User talk:Setanta747

Archived discussion pages:

• User talk:Setanta747/Archive1
• User talk:Setanta747/Archive2
• User talk:Setanta747/Archive3

Glorious reversion

Thankyou for reverting Rex Germanus's edits to Glorious Revolution. I was bored of doing it. BillMasen 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well its not the first time.. hopefully it will be the last, but I somehow doubt it to be honest. I can't quite see how the sentence can begin with "Jumping at the chance to ally with England.." and end with ..he invaded it! There is a category I'm not quite happy about either, but I've left it alone until I spend some time thinking carefully about it. If he can convince me that it was definately an 'invasion' though, I will accept it. So far, he hasn't convinced me though. He suggests we both look up the definition of the word invasion in a dictionary..

  1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
  2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
  3. An intrusion or encroachment.

Number 1 doesn't fit, as William and Mary didn't conquer anything. Number 2 obviously doesn't fit. Number 3 doesn't fit as they were invited. --Mal 18:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Mal, please be careful on Northern Ireland. Though I actually agree with you on this point, you have still violated the three revert rule (you have at least four edits that begin 'rv' - a slight give away!). Under no circumstances should you revert four or more times a day, unless a user is engagaing in blatant vandalism. In cases of fatual/content dispute, you should stop reverting and use other dispute resolution processes such as WP:RfC or the talk page. If you break the 3RR rule once more, then you will be blocked. --Robdurbar 06:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning Rob. I think Djegan is likely guilty of it also with this particular article. Anyway, I think the problem has possibly been solved, as I recently included citations (in my last edit). I think I remember having a conflict with Djegan before with a different article and that he had been reasonable (we both compromised?). Perhaps he is simply a stickler for the red tape. I hadn't the time before to copy the citations from the article on Constituent country, as I was using the time I did have to go through a number of articles. That's why I'd suggested that he read the constituent country article.. hoping that he (or someone else) would perhaps take the time to insert the citations that could be found in the other article. I think he misunderstood me though, as he had said that another Wiki article cannot be used as a citation source. --Mal 11:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the guidance there - I thought the pronunciation of the placenames here needed some IPA given their unpredictable pronunciation. All the best, THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on August 15 2006 (UTC) to Northern Ireland

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to protest this as I have conformed to the requests made regarding my previous reverting of this article, and it still isn't good enough for some. I also hope you've been monitoring the other people who have been reverting the article and have taken action to block them also.. I'm prety sure at least one other is guilty of violating the 3RR.

Again, I cannot stress enough how strongly I protest this action, as I have conformed to requests made regarding the inclusion of information in the article as can be seen in the article's talk page.

I would like you to provide me with any and all means of 'official' complaint regarding this matter, though bear in mind I do not bear any ill-will toward you yourself as I do not believe you have been involved in the editing of the article itself, and you aare probably merely acting on behalf of editors who have issued complaints about me. --Mal 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You were given fair warning of WP:3RR above, which is more than some people get. You need to learn to abide by it William M. Connolley 22:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary - it was requested that citations be given for the changes to the article in question, which I provided. Again, I state: this was not good enough for some editors. One such editor even reverted my edits and marked it as minor. Are you going to fulfill my request for help regarding an official complaint? --Mal 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're blocked. You can't complain (except by emailing people; or writing here). You seem to have missed the fundamental point: you are required to abide by WP:3RR William M. Connolley 22:46, 15 August 2006

And you seem to have missed my request: can you provide for me here any and all means by which I can make an official complaint please?

Futher to this, I would like to point out that both Jtdirl and Djegan (who nominated me for block under 3RR) are both guilty of violating 3RR with that article themselves. As I cannot edit the relevant page, perhaps you could enter a complaint on my behalf. --Mal 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no" then shall I? --Mal 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Its quite obvious you need a tutorial on what constitutes the 3RR rule as well. If you can find where I broke it then by all means report me, in the proper place. Remember its more than three reverts, in twenty-four hours, that constitute the rule been broken.

Djegan 17:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so cheeky. --Mal 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make an 'official complaint', then you could check by the admin's noticeboard when you return. In the meantime, please think about your actions - when I warned you had actually broken it, an many admins would have blocked you. Maybe you should take this opportunity to rethink your personal reverting policy and remember that if you follow the Wikipedia:One Revert Rule, then you never run the risk of reverting more than three times. Robdurbar 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I count three revrts each by Jtdril and Djegan, which is pushing the limit, but within it. --Robdurbar 19:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions for UK places

What is the Northern Irish take on this naming convention issue. NI is a critical aspect of this debate, and yet no-one has raised the subject once. Please see the (rather confusing I'm afraid) "Straw poll" and related subsections; starts at the top of the page. Thanks. --Mais oui! 12:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mais Oui! I had seen this poll about a week ago, but decided not to vote on it. Obviously I cannot speak for all the Northern Irish people, but in my own personal opinion I think that whatever option makes Wikipedia articles less cluttered looking.. while at the same time letting readers or researchers know exactly where a certain town/city/place is within the country.. should be the best policy.

To that end I think that an entry stating "Newtownards, County Down, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom" for example, is excessive.

Perhaps I'll have another look at the poll (I have the page open right now) and read through others' comments to see if I can see a logical solution that I would be happy with personally.

Thanks for the notification. --Mal 12:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

I'm not sure peer review is what you want. I deals with improving the general standard of the article with other users supplying so general comments. WP:DR deals with disputes and the like. josh (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Josh. I wasn't exactly sure where to go tbh.. WP:DR did point to peer review as one of the steps that were suggested should be taken on the way to solving disputes. I wanted to get the dispute out to as wide a range of potentially non-biased people as possible. I guess I'll leave it as a peer review for the meantime and see what happens. What do you think? --Mal 13:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:John_Marshall_Watson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John_Marshall_Watson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dundonald/Comments

The proper place for this sort of thing would be Talk:Dundonald. VoiceOfReason 17:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a test page for the new Belfast Project I have started. :) --Mal 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland 3RR

Mal, just be careful you don't violate the 3RR. I know you're aware of it but just be careful. Ben W Bell talk 06:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentially Mal you did violate the 3RR and a "block" was decided but the admin forgot, etc to actually block you, see this. And by chance of luck the reviewing admin decided not to block you as a consiquence. Djegan 21:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That block was made on the 15th of August, where as the report mentioned above was made on the 21st of August. These were two separate cases, and in the second one you were mistakenly not blocked by Voice of All. Prodego ^talk 22:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and quick response Prodego. I don't think this is a case for 3RR anyway. --Mal 22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Its increasingly clear you have not the slightest grasp of wikipedia policies (or indeed decision making in general). The reason you where not blocked is because someone forgot to, not because you did not warrant it, which it clearly did. Djegan 06:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. It is clear that you haven't a clue how to read. I don't remember suggesting I did not warrant a block. The fact that I do not believe any of this action against me is warranted is besides the point however.

Now, if you don't mind, I'd prefer you stop littering my talk page with your snide and childish goading. Thank you. --Mal 08:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"I don't think this is a case for 3RR anyway"??? Djegan 17:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

2000 AD

Thanks for that its helped improve things. As someone interested in the comic you might want o have a loot at the talk page as there is a lot of work that still needs doing and if you don't have the time to spare there is a lot of discussion on improving the various related entries and we are always looking for input. I know you have suggested going for Featured Article and so I'd like to get it polished up before submitting it. Thanks again. (Emperor 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC))

Hi. I thought the 2000 AD thing should become more intrinsic to the comics project, which appears to me to be slightly US-centric really. I suppose 2000 AD could almost warrant a mini-project of its own to be honest! Anyway, I'm glad to have been of some use.

I'd be happy to help out in what ever way I can, though its been a long time since I last read 2000 AD, and there are plenty of people out there with far greater knowledge than me. Still, I have a good command of English and a reasonable knowledge of Wikipedia, so expect to see some more edits in the near future. :)

I was curious about your adding Tharg as one of the creators. I had actuaally considered adding him as a writer myself! The reason I didn't is of course because he is a fictional character (or is he..? lol). I feel I should point out though, that some editors may have a problem with including a fictional character as a member of the magazine's creative team.

I'm sure you're aware of this anyway, and also that 2000 AD set a precedent for this phenomenon.

