Misplaced Pages

User talk:Scolaire: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:28, 11 April 2016 editScolaire (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,739 edits →Politically motivated edits: tone it down!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:04, 21 November 2024 edit undoScolaire (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,739 edits notedTag: Manual revert 
(483 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:
]: Jan. 2013 - Dec. 2013 ]: Jan. 2013 - Dec. 2013


]: Jan. 2014 - Oct. 2014 ]: Jan. 2014 - Dec. 2014
}}


]: Jan. 2015 - Dec. 2015
== Demographics ==


]: Jan. 2016 - Dec. 2016
Thanks for editing my edit and your clear explaination..." "two-and-a-half times", not "two-and-a-half times more than" which would be three-and-a-half times "...] (]) 09:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


]: Jan. 2017 - Dec. 2017
:No problem :-) ] (]) 11:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


]: Jan. 2018 - Dec. 2021
==Gaelic Ireland==
}}
It's glad for me to meet a rational wikipedian like you :). Btw thanks for backing me dude. Feeling those guys are a bit 'amateurish' that they read too few articles. XD ] (]) 18:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

== Global account ==

Hi Scolaire! As a ] I'm involved in the upcoming ] of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see ]). By looking at ], I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on ] and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my ]. Cheers, —]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 22:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

:Thanks for that. I've been putting off doing that for so long. I never dreamed it would be so easy! ] (]) 15:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==
]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic ].
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> — ] (]) 19:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) <small>{{H:title|This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page or discussion|(Not watching)|link=no|dotted=yes}}</small>

==Help with rebarbative editors and administrators==
Hello, I don't know whether you can help with editing assistance, but I was impressed by your fair-mindedness on the Pope Joan page (don't worry I have nothing to do with the fair lady). But I am a supporter of progressive Catholic causes, and in looking on Catholic Misplaced Pages I have become aware of a large number of very conservative heresy hunters, and have fallen foul of them myself firstly in writing a short article on the UK group A Call to Action, ACTA, which was deleted on grounds on non-notability, when it had a number of references in national press and on BBC news, and over 2000 members. The administrator who first welcomed me gave voice to a series of conservative opinions himself, and then passed the details on to another administrator, who deleted it forthwith, and refused to enter into any discussion about it. It is true that there was a majority arguing for deletion, but not a consensus, and several of them were readily identifiable as part of the conservative mafia. I can send you the deleted file if you are interested, but can't remember how to access the deletion page. Meanwhile I tried to re-edit the pages about a similar but unlinked US organization called Call to Action. An editor on that has threatened me with banning for adding a sentence at the end saying that the climate towards dissent has changed since Pope Francis has come in. She has accused me of various violations. The original article was a bland piece but it has been rewritten to focus entirely on an excommunication process in one diocese of the US in 2006, and that is the note the editors insist on ending on. If you are prepared to you could look up this one as it is still on wiki. Anyway, sorry to trouble you if that is not cup of tea ] (]) 18:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

:I do occasionally let myself get involved with oddball Catholic articles, like Pope Joan or ]. But I'm not an editor of Catholic articles generally, and certainly not of articles on current Catholic organisations. Anyway, I have my fill of excitement elsewhere at the moment, so I think I'll pass on this one. Thanks for the kind words, though. ] (]) 19:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks anyway ] (]) 15:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==
]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] (]) 03:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

== Southern Ireland ==

NUTS? Shall I add, or maybe over kill? PS thanks for the disam page, I am busy and just pop on and off lately, life its, well life. ] (]) 19:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

:] (I had to chase it up; you should really link to things like that) has a "South-East" and a "South-West". "Southern Ireland" doesn't denote either of these, and I don't think you can add them together to give "South". The "South of Ireland" in that sense is a concept rather than a precise geographical area with boundaries, and it would be OR to try and put boundaries on it. Best leave it as it is. ] (]) 22:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

== ] Comments ==

Thank you for your clarification, and for what half reads like a slight apology. I will see that your repeated use of the word "ultimatum" to refer to what was not a threat or a warning but simply a setting of conditions for our willingness to provide a service was hurtful and did sting. It did read as if you were making a demand as to how we provide a service. I don't think that you were fair to the volunteer mediators. To the extent that you apologized, I accept the apology. ] (]) 16:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

:I think I ''was'' fair to the mediators. I noted that , and asked only that you recognise that I and other participants also are, and that you not apply different standards of timeliness to us and to yourselves. I have expressed regret for the use of the word "ultimatum", which was not intended to be hurtful. It would have been nice if you could have acknowledged that comments like , when Cuchullain and myself were breaking our necks collaborating, are also hurtful and do sting. I have more to say, but I will say it on the DRN talk page. ] (]) 18:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

== Protection ==

I think that (in an over-written comment) you referred to the semi-protection of ]. I think that it was fully protected until 4 February due to edit-warring. I don't think that you or I would have noticed semi-protection, which has no effect on established editors. Maybe the article should have been semi-protected rather than fully protected, because it appears that IPs were part of the problem. Anyway, it can be untagged now. ] (]) 21:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:It said "Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users". I took that to mean semi-protection. I realised afterwards that the protection had expired, and deleted my comment accordingly. ] (]) 21:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

== FA template on Easter Rising ==
OK. Agur, Slán leat.
] (]) 23:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

== WOT Services - ANI ==

Please have a look. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:19, 7 March 2015‎ (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

==Disambiguation link notification for March 10==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (&nbsp;|&nbsp;). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

:Fixed. Thanks. ] (]) 14:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be at my computer, ready to refute any arguments (which ''still'' has no source for "a lone wolf is rarely classified as a religious terrorist") or you would feel free to wipe out the section again. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

:There was a discussion. You took part in it, but only to make a snide comment similar to the one above. The consensus among the three editors who provided substantive arguments was that Breivik did not belong in the article. I see you are actually engaging now. Perhaps you can establish a consensus to restore the section. We'll see. But coming on people's talk pages to whine achieves nothing. ] (]) 08:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

== Covers ==

Yes, I do agree with about "]". Notable songs should certainly show notable covers. <small>Don't tell anyone, but I regard ] as perfectly encyclopedic.</small> ] (]) 20:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
:That would be too big of a list for me :-) ] (]) 15:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
::Well, I suppose I'm using the term "perfectly" loosely. Maybe too long for me too. But if I was researching the song, I'd probably find it invaluable. ] (]) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

==Michael Collins==

I take note of why you have deleted his entry from the table in ] listing sitting or former MPs who were murdered. After reading his Misplaced Pages article and having a clearer idea of the context in which his death occurred, I have created a new category table in List of MPs who died through active service in war for Inter-World War Years. I blame my misunderstanding on a remembered portrayal of his death in the British TV series ''The Life and Times of David Lloyd George'', which showed the victims and perpetrators in civilian clothes and not uniform and the vehicles as civilian cars.] (]) 21:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

:Fair enough. ] (]) 22:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

== Manchester Martyers ==

Hi Scolaire - I note that you reverted my edit on the grounds that it was insignificant so to give you an idea of its significance. The trial of Father Larkin in New Zealand was the first trial of an Irishman for a purely political reason in that country. The trial arose solely out of the sad events surrounding the Manchester Martyrs and the response of the Irish community at Hokitika, New Zealand to it. I think a brief sentance referring to it in the paragraph titled ''Aftermath'' is a balanced response and simply confirms the statement ''The executions gave rise to an enormous groundswell of feeling among Irish communities the world over.'' There was considerable interest in the trial within New Zealand. It was well covered in local papers I leave it to you to decide if the sentece should remain or not, as I acknowledge you are more knowledgable on Irish issues. ] (]) 22:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

:The source that you gave me there is far better than the one you used in your edit. I added back a short sentence based on it. Please note, though, that mere mention of New Zealand is not enough to add it to the New Zealand category or the New Zealand WikiProject. ] (]) 10:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

::Thanks Scolaire. The reason I added the NZ Category and project is to ensure it is followed up in an article on the Irish in New Zealand along the lines of ]. There is to my mind a link between this event and the development of New Zealand's underlying social character in that as time progressed New Zeland moved from being a very English settlement to developing its own more independent character. ] (]) 20:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

:::You were going the wrong way about it, though. What you need to do is create an article on the ] – you'll find source material in Google Books, and you've shown your ability to do research – and then publicise ''that'' on WikiProject New Zealand. ] (]) 09:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

::::Noted, thanks ] (]) 22:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

== Thank you. :-)) ==

Dear Peter, {{smiley}}<br>
Thank you for adding a wikilink to "]" in the track list section of the article on the album '']'', yesterday. Your edit brought to my attention the fact that I made a mistake when I created the article! {{wink}}<br>
On this album's back cover, the song is called simply 'Arthur McBride', whereas it is called 'Arthur McBride and the Sergeant' on the back cover of '']''!<br>
I think what happened is that I first drafted the former album's track list by using parts of the latter's, and then forgot to reduce the title of the track to the shorter 'Arthur McBride'.<br>
So, my grateful thanks to you for helping to correct my earlier error, albeit unwittingly! {{wink}}<br>
With kind regards;<br>
Patrick. ツ ]<sup>]</sup><sup>(])</sup> 15:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

:You're very welcome. It's nice to know that my edits are appreciated. ] (]) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, if you have time could you check recent IP edits to the above, listing him in the category ''British politicians etc.''. I always consider NI as being Northern Irish, not British. Regards ] (]) 12:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

:I've opened a discussion on the ]. --] (]) 21:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

== How to add a fact that isn't necessarily 'source-able' ==

You recently reverted an edit I made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Republic_of_Ireland&type=revision&diff=661965078&oldid=661928986

Now we have a problem, because the article is presenting a half-truth or presenting the truth in a way that doesn't tell the whole story.

Here's the thing: Having grown up in Northern Ireland, a number of decades ago, my grandparents and other people of their generation referred to "the Free State" and even "Free Staters", as I suggested in my edit comment. Some people of my own generation also use the term. Now, I know what you're going to say: "Editors are not sources", right?

Yet my edit remains true and factual. A more expansive explanation would include the fact that some of the more radical and militant republicans would refer to the country as "the Free State" (and/or "the 26") specifically because they do not recognise the legitimacy of it, as compared to a historical declaration. But I digress...

The fact is pretty uncommon: due to systemic bias (there are many more people from other countries in the world than there are non-Republicans in Northern Ireland), it would probably be next to impossible to find a source that explains how non-Republicans refer to the Republic of Ireland as "the Free State".

With respect, this is how I see your action:


''Alice bakes a pie and puts it on her window sill.''

''Jimmy does not see a pie on her window sill.''

''Therefore, Alice did not put a pie on her window sill.''

''Furthermore, Alice did not bake a pie.''


Here's another example:


An editor had his account 'hacked'.

Unable to log into his account, he continued to make edits, considering that at some point in the future perhaps he'll address the situation once he's found out exactly what he can do about it other than writing an e-mail which was ignored.

Other editors, perhaps with agendas, accuse the now IP-named editor of being a 'sock puppet' merely because he continued editing and didn't have time to put effort into having his account restored.

The editor appeals to admins and asks if the IP of the last persons to use the former account can be traced, so as to identify possible culprits who are working the system, but is told that no such records can be found.

Jimmy, however, does not see a pie on the window sill.

Therefore, the editor is a 'sock puppet'.

Furthermore, the editor does not edit again.



Just because there is no evidence of something, doesn't mean it's not true.

I see a couple of options open for the 'pedia. Firstly, it continues to ignore my edit and therefore sends a message that is in error because of context (ie: republicans are the ONLY group of people who use the term).

You can fix the problem by placing it more into context by making it more ambiguous, whilst still ignoring my unproven fact about non-republicans using the phrase.

You can visit Northern Ireland yourself and speak to some older people, ask a number of them how they refer or referred to that country, and record them and then upload the soundbite to wikimedia and then cite it as proof.

You could assume good faith and perhaps use a bit of common sense (I don't mean that as harsh as it may read) or intuition, and just accept that trivial information inserted, with a decent cursory explanation, is likely not to be a 'joke' or politically motivated or vandalism or what ever.

I dunno - any ideas yourself, for this really minor edit which I've now written a bloody essay about?! Maybe something a little more helpful than "that's not what it says in the citation"? Maybe, with some conscience as a person who wants to provide facts to the world, a little bit of extra... something? --] (]) 06:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

:First of all, let me say that I totally understand your frustration. I've had the experience where I've had an apparently uncontroversial edit reverted with what looked like a dismissive edit summary, and I know that it's really maddening. I'm sorry that my edit summary came across as dismissive, but that's a problem with edit summaries: they have to be summaries so it's hard to make them warm and fuzzy.
:Now, I'll tell you a bit about my own history: I proposed a re-write of the "Name" section in February. Like you, I thought that it would be uncontroversial, but a major row developed that lasted the best part of a month: see ], ] and ]. After two months of quiet, I still can't be completely confident that the edit is stable, so I have to be able to say that it is 100% verifiable. That's why, with the best will in the world, I felt I had to revert your edit.
:I might also mention ]. You can see that before my edit to the section, the text emphasised the "republican" angle a good deal more than after: it said, "Many Irish republicans, and other opponents of partition, avoid calling the state Ireland. They see it as reinforcing partition and fuelling the perception that 'Ireland' and 'Irishness' are restricted to the Republic (see partitionism). Instead, they often refer to the state as the ''26 Counties''...and sometimes as the ''Free State''." If I could have replaced that with a ''sourced'' statement that "some people" call it the Free State, I would have. As it was, I did the best I could.
:Bear in mind, "some people" who are not republicans also use the term "26 Counties" – I have used it myself, even on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Some people also call it the Irish Republic. I'm sure some people also call it "down there", "across the water" and various other names. The purpose of the section is not to pin down exactly how many alternative names the state has, or who it is that uses those names. As you yourself put it, what you added was "trivial information". In other circumstances it would have been harmless, and I would have left it. But it is not vital or essential information, and I did not compromise the integrity or reputation of Misplaced Pages by reverting it.
:I hope that goes some way towards explaining my revert. ] (]) 19:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

:PS I don't know whether you are telling me that you have been accused of sockpuppetry. If you were, I was not aware of the fact, and it has absolutely no bearing on my edit. ] (]) 19:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

:: I was indeed telling you that, Scolaire. I have been semi-hounded by a registered user on here more recently, who keeps telling me to register or edit under my user account. I will never edit using an account again, because of the negative experiences I've had here. I've always tried to remain balanced in ALL my undertakings. I was never perfect, and I'm still not perfect in all likelihood. But I try, and have always tried. You may guess who I am, or you may not. I would appreciate remaining anonymous, however. I simply don't have the time or energy any more, to defend common sense. I did not think that your revert had anything to do with the accusation levelled against me, and I apologise if it seemed to be the case - forgive me for the rant! :)

:: As for the edit I made and your response, I appreciate your honesty and straight-forwardness. I have always expected that from you, and I apologise for 'ranting' a little bit. I'm sure you know it wasn't personal. There is, I believe, ], which might see fit in usage to suggest that in this case the sky is blue and my edit needs no explanation... but I shall leave that up to you if you want to decide to revert back to my edit, or attempt to reword it. The problem I would still have with the edit as it stands is that it strongly suggests that only Republicans use the term "Free State", and that this is not factual. The common sense guideline suggests to ignore the rules (the flowchart there is very nice), if the change is a good one that uses common sense and improves the article.

:: As I've suggested, it will not be easy to find a citation that proves the fact in this case. To start with, a plethora of books and publications have been made detailing Republican attitudes. Very little, by comparison, has been written or filmed with regard to common-or-garden unionists or apolitical people in Northern Ireland. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say. In the unlikely event that I do happen to find a source, I will surely make the change if you haven't found one or seen fit to change it yourself.

:: I'd like to leave you here with a positive thought: at the risk of sounding maudlin, I've always respected your courtesy and integrity, even if I've not always been in agreement with you. --] (]) 23:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

:::I hadn't guessed who you are – hadn't even tried – but I have now. I think you know me well enough to know that although I sympathise, I'm not going to backtrack. I think it's best to "let the hare sit". ] (]) 23:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
::::{{tps}}I have to say I agree with the edit even though it is unsourceable. I know of unionists who have called the republic the "Free State". ] <sup>]</sup> 22:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

== Re Stephen Games ==

Hi Scolaire, Thanks for dropping by my page to say a few kind words and point me towards SGs talk page. I thought the points you made there were both sensible and appreciate also the support for my actions. I was somewhat taken aback by the response that your's and other editors received but its often the case well meaning advice to an editor found to have crossed the line is seen by them as instead an attack. I have posted a reply which I hope calms things but we will see. I have indicated there also I am considering a referal to the COI noticeboad as this all needs sorting out. A bit of back checking of edits found a draft article on SG which points to concerns on earlier edits on other topics which possibly carry similar baggage. I could do with a second opinion on this if you have the time, Many thanks again.] (]) 20:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

:I would be inclined to hold off for the moment. In my experience people who rant in that way just want to vent their frustration, and rarely go back to doing what they were doing before. My advice would be to just check his contributions from time to time. If you see any new edits that are clearly COI, that would be the time to go to the noticeboard.
:As regards his talk page, he will probably have another rant the next time he logs on. I think it would be wise not to respond at all. He's going to want to have the last word, but if we allow him to have the last word it will take the wind out of his sails, so it's a win/win. ] (]) 07:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

== TalkDerry ==

In regards to this ]. You can't tell someone to not post on your talk page while posting on theirs. The sort of hypocrisy that I have come to expect from you. I have not baited you, you have simply fallen into your own net. You have refused to cast a vote, or provide a rationale for said vote. Abstaining is not engagement. Ridiculous behavior.] (]) 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

:It is you who is the hypocrite. I posted on your page only to ask you to stop this ridiculous harassment. I asked you not to do it on the article talk page, and not to do it on my talk page. You could have answered on your own talk page, but instead you only . Yes, I have refused to cast a vote, because an RfC is not a vote. I have discussed the issue with you in good faith, but you have ], preferring instead to flog your dead horse. In case you misunderstood me the first three times, ''I do not want to discuss it with you any more''. Please do not post on my talk page again. If you do I will have to take it further. ] (]) 06:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

::I asked you a question on the article talk page and you refused to answer. That is not harassment, that is just plain rude. Your refusal to discuss my proposals or even state a preference, which is simple as typing 5 letters in bold is just ridiculouso. You claimed the previous RFC was a flop. Then claimed an 11-4 vote against a . And now you are saying that an RFC is not a vote. Hypocrisy at its finest. If you do not wish to discuss an article, then don't comment in the first place, make contradictory statements or shovel pov krapola that opens you up to ridicule. If you want me to stay off your page then all you have to do is stay off my page. Got it buddy.] (]) 14:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've a suspicion that there's a ] in the midst of the Derry discussion. Whoever it is, he/she seems to be very knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages, after having only been around for a few days. ] (]) 13:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

