User talk:Renamed user 1000000008: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:56, 10 August 2011

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer here, so please add it to your watchlist.

Essex discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description: A project for the county of Essex, England

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Chris 05:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Maybe you could try Category:Wikipedians from Essex and also place notices e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject England. Simply south (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga commonname

Please study the reason behind wp:Commonname, Ganga is an exception to the rule, and this exception is not based on facts. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brawn GP

Sorry but I'm fed up with drive by editors making unexplained changes. With no edit summary I can't find the consensus, can I?

f1 teams names

I'm happy to defend and discuss my recent changes to Renault F1. talk over here? Tubefurnace (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Villeneuve

Yeah, you're probably right. I don't particularly agree with the logic that because we don't refer to Anglo-Canadians (Britanno-Canadians?) we don't refer to French-Canadians. (Google kind of backs me up on this).

However, I do agree that it's nationality (not ethnicity) that's the most relevant thing right up front in the lead. As you can see, I had doubts as soon as I made the edit. Thanks for the note. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish nationalist editing

Clearly attempts to resolve the problem through discussion with the user have failed, and at least three separate users have reverted his changes. Is it time for ANI, do you think, or is there an intermediate venue? (I mean, RfC or EA/R, in theory, but this is taking place across a number of articles.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your compromise on Shackleton and his 'nationality' makes sense. Hope that's an end of it and no-one feels a need to invent any more new nationalities. --Flexdream (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval english army

because it does not create an article named, medieval warfare does not explain much, this article discusses a generalized, but not a lot of English. Greetings--190.234.209.127 (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Withdrawn - {{uw-npov2}}

Based on the discussion on my talk page, it is apparent that this user was inadvertently restoring vandalism while trying to make a constructive edit, which was my reason for reverting and warning. As it is now clear it was a good faith edit, I am removing the warning. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bull constructor names

Hi Jon. My understanding is that the constructor name displayed above the infobox should match the way it's written throughout the rest of the encyclopedia (e.g. in the "Constructor" column of race results tables), which is not necessarily the same as how it appears on the official FIA entry list. But I must confess I couldn't find that written down anywhere. So feel free to start a discussion at WT:F1 if you like. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renault and Lotus

Lotus Renault, the former Renault works team, is usually called Renault and the page about it here is named accordingly. Team Lotus, which was Lotus Racing last year, is usually called Lotus. Lotus Renault can refer to both teams. If you want to redirect that one again, please discuss it first. Google shouldn't count above Wikipedia consensus, should it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.46.170 (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia consensus? Read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and honestly tell me you think a significant number of people wanting Tony Fernandes's team are going to be searching for "Lotus Renault". No one calls the new Team Lotus Lotus Renault. And even if a few stragglers did, there's still a hatnote at the Lotus Renault GP page, so everyone's a winner. JonChapple ^Talk 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Talk:Lotus Renault so we can establish a consensus. I invite to you to express your views there. DH85868993 (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Londonderry

Could you explain how the sentence that states that County Londonderry or County Derry is named after Londonderry or Derry adds anything to the article? Mo ainm~Talk 22:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you restored it back to the way I did originally. Mo ainm~Talk 12:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: McLaren

Hi Jon. Yes, the convention is to link to the article as a whole, rather than a subsection. This is consistent with the convention for other companies which have been both constructors and engine suppliers (Renault, Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, etc). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cher Lloyd

Your opinion on the redirect would be appreciated at Talk:Cher Lloyd. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster place names

I don't understand why you've added Scots place names with a cite that is an Ulster Scots document without translation. I notice you also have placed it ahead of the Irish name even where that name clearly predates the English one. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 11:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Ulster Scots names fit into the UK template since it links Scots Language and the names you cite are not Scots. Maybe the template needs updating but that's beyond my wiki skills. The cite doesn't really work because all it does is use the Ulster Scots name - you have to compare two documents to deduce anything. I'm not saying that the USc names are invalid but given the neologistic nature of some of the spellings, a better source would be nice. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debut

If "either is correct. There's no need to make pointless changes", why did you change it in the first place? [1] You're edit-warring with the other guy, and neither of you are looking good at the moment. If either form is correct, it should have been left as it was originally written. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - disagreements over style are sometimes difficult, particularly when neither party is wrong, but avoiding edit-wars is the most important thing, I guess. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Senators born outside of the United States