If you need any specific help with the article that you think I could deal with, feel free to ask any time. --Mal 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a good point but if people check the Tharg entry they can see that it is a nom de plume or character used by the various editors so I think it is a legitimate addition (especially as Pat Mills and Kevin Glosnell were both Tharg at one point), especially as I've listed who they are and added in the editor succession boxes on those entries. Then again I won't lose much sleep if someone removes it. ;)

Also not reading 2000 AD for a bit isn't a hinderance as the most work is needed on early series. Current ones are kept very up to date. You can see the list of the main ones that are needed (also see the Judge Dredd page for "epics" that are red linked). In the end if something takes your fancy get stuck in. If you update the to do list someone else can follow it up quite quickly and over any gaps there might be so we can get stubs up to standard quite quickly. There are also issues like merges and splits where we need opinions so we can reach a consensus - at the moment see, for example, Rogue Trooper and Judge Dredd.

I also agree that the Comics Project can be rather US-centric which is one of the reasons I pitched in on 2000 AD - obviously there is some crossover but this way the creators who don't also work in the US get a mention too. A 2000 AD project is sort of what we already have going although it'd be interesting to formalise it but I wonder if a better approach might be a British comics mini-project as there is a lot of crossover with Eagle, Action, Tornado, Starlord, etc. (Emperor 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

With regard to British comics - I added a border colour for the infobox to the comics wikiproject here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Color scheme. I really do think that the impact of comics on British culture was huge, and resulted in an impact on culture in other countries throughout the world, to a lesser degree.. just like the American Batman, Superman and Spider-man et al.

The red colour may be a bit too bright (#ff0000). Any dimmer though, and it looks a bit too similar to the one for Marvel comics.

I'd certainly help out with formalizing a project, whether it be 2000 AD or British comics (as a sub-project of the existing one perhaps?), although I'm busy at the moment with the creation and maintenance of the Belfast Project (feel free to watch it develop for ideas for a possible comics sub-project). --Mal 03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That red seems fine - the only other alternative is to go darker towards crimson and then the text wouldn't show.

As you say we seem to punch above our weight on the comics front - the Brit Wave helped revitalise American (and from there world) comics and old comics have proved a great source of inspiration for things like Albion and there are quite afew entries missing from the older stuff. Anyway no rush on a mini-project as I've already got plenty to do ;) (Emperor 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

Feel free to add any changes you think are needed to the main entry as it will be a few days before I can look at things (Emperor 00:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

OK mate, I'll take a look at some of the grammar and technical blurb in relaation to what the auto-review came up with. :) --Mal 00:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Belfast Project

Hi Mal. I'll have a look at the project and see what I can do with it. Some of those other users can be a bit difficult sometimes, sometimes I agree with them, other times I don't. I must say I've avoided getting involved in the current dispute as I'm not convinced myself of Northern Ireland's status as a country, it is ambiguous at best and there seems to be no right answer. Oh and thanks for the belated congrats. Ben W Bell talk 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish American article

Hi! You reverted an edit I made in regards to labelling the PIRA. I suggest leaving out a label to prevent pigeonholing the organisation and leaving the blue link there. If readers are curious as to the nature of the PIRA, they can simply click on the link and make their own inferences. The PIRA was not simply a violent organisation; they were involved in a broad scope of activities. I now have your talk page on my watchlist so we can continue the discussion here or on the article's talk page hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert it - I changed it. There were two things I could've done about your edit: 1. Change it back to the original with an edit to clarify the grammatical sense; 2. Remove all mention of "activity". I chose the first option first. Now I'll go for the second.

Incidentally, I believe the PIRA pigeonholed themselves. --Mal 00:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

BT

No problem at all. The full list of district/post towns is here: List of postal districts in the United Kingdom. Mrsteviec 20:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Northern Irish cricketers are "not British"

This is a new one:

• [2]

Jeepers creepers! --Mais oui! 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Its just not cricket! --Mal 16:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe. Surely the whole point of the NI cricketers category being seperate is exactly so that it can be in both the Irish and British parent categories?! --kingboyk 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, from what I remember, that's the way it had been. Then the British bit got selectively removed. Go figure, as our American cousins might say! --Mal 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

I kind of understand your use of Template:dubious. I also understand that you dispute the wording in the first sentence. However, I do not see a clear claim of a fact in dispute, so I removed Template:disputed. If you want to brand an article with Template:disputed, please, please explain in Talk exactly which fact in the article you dispute. Preferably in words of four letters or less so that we can all understand. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

While I have plenty of experience of editing articles and other aspects of Wikipedia, this kind of policy and action are new to me Hroðulf. I seem to remember having read in the instructions that you're supposed to put the dubious tag after the sentence or fact that you believe is inaccurate, and then to also add the disputed tag at the top of the article.

