:Scotland. Your edit summary was not clear and doesn't reflect any kind of consensus. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning on Scotland

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SFC9394 (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with SFC; Edit-warring is the last thing the article needs. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And please stop going the same way on the Wales page - use the talk page rather than making bold assertions about what is or is not allowed in the Wikipedia --Snowded (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Already beat you to it.Wikipéire (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wales edits

Please stop trying to impose a Unionist agenda. Your comments on the language in your latest reversion are simply false. Acts of Parliament establish Wales as bilingual. The national anthem is played at all sporting events (including the Commonwealth games and elsewhere). You are also reverting issues on the map when it is under discussion - please engage in that discussion do not impose changes. --Snowded (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I left your changes on Celtic Sea and the nations issue (others may disagree). However the other positions on the language etc. as you can see I disagree with you and have set out my reasons. Whatever this would be a LOT easier if you came to the discussion page first - please try for the sake of us all. I will look at your map suggestions. --Snowded (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your overall edits on the Welsh Language are fair and balanced. I think it was pushing it a bit to change over the info box, but that is liveable with. There are enough arguments going on elsewhere! Lets see what people do with it. --Snowded (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have researched Wales Country or Nation and concluded that it's more likely to be a Nation. refs are on Wales talk pages as you advise. I have added Nation to article where appropriate, I don't believe it is mandatory to go to talk before changing things, particularly when I quoted evidence and citations. Canol (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Wikipeire, you are using POV to continually remove my edits for,what you believe is, bad grammer and structure. The sentence has subject, verb and predicate and is constructed correctly, you should reinstate my sentence particularly as you beleive the facts to be correct. You could also construct your own sentence to include Nation and Country. As for me, I've done my best to ensure that the reader sees that Wales is a Nation. Pity you see fit to delete it all the time. Canol (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

the suggested name change is going on here

For "constituent country" to become non-point of view "constituent area". We would like your oppinions :) Gozitancrabz (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I accidentally voted for the wrong thing when I was trying to vote on the Welsh Language thing. I was trying to say that I supported it being unofficial. Gozitancrabz (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I didn't vandalise your site - you did by deleting an editorial block that would have cast you in a bad light. One of the principles of the Wikipedia is that what you do and how you interact can be traced. I think you do yourself no favours by actions like this which can be easily exposed as evidence of dubious practice. Its not an vendetta, only the paranoid could see it as such. Using Sockpuppets is a very serious issue and it would be better if you posted an apology rather than trying to cover up the evidence. As I said I reserve the right to raise this behaviour on the sites you are editing. --Snowded (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

hmmm...

what is going to happen to Constituent country then? If we continue to call it "consituent country", that pushes the POV that it is a country, don't you think?Gozitancrabz (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of editors have problems with that article mostly about NI and Wales. Something has to be done about it buts there no point fighting on two fronts. Dealing with Wales is more important at the moment for me. It says country but that will link to a page which explains Wales's status, it will also say principality before it and it will also say the sovereign state of the UK so that readers will be fully aware that it is not a country in the legal sense of the word but as a description.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So after we have dealt with this, will you be willing to continue the "constituent country" discussion? :) Gozitancrabz (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I will give my opinion on the constituent country article as soon as Wales is all sorted out.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully that will be good. I have requested mediation on the article, as the recent edits of Matt Lewis imply that he will "never compromise" in his words, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that debating with him will get us no-where, as he has now resorted to making personal attacks against us, simply repeatedly calling us "trolls", and at my last attempt to reason with him on his talk page (in reply to an uncivil comment he left at my talkpage) he simply replied, saying "troll". He is refusing to listen to the UN, or any other quote, and it seems that unfortunately, mediation is the only option. Regards. Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that its had to come to this. I made 1 or 2 minor changes to the mediation request. Hopefully now it will all be sorted out and we can get back to improving articles!WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting). Yes, rather. Oh yes, i saw what you just did; i forgot about that. Do you think you would be able to get the exact diff for where Snowded showed his support for the compromise? The more we back up the report with diffs, the better. Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you are looking for? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wales&diff=209008996&oldid=209004085 I'll be watching the match for next hour so I'll get back to then if you have any further enquires.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 19:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. That's great. I'll go put it on the request now. Enjoy the match ;) Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Principality

You insist that principality is a commonly used term for Wales, yet you have had Welsh editors telling you this is not the case. Do you think they are just making this up? Also, don't forget the original discussion involved User:Gozitancrabz refuting the evidence that Wales is a country. As for your compromise, it seems nonsense to put Principality before country when all the evidence points to country being used more often! Whether other editors agree to your compromise I don't know,but unlike the language discussion I won't be doing so. --Jack forbes (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

Regarding your changes throughout Wikipedia to hide the description of the state (used for disambiguation), see WP:MOSDAB, specifically:

Entries should not be pipe linked — refer to the article name in full.

and...

Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed. For example, in the entry for Moment (physics), the word "physics" should be visible to the reader. In many cases, what would be hidden by a pipe is exactly what the user would need to be able to find the intended article.

If you want to keep your preference you'll have to take it up with the Manual of style. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It says Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. This is clearly the case. The description of the state of the same name means the official name is there. There is consensus among Wikiproject Ireland to refer to the country by its official name unless NI is specifically involved in which case ROI would be used in order to clarify.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus. Even if there is it's void because you used at least one sockpuppet! Not only that, WikiProject Ireland doesn't trump the Manual of Style - a Wikipedia policy. You're demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding with regards to how disambiguation works and what its purpose is. Yet again however you refuse to get the point, or acknowledge convention. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is void? Haha. I think it is you who don't understand. The disambigation says the state of the same name in the first place! The current format is misleading. It says Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. That takes precendence. That is the point here. Do not go over and over the same points again.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a commonsense approach. Again, if you want to have your preference shown, instead of using sock puppets, you'll have to take it up with the Manual of Style as a proposal. Just to clarify, as I'm opposed and you've brought nothing to the table, that means you have no consensus. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you on about with this sockpuppet thing? Nothing to do with what's going on. There is consensus so if you oppose yyou have to be the one to bring it up with the Manual of Style as to define when that's applicable or not. There's agreement there, you are the minority.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you not think I have a point, supported by an official policy? Remember, the Manual of Style over-rides WikiProjects.

Another personal question if I may.... how old are you? Your logic and attitute to the Wikipedia project shows a lack of fairplay and maturity on your part I have to say. Repeatedly you're using your account(s) to argue on British talk pages, rather than further Irish articles; and negitively so. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking for something to make yourself feel like a superior editor are you.? As per my user page I have an interest in what you call The British Isles, so I like to further those pages as well. I made and have had approved three consensus to the Wales article. So don't tell me I'm not improving them. If you have your own agenda and you disagree then that's your opinion it doesn't make mine wrong.

I do but ss per [Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)] Ireland has its own Manual of Style and it says to use Ireland as the name of the country but linking to ROI. This is more specific and relevant than the overall MOS page.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 17:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly a superior editor in terms of what I've helped contribute to - there's no doubt about that and there's no other way of putting it I'm afraid - but that's not to say I'm "worth" anymore or my opinion is more valued. However, I think you should respect that, given I've written several GAs and FAs, been here for years, that I might know a little about what I'm talking about, and might have a point, yes???

What I'm worried about at this stage Wikipéire, is that you've used sockpuppets, you've been blocked a number of times now for disruptive editting, you've contributed little beyond arguments in which you simply will not concede or consider the alternative perspective. Fine, this happens to the best of editors, but I strong believe your perpective here and elsewhere are not conductive to the good of the project; essentially, you work against others, not with them.

So, what's my problem here do you think? Why would I want to use ROI in a disambigation link? What do you think my reasons would be why, for disambiguation, we should use ROI? Tell me, if you please, do you think I have an agenda, and do you think I'm harmful to the project? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Smells a bit of Wikipedia:DIVA to me. I'm sure you have your honest intentions. I have mine. I feel in most cases the name Ireland is the most accurate name to use as its the name of the country. For disambiguation there's a description 'saying the state if the same name' so there is no lack of clarity when using the official name of the country. I feel WP:COMMONNAME is important. So I used a 'sock puppet'. Wow. People make mistakes. There's no need to go over it. In my short time here I've single handly improved articles myself. One in particular from start class to GA. You are forever assuming bad faith on my part. I just want to improve the accuracy of articles. Using the correct name of a county and not one that the country's government frowns upon is an example of such.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling for time at the moment. Please give me a few hours or so and I'll get back to you. Cheers, --Jza84 |  Talk  18:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I won't be making any edits regarding this issue until we've agreed something!WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 18:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Trolling

Just warning you not to troll me anymore Wikipeire - you are a guaranteed sock-using sock. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wales

Could you point out these other editors? (except Pondle, whose argument appears bias) WL (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Forbes was in there. Tell me, is every editor who wants to changed things biased? From what I can see Pondle has much better sources. However I'm sure I must be biased in that thinking too!WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

John Dee

The references given do not support the assertions in the article British Isles. Please read the sources and then explain why you want to keep the incorrect statements. TharkunColl (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't appreciate you removing the new article link. Same with the other editors I imagine. I don't know too much about John Dee but I trust in Sarah more than you after all of your comments. I don't see how any of you edits can be viewed as neutral after the mockery you have been making of several editors.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 00:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why not re-add the link without reverting my edits? Go and read the references given, and you'll see that what they say about John Dee is rather different to what the article says. Did you even bother checking what you were reverting? TharkunColl (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked the sources. They are indeed correct! google 'imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism' to see for yourself! The same source comes up.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 00:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's in relation to the phrase "British Empire". Why mention that at all? TharkunColl (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Southern Ireland

Ceist beag duit: have you actually read the Southern Ireland article? You are so hell bent on adding the tricolour that you appear to have failed to recognise the fact that Southern Ireland never became a functioning reality - and existed only in practical terms as a construct of UK constitutional law. The Irish Republic had been declared by the first Dáil - which DID use the Tricolour. In the ONLY election of "Southern Ireland", Sinn Féin won all but a few of the seats, and (instead of sitting in the "Parliament of Southern Ireland") they went off and formed the Second Dáil of the Republic. The whole damn point therefore about "Southern Ireland" is that it was a UK construct (under the union flag), none of it's elected nationalist officials chose to recognise it formally, it was not acknowledged as a legitimate governing body by those who "carried" the tricolour, and it therefore DIDN'T fly the tricolour. It's quite clear that your "patriotic" tendencies are now seriously being mis-directed, and (frankly) are backfiring on you. STOP therefore making changes purely based on nationalistic intent, STOP with the historic revisionism, and START reading a little bit more about the history before you make changes to this project. (Ill-informed Good Faith edits are just as damaging as vandalism to the accuracy of the project.) Finally, if you feel a change is in order some place, but you're unsure of the accuracy or historical legitimacy of an update, then open a talk thread BEFORE making the change. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I add it once and you're onto me. Did you seem me reverting? How is that hellbent? I acknowledged the fact about the tricolour on the SI talk page. Clearly you didn't read that. I made a suggestion. You can discuss it there.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 14:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: UK article/ireland name issue

I'm not the sole objector to your preference, and so, I want to keep discussion at Talk:United Kingdom. Neither of us own the page, and I think it would be wise to let the wider community come to a decision. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant keep it at the UK talk page sorry. Most people don't seem to care though. So far its only been Schcambo, myself you and Narson who have replied over the course of the entire week. You can't just run away and hide from the facts that I've made though. ie earlier disamb terms, official name, dispute, governement discouragement, imos etc. I'm not saying either of us own the page, its just we're the only people who have acknowledged this small point about the article. People are not going to join a discussion because it's dead because you're refusing to reply to the previous editors comments. So reply an other people can join in if they see fit. Then an agreement can be made!WikipÉire ^♣ 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. PS- personally, I prefer Ireland (state). GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Errr, just one little problem. Didn't we decide in March (at Republic of Ireland), not to bring up Republic of Ireland to Ireland subject there, until September (six months)? GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It was suggested by an editor. However I will have new issues to raise. What is the story with mediation? Could it be possible due to the huge discussions previously to go straight to mediation? I'd raise the points about for Ireland (state) (and I have many - both with references to the real world and to how similar situations are handled in wikipedia) and then the people who oppose it can raise their points against it. That'd mean no debating. Would that be better?WikipÉire ^♣ 00:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is perfect. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing, the Mediation page is the place. PS- I too, am not entirely familiar with this route. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Everybody should be involved. That way, nobody can claim they were purposefully kept unaware of the Mediation. In otherwords, all the names. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thule

Why do you keep deleting the one sentence "Another suggested location is Saaremaa in the Baltic Sea."? There are multiple references for that. It does not mean that Saaremaa is THE ONLY possible location for Thule, it is just one of the many, why shouldn't it be mentioned? It has been there in the article for ages and noone has had a problem with that, I hope you can let other people contribute for Wikipedia as well. H2ppyme (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Hello Wikipiere. I'm dropping out of the Mediation over the Irish name. It's become more obvious & apparent -then ever- (to me) that there'll be no consensus for changing Republic of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank god

Thank god your not a typical Irishman! If you were my Grandparents would turn in their graves! --Jack forbes (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a typical Irishman does while editing on Wikipedia! I am just doing what the Irish constitution say is right thing to do.WikipÉire ^♣ 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Wikipiere. It's been brought to my attention, that you have used a sockpuppet (Melvo) in the past. I'm somewhat disappointed & concerned about this; do I have a reason to be concerned? GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was a stupid mistake on my part. I served my ban and learned my lesson. You should have no concerns on my editorial character. It was a naive once off mistake.WikipÉire ^♣ 14:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. We all make mistakes. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Petitspois

Hi there - a quick question. Given that the contribution history of the above (which you can see here) is pretty much limited to articles which you yourself have an interest in (Wales, Editors, Hard-Fi, and given also User:Melvo et. al., I'd be interested to know if Petitspois is another of your accounts. Thanks. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 12:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh no. Wow some of the person's edits are on some articles that I edit. How does that potentially make it a sockpuppet of mine? A find that a bit insulting frankly. It's like you're treating me as some second class editor. What is your sockpuppet for? Accussing other people of sock puppetry? Take note that any other user that edits articles I may have once edited is not a sock puppet either! I don't think other users would take accusations like this nicely either so maybe why don't you do some editing instead of randomly and wrongly accusing people?WikipÉire ^♣ 13:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I now see it was User:Matt Lewis you drew your attention to this account. I find this quite suspicious. I have left a message on your talk page about this.WikipÉire ^♣ 13:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, most of the person's edits are on articles that you spend most of your time editing and, in particular, on Wales is pushing exactly the same position as you in a content dispute. That, alone, is enough to raise my suspicions, even more so when combined with your history of using sockpuppetry to do the same through User:Melvo.

The account from which I'm currently editing is a legitimate use of two separate accounts - as you can read here, having a separate account for use on public computers is a common security method to ensure that ones main account (in my case, my admin account) isn't compromised. Unlike, say, User:Melvo, the distinction is that the link between my two accounts is openly declared, and isn't used to circumvent consensus by pushing one POV through multiple accounts.

Finally, my accusation isn't random, it's based on knowing the history of your actions, and examining the contributions of the various accounts before coming to a reasoned conclusion. If it is your account, you admit it and agree not to use it again, then all well and good. If you continue to deny any link, then I'll take it to WP:RFCU to get a view from a checkuser. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 13:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything is possible, I suppose. If necessary then a checkuser would potentially reveal the latter. As Matt is doubtless watching this conversation, I'd welcome his views on your suggestion (probably best on my talk page. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR

May I just politely remind you about the 3 revert rule before you get to involved into an editing war out of the heat of the moment. Don't want anyone to fall afoul of it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You know me too well.WikipÉire ^♣ 18:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder. I know how easily these things can spiral out of control without realising it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

Is Ireland one of the British Isles or not? If not the British Isles entry needs to be revised. If it is then the Ireland entry needs to be revised! It is not at all about controversy, it's about accuracy!!Stephen Parnell (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The British Isles article is currently being revised/reviewed actually.WikipÉire ^♣ 20:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Anthems

It is getting very difficult to take you seriously. You don't dispute the Welsh Anthem but you want to tag on qualifications. You clearly have some form of agenda here to denigrate anything associated with national identity regardless of the facts. Further National anthem states that an anthem can be established by tradition. So to use your own advise if you want to make a case for defacto in the absence of legislation I suggest you try and make the case there rather than take two anthems in isolation. I have reversed your changes as they are wrong in fact --Snowded (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah thats fine but it also says National anthems are usually in the most common language of the country, whether de facto or official. Therefore there are two different types. The Welsh is the latter. Just to add. You do know the meaning of de facto right? There's no law or legislation stating it as the official anthem so saying its de facto perfectly correct! it means it is the national anthem of Wales through defined use. C'mon this was discusssed on the Welsh talk page, everyone agreed that it was correct. In fact, they even edited the UK anthem because of it!WikipÉire ^♣ 09:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are displaying (i) a lack of knowledge of law - for something to be official does not mean that it has to be enshrined in legislation (ii) defacto does not mean the same thing (iii) I consider this an act of petty vandalism.--Snowded (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone else agrees with me, so you're welcome to having your own personal opinion. Just don't make pov edits and accusations with it.WikipÉire ^♣ 11:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You have some reluctant agreement to de facto, you have rejection of "Unofficial" so try not to over claim. I will argue a case on this as elsewhere and like you I have personal opinions. One of those is that you are showing a persistent pattern of adding petty tags and qualifications onto the Wales page in pursuit of personal and opaque goals. Each of those attempts has either been rejected or qualified. You might want to reflect on that --Snowded (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You are the only one rejecting it. All of my edits on the page have been ratified to varying degrees. Language, anthem, eu ties etc. The changes have all been made as there's fact behind them. Just because you think the changes are deragatory in someway is your problem, deal with it. Things are the way they are. It seems like you want to put your head in the sand and defend things as the way you see them in your head. My editing is not personal goals, its improving the accuracy and fact of articles. If that's not your intention and you want to create a pov as you see it, then you shouldn't be on wikipedia.WikipÉire ^♣ 11:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No one would be more pleased than me if the above statements corresponded with reality --Snowded (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland

Hello Wikipiere. Are you still changing Republic of Ireland to Ireland, ha ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It still the official and only name of the state. Lack of discussion on an article title doesn't change that. :)WikipÉire ^♣ 22:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind your hiding Republic of Ireland. I just don't wanna see ya getting into another squabble. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you. However I feel no matter how well intentioned or factually accurate some of my edits are, there is going to be squabbles. It just seems to happen, it happens to everyone. As long as the article gets to be more accurate I don't mind.WikipÉire ^♣ 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A country

I've appreciated your words at Talk:Scotland. Several of the editors currently engaged seem to be determined to miss the point. Do you think that an RfC is would be helpful? Sunray (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Some of the Scottish editors are very nationalist in their intentions (not that I'm against that, quite the opposite actually) so they really like to avoid linking Scotland to the UK. I think an RFC might be a good thing to do in order to improve the quality of the intro. If the next reply back ignores the npov element to the edit that we're trying to make then go for it.WikipÉire ^♣ 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikipéire (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

What? I did absolutely nothing wrong! Is this a case of mistaken identity? It says I've used a multiple account. That is not true! Some mistake has been made, this is my only account! I see now its User:Petitspois you've accused me of using. If you do an ip check you will see they don't match!Also 99% of the ip addresses aren't mine. Sometimes I have edited using solely an ip address but that was because I couldn't log in. For example my ipod touch doesn't have the é symbol which is part of my username. Anyway with the ip in question, I didn't break any rules or anything. I just edited normally, like I normally do. Please explain what I've done wrong.

Decline reason:

A technical investigation confirmed that you abused multiple accounts in order to breach 3RR. This confirmed that you were indeed using these IPs. You were previously warned and blocked 72h about it. — -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikipéire (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not use those ips! None of them match mine! I will go through them one by one for you: 78.16.126.36 - it is not mine, the ip address is not mine, nor did I make any edits on this alternative ip 78.16.57.194 - this ip is my ip address! I edited as an anon that day for the reasons explained above. I can't always log in as sometimes I cannot access the é character which is part of my account. Note on this ip no 3rr warring was done! 78.19.213.117 - this ip is also not me - this user edited some pages which I have never gone too! 78.19.55.51 - this ip user claims they are fluent in irish and has edited in regards to the irish language. my user page says that i'm not fluent and couldn't possibly make those edits 78.19.204.211 - this ip is also not me - check and you'll find I've never used this ip address 78.19.222.154 - this ip user seems to know an editor who i have never talked to 78.19.13.108 - again this ip edits something about the old irish language - i have never done this 62.49.20.179 - this ip is from London! 124.168.196.226 - this ip is from Australia! 78.16.114.193 - this is me i think, looks like edits i might have done, again a circumstance I couldn't log in - no rule breaking here! 78.19.238.101 - this ip made an edit within two minutes of me with a different ip address, how could it be me? User:Petitspois - this is not me! How can you say the ips match. They cannot! You have to ignore the fact that most begin with 78..... that just means that we're the same isp which means theres possiblly millions of users! I did breach 3rr and edit warred before. I served my suspension for that. You cannot ban me for the same offense twice! I learnt my lesson after that and didn't do it again! Please unless you have an ip address that broke 3rr with my ip address how can you say I controlled them? You are jumping to conclusions! There is no way you can say that these ips are mine cos they're not!!!!

Decline reason:

A marvelous bit of sophistry, but that's all this is. You claim those IPs could be a multitude of British users, as if administrators here aren't all too familiar with dynamic IP. "You cannot ban me for the same offense twice" ... I assume you're referring to double jeopardy? But if we discover the original offense was more severe than we realized at the time, yes we can. You claim one sock can't be you because it claims to be familiar with Irish and you're not ... well, wouldn't it make sense to have a sock say that, all the better to create some distance between yourself and it? Look, the bottom line is that this whole thing comes from a) a checkuser request, from which blocks are almost never overturned, and even then only by other admins with checkuser and b) this is, as mentioned elsewhere, covered by an ArbCom case. The net result is that there are very few admins on Wikipedia who would seriously consider an unblock here. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikipéire (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How can I contact these very few admins then? I am outraged that I am being accused of using these ips that aren't mine! You say I am trying to creat some distance between myself and the ips. Well what else can I do? They all made like two edits. I can't make any other proof. This checkuser request is bogus!! None of the accounts mentioned ever shared my ip address! I would like to speak to someone who has access to the right tools to see that I am not lying immediately. This is a disgrace.

Decline reason:

You said most of this already. In general, when you ask the same question, you will get the same answer- the person who has access to the right tools has already said that the evidence indicates that you have been using multiple accounts. Since most people who do that vociferously deny it, the mere use of exclamation points will not, on its own, convince anyone. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikipéire (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Well then the person who used the tools made a mistake! The looked at the 79....and jumped to a wrong conclusion. None of the ips are mine. I will do anything possible to prove that if needs be. What do you want me to do to convince someone? I don't think I can do anymore. I would like a full or re analysis of those ips by someone who has access to it. Anyone who compares them will see that there's a mistake. That should convince you, because you are ignoring my defense without analyising the situation.

Decline reason:

The IPs are unnecessary, anyway. The named accounts would have sufficed to demonstrate sockpuppetry, and you quite blatantly used multiple accounts to feign consensus at Ireland, among other articles. This would have been sufficient to get you indefinitely blocked. The checkuser matches on User:Melvo and User:Petitspois are unambiguous. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikipéire (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I never denied using User:Melvo. It was my first offense and I served a ban of a few days given to me by an admin. You say it might have been sufficent to get me banned indefinitely. Well it wasn't. An admin used their judgement to identify that it was a first and only offense. You can't ban me for something which was already decided and acted upon. The current case is about the ips and user that is supposedly mine. A user check on User:Petitspois will show that his/her ip is different to mine. Once that is done it will proof that I did nothing wrong and all those accounts are not mine.An unblocking will have to take place then, as I have done nothing wrong.

Decline reason:

Actually, a user check on Petispois showed his/her IP was identical to yours. Two IPs, actually; you created User:Petitspois in between an edit to Wales and an edit to User talk:Melvo. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikipéire (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

That couldn't possibly be right. Two ips identical? You just made that up. Check the actual ip of the edits made by User:Petitspois and you will see they are not my ips and have nothing to do with my account whatsoever. So in essence my reason for not being banned is, since the last time when I did get banned for using a sock I have done nothing wrong and have not broken any rules. All this stuff about User:Melvo etc. I did not complain or appeal about. I acknowledged I did wrong and served my ban. Since then I have only done good editing to wikipedia. There is no evidence of me controlling these ips and other user accounts and besides I don't see what those accounts potentially did wrong. There is no edit waring or consensus changing or anything like that. It is the past things that I did wrong that is being told is the reason to not unban me. I have been banned because of those and not for anything raised in the case. I already served my ban for those mistakes and should not be banned again for the same thing even though I have cleaned up my act.

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed you were abusing multiple accounts. They would not have confirmed it unless they were certain. Your talk page has already been protected; this is only a formality. Further appeals go to ArbCom's email list. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A question

How many different admins will have to review your unblock request before you will consider the matter finished? Most admins agree that, while a user has a right to a fair review of a block, no user has a right to an infinite number of unblock requests. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As soon as an admin actually acknowledges that I did not make those edits with Petitspois I will appeal. It's always being drawn back to a time before I served my first ban and realised the error of my ways. Now I am being punished for that earlier stupidity on my part even though I have done nothing wrong since I was banned the first time!WikipÉire ^♣ 15:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, then, you are saying that you will continue making unblock requests until you are unblocked or until your page is protected from further edits. Thank you; that will be useful for the next reviewing admin to know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats not what I said. I said I am waiting for an admin to acknowledge the points at hand. The point that I have done nothing wrong. I have broken no rules. Thats all. You are trying to twist my words.WikipÉire ^♣ 15:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to give you a friendly warning that, since you're on your sixth request, your talk page is probably going to be protected from further requests very soon. They've been generous; most people get cut off at their fourth request. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They've hardly been 5 requests. All rejected for the same void reason. They haven't said anything about proof regarding me actually controlling a sock puppet and using all "the accounts I've used" to edit war or change consensus. I used a sock once and was banned. I learnt my lesson and have done nothing wrong at all since my first and only ban until yesterday. None of the admins are recognizing that. Maybe they are being generous as they realise I haven't actually broken any rules! Where is the proof I have done anything wrong?WikipÉire ^♣ 16:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Request unblocking

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikipéire (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Requesting unblock so that I may appeal to the Arbitration commitee per the unblocking guidelines on long terms bans/blocks where it says "In some cases, a banned user may be unblocked for the sole purpose of filing an appeal." I attempted to make appeal through email, but it's not working so I am requesting unblock only so I may make an appeal. I was told by Arbcom that I could "re-apply with proposals for appropriate editing restrictions and we will re-consider your application" after "six-months absence from the English Wikipedia." Therefore I am now wish to reapply and am requesting unblock so I may post at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests as it is my sole remaining method of attempting an appeal.

Decline reason:

As per Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Appeal_to_the_Arbitration_Committee, please post your appeal here (on your talk page); someone will copy it to WP:RFAR then. — Aitias // discussion 23:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ok, will you be able to copy it for me?

 Done, cf. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikip.C3.A9ire. — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance.WikipÉire ^♣ 00:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to Arb Committee

I, User:Wikipéire was blocked and subsequently banned from Wikipedia for engaging in sock puppet accounts. I appealed some months ago requesting reinstatement with conditions to Wikipedia. While it was deemed that I understood what I did previously was wrong, the request was rejected on the grounds that I had caused disruption and that you, Arbcom had wished "to see evidence of changed and well-controlled behaviour" before considering my unblocking. It was instructed to myself that I could "re-apply with proposals for appropriate editing restrictions and we will re-consider your application" after "six-months absence from the English Wikipedia." I intially attempted to send an email to Arbcom but that failed to work so I am now appealing through WP:RFAR to make sure the appeal is heard.

While my absence from English Wikipedia is just short of the six months (5 1/2 months actually), I recently came across the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration and I am hoping the two weeks can be overlooked due to this invaluable process that is going on. It is now in the process of finding a solution, however it has upcoming deadlines on decision making and I wish to contribute positively to the process before it's too late. Once the process is over and it is felt that my contributions to the project are evidence of "changed and well-controlled behaviour" then I will construct conditions so that I may eventually return to full editing privileges. As of now I only wish to participate in WP:IECOLL and I hope you grant my unblocking as I have served my time away from Wikipedia and now wish to contribute positively.WikipÉire ^♣ 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipéire, please email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org to appeal your ban. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee will review your case and be in contact with you concerning possible courses of action. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read on User:MusicInTheHouse's page that it was requested that I respond. Arbcom told me 6 months ago that I could apply for reinstatement after 6 months time away from Wikipedia. I served that time (February - July) and now I'm being told that this user is now a sock of mine and my application is being turned down. I don't know what makes them think this, but I think its some ploy to reject my case as they don't want me back on Wikipedia (even though I could always just edit using ips.) Anyway I think Musicinthehouse has become a scapegoat unfortunately and I feel sorry for him/her, but more annoyed that Arbcom have turned their back and made an excuse with no real backing behind it. As for some of the questions on the talk page, no I have never been to Madrid. For the record, while I'm not at my usual location at this moment in time I'm still in Ireland and my ip address is checking it now: 83.71.248.57. A checkuser will easily confirm this and if it true that the other editor is in Madrid then there is few thousand km's between us, which is pretty much proof that we are unrelated. To Snowded, considering Arbcom have created a sock of me, just to prevent me from even editing with minimal privileges and I don't think rehabilitation will work, because no one else wants it to happen. I think WP:AGF is the only way forward.WikipÉire ^♣ 17:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)