:And a nasty character too. But let's just see what happens. By the way, while you are here, can I ask you to de-bold the "Londonderry" in It could be misconstrued as double-voting. ] (]) 14:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

== Guy Fawkes talk ==

I will be quite happy to drop you into ANI should you feel the need to continue editing other people's comments. Doing so on the basis that you are "removing personal attack" is laughable, unless you want to strip out all such comments on the talk page. Try that and see how quickly a block will descend. – ] (]) 06:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

:That was not a comment. It was a hatnote. Hatnotes should be neutral and not contain personal attacks. I seriously considered taking ''you'' to AN/I but I can't be arsed. ] (]) 06:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

== Comments ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive#30_July_2015
I think you have not seen my comments because of the archiving? ] (]) 14:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

Ireland isn't the only place that this editor is pushing disruptive page moves: ]. He's a fairly new editor and between nominating every article he can think of for good article and trying to move articles he has no business moving, he's becoming rather "problematic". --] (]) 19:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

:Yes, I saw that. Different people have different roles on WP, but I've never before seen somebody who saw his role as moving every article he comes across, and opening an RM if he can't. Having said that, it's nearly two weeks since I posted to his talk page and he hasn't made an appearance on Ireland-related articles since, so there's not a lot I can do. ] (]) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

== What's your view... ==

...on this curious editor ] and ] who has appeared out of nowhere to add a citation needed tag to ethnoreligious group at ] just so soon after we sorted it out? It is clear from their edit summaries that they are not that new to certain Misplaced Pages policies. Most curious how/why a Swiss based IP appears on an Irish related article so soon and with no apparent edits on any other Irish related articles to argue at something me and Gob Lofa recently disagreed with. Someone looking to stir the pot and get one or both of us in trouble? Whoever they are, I will not be making any more edits to the article just in case. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

:Very strange! My immediate reaction would be that it is an Ulster Protestant who doesn't like the label, rather than somebody who wants to provoke a quarrel between Gob Lofa and yourself. But, as you say, the timing is weird. I do think the article is messy – I had taken it off my watchlist – so I don't think the tag makes it look that much worse. I'm inclined to leave it and see if somebody can improve the article generally. ] (]) 12:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

::Hi guys. There's nothing sinister here. I just stumbled across the article as I was browsing various stuff about Northern Ireland, and this included having a look at edits carried out by numerous users with an interest in the subject. I am an editor myself but accessed these articles via VPN on my work computer, not logged on. I did laugh when you labelled me as an "Ulster Protestant". I'm actually an English catholic :). If you're really not happy with the tag then by all means remove it, but to me, it makes sense that the very first assertion in the article - and it's an important (and controversial) assertion - should be sourced. Cheers. ] (]) 09:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
:::No offence but my suspicions are still aroused, and the timing and circumstances is still quite odd, especially out of all the articles to do with NI the only one you have edited is on something that was recently argued over, even though many other NI related articles have more-obvious/pressing issues. Then again maybe it is just pure coincidence, Misplaced Pages does make you paranoid. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Actually my apologies, playing around with the last digit of your IP address seeing as it periodically changes, I see that that may not be the only random article in the topic area you've edited: and both attributed to ], as well as and attibruted to 141.6.11.20. On that basis I can see it as purely coincidental considering the random articles IPs located in your place have edited, quite a few of which seem to like Street Fighter ;-) ] <sup>]</sup> 10:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

== 1RR ==

Hi Scolaire, if an admin decides it comes under the Troubles remit, you may be in breach of 1RR at ]. ] (]) 21:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

:And you are going to go chasing an admin to get him to decide it comes under the Troubles remit? That's just silliness. Ulster surnames are not in any way connected with the Troubles. ] (]) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

::I'm tempted to tell you "Save it for the judge", but fret not, I'm not in the habit of chasing. That said, they do tend to cast that net pretty wide. ] (]) 22:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
::{{ec}}Ironically I was the editor who added that surname stuff into the article in the first place. I just felt it was more relevant and better at ] instead of at Ulster, however in retrospect it does also fit in Ulster hence why I never challenged your restoration of it. I do fail to see how it could fall under the Troubles remit, but then again we all thought that too about move templates. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

== Bizarre reverts ==

You have made some very bizarre reverts with the edit summary cats are not for making poltical statements, for example removing crime categories from an article titled ]. If you think it's not a crime, I think the title would be the first thing to rectify rather than the categories. ] (]) 17:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

:All the articles I edited were Troubles-related. Categorising anything Troubles-related as crime, terrorism etc. is making a political statement. Obviously, I don't know what was in your head when you created those cats, but I know that if I were looking in Category:1972 crimes in Wherever, I would expect to find bank robberies, gangland killings, the stuff that a civil police force deals with on a day-to-day basis. If I wanted articles on People killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army, or Military actions and engagements during the Troubles (Northern Ireland), I would look in one of those categories. I'll grant you that Jean McConville is a borderline case, but in the end I went with removing her. ] (]) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

::Tim, why haven't you also reverted Scolaire's edit at ], where he also removed categories? Seems a bit arbitrary of you. ] (]) 20:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

:::Yes, and I also reverted at Bloody Sunday (1972), with the same edit summary. It's a political statement regardless of who carried out the act. ] (]) 20:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

==Hello from Canada==
My name is Sean and it is my pleasure to meet you. My paternal grandfather emigrated to Canada from ] in the 1920's. It is always nice to meet one of my Irish brothers! Please stay in touch. Yours very truly ] (]) 20:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Hello, thank you for your response. As the ] expands, it can be broken up into fiction, non-fiction and specific events. Please do not hesitate to add more books. Currently, it has been nominated for deletion, so you might want to comment. ] (]) 11:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

::I'll sit it out for the moment, because I see there are technical issues with the deletion request. But I can't see it being deleted. ] (]) 13:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

== Question. ==

Was there some specific reason you struck out your comments at AE? Because your original post was completely accurate. Specifico and I have an occasional, recurring antagonistic history, so his post didn't surprise me. I'd like to know about your stance though. It's possible there's been a misunderstanding, or something seen out of context. If you don't care and want to blow this off I'll perfectly understand, but if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. ] (]) 05:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

:My original post was accurate as regards the number of times you reverted v the number of times she reverted. However, when I re-read the talk page and archives, it did seem to me that both of you have a battleground mentality. That being so, although it wasn't very clever of her to copy and paste your ANI complaint to AE, I felt that a glib "the maths support Victor" summary – from a passing stranger – wasn't too helpful after all. I had already done the reading, and was considering striking my post, before Specifico posted. in particular made me ask myself whether AE oughtn't to take a broader view. Specifico's post only tipped the balance. ] (]) 07:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

::Well I can't argue against a vague characterization, except to say I disagree. I'll note that it's common for newcomers to a long running dispute to adopt a "pox on both their houses" mentality, but that's not always warranted, and it isn't here. I'm certainly not claiming to be perfect, but I'm nothing like EllenCT. I've had numerous civil, productive interactions here with editors of diverse ideologies and I'm always happy to engage in rational discussions. I actually take time to read and comprehend sources (sadly a rarer trait on Misplaced Pages than it should be), and, though I'm up front about my views (political and otherwise), I edit for neutrality. I don't shy away from controversy and those discussions sometimes get heated, but I rarely engage in insults (unless the other person starts it, and often not even then), when I do "disparage" an editor it's an accurate description I can back up, and I honestly think I've exhibited enormous patience in disputes. Thank you for correcting the admin on the edit warring claim, btw. If you ever want to discuss something specific feel free to ping me. ] (]) 23:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

:::I note that you disagree with what I've said above, but apart from that, I have no wish to have this dispute played out on my talk page. I've deleted a post from Specifico which didn't address my contributions at all, and I can't see any reason why I'd ever want to ping you. Happy editing. ] (]) 06:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

== Edit-warring ==

You can't have a bilateral dispute in which only one party is edit-warring - it takes at least two to make a war. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

:"One party" is not the same as "one person". The revision history shows EllenCT reverting multiple editors. You can't single out one of them and say that he is edit-warring with her. ] (]) 11:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

== Question re NI and IFS ==

You removed this section in the talk pages of ''Partition of Ireland'' because you said the subject was already under discussion. As you are aware there is some confict in the article as to whether Northern Ireland had to ''opt out'' of the Irish Free State or if it had to ''opt to remain in'' the United Kingdom when the Irish Free State was created on 6 December 1922. The section I was discussing this issue with you was entitled ''NI remained in the UK'' which did not seem an appropriate title. I thought by creating a new section with the above title it would alert a wider audience but I am happy to continue this debate under ''NI remained in the UK''. Also, as I said before, there is another issue in that if ''all'' Ireland had left the United Kingdom would that not have meant that the United Kingdom would have ''ceased to exist'' as there would no longer have been a union between Great Britain and Ireland? There is also the issue that the Irish Free State and the Republic of Ireland governments laid claim to all Ireland in there constitutions which conflicted with that of the United Kingdom. I guess its like Taiwan claiming mainland China as part of its territory and vise-versa. ] (]) 23:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:That's fine. Thank you for understanding. My feeling was that if people were watching the article and cared enough they would have seen the ongoing discussion, and my edits, and would have joined the discussion already. If not, then just opening a new section, with a really long section heading, would make no difference. ] (]) 07:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

::In the 2nd paragraph of the lead in the article ] you stated that Northern Ireland opted to remain in the UK. This conflicts with what is written here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Partition_of_Ireland#Northern_Ireland_opts_out. I think this should be addressed. ] (]) 02:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

:::The problem is that some editor put the same incorrect statement in several different places in each of several articles. I don't have a bot or anything to find them all. If you want to address the problem, you need simply delete the sentence "''With this, Northern Ireland had left the Irish Free State and rejoined the United Kingdom, after just over two days as part of the Irish Free State.''" The article will be fine without it. There is a similar sentence in the ] article. Maybe you would delete that too while you're at it. Thanks. ] (]) 13:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

== Madeleine ffrench-Mullen ==


== Talk:Easter Rising ==
Hello,
As a part of a college assignment we will be working on and editing the existing page on Madeleine ffrench-Mullen. Hopefully we will be adding a lot of good information. Just letting you know.
Thanks ] (]) 09:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


I am not aware that I reverted anything. I guess it was a mis-click. Sorry. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 12:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
:Thanks for that, and good luck with the article. ] (]) 13:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


:No problem. I posted at your talk page. You needn't respond. ] (]) 12:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
== Help with 3O for Trustpilot's article==
Hi ], I can see that you have provided a 3O for the ] article, and I was wondering if you would also take a look at ]'s article? There is need for a neutral third party editor to help mediate the edit. I made a ] request yesterday, however, it was deleted by ScrapIronIV for having more than two editors. I replied stating that there are only two editors involved in the dispute I listed, but received a reply asking me to look at WOT Services. Any help or feedback you can give would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, ] (]) 08:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
:You are quite correct that there are only two parties in the current dispute. I have added it back to 3O, and added a note of my own. Although my comments on the WOT Services article got some discussion going, it ultimately made no difference to the dispute or to the article. Having looked at the Trustpilot article and talk page, I think I have even less to offer there. Thanks for the invite, anyway. ] (]) 13:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
:: I really appreciate you looking into it, ], thank you. Cheers, ] (]) 14:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


== ANI thread about User:Jonathan f1 ==
==DYK for Sinn Féin Funds case==
{{tmbox
|type = notice
|image = ]
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently nominated. The fact was ''... that the 1948 ruling in the ''']''' was that the ] party was not legally a continuation of the Sinn Féin party that governed the ] during the ]?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Sinn Féin Funds case|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Sinn Féin Funds case|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], , )</small>, and it may be added to ] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ].
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> Thanks for this article ] (]) 12:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
== January 2016 ==


There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.&nbsp;The thread is ]. Thank you. ] (]) 00:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that <span class="plainlinks"> to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .</span>
:I have joined the discussion. Thanks. ] (]) 11:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
::Sorry for bungling that thread. I could see that the diffs you posted were the most important part of the discussion but for whatever reason when the user in question got way into the weeds of the Clontarf article I just couldn't help but respond in detail. I'll try to stay on topic in any future Wiki administrative matters. ] (]) 02:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
*<nowiki>– Interim Report: Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders Part III.B, page 71] </nowiki>{{red|'''&#40;'''}}<nowiki>from the 'history-matters.com' website. Retrieved August 22, 2008.</ref></nowiki>
:::No problem. As I say, he does seem to have stopped posting his rants all over the place. If he starts again, he can always be reported again. ] (]) 10:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
*<nowiki>more competent leader, or that such a killing (or a failed attempt) will "Martyr (politics)|martyr</nowiki>{{red|'''&#93;&#93;'''}}<nowiki>" a leader and lead to greater support of his or her cause (by showing the moral ruthlessness of</nowiki>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (0, -2, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 16:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


== ACAS ==
:Fixed. Thanks. ] (]) 16:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


I would value it if you could add a ====Comment==== at ]. I've been thinking about our conversation last month about ] (not just for mass creation, but for everyone). I think this question is close enough that I shouldn't propose another question directly about that, and I do still want to know why articles with <10 sentences are bad. ] (]) 05:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that <span class="plainlinks"> to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .</span>
:List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
*<nowiki>|guest house]] in March 2001, where they were seen by ]. Jabarah remembered </nowiki>{{red|'''&#91;&#91;'''}}<nowiki>File:Alhaznawi video aljazeera.jpg|thumb|left|Haznawi appeared in an ] video, pledging</nowiki>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (0, 2, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 16:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


:Fixed. Thanks. ] (]) 16:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC) :{{U|WhatamIdoing}}, I have done so now. ] (]) 15:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


== Account creation == == Question ==


Hi
Hello Scolaire,


If you don't mind, may I pick your brain regarding mark up language on a Misplaced Pages users page. What does a sole lower case 'r' indicate in relation to an edit detailed on a users contribution list refer to?
We are cleaning up some unused <code>account creator</code> flags. This flag is for people that need to create lots of accounts for other people on Misplaced Pages, normally part of the ] the education program, or for specific edit-a-thons


Thanks
You show as inactive for this flag (<code>0</code> actions in the last year), and it has been removed. If I have overlooked some other pressing need for this flag, please reply on my talk page. Please note, this will have no impact on your ability to edit anything, or create up to 5 new accounts per day for other people. Thank you and happy editing! — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


:Thanks for letting me know. I never even knew I was an account creator. ] (]) 09:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Mogh ] (]) 20:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


:Hi ]. I looked at your contributions. When I hovered over the "r" it said "This edit needs review". The edit was also highlighted in yellow. This is some algorithm that searches for I don't know what, and on the basis of that marks it as potentially problematic. Since you know it wasn't problematic, you can just ignore it. ] (]) 21:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
==Disambiguation link notification for March 14==


::Ah ok. Thanks Scolaire. ] (]) 21:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (&nbsp;|&nbsp;). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>


== Acknowledgment ==
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Just wanted to acknowledge your level headed and fair input to a number of discussions that we have been involved in over the past few months.
:Fixed. Thanks. ] (]) 09:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the fair treatment and sound guidance you've given me. Thanks ] (]) 20:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


== Is this vandalism? == == Mary lead image ==
Given your interest in the earlier RfC, you might be interested in ]. ] (]) 13:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
The link says it all. ] ] ] ] 12:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
<blockquote>'''This is fully covered by the main "martyr" article.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
:It's certainly not vandalism. It is an edit that seeks to emphasise the hostility to the Rising. It is phrased in such a way as to make the hostility appear more justified, an impression that is heightened by expanding "shot and clubbed". I would say that the earlier version was more NPOV, and would restore it on that basis, but it's not by any means the worst example of POV-pushing I've seen (compare , for instance). ] (]) 12:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
== April 2016 ==


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that <span class="plainlinks"> to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .</span>
:List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
*<nowiki>a copy of Pearse's surrender order. The English officer, Captain (later Major) de Courcy Wheeler</nowiki>{{red|'''&#41;'''}}<nowiki>, who accepted their surrender was married to Markievicz's first cousin.<ref>{{cite web|title=</nowiki>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (-1, 0, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 09:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> — ] (]) 14:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
:. Thanks. ] (]) 11:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


== Black Irish ==


Hi @].
] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that <span class="plainlinks"> to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .</span>
:List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
*<nowiki>The Fight For Irish Independence"] 2nd ed., Millstreet: Aubane Historical Society, p.75-76.</ref></nowiki>{{red|'''&#41;'''}}<nowiki></blockquote></nowiki>
*<nowiki>*</nowiki>{{red|'''&#123;'''}}<nowiki>{cite book |last=Kee |first=Robert |authorlink=Robert Kee |date=2000 |title=The Green Flag: a</nowiki>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (0, 0, 1, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 17:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


I saw your comment on the redirect discussion for ].
:The first one wasn't me, but I fixed them both anyway. ] (]) 18:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
As you have previously dealt with the old page for Black Irish (relating to white Irish with dark complexions), I though you might in interested in having a look at ]. It's a new enough article and has already proven contentious.


Thanks for your time ] (]) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
==Gospel of Judas==
I would have appreciated it if you had visited the ] talk page first and commented on my contribution before reverting my edits, or at least my own talk page. My source may not be acceptable to you, but I am still better informed on this than Gagne or Vermes. My intent is to induce informed commentary. These guys (one is dead now) don't have the slightest clue about real Gnosticism. I ''practice'' it. ] (]) 04:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


:I had read the talk page before I noticed that you had removed sourced content without consensus. You hadn't given any notice on the talk page that you were going to do it, so I don't see why I should post on the talk page before reverting. Just claiming that you know the truth about it, and the scholars don't, does not give you the right to undo other people's work. ] (]) 06:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC) :I've , but beyond that I don't care to contribute. I don't remember how I got involved back in 2013, but the topic actually doesn't interest me at all. I said at ] back then that unless an encyclopaedia article can say unambiguously what it is about, it cannot serve a useful purpose. From the discussion, it seems that people still can't agree what it is about. ] (]) 19:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
::Can't say I blame you for wanting to stay out of it, it's a bit of a mess alright. Thanks for having a look anyway. ] (]) 19:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
==Merger discussion for ]==
] An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;]&mdash;has been '''proposed for ]''' with another article. If you are interested, please participate in ]. Thank you. ] (]) 06:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


==Derbiul Bucureștiului==
Like I said in the note above, my intent is to induce discussion (same in my G of J talk comment, where I admit my material was rightly removed under Wiki 'rules'). You might have said something about your intention to remove my informed reversion so we could engage in informed ''discussion''. Posting erroneous opinions (Geza Vermes and Andre Gagne) helps no one. I am familiar with all the authors commenting on the G of J. These are ill-informed 'scholars', as they all are on the Gospel of Judas. Like I said, again, I can explain this whole thing to anyone who wants to know what it means. I work full-time trying to get a hearing among scholars, so far without success. There are other valid "sources" than the ones Wiki might accept! The Wiki goal is ultimately to educate. I can do that. The road-bolder here is not me, but the so-called "scholars" who know nothing about Gnostic teaching, published or not. I am not into war. I want progress. ] (]) 01:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
See ]...hope looks good after few details fixed. You became topic expert/native speaker with quality wiki knowledge honestly. ] (]) 16:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks. I might have a look tomorrow. ] (]) 16:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


== Thank you for your patience in dealing with a difficult situation ==
== ] is covered by discretionary sanctions under ] ==


I very much appreciated the collegial approach you attempted. I honestly think the user tends to conflate other users' actions with their motivations. While you and I know avoiding this habit is a Misplaced Pages social norm, such conflation is way more common in vernacular these days than many would think, or you and I would like. They seem honestly regretful. Thanks for your work on European sporting stuff. I would not have the patience you nice folks exhibit daily. If I may be helpful, please call on me. ] (]) 13:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''
:Thank you for your kind words. Not everybody is as appreciative of my approach ;-) ] (]) 16:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


== Steaua again ==
'''Please carefully read this information:'''


I am seriously worried about the edits of . All his recent edits have a summery "Changing redirect link to the correct one" when he changes a redirect to FCSB into a redirect to Steaua București. And set my alarm bells of. What is going on here? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 20:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The ] has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding ], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ].
:It's perfectly straightforward, I'm afraid. The user believes, as did our departed friend, that FCSB are not entitled to the name or the records of the old Steaua; therefore he is changing all FCSB links to CSA Steaua (in many cases linking to the omni-sport club instead of the football club). That includes instances (like the Mo Salah edit) where the team was called Steaua but the courts have retroactively ruled that they were not entitled to call themselves that. This is not vandalism; it is good faith editing, even if we disagree with the edits. Only you and {{U|Onel5969}} have reverted, as far as I can see, and there is no talk page discussion on any of those pages, so he is not editing against consensus. Nor is he edit-warring. There isn't even enough activity to take it to DRN. The best course I can think of is to open a discussion at ] and see if we can get a consensus there. ] (]) 13:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::I have pointed him at the prior discussion at the records dispute article and more or less begged him to take part in the discussion there. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:::I saw that, but I very much doubt he'll take any notice. ] (]) 14:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::::Let me say: you have to try something. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 14:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've opened a discussion at ]. --] (]) 15:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> Please be reminded that articles about the Northern Ireland flag come under ]. A complaint about the flag issue was . Thank you, ] (]) 15:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] ] ] 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
:Wow! I haven't seen that notice in years. It's been that long since we had any real Troubles-related edit-warring. Thanks for the heads-up. ] (]) 06:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


== WP:BIDIRECTIONAL ==
== Sheehy-Skeffington article ==


Hello.
'''Bold text'''


I think you need to read ]. The list article you referred to is linked in the navbox, and so should transclude the template, but the article you reverted isn't, and so it shouldn't transclude the template. Being linked to from <u>another article in the navbox</u> doesn't cut it.
Dear Scolaire,


A rule of thumb is that only articles that are linked from a navbox should transclude it.
I notice that you have been taking an interest in the Sheehy-Skeffington article recently. I have appreciated the integrity of your postings so I am asking if it would be possible for you to have a look at the Sheehy-Skeffington talk page and do what you think is right (I am a very bumbling wiki contributor). Thanks.


The purpose of navboxes is to provide convenient links to articles that have something more specific in common than just "Law of the United Kingdom", which is a huge topic. Routinely slapping vaguely relevant navboxes onto articles that merely are in the ballpark (so to speak) isn't meaningful. Why provide links to <u>every list article of any era from every other article</u>?
] (]) 20:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much Peter for dealing with the incorrect citation. "Truth will out" proves itself.
] (]) 21:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


The solution is obviously to create navboxes for articles covering legislation from the same era, the same geographical entity, or the same judicial sub-topic &ndash; if you feel it's needed. So if you want to create sub-templates for articles within the same era, subtopic, etc, that's where links to <u>the individual articles</u> go, and <u>those are the templates</u> that should be trancluded.


E.g., if you want to create a navbox template for the articles in the list article, ], that would be the correct template to transclude from those articles.
Not so! In fact Scolaire did not "deal with" the incorrect citation, he merely removed the entire sentence, including its citations. And this in spite of the fact that CanK9 had actually provided the accurate citation, which would merely have had to be pasted in.


Will you self-revert?
I infer from the above comments that user CanK9 knows user Scolaire on a first name basis. The truth will out indeed!] (]) 08:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


Cheers. ] (]) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
==Six Nations==
Hi Scolaire, thought this might interest you, see the bottom of ]. If you see the content for ] at the bottom, the idea would be to get that coming in from each of the nations, including Ireland and an overall winner. Feel free to comment on the Wales page if you see potential, cheers.♦ ] 08:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


:I did read WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, but thanks for the clarification. I will self-revert. ] (]) 09:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
== Politically motivated edits ==


== Problem with Steaua again, now with players ==
User Scolaire, your edits to various pages related to the 1916 Easter Rising show alarming signs of political bias. In particular, you are removing material critical of the British Empire. Please cease from doing this and restore wantonly removed material!] (]) 08:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


Hello @], i have a problem with user Cezxmer, especially with the dispute between CSA and FCSB. I have a problem with him because he is reverting my edits especially on the players who played for Steaua before 2017, like Florin Nita, Gheorghe Hagi, because he says that team was CSA. Please help me with this problem. I am very worried because he will destroy anything which is connected to this subject. After all i want to thank you for what you did on FCSB page, regarding this situation ] (]) 08:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:Tone it down, man! I've responded at ]. --] (]) 08:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:04, 21 November 2024

Archiving icon
Archives

Archive 1: Sep. 2005 - Mar. 2007

Archive 2: Apr. 2007 - Dec. 2007

Archive 3: Jan. 2008 - Aug. 2008

Archive 4: Sep. 2008 - Dec. 2009

Archive 5: Jan. 2010 - May 2010

Archive 6: Jun. 2010 - Dec. 2010

Archive 7: Jan. 2011 - Dec. 2012

Archive 8: Jan. 2013 - Dec. 2013

Archive 9: Jan. 2014 - Dec. 2014

Archive 10: Jan. 2015 - Dec. 2015

Archive 11: Jan. 2016 - Dec. 2016

Archive 12: Jan. 2017 - Dec. 2017

Archive 13: Jan. 2018 - Dec. 2021


Talk:Easter Rising

I am not aware that I reverted anything. I guess it was a mis-click. Sorry. The Banner talk 12:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I posted at your talk page. You needn't respond. Scolaire (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

ANI thread about User:Jonathan f1

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jonathan f1 should be prohibited from editing Ireland-related articles. Thank you. ComradeKublai (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have joined the discussion. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for bungling that thread. I could see that the diffs you posted were the most important part of the discussion but for whatever reason when the user in question got way into the weeds of the Clontarf article I just couldn't help but respond in detail. I'll try to stay on topic in any future Wiki administrative matters. ComradeKublai (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
No problem. As I say, he does seem to have stopped posting his rants all over the place. If he starts again, he can always be reported again. Scolaire (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

ACAS

I would value it if you could add a ====Comment==== at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale#Question 5: Minimum article quality when created at scale. I've been thinking about our conversation last month about whether stub creation should be banned wholesale (not just for mass creation, but for everyone). I think this question is close enough that I shouldn't propose another question directly about that, and I do still want to know why articles with <10 sentences are bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I have done so now. Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi

If you don't mind, may I pick your brain regarding mark up language on a Misplaced Pages users page. What does a sole lower case 'r' indicate in relation to an edit detailed on a users contribution list refer to?

Thanks

Mogh Mogh Roith (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mogh. I looked at your contributions. When I hovered over the "r" it said "This edit needs review". The edit was also highlighted in yellow. This is some algorithm that searches for I don't know what, and on the basis of that marks it as potentially problematic. Since you know it wasn't problematic, you can just ignore it. Scolaire (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah ok. Thanks Scolaire. Mogh Roith (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledgment

Just wanted to acknowledge your level headed and fair input to a number of discussions that we have been involved in over the past few months. I appreciate the fair treatment and sound guidance you've given me. Thanks Cashew.wheel (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Mary lead image

Given your interest in the earlier RfC, you might be interested in Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus#RfC on primary image for article - Runoff. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Martyr (politics)

Notice

The article Martyr (politics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is fully covered by the main "martyr" article.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Black Irish

Hi @Scolaire.

I saw your comment on the redirect discussion for Black Irish.

As you have previously dealt with the old page for Black Irish (relating to white Irish with dark complexions), I though you might in interested in having a look at Black Irish (folklore). It's a new enough article and has already proven contentious.

Thanks for your time Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've edited to restore chronological order, but beyond that I don't care to contribute. I don't remember how I got involved back in 2013, but the topic actually doesn't interest me at all. I said at Talk:Black Irish back then that unless an encyclopaedia article can say unambiguously what it is about, it cannot serve a useful purpose. From the discussion, it seems that people still can't agree what it is about. Scolaire (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Can't say I blame you for wanting to stay out of it, it's a bit of a mess alright. Thanks for having a look anyway. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for FC Steaua București

An article that you have been involved in editing—FC Steaua București—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Derbiul Bucureștiului

See Derbiul Bucureștiului...hope looks good after few details fixed. You became topic expert/native speaker with quality wiki knowledge honestly. 93.138.225.202 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I might have a look tomorrow. Scolaire (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience in dealing with a difficult situation

I very much appreciated the collegial approach you attempted. I honestly think the user tends to conflate other users' actions with their motivations. While you and I know avoiding this habit is a Misplaced Pages social norm, such conflation is way more common in vernacular these days than many would think, or you and I would like. They seem honestly regretful. Thanks for your work on European sporting stuff. I would not have the patience you nice folks exhibit daily. If I may be helpful, please call on me. BusterD (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Not everybody is as appreciative of my approach ;-) Scolaire (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Steaua again

I am seriously worried about the edits of Cezxmer. All his recent edits have a summery "Changing redirect link to the correct one" when he changes a redirect to FCSB into a redirect to Steaua București. And this edit set my alarm bells of. What is going on here? The Banner talk 20:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It's perfectly straightforward, I'm afraid. The user believes, as did our departed friend, that FCSB are not entitled to the name or the records of the old Steaua; therefore he is changing all FCSB links to CSA Steaua (in many cases linking to the omni-sport club instead of the football club). That includes instances (like the Mo Salah edit) where the team was called Steaua but the courts have retroactively ruled that they were not entitled to call themselves that. This is not vandalism; it is good faith editing, even if we disagree with the edits. Only you and Onel5969 have reverted, as far as I can see, and there is no talk page discussion on any of those pages, so he is not editing against consensus. Nor is he edit-warring. There isn't even enough activity to take it to DRN. The best course I can think of is to open a discussion at WT:FOOTY and see if we can get a consensus there. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I have pointed him at the prior discussion at the records dispute article and more or less begged him to take part in the discussion there. The Banner talk 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I saw that, but I very much doubt he'll take any notice. Scolaire (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Let me say: you have to try something. The Banner talk 14:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football#FCSB v CSA Steaua București (yet again). --Scolaire (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Martyr (politics) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Martyr (politics) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martyr (politics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL

Hello.

I think you need to read WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. The list article you referred to is linked in the navbox, and so should transclude the template, but the article you reverted isn't, and so it shouldn't transclude the template. Being linked to from another article in the navbox doesn't cut it.

A rule of thumb is that only articles that are linked from a navbox should transclude it.

The purpose of navboxes is to provide convenient links to articles that have something more specific in common than just "Law of the United Kingdom", which is a huge topic. Routinely slapping vaguely relevant navboxes onto articles that merely are in the ballpark (so to speak) isn't meaningful. Why provide links to every list article of any era from every other article?

The solution is obviously to create navboxes for articles covering legislation from the same era, the same geographical entity, or the same judicial sub-topic – if you feel it's needed. So if you want to create sub-templates for articles within the same era, subtopic, etc, that's where links to the individual articles go, and those are the templates that should be trancluded.

E.g., if you want to create a navbox template for the articles in the list article, Defence of the Realm Act 1914, that would be the correct template to transclude from those articles.

Will you self-revert?

Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I did read WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, but thanks for the clarification. I will self-revert. Scolaire (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Problem with Steaua again, now with players

Hello @Scolaire, i have a problem with user Cezxmer, especially with the dispute between CSA and FCSB. I have a problem with him because he is reverting my edits especially on the players who played for Steaua before 2017, like Florin Nita, Gheorghe Hagi, because he says that team was CSA. Please help me with this problem. I am very worried because he will destroy anything which is connected to this subject. After all i want to thank you for what you did on FCSB page, regarding this situation DNT (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Scolaire: Difference between revisions Add topic