Having had a quick look, I can't find now where it says that, so I'll not re-add it and I'll assume your action was the correct thing to do. I was tired last night when I added it! Thanks for letting me know. :) --Mal 15:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh - you removed both tags? I don't think that's right to be honest. --Mal 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Britain

Since you made the eminently sensible suggestion of moving said article to History of the British Isles, I thought that you might be interested in helping to address this hornets' nest. In five months on the article's talk page, nobody has explained why it's currently where it is. At the same time, I asked the same sort of question at Talk:Economic history of Britain, to no avail. What do you say to either proposing or supporting a move? Bastin 15:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I had proposed a change to the archaeological category from Britain to United Kingdom I think, rather than to British Isles. It makes sense to me in that other similar articles are categorised by country. The UK of course has undergone several changes over the past few hundred years.. but that is no reason not to note the history (of archaeology or economy.. or anything else) of the country in all its previous forms, as well as its current form.

Its been 85 years since the UK was last changed, and there's plenty of history there. Overlaps with Ireland and the Republic of Ireland can be, I feel, dealt with sensibly. I'm leaving a comment on the economics article talk page. --Mal 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Council

Hi Mal. As you're a Mr Big in the world of WikiProjects these days ;) perhaps you'd like to sign your name here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council#Members. Seriously, it's just a bit of a talking shop for WikiProject fanatics, and you'd be most welcome I'm sure. --kingboyk 20:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

*bows* I'd like to thank Kingboyk and Lar and my mum...

lol .. thanks for the heads up and the invite. :) I've added myself, and I hope I continue to learn and help coordinate efforts on Wikipedia. --Mal 01:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Scotland

Just a heads up that I started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland yesterday, but still "under development" so we are not going to promote it properly until it is ready. I hope we can have good teamwork with the NI, and other UK and Irish WikiProjects.

I have been forced to ponder yesterday just how much our new project should get involved in articles that are not specifically Scotland-related. Eg, it would be a good idea to stick our template up on the Talk page of Scottish Enterprise, but probably not on the Book of Kells (despite it probably having been created in Scotland). So, I was a bit surprised to see you put the NI project template on the Talk page of Constituent country. Are we going to have 4 templates on that Talk (Eng, NI, Sco, Wal)? Where does that end? What would the Talk page of World War II look like? Just a thought, but, in my opinion, it would be better if no WikiProjects "laid claim" to that particular article (unless politics/govt project perhaps?) Anyway, all the best. --Mais oui! 07:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - I just added that there now (the WPNI template to Constituent country) because it was in the main Category: Northern Ireland page. To be honest, I'd thought about that myself. I believe there is a separate active project .. something along the lines of sub-national entities or something... which might tag this article as well.

My initial instinct was just to tag it anyway, and let any contributors to the project decide by consensus how important it is to the project.. or indeed if it should be removed. I didn't give too much thought to it in all honesty, as it was there on the NI category page.

For the WWII article, I believe the Military History Project will probably have the most shout for that one! I won't be adding it to the NI Project (even if its included on any of the NI categories). But I might add (initially anyway) something like the Battle of the Somme (even though NI didn't come into being for several years after the event - and there will be other articles too, I'd imagine, where it might look odd that NI has tagged).

A member of the NI Project has tagged a warship for inclusion. Having looked at the article, I noticed that it was only refitted in Belfast. Apparently though, it is residing in "Alexandra Dock, Belfast, Northern Ireland". As it turns out though, the creator of the article must have not known that Alexandra Dock wikilinks to the dock in Liverpool and not in Belfast! The ship currently resides in Belfast... so I was confused for a while!

Still - that's what its all about I suppose. :)

Feel free of course to look through the Belfast Project pages and the NI project pages and edit histories. If you need it, I'm more than willing to help if I can. I assume you're using the Mathbot for the Scotland article, yeah?

Incidentally, I'd tag the Book of Kells with the WPScotland template personally, because of the obvious connections. It might not have an extremely high importance, but plenty of Scottish people may have knowledge of the book, and may be able to help improve the article. And that definately is what these projects are all about.

Anyway, I hope that's food for thought. Good luck with the Scottish project. --Mal 07:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mal,

You might want to look at talk:Prime minister. The page was moved to the litterate form Prime minister by a vote of 3 people. A new RM is taking place but the illiterates seem to be queuing to endorse such a crazy move. Feel free to contribute to the debate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)