Per MOSFLAG we don't use Subnational flags and also the use of the Union Flag for Ireland is confusing an example used by MOSFLAG is that of Oscar Wilde were it states that we shouldn't use either the Flag of Ireland or the Union Flag. Mo ainm~Talk 15:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't use sub-national flags, why is the page in question covered in them? JonChapple ^Talk 15:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they shouldn't be this is a problem I have with the use of flags and why we should enforce MOSFLAG like you did on the Éamon de Valera article. Mo ainm~Talk 15:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. If that's the case you shouldn't have just removed the Ulster Banners, though. What should we do with this page? Change all instances to the Union Flag? Or do away with them altogether? JonChapple ^Talk 15:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favour of removing all the flags altogether, as the flags on this article add nothing and probably confuse the reader more. Mo ainm~Talk 15:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough one, because I'd say they're clearly quite useful in states that have gained independence or otherwise changed administration. For example, on James Couzens's entry, we'd end up with two identical columns just saying "Canada". JonChapple ^Talk 15:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes a difference because for one I don't recognise the flag so if I click on it to find out what it is it just brings me to the same page that is wikilinked beside it which is Canada. And looking at other flags used, with Nova Scotia the flag links to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as does Saint Croix. Another reason I have is that for Ireland we have the use of 3 different flags. So for me it is a very confusing article. Mo ainm~Talk 16:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I'm not too fussed either way. Maybe we should get rid of the "current country" field altogether? It doesn't seem entirely relevant. JonChapple ^Talk 16:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree not to sure what that field is trying to say. Mo ainm~Talk 16:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble with the formatting of the table when I have a bit more time I will try sort it out. Mo ainm~Talk 17:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nice one Mo. JonChapple ^Talk 17:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a very good idea to raise the idea of removing the whole column on the articles talk page where interested editors could have their say on it rather than having it discussed out of the way on a users talk page. Personally i think it makes sense to have the column, however i agree the flags can be confusing, for not only does Ireland use three flags, but the use of two different Union Flags in the "old country" column. Then again why are we using Scottish, English, and Welsh flags in the current country column when should they not be Union Flags too just for cohesion with the old country list and seeing as the UK is the sovereign state they belong to. Its a total flag mess. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish people

The hatnote at this article clearly states This article is about the Irish as an ethnic group and nation. Seems pretty unambiguous. RashersTierney (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mairead Maguire

Hi, can you find a source where Mairead Maguire self identifies as Northern Irish ? If not I think it is better to just say where she is from. It's easy to find sources that describe her as Irish (e.g. BBC, Haaretz etc etc). Anyone can replace your source with those using the same argument as you, "it's a reliable source". Living people get to define their own identity so it would be better if we had an interview or something like that where she describes herself as Northern Irish, Irish, British or whatever. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flag for Northern Ireland

It does make sense to provide a flag for Northern Ireland, and as it has no specific "de facto" flag (purely depends on point of view whether the UB is or not) for itself anymore unlike England, Scotland, and Wales, then the "de jure" flag makes sense, i.e. the Union Flag. We could always just lump in the flag of the NI assembly in lol. However MOS:IE makes it clear no flag unless one is used for that situation. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unfortunately until NI has a new flag of its own (or the Ulster Banner is re-instated, which is trés unlikely), the Union Flag is the best bet. It's currently the only flag of the country/province/"North of Ireland". JonChapple ^Talk 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity what happened the comments above mine? Makes it look like i just started this as a whole new discussion when it was a continuation of one.

It's all too easy to use the excuse that because the NI Government no longer exists then the flag no longer has any officialiaty, however when did the Scottish, Welsh, and English flags have any officiality in law? And if we go by common use, i'd say the Ulster Banner is used more often than not to represent Northern Ireland regardless of opinions - especially as nationalists use the tricolour to represent all-Ireland rather than NI specifically. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, the ones about de Valera and the UDA? I was just a bit sick of looking at Domer48 telling me off for "edit-warring".

As for the flag, I completely agree. The Ulster Banner is undoubtedly the de facto flag of NI, hence UEFA, the Commonwealth Games, the PGA Tour, etc., all using it. But this is Wikipedia, so, of course, it's not that simple. We can't even call people "Northern Irish" (i.e. from Northern Ireland), for heaven's sake, for fear of "labelling them". JonChapple ^Talk 11:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the POV propaganda warfare part of Wikipedia lol Mabuska ^(talk) 10:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. You're telling me. What do you think to what's going on at Corporals killings? JonChapple ^Talk 11:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason as to why the two press sources can't be expliclty stated, and a they are wikilinked too, the reader is all too able to find out what The Independant is. Its a very poor arguement against it. Be careful though, you can be accussed of canvassing. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about that particular guideline, thanks for the heads up. As much as I'd like to assume good faith, the sentence is clearly being presented in a way that makes it look like the news sources are partisan and that the men weren't tortured, owing to the fact that they're British sources. JonChapple ^Talk 16:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I confused you into replying to the discussion on the talk page, by the way! JonChapple ^Talk 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i got confused into the wrong debate lol. Your comment is what i was going to try to say in my last comment, but couldn't figure out why it seemed wrong for me to word it. I think your assumption is correct. There is no policy against stating the two sources the way you did. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Oh well, maybe you'll spark the other one back to life! It hasn't been reverted again yet, so it might stick (until tomorrow at least) :) JonChapple ^Talk 21:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1990s

I'm curious. I have a feeling that some, if not most all, of the Scots names have been made-up by the authors of the sources cited. This current Ulstèr-Scotch malarkey seems to have started in the 1990s. If references for those names can be found before the 1990s it would indicate that Scots-speakers might have actually used them, either in speech or writing. My friend Google can't find any references other than those provided in the articles. 92.11.52.106 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they may have been, because the Ulster-Scots language has traditionally been something passed down from word-of-mouth and, as it says in the article, the literary tradition was for a time almost extinct. It also mentions in the Ulster Scots dialects article that since the 1990s there have been attempts to create new orthographies. Whether any of us like it or not, though, Ullans is given a parity of esteem with Irish under the GFA, so we've got to try and reflect that on here. We can't just leave out Scots names because we don't agree with we don't think they're "authentic" enough. JonChapple ^Talk 08:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Wikipedis has to reflect real facts, not made-up placenames that came about as a result of the GFA? Since when has Wikipedia been subject to the GFA? Even if the language was passed down by word of mouth it would not be unusual for someone somewhere, at some time, to have noted what Scots-speakers called places. The sources you provide are extremely dubious, and that should be pointed out in the article. 93.158.79.70 (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are NI/UK government sources "dubious"? The only sources that could be more reliable would be sources from an Ulster-Scots Academy, but they're not built that yet. JonChapple ^Talk 08:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And which article? Your grievances are already addressed at Ulster Scots dialects (a little too much so, in my opinion). JonChapple ^Talk 08:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make an account if you want to discuss this? Your IP-hopping's starting to confuse me! JonChapple ^Talk 08:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's arguement can be easily put back at them - what about the Irish translations of place names that are fairly recent? Accorind got IMOS we have to include the Irish version of placenames in the infobox, however many of the modern versions used are provided by Logainm which creates Irish versions of place names. Surely many of these placenames (especially the Irish versions of places based on English such as Newbuildings etc.) are neologisms that are thus also highly dubious then?

Wikipedia works on sources, the above sources i believe meet reliability and verifiability so that is a weak arguement against them. If anything the IP has to prove that the sources are dubious. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enfrocement notice

Your latest actions have been reported here.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 121: / Line 121: @@
 ::::::The IP's arguement can be easily put back at them - what about the Irish translations of place names that are fairly recent? Accorind got IMOS we have to include the Irish version of placenames in the infobox, however many of the modern versions used are provided by [http://www.logainm.ie Logainm] which creates Irish versions of place names. Surely many of these placenames (especially the Irish versions of places based on English such as Newbuildings etc.) are neologisms that are thus also highly dubious then?
 ::::::Wikipedia works on sources, the above sources i believe meet reliability and verifiability so that is a weak arguement against them. If anything the IP has to prove that the sources are dubious. [[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mabuska|(talk)]]</sup> 10:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
+== Enfrocement notice ==
+Your latest actions have been reported [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jonchapple here].--<font face="Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''</sub></font> 12:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)