| Revision as of 13:08, 5 March 2007 editManopingo (talk | contribs)200 edits →No Personal Attacks Please← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:22, 24 November 2020 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,457 edits →ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (262 intermediate revisions by 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <includeonly>{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{user en}} | |||
| |algo = old(48h) | |||
| {{user ga-1}} | |||
| |archive = {{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| {{user fr-1}} | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| {{user it-1}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| {{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Metric}} | |||
| }}</includeonly><noinclude> | |||
| <div style="clear: both"></div> | <div style="clear: both"></div> | ||
| ==Archives== | ==Archives== | ||
| ]; ] | ]; ]; ]; ];];]; | ||
| == S.S. Argenta Image later HMS Argenta == | |||
| Red King, are you able to assist me in adding an image to HMS Argenta? I was sent the image but am having trouble establishing its origin. It is clearly the correct ship. How would I upload it for your review and hopefully admission to the article? | |||
| == Re: Paramilitary == | |||
| This link shows the image: | |||
| I didnt really intend to put that piece of information in the extra-judicial section. Frankly, I didnt devote much time reading that section and thought that it refered to paramilitary units w/ extra-judicial powers blah blah :). Thanks for correcting my terrible mistake --]|] 19:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=16637.0 | |||
| ] (]) 14:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == New European Union collaboration == | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| Hi Red King, this is just a note telling you that I have created the ] (the first collaboration is ]). I'm looking forward to your contributions! ] (] | ] | ]) 12:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <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 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. | |||
| ==History of Ireland== | |||
| Hows it going Red King (if that is your real name!). Could you do me a favour and clean up the intro to the ] page? I tried to do it, but my browser is not advanced enough to edit an article of that size without losing the end of it. I usually just edit in sections to get around this. Anyway, if you could you just clean up the links where it refers to wars in 17th century Ireland, - change Nine Years War to Nine Years War (Ireland), change "Cromwellian wars" to Irish Confederate Wars or Cromwellian conquest of Ireland and Glorious Revolution to Williamite war in Ireland, I would be very grateful. I think we could also delete the reference to the plantaion of Ulster, but I'll leave that up to your discretion. | |||
| Cheers | |||
| ] 18:41, 16 October 2005 (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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 08:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hi--just responding to your message on my talk page. What's the eventual goal for trimming down the intro? One paragraph? Two? I'm willing to take a crack at condensed summary of the whole section, if it won't ruffle feathers. | |||
| ] 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I'll attempt to write a condensed version of the entire intro. I probably won't get to this until after the holidays, but I think I can do something good with it.] 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Sexual assault on an innocent crustacean == | |||
| I thought that was sort of amusing, actually (looking at the diff), though I can see why you didn't welcome it! (I seem to still have your talk page on my watchlist from the last time we were corresponding). | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| You haven't put the IRA on RfM yet have you? If not, I'd encourage you to do so, in fact I'd nearly do it myself now only I'm suffering from a peculiar inability to keep myself logged in today, despite fiddling with the cookie settings. ], 15:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691988767 --> | |||
| :I offer my apology to Red King for implying a Sexual assault on an innocent crustacean. It's his page, and I should have left it alone. In mitigation of the offence, there was no malice and I had nothing better to do. O Lord, I withdraw into my shell and pray for mercy.--] 21:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ]: Voting now open! == | |||
| ::It's the '''Crustacean Front for the Liberation of Crustacea''', you endoskeletal deviationist! Anyway, you may or may not have views to offer on the bright shiny new ], fresh today courtesy of Damac. ] | ] 22:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :And now someone has made off with the crab (note: not "made out").--] 17:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's only a publicity stunt by the Provisional Claw of the movement. Normal service is returned if you watch and wait, lads, watch and wait. --] 22:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Red King. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I found this page because of a question in the general help area, then I added some stuff myself, because much of my IT career has been in the legal modifying of licensed derivative software, and my employers have been involved in the modifying of hardware that many people might not associate with the notion of modifying. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| I also enjoy ], have both designed some of my own, and modified others, where it was my understanding that modifying was an entirely approved activity by the game publisher. I have also been involved in the organization of games conventions, where I have discovered that different game companies have totally different notions of what is an approved use of their games. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Then I took a look at prior editors and thought I would give y"all a heads up that I had made some mods to this article on mods to try to clarify notions of where this is a very bad thing to do vs. ho hum so mundane as to be no question but that it is perfectly legitimate activity. ]|] 21:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/7&oldid=750547185 --> | |||
| ==Merger discussion for ]== | |||
| ==History of Ireland== | |||
| ] An article that you have been involved in editing—]—has been '''proposed for ]''' with another article. If you are interested, please participate in ]. Thank you. ] (]) 15:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2017 election voter message == | |||
| Thanks ... I think! Sacred text? ] 18:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Red King. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| Oh, that's okay. I have no problem with my stuff being revised or moved around (you would'nt want to here!), just so long as someone explains why. I know that the stuff I do is probably too detailed, but I just LOVE depth! Thanks again! ] 17:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| Howya Red King, sorry it took me so long to respond. Had a look at the article and think its ok | |||
| ] | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the 'Ireland' and UK name story. ] 11:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/08&oldid=813407029 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2018 election voter message == | |||
| ==Ethnic cleansing== | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Red King. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| Thank you for your detailed comments. Basically I follow you entirely. I calculated my sentence would have a short life, and be deleted by LP. Most European countries are still having great difficulty reconciling themselves with their past, particularly where certain events are painfully true. That is a section of our history were outside researchers could be of great service (of the Peter Hart kind). One major EU country at least, is being surprisingly exemplary in revealing and exposing its horrid past. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| In 1920 we had a 20% prodestant population in the south, now 4%. That is not saying they were all hounded out of the country. It is certainly more complex. But what I said did occur for a short period. Why differentiate between prodestants, loyalist and unionist?. Are particular words sacredly reserved for certain single historical occurances only ? | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| We have yet to relearn to mingle and live together on this small island. But in order to understand where we are today we have to look at the unpleasant roots, pasts and actions of our mollies, hibernians, orangemen, and so forth (who subsequently donned more elitist titles).<br> | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/09&oldid=866998319 --> | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for January 13== | |||
| I will choose appropriate acceptable wording at a later date, Presently I have been, and am still moving around countries, but from Dec. on expect to be more present. After I complete some pending new pages (have only done an outline of the "Munsters"), I will be devoting more time to the Nationalist period, and attending to balance elsewhere. | |||
| Appreciating your engagement ] 22:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are ], since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].)</small> | |||
| == IRA == | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Did you, or anyone else, make a request to move for ]? | |||
| == Casting (metalworking) rollback == | |||
| ] 16:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I removed a reference to Newtons being used to describe pressure ]. You rolled back my edit saying "pressure is a force and is measured in Newtons". This is not correct. | |||
| ] is a distinct entity in physics, defined as the force per unit area. The SI unit is one Newton per square meter, called the ]. | |||
| Fair enough. Just looking at your last comment on ]: "even though there appears to be about five in favour with one opposed at this stage, I presume we need to do a formal Request to Move. Given the months of debate, it would be unreasonable to just hit the Move tab." That was six weeks ago. What exactly are you against? | |||
| Specifically in the context of centrifugal casting, where you made your rollback, describing the situation in terms of a force does not make physical sense. Appropriate units would either be a pressure or an acceleration. ] (]) 21:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ] 15:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Map of Ulster: colours == | |||
| I think the colours on ] are appropriate. They are not orange and green but pink and green: pink is the conventional colour for showing the United Kingdom (and the British Empire) on maps. You are of course free to produce a version with a similar name and with whatever colour combination you wish.] (]) 18:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not familiar with the process of making a request to move. Unless you want to kick it off, can you point me in the right direction? | |||
| : Hello Red King I was thinking this hyperlink may be a good addition on the above issue Map of Ulster Colours ] I edited this page ] and it was undone and described as vandalism. My idea was to explain the reason for the historic map convention of Pink for the commonwealth. No rush at all to reply, I'm on a go slow study/phase. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::A better alternative source link I wanted a source to show it was a solution from the publishers to make the make easier to read. Sorry I see I'm trying to run again. Should I drop this or is it a good idea, explaining the pink colouring convention? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::{{rto|Eimhin de Róiste]], I can't think of any reason to get into such detail in any article on Misplaced Pages unless it were one about the map itself. Yes, drop it. --] (]) 18:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == 'Irish backstop' contains copyvio == | |||
| ] 02:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| On ], Earwig's Copyvio Detector, on September 9, 2019, shows ″Violation Possible 41.9%″. | |||
| == Re: Santa Pudenziana == | |||
| *https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-negotiator-idUKKCN1PO2IE - 41.9%. So needs to quickly rephrase or article may be deleted (see ]). I am not admin, just writing there and noticed. Who is interested in the article may try to rephrase while some admin have not deleted it. I put notice about copyvio also on ]. ] (]) 21:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
| For the most part your comments on the Talk page were spot on, but I wouldn't have used the word "fantasy" to describe the Palatium Britannicum. I believe that ] has shown himself to be contributing in good faith, & has been hurt over his contributions about Christian history from the grey edges of tradition, like this one. (] is another topic he has been fighting over, & from various comments on the associated talk page, I suspect that there is a New Age variant take on this extinct phase in Christian history that is important enough to be allowed it's two cents on Misplaced Pages.) Obviously the Palatium Britannicum belongs in the same category as the Bermuda Triangle, many accounts of UFOs, & countless allegations made by Fox News -- but to dismiss them as fantasy when it can be shown millions of people honestly believe one or all of them is but to drive them underground where they grow like fungi, instead of bringing them into the sunlight where we can critically study them & clean the superstition from them. But that's just my long-winded opinion. -- ] 21:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2019 election voter message == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> | |||
| You might like to take a look at this. I think it could probably do with a bit of work, but I don't have the sources. ] | ] 19:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| :I'd encourage you togive your view regarding the intro, dispute over which has resulted in a polite but total impasse between me and another user. ] | ] 23:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, that's my view too. ] | ] 00:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| Hi. Thanks for your remarks. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who thought this way. I am not European, and feel that I could give a 'neutral' perspecitive. But it seemed that there was no desire for one. I immediately came in for personal attacks and of course wrong assumptions. My previous edit history was well intentioned, but there are better ways to achieve the same result, ie, knowing how to play the game - and it is sometimes a game. I would be happy enough to see Gerry Adams and the others on the republican side portrayed as saints, if Ian Paisley and the unionist were also portayed as saints. I am actually unhappier about the Ian Paisley article than the Gerry Adams one. The Ian Paisley one is very critical of him. I do like to see the best in everyone. Denigrating one side or the other is never helpful. ] 07:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==depth of Eurobond markets== | |||
| </td></tr> | |||
| Hi Red King. You put a comment on my talk page that makes me wonder if you actually meant to contact someone else. (The edit I made was to simply fix a faulty edit.) Cheers, --] 00:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| </table> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=926750232 --> | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for November 21== | |||
| == re: ] == | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are ], since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].)</small> | |||
| Yeah not bad, I made a couple of minor changes though. I changed refuses with to does not, as refuses, at least to me, implies that officially they are to use the term Provisional but they don't on certain grounds, which is not made apparent in the article (both the PSF and SF articles) if true, which i don't believe it is. I also removed "and need not be repeated here.", it just didn't sound right anyway their has to be a better way of adding that sentence. The only other change i would make, i decided not to go threw on it, is the removal of the section on their political achievements, basically everything after the first paragraph in the Modern Sinn Féin section, until the trivia section. I think that the information more suited in the Sinn Féin article. I would not be surprised though to see a more radical changes, their have been at least one if not several RSF persons making some interesting edits to articles. Feel free to revert my changes if you don't find them acceptable. --] | ] 07:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem, glad to help. --] | ] 23:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 07:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Michael Collins == | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for January 10== | |||
| Actually the claims about Collins's homosexuality or bisexuality is not conjecture. It had been a longstanding debate. Harris openly talked about the issue on the Late Late Show on a number of occasions. It has featured in newspaper columns for years, and has been commented on by Tim Pat Coogan among others. I first heard the story in history lectures in UCD in 1985. All the section does is contextualise a widely repeated rumour. There was a high level of homosexual activity (primarily oral sex it appears) in the Irish Republican Army in 1919-1921 according to state papers. Why remains a mystery. One suggestion from psychiatrists is that those in units developed emotional relationships with each other, while having to cut themselves off from society lest they let slip secrets or their women-folk either betray them or be targeted for torture by the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries. So they expressed themselves sexually with men they had bonded with in their units. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 19:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). | |||
| The claims were not made by the British. They were made by Free Staters in 1922 initially. It was his own side who suggested it. And the fact that a film script was going to feature it, that Collins's right hand man Emmet Dalton was widely rumoured to be his lover, and that the allegations have often been discussed by historians requires that the story be covered. Nor is your or my personal view of Harris at all relevant. If someone of the stature of Harris claims it ipso facto it is relevant. Personally I don't believe it, but to ignore it would breach NPOV. So there is no question of deleting it. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 01:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| (].) --] (]) 09:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| The user had been jumping IPs to vandalise articles. They vandalised a large number over the last couple of days. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 01:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Éire== | |||
| ==History of Ireland== | |||
| How do you think the article is coming along? I still think its far too big, given that we now have plenty of sub articles. Would you agree with me that it could be cut further? | |||
| Also, I have created new articles ] and ]. Would you mind having a look at them and maybe sticking them in the history of Ireland template (I don't know hoe to do this)? | |||
| Cheers, | |||
| ] 13:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hello Red King | |||
| ===Norman Ireland=== | |||
| thank you for your interest in my edit which was to make the first usage Éire on the page "Names of the Irish state. I linked to the wiki page explaining the term Éire could you please explain why you undid my edit. Many thanks for your time. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I've suggested re-naming this article ] on its talk page. What do you think? | |||
| :{{rto|Eimhin de Róiste}}, First, apologies for not leaving an edit note, but the mobile interface doesn't allow it for reverts. My reason is that I fail to see any logic in piping Éire, the name of the state, to s side issue about the word Erin. It is interesting but barely relevant in the context of the names of the state. Yes , I can see that some text about the name Erin might be useful but, per ], it should be overt not covert. Does that make sense? --] (]) 21:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] 13:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, and thanks for querying it like this rather than counter-reverting blindly. --] (]) 22:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks Red King, sorry to clarify are we talking about this page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Names_of_the_Irish_state&action=edit§ion=1 with this link to here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Éire? I made a few edits today. | |||
| I thought we were talking about the name of the state and the first reference to one of the constitutional names of the state Éire had no actual link explaining the name so I linked to the wiki that explains that. I'm confused by your references to Erin have I made a mistake I'm not sure what Erin is. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :{{rto|Eimhin de Róiste}}, first, yes it should have been linked but{{snd}} perhaps it was an error{{snd}} you linked to ], that was why I reverted. Is that it? --] (]) 23:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Ooops yeah that was what I was trying to do, I put in the wrong link, so sorry, thanks so much for helping me out. If you don't mind I'll put in the link to the actual Éire page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Éire OMG such a shocking error, Thanks so much for the help. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :No worries, we've all had such a moment. Anyway, no need, I have already done it. --] (]) 00:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == European Union MOS:CAPS == | |||
| ==Progressive Democrats & Sinn Fein== | |||
| It is hard to see your justification in claiming that the PDs can claim a link to Sinn Fein, as the were only formed 20 years ago, and your reason of because they split from FF is nonsense, FF didn't split from SF as your trying to imply, Dev resigned from Sinn Fein and only later decided to form a new party a few months later.--] 09:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You are essentially undoing my revisions from just an hour or so ago capitalizing section headers ... and I'm glad you are. I've had a chance to review ] and I now realize these headers must be written in sentence case (except for proper nouns). Do accept my apologies for the trouble. Cheers and happy editing. ] (]) 00:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Sinn Fein, -> Pro-Treaty Sinn Fein -> reforms Cumann na nGael ->(1933 merger with ] and ] to form ] | |||
| :{{rto|PubliusJ}}, you are an honourable person to have 'fessed up. I just assumed that it was an error by one of the many new editors who had piled in. No worries. --] (]) 00:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| -> Anti-Treaty ] (retains the name and party structure) | |||
| -> (Dev Valera Resigns) later forms Fianna Fail (1926- | |||
| -> (breakaway)(1970 Sinn Fein 'Gardiner Place'/'offical' Sinn Fein-> SF - The Workers Party->The Workers Party | |||
| -> (breakaway) IRSP | |||
| -> (breakaway) New Agenda -> Democratic Left->merger with Labour Party | |||
| -> (breakaway 1986) Republican Sinn Fein | |||
| -> (breakaway over the GFA) 199?) 32CSM | |||
| == Talk:Coldrum Long Barrow == | |||
| You seem to have very little understanding of History or the workings of Sinn Fein and its rules and constitution, but if you want to include mythology rather then the true facts then carry on with your own version of history.--] 20:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Many thanks for your well-considered contributions there. I quite accept that "it has been suggested" is an imperfect form of words, and I often find myself trying to reframe passive sentences as active ones. But I think it's a stretch to claim that "passive voice is deprecated". The main reason to reframe sentences is to make them shorter and clearer, not to fulfil some blind grammatical rule. There are still many instances where we need passive voice. Anyway, thanks for caring about language and article quality. --] (]) 21:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I have never said the officals walked out, they were in breach of the constitution by trying to impose a defeated motion on the membership at the Ard Fheis, by their actions they were deemed to be expelled from the party in accordance with the rules and constitution of the party. RSF on the other hand failed to gather enough support to stopped the motion being passed in accordance with the rules and constitution of Sinn Fein, they then refused to accept the ruling of the Ard Fheis and walked out, and because they setup a rival organisation were deemed to have resigned from Sinn Fein. Red because the facts don't suit your own POV and bias against Sinn Fein, that dosen't make your version of what you want to believe true.--] 01:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == FF edit == | |||
| == Re: The euro and the greek drachma == | |||
| There is a discussion relating to those tables I started at ]. Thank you. ] (]) 21:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I did not know this. — <font color="green">]</font> ( <font color="green">]</font> ) 13:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == "Blocking minority" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Blocking minority'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">] <sub>(''']''' / ''']''')</sub></span> 22:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your edit to "Yard"== | |||
| I agree with your recent edits, but not with your edit summary about statute/survey yard. Since the subject seems to interest you, I recommend by a National Geodetic Survey (NGS) geodesist. I would summarize it as the US Constitution giving authority over standards of measure to Congress, and Congress delegating it to the Secretary of Commerce, and more specifically the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST in cooperation with NGS decided back in 1959 to exempt geodetic surveys from the change in the foot and yard, and now they have decided to do away with the exemption at the end of 2022. None of this requires any statutory changes by Congress. ] (]) 18:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{rto|Jc3s5h}}, yes, I understand the context but don't really understand your comment. After some debate, the ] article says (in summary) that any measure that is defined in statute (law) is ''ipso facto'' a statute measure So yes, the survey foot is '''a''' statute measure but not '''the''' statute measure. Back in 1959, Secretary for Commerce (on the advice of NIST and NGS) defined the US foot (and thus yard) to be identially the International Foot: that to me is the real 'statute foot' in the US. At the same time, the Secretary declared that ''The foot unit defined by this equation shall be referred to as the U.S. Survey Foot and it shall continue to be used, for the purpose given herein, until such a time as it becomes desirable and expedient to readjust the basic geodetic survey networks in the United States, after which the ratio of a yard, equal to 0.914 4 meter, shall apply''.<ref>A. V. Astin & H. Arnold Karo, (1959), [http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf ''Refinement of values for the yard and the pound'' {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060821223520/http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf |date=August 21, 2006 }}, Washington DC: National Bureau of Standards, republished on National Geodetic Survey web site and the Federal Register (Doc. 59-5442, Filed, June 30, 1959, 8:45 am)</ref> The moment of 'desirable and expedient' arrives New Year's Eve, 2022. | |||
| :Or have I completely missed the point? You are referring to my changing 'US statute yard' to 'US survey yard', aren't you? --] (]) 20:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Sinn Fein == | |||
| ::I am indeed referring to the change from statute yard to survey yard. The edit summary was "not statute yard, which may be technically true since given in statute, is misleading since statute says that only land surveying is may use it from using the International yard". Although there were some UK statutes that defined a yard, those have not been in force in the US since ]. As far as I know the only US federal statute that defined US customary units was the ], which provided conversion tables between US and metric units, and from which one could infer the definition of the US units. | |||
| ::The requirement that the length of the yard derived from the 1866 relationship 1 meter = 39.37 inches be limited to information based on geodetic surveys was not a statute, it was an announcement in the ''Federal Register'', signed by the directors of the National Bureau of Standards and the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and by the Secretary of Commerce. ] (]) 20:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{rto|Jc3s5h}}, yes, I know about the Mildenhall order (though admit that I had missed the historic relevance of UK statute, the 'inherited law' principle), but doesn't that imply that the article was in error before I changed it, that there has ''never'' been a 'US statute yard'? Are you saying that I made the right change but for the wrong reason? --] (]) 10:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am indeed saying you made the right change for the wrong reason. There was a yard in the US from the Declaration of Independence to the ] which was inherited from the UK. It could have been described a "statute yard", but that phrase would have referred to a UK statue; the actual definition in the US would have been through popular assent, just as today the US does not have any federal statue adopting the Gregorian calendar, so the meaning of phrases such as "March 20, 2020" is through popular assent, not law. | |||
| ::::Beginning in 1866 the yard was defined in law, in terms of the meter (regardless of whether Congress realized that they were defining traditional units in terms of metric units). The operational value was determined by various agencies of the Department of Commerce, and those operational procedures changed from time to time. If I recall correctly, the National Bureau of Standards in 1959 took the view that they didn't need Congressional approval to change the value because the new value was within the bounds implied by the number of significant figures given in the 1866 law. Whether that's what the 1866 Congress really meant is debatable, but the Bureau of Standards got away with it. ] (]) 13:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| The ''Northern Ireland political parties'' is a subcategory of ''Political parties in the United Kingdom''. Therefore '''all''' the political parties of Northern Ireland (and of England, Scotland and Wales, too) are '''also''' political parties in the United Kingdom. | |||
| {{reflist talk}} | |||
| Bye! --] 08:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Thank you for clarification == | ||
| I just wanted to say thank you for the clarification. ] (]) 00:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for regarding me as an expert on the euro. I've been with the euro since the very beginning. I co-authored the proposal to encode the euro sign in Unicode, indeed. It is true that in ], I changed "50c" etc to "50¢" etc. The ], while used in the U.S., is not "a U.S. notation" any more than the ] is "a U.S. notation". "$" can, and does, refer to pesos, dollars, bolivianos, reals, and escudos. The ¥ ] is used for the yen as well as the Chinese yuan. The point is that no country owns these currency signs. As the Misplaced Pages is international, it is certainly the case that "50¢" will be read by everyone as "fifty cents". "50c" on the other hand, reads as "fifty cee" to me. I have, indeed, seen the cent sign used in Ireland, on any number of occasions. There is no reason to proscribe its use or to restrict it to American currency. The cent sign is an abbreviataion for cents and centimes of any kind. It would be nice if you didn't revert it. ] 22:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :{{rto|Henryguide}}, my pleasure. I've been there. --] (]) 17:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm OK with putting a note on the ] page... but where did you want it? ] 18:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Dividend taxation == | ||
| Dear Red King: You repeatedly destroy the "arguments against" in Dividend Tax | |||
| article without discussing your objections on the talk page. If you have a | |||
| specific issue with some statement (e.g. if you find it un-grounded and required | |||
| further sources) you should state this problem specifically (in the talk page | |||
| or even in the article itself requesting clarification). If you feel that | |||
| arguments in favor are more useful than arguments against you should add the | |||
| relevant arguments in favor rather than destroying arguments against. Otherwise | |||
| such actions border on vandalism (though not actually classified as such) and | |||
| will have unfortunate consequences. | |||
| = | |||
| ] deleted it on ] but as usual the ejjit didn't delete it from pages. This crap happens all the time. I have been complaining for months about it but the deletionists are too lazy to bother clearing up the mess they leave when they delete things. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 16:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Red King: you are completely arbitrary and unspecific in your objections. I do | |||
| I've just come across yet another page where the same user deleted an image without cleaning up the mess left. It is getting to be a right pain in the butt having to spend one's time mopping up deletionists' messes. Even worse in that case all the gobshite had to do was contact me about the image and I could have given him all the info he needed. I had downloaded the image long before the current strict rules existed on WP. I had all the info but at the time as it wasn't needed on the file I didn't give type it all into the file. As well as not bothering to remove the image from the page he hadn't bothered to let me know there was a problem with the image. So an important image was lost, a red link left where the image was on the article page, and now I'm going to have to spend my time digging through the thousands of images I have on disk to find it and reload it. AAAGH! No wonder ] has left here in frustration, ] is on the brink of quitting and other top contributors have quit or are quitting. (OK. You may have guessed that I'm in a rather pissed-off mood with WP right now!!! This place does that to me sometimes. lol) :-) ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 20:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| not see what relation your objections have on the text you object to (as | |||
| opposite to just relations to your political philosophy). If you have actual | |||
| reasons please say specifically which statements seem un-grounded and as you say | |||
| political or subjective. ] (]) 19:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :As I told you on your talk page, my attempt to engage with you was met with threats and that consequently I will not waste any more time on you. --] (]) 20:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| == Flavius and the Border Commission == | |||
| I'll ], and assume you looked for, but couldn't find, . -- ] (]). 15:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Re: ]; see policy on ]. Only one side is being indignant as regards the ] policy, RK. If it cuts both ways, why all the denial? The ] never pretended otherwise. Re: ]; I'm working backwards from current census data, assuming all areas had (at least slightly) higher ] populations 80 years ago. ] controlled both ] and ] county councils at ], hence the surprise there among ] when the commission decided the ] just wouldn't be the same without them. As the ] performed far better in ] than the rest of the country, I'm guessing the nationalist majorities (i.e. SF plus IPP) were significant. ] and ] always had large unionist majorities. As far as I can make out, ] and ] are close to even today, so I'm guessing they had unionist majorities back then. | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <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. | |||
| ] 13:27, 11 January 2006 (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.<!-- Template:afd notice --> ] (]) 23:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sinn Fein etc== | |||
| Nice work on ]. A few judicious links would be a good idea I think. It would also then be possible to cut the ] article substantially. | |||
| == ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message == | |||
| On a related point, I've completely re-written the ] article. I was suprised by the general lack of interest most the Irish contributors here had in the project, though. Would you mind having a look? | |||
| <table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> | |||
| Oh, one final thing. I'm considering cutting the History of Ireland into substantially soon, as the length of it really bugs me now that we have a fairly good series of sub articles. | |||
| <tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| ] 13:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| Keep an eye out. ] is up to his old stunt on Irish pages, ie adding in republican spins and propaganda and a pro-IRA slant. Keep an eye out. He seems to get this fixation every so often. Is it linked to moon-phases? lol ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 01:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| </td></tr> | |||
| </table> | |||
| You might be interested in that article, if you haven't seen it already — and possibly also its ] nomination. ;) —] ] 08:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=990307860 --> | |||
| I've raised the issue of that deletion at ]. This really is getting beyond a joke at this stage. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Irish Nationalism == | |||
| Had a look. The 19th C is really not my strong point though. The edit was ok, I modified it a bit though. It advances the view of some historians (EG RF Foster) that the land war was really just a scam invented by greedy farmers and the IRB, which is not my opinion. What does irritate me a bit though is that the article is now unbalanced, with too much information on the land league and home rule period proportional to the rest. To balance some one sided information someone adds you then have to put in more context and the flow of the article (which is supposed to be for people without detailed knowledge)is lost. That's just one of the irritating things about wikipedia though as well as its strength, anyone can come along and write anything that they want. | |||
| ] 14:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, sounds like a good idea to me. Another thing that annoys me is the insertion of lines like, "Parnell was a constitutional politician because he was against the plan of campaign". To understand this you need to know that Parnell worked with the fenains, that the land agitation was actually very violent, that Parnell was blamed for this violence in Britain and in fact sometimes winked at it and you ahve to know hat the plan of campaign was. For anyone who doesn't already know a fair bit about the subject,a line like this is meaningless. For people who do something know about it, it will seem like a simplistic reduction of a complex arguement. Incidentally, for similar stuff (maybe by the same person) see the recent changes to ]. | |||
| ] 18:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Eamon Casey == | |||
| I'm sure. See http://www.1335.com/rome.html, down near the bottom. | |||
| ] 14:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Purpose-Built == | |||
| Red King, thanks for pointing out the word does exist. I had assumed it was written into the article by someone who wasn't a native English speaker, given the context in the sentence. So thanks for pointing it out to me. ] 03:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin help? == | |||
| I can help out on ], thankfully, but here? No...too much responsibility and very little thanks! ]<font style="color:#FF72E3;"><span class="Unicode">▼</span></font>'''<sup>]</sup>'''<font color="#FF0000" size="+1"><span class="Unicode">♥</span></font><sup>''']'''</sup><font color="#5500FF" size="+1">'''<span class="Unicode">♑</span>'''</font> 00:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == provos == | |||
| Hi, Could you help me out on the ] page? Some anonymous user keeps adding information that the IRA was funded and armed by the USSR, the Irish American mob and the Russian mafia. On top of that, he keeps deleting references to the Shankill bomb of 1993. He also keeps adding misleading information on the extent of the IRA's campaign against loyalists adn the British army, Eg, "an expert assasination campaign forced the loyalist to call a ceasfire", as well as mixing up time periods, dates and facts. Thanks, | |||
| ] 12:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Trim Castle== | |||
| I think that phots not bad actually, but do whatever you think best, I'm not committed either way. | |||
| ] 17:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Image Tagging ]== | |||
| <!-- If it says "Editing Template:Image source (section)" at the top, then you are modifying the master copy of this template, and not your user talk page. You should probably go back a page and use the "edit this page" tab at the top instead. --> | |||
| {| align="CENTER" style="background-color:#FFFFFF; border:8px solid #FF0000; padding:5px;" | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| | <center><big>This media may be '''deleted'''.</big> | |||
| </center> | |||
| |} | |||
| Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the ] status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. | |||
| If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{tl|GFDL}} to release it under the ]. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read ], and then use a tag such as {{tlp|fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at ]. See ] for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. | |||
| If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. Thank you. ] 14:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hey, | |||
| A dispute is on which might be of interest to you. You probably have heard of the US periodical, ''The Nation''. It is one of a number of publications that exist or have existed using that name. However some US Wikipedians have decreed that all other publications of that name must be shunted off to a disam page with the US publication given sole custody of ] page, even though neither it nor any other publication with that name is international nor widely known outside each state's border. The confusion this causes can be seen in the fact that people making entries to the Thailand newspaper, the British magazine, the famous 19th century Irish paper, etc usually end up innocently creating links to the US periodical page on ] rather than the obscure disamb page (which is only found by a link at the top of the US article). It is blatently wrong. While most links are for the US publication, that is because most contributors on WP are US and the US publication covers a lot of people mentioned on WP. If the US publication was something like ''Time'' or ''Newsweek'' or ''The Times'' then one could justify it getting the main page. But even many US people have not heard of the US magazine and it is largely unheard of outside the US. Technically the Irish newspaper is more international in noteworthyness — it features in history books in Australia, the US, the UK etc because it was a prominent politically motivated radical newspaper in the 19th century. But IMHO it too does not enough international recognition to justify getting pride of place and ''claiming'' the name for itself. | |||
| The dispute is at ]. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 21:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Flags== | |||
| Yep. See the article's discussion page. ] 02:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Rv Provo page == | |||
| Hi would you mind reverting the ] page for me? My browser keeps losing the end of the article. This arshole keeps writing crap and reverting what everyone else is writing. | |||
| ] 13:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Irish Civil War == | |||
| After our talk on Michael Collins page, I went and changed the ] page accordingly. I also intend to change the Collins and De Valera articles shortly. I've been doing a lot reading on this subject recently and I have to say, the stuff on wikipedia at the moment is basically propaganda for the free state side. I don't thik this is intentional really, its just that the anti-treaty side not only lost the war, but aslo the arguement since 1922 and most Irish people blame Dev for the civil war. The movie has a lot to answer for as well. | |||
| On another subject, I'm preparing to radically re-order the ] article in line with what I said on its discussion page about a month ago. My proposed new order is as follows: | |||
| *Leave the origins section more or less as it is | |||
| *Then a section on the start of the conflict, with more emphasis on the mass movement and passive resistance facets of Sinn Fein and the nationalist movement. The generals strikes, the "Limerick Soviet" and the Sinn Fein loan over 1918-20 involved many more people than the guerrilla war ever did. | |||
| *The opposing forces - The IRA, its strength, it weapons and organisation. - The British forces including Army, Police and auxilliary units. Brief discussion on the nature of the fighting. | |||
| *The Course of the fighting - a chronological narrative account. Maybe this will require a new article as we discussed before. | |||
| *The War in the North - an often forgotten but very bloody and bitter episode that went on well after the truce in the south. Also there are two very good new books about it, "Belfasts Holy War" and "Northern Divisions" about the IRA in 1920s Belfast. | |||
| *Leave propaganda, truce andtreaty sections as they are, suject to checking for facts. | |||
| What do you think? | |||
| In line with this, I'm also planning to expand the IRA and IRA 1922-69 pages with information on strenth, weapons, training, tactics, politics etc. | |||
| One last question, do you think I should provide references on these articles as on the ] page? There it was necessary to stop people stating opinions as facts. I admit it also kept my writing more accurate than it would otherwise have been. | |||
| ] 19:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Hedging my redirect to Hedge (finance) == | |||
| I just did the old "Redirect and paste all the old article into the new article" style of merger. I think the technique is correct, but the article is still a mess. | |||
| May I ask that you do some free and heavy editing on ]. | |||
| Otherwise I'll do some, but my views of the subject may be quite radical. ] 13:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Euro Notes == | |||
| Hi Red King. You were right, I added the paragraph about the Euro note designs because I didn't realised it was moved. I'm satisfied with the your change, thanks for your comment ] 18:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Nakis g | |||
| == Irish Republic == | |||
| >The problem with translating "Príomh Aire" as "Prime Minister" is that it implies "the first Minister to the Head of State - specifically to the King. But there was no King. In this context, the translation is not correct. | |||
| Good point! Boy, language is treacherous! I think we can safely say that the guys who set up the Irish Republic were not too bothered by the niceties. | |||
| ] 11:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hiya, | |||
| re the reversion. Blame the dreaded Irish broadband. I tried to edit the page rather than revert but the link kept going down. I then saved an explanation (twice) onto the talk page but the link kept going down also. I thought the last save got through but obviously it didn't. I was working on other things and didn't check. That dreaded Irish broadband ripwave is a complete heap of shite. If a fly farts with 100 yards the link goes!!! It is driving me mad. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 15:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Continuous casting == | |||
| Hi, thanks for the comment! Sorry for taking so long to respond - I only just realised my account had that 'instant-message' feature (i.e., 10 min ago). Re the changes you discussed: yes you can go ahead with them, as I'm not sure how to. Cheers, ] 12:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==The Emergency== | |||
| Hi, I'm all for using Eire to denote the pre-republican 26-county state in Ireland, especially as that is what people used at the time. However, in English, it seems to have been used without the accent at the time (and is used as such in Girvin's book). This means, I suppose, that it is being treated as an imported word rather than a foreign word- it was probably an arrangement that suited everyone as it did not prejudice the status of Northern Ireland either way. I think it is best used without the accent as that is how it was used at the time in English, but some people seem to get very excited about this sort of thing (but not as much as about the spelling of aluminium), so I thought it best to check with you before making a change as you may know more than me. ] 18:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, thanks for your message. You are right that it is not worth picking up. However, I have seen Irish (English language) newspapers from the 1940's which didn't put in any sort of accents for Irish-language words. Makes more sense to me- what is the point of putting in marks that will not be used? But that is a rhetorical question- I think it would be better all round if people stopped getting so excited about spelling and concentrated more on content. ] 08:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I suspect the lack of accent was rather more than a matter of typesetting, rather it was a more robust age: accents are meaningless in English, and ''hotel'' and ''emigre'', for example, seem to do very well without them. But whatever, I really can't get excited about such things. One substantive thing though: the use of Eire was not just a British thing- it was used by the Irish newspapers in the same sense. I have cut down the passage in the article on this- it does not really have anything to do with the Emergency, and it was taking it over a bit. ] 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===IRA=== | |||
| Thanks very much for the warning. The discussion is all a bit theological for my taste: being a plain man, to me it seems obvious that the first Irish Republic came about in 1949, and if there are no other competing organisations, if a group calls themselves the IRA, then that is what they are called; however, I have no interest in arguing these points so I've rephrased the relevant bit- see what you think. BTW, I heartily recommend Girvin's book. ] 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Re. republic: don't worry, it's a private view to be used in conversation only. ] 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==British Isles== | |||
| Hey, you have unbalanced the paragraph in the ] page. Have you not being reading talk! The paragraph deals with the history, not 2006. -] 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, my connection logged out and I hadn't noticed, but I won't log in now. The debate on that page made the newspapers and I have been watching it since reading about on the Irish Times. And basically it was about little/big sentences and reverts etc. If you cannot see the problem with the edit, so be it. I am not going to edit it again anyway. BTW, that was a 2 nations theory edit I reverted. -] 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reply from cities in Ireland message== | |||
| Hey, just like to say that all of my arguments on that article went back to sources. Maybe my careful reading of the Local Government Act 2001 sounded like interpretation, I don't know. You'll note that sources were pretty thin on the ground for the opposing view point though. | |||
| I hate being forced into this position where people can say, "Ah but both of you are as crazy as the other, sure haven't you both invested equal time arguing about it?" But bear in mind, that a disingenuous editor will bring others down to his level, until all editors look equally zealous. Where I have been zealous, it is only in having the majority decide, and not one man's belligerence. I don't think one man should have his way just because he repeats himself again and again and disparages other editors. Now, fair enough, you'll just see this as one side of the story, it's just that one or two comments irked me in your message so I said I'd clarify my position. I was genuinely trying my best to back up everything and to submit to the majority view, and I think almost any article with a note of city status, will need to provide *some* analysis, because the term is not written down anywhere. | |||
| My comments on the present article are on the talk page. Summarised: I am happy enough. :) ] 08:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You seemed to imply that I was using original material, and that kind of bugged me, because all I was trying to do was figure out what the Local Government Act was trying to say. I think when a document only tells you what you want to know in an oblique way, and not in a one sentence quote, it is very difficult to present the facts in such a way that doesn't at least look like original analysis. Having said that, I was only slightly irked, and I do appreciate your comments. :) Thanks for the post dispute exchange. :) ] ] 13:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Civil War etc == | |||
| Do I sense a touch of antagonism here? It's not that I'm advocating the anti-treaty side, but only trying to explain their position. Whether we think the pro-treaty side were right or not is not important, we are not here to argue their case, but only to represent what happened. | |||
| Re the "National Army" issue. This is not as clear cut as it might seem from the perspective of the present. In September 1922, the Free State Government issued directives to the press that the government's armed forces were to be referred to the "National Army" and the other side were to be referred to, not as the "IRA", or "Republicans", or any kind of army, but as "irregulars". | |||
| This might seem like a mere dispute over words, but the denial of the combatant status of the anti-treaty fighters meant that the pro-treaty side were free to execute them as criminals. Which of course, they subsequently did -in the case of Erskine Childers and many others for being captured with arms and ammunition. In the case of Mellows, O'Connor, McKelvey and Barret, purely in revenge for the assassination of Sean Hales. So to exclusivley use the terms National Army and irregulars is itself pov. I would suggest that the npov terms are Free State Army and Anti-Treaty IRA respectively. | |||
| ] 13:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It was the book by Griffith in which he outlined how Hungary forced the creation of a dual monarchy in Austria, through in effect a policy of absenteeism and setting up their own institutions. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Mal seems intent on breaching 3RR over and over on ]. Could you revert him? I'm going to make a report. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 22:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re : Open Europe == | |||
| Done. Next time, just tag the article with {{tl|deleteagain}}. - ''Cheers'', ] 15:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Open Europe== | |||
| Red King - did you keep on asking for open europe to be deleted just because you disagree with their views? I don't think it warranted deletion. | |||
| ] | |||
| == Rockall revert == | |||
| While I acknowledge the revert you carried out on the ] article, I was wondering as to your justification for removing the geolinks template at the bottom of the page also. The geolinks does not in fact degrade from the article, and the addition of a co-ordinate in the page header is, in my opinion, useful to say the least. Please do not use words such as 'juvenile' in edit summaries and ], someone less mild mannered could even take exception to such. ] 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Au contraire, my good man. I acknowledge the revert. It was not a childish attempt to assert UK ownership over this rocky islet (although this is the case at the moment). The geolinks was a separate edit I made, a few minutes later than the original edit. I will add this edit again, for it adds the co-ordinates of Rockall in the header, and I respect your wishes to revert the addition of GB to the Rockall co-ordinates. With your permission, I will re-add the co-ordinates to the geolink into the template, thus enabling the co-ordinates to be seen in the header, as described above, and as seen in the edit previous. Although my edits were made in quick succession, they were not in bad faith, I never make an edit that would detract from the impeccability of Misplaced Pages's nature. Kind regards. ] | ] 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Furthermore, my edit to your talkpage may make little sense, but I'm sure you'll get the general idea :) This is because I've just got back from the pub, and are unable to put this into a proper ]. I'm sure you'll understand it sufficiently though! Lesh gagh yeearree vie. ] | ] 01:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Northern Ireland mediation== | |||
| A ] has been filed with the ]. It doesn't list you as a party, but you may wish to add yourself. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish, add you name and indicate that you agree to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to ]. '''There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.''' --] (or Hrothulf) (]) 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==British Isles History== | |||
| Hi, I tried to take up your challenge on the history of the British Isles. I am afraid, I failed to make it shorter, but I have tried to focus it on events that do not fit snugly in national articles. I would appreciate in any comments you might have, even if you think the attempt was a failure. ] 22:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==irish-struct-stub== | |||
| Hi, thought you should know that this stub type has been nominated for deletion/renaming at ]. The stub type was never officially debated prior to its creation, and because of that was misnamed when it was made. A properly named ireland-struct-stub has since been proposed, so it is most likely that this version will be deleted and replaced with the new type when that is created. Please note in future that all new stub templates and categories should be proposed for debate one week prior to creation at ]. ]...''<small><font color="#008822">]</font></small>'' 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Historical reference to City of Derry/Londonderry == | |||
| Hi, sorry to drop this message onto your page but I'm trying to invoke a discussion on the WP:IMOS page as to what to use for the historical references to the city of Derry/Londonderry. I am trying to obtain a non-POV neutral discussion over what terminology to use for this or whether the IMOS as it stands should indeed cover this. Since you have been involved in discussions over Derry or County Londonderry and the likes in the past I thought you may like to get involved in the discussion. See ] to get involved. Thank you for your time. ] ] 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Euro coins icons == | |||
| Hi. I am aware you removed my link to the Euro coins icons for WindowsXP. I had added it to external links afrter a discussion with another Wikipedian admin. He agreed it was NOT spam, since the icons are free and they are related to the subject. If you have any concerns, I would like to sdiscuss them with you. I get no money from the site where icons are available and no ads or commercial banner is available there. Just free resources that I create and share as a contribute to the web. Several people asked me for euro coin icons, and I spent some time to make them so that they are good on any background. Thank you in advance for understanding.--] 15:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Northern Ireland == | |||
| I have reverted the flag / arms descriptions to the previous stable version (from a sample of previous versions), hopefully this is suitable. Thanks/] 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Template talk:IRAs == | |||
| Hi User:Red King, I noticed that you were involved in the last discussion at ], and I'd like to discuss a few changes I'd like to make. When I started last, someone reverted me, so I'd really like some other folks' input. I'd appreciate your thoughts at ]. ]<b>]</b> | |||
| ==Description/Descriptions== | |||
| Why does a minor correction need discussion? (] 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| Red you said: ''The change you made is not a minor one. It implies that the description "Republic of Ireland" is incidental - that it is just one of many, with the same status as (say) "Emerald Isle".'' | |||
| Not so. I reckon the RoI is one of just TWO arguably 'official' descriptions (RoI and Ireland). But two is plural. (] 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| Thanks for the tip-off Red - but I already have it covered!! Only 30 more days to go now.....(] 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I would like to know why ] insists in put back the old PNG file of the COA, since the SVG one is exactly the same, appart from the brownish color (which, in my opinion, is not the correct one). I think that it is almost vandalism, since he reverts the editions without reasonable arguments. If there is any problem in the SVG file, it can be corrected, instead of put back the PNG file. --] 14:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi there, Red King. Actually, for the strings, it's supposed to be silver, according to ]; in the link you gave () seems to be so, indeed. In fact, each of the sites you found seems to use different versions of the harp, don't they? I used CMYK colors in order to be less "high" compared to RGB colors, and really think Brian Boru should be yellowish instead of the brownish one of the PNG version. Anyway, I'm going to try to find the pantones -- If you could help me, I'd appreciate. = ) Thanks for your tips, pal! --] 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==No Personal Attacks Please== | |||
| I should like to remind you of ], which you violated on your RV summary of ] edit regarding my earlier edit. ] 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * o_O - since when has using the word ] become a "personal attack"?? - ]<sup>]</sup> 12:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*'''Comment'''--any personal attacks against me, from this on, whatever the nature, will be met with a robust response, and that especially applies to ] too. You have been warned! ] 13:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ireland Flags== | |||
| I only voted "disagree" because I was simply answering the question as it was presented. Simply removing the flags would not place the article in the position that I think it should be. Re-state the question, then I will change my vote ( to an unqualified one). I will even help in the reformatting of the article.] 22:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:22, 24 November 2020
Archives
Red King Archive 1; Red King Archive 2; Red King Archive 3; Red King Archive 4;Red King Archive 5;Red King Archive 6;
S.S. Argenta Image later HMS Argenta
Red King, are you able to assist me in adding an image to HMS Argenta? I was sent the image but am having trouble establishing its origin. It is clearly the correct ship. How would I upload it for your review and hopefully admission to the article?
This link shows the image: http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=16637.0
Jmont1 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 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/Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Scolaire (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Red King. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Merger discussion for United States of Europe
An article that you have been involved in editing—United States of Europe—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Oldag07 (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Red King. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Red King. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roads in Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belleek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Casting (metalworking) rollback
I removed a reference to Newtons being used to describe pressure here. You rolled back my edit saying "pressure is a force and is measured in Newtons". This is not correct.
Pressure is a distinct entity in physics, defined as the force per unit area. The SI unit is one Newton per square meter, called the Pascal.
Specifically in the context of centrifugal casting, where you made your rollback, describing the situation in terms of a force does not make physical sense. Appropriate units would either be a pressure or an acceleration. BetatronRadiation (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Map of Ulster: colours
I think the colours on File:Ulster counties.svg are appropriate. They are not orange and green but pink and green: pink is the conventional colour for showing the United Kingdom (and the British Empire) on maps. You are of course free to produce a version with a similar name and with whatever colour combination you wish.Hogweard (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Red King I was thinking this hyperlink may be a good addition on the above issue Map of Ulster Colours ] I edited this page ] and it was undone and described as vandalism. My idea was to explain the reason for the historic map convention of Pink for the commonwealth. No rush at all to reply, I'm on a go slow study/phase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- A better alternative source link I wanted a source to show it was a solution from the publishers to make the make easier to read. Sorry I see I'm trying to run again. Should I drop this or is it a good idea, explaining the pink colouring convention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- {{rto|Eimhin de Róiste]], I can't think of any reason to get into such detail in any article on Misplaced Pages unless it were one about the map itself. Yes, drop it. --Red King (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- A better alternative source link I wanted a source to show it was a solution from the publishers to make the make easier to read. Sorry I see I'm trying to run again. Should I drop this or is it a good idea, explaining the pink colouring convention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
'Irish backstop' contains copyvio
On Irish_backstop, Earwig's Copyvio Detector, on September 9, 2019, shows ″Violation Possible 41.9%″.
- https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-negotiator-idUKKCN1PO2IE - 41.9%. So needs to quickly rephrase or article may be deleted (see WP:COPYVIO). I am not admin, just writing there and noticed. Who is interested in the article may try to rephrase while some admin have not deleted it. I put notice about copyvio also on Talk:Irish backstop. PoetVeches (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Disambiguation link notification for November 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Budget of the European Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EU 27 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Come Out, Ye Black and Tans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish independence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Éire
Hello Red King thank you for your interest in my edit which was to make the first usage Éire on the page "Names of the Irish state. I linked to the wiki page explaining the term Éire could you please explain why you undid my edit. Many thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Eimhin de Róiste:, First, apologies for not leaving an edit note, but the mobile interface doesn't allow it for reverts. My reason is that I fail to see any logic in piping Éire, the name of the state, to s side issue about the word Erin. It is interesting but barely relevant in the context of the names of the state. Yes , I can see that some text about the name Erin might be useful but, per wp:egg, it should be overt not covert. Does that make sense? --Red King (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, and thanks for querying it like this rather than counter-reverting blindly. --Red King (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Red King, sorry to clarify are we talking about this page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Names_of_the_Irish_state&action=edit§ion=1 with this link to here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Éire? I made a few edits today. I thought we were talking about the name of the state and the first reference to one of the constitutional names of the state Éire had no actual link explaining the name so I linked to the wiki that explains that. I'm confused by your references to Erin have I made a mistake I'm not sure what Erin is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Eimhin de Róiste:, first, yes it should have been linked but – perhaps it was an error – you linked to Éire#Difference between Éire and Erin, that was why I reverted. Is that it? --Red King (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Ooops yeah that was what I was trying to do, I put in the wrong link, so sorry, thanks so much for helping me out. If you don't mind I'll put in the link to the actual Éire page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Éire OMG such a shocking error, Thanks so much for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- No worries, we've all had such a moment. Anyway, no need, I have already done it. --Red King (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
European Union MOS:CAPS
You are essentially undoing my revisions from just an hour or so ago capitalizing section headers ... and I'm glad you are. I've had a chance to review MOS:CAPS and I now realize these headers must be written in sentence case (except for proper nouns). Do accept my apologies for the trouble. Cheers and happy editing. PubliusJ (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @PubliusJ:, you are an honourable person to have 'fessed up. I just assumed that it was an error by one of the many new editors who had piled in. No worries. --Red King (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Coldrum Long Barrow
Many thanks for your well-considered contributions there. I quite accept that "it has been suggested" is an imperfect form of words, and I often find myself trying to reframe passive sentences as active ones. But I think it's a stretch to claim that "passive voice is deprecated". The main reason to reframe sentences is to make them shorter and clearer, not to fulfil some blind grammatical rule. There are still many instances where we need passive voice. Anyway, thanks for caring about language and article quality. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
FF edit
There is a discussion relating to those tables I started at Talk:Sinn Féin#First preference votes. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
"Blocking minority" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Blocking minority. Since you had some involvement with the Blocking minority redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Your edit to "Yard"
I agree with your recent edits, but not with your edit summary about statute/survey yard. Since the subject seems to interest you, I recommend this webinar by a National Geodetic Survey (NGS) geodesist. I would summarize it as the US Constitution giving authority over standards of measure to Congress, and Congress delegating it to the Secretary of Commerce, and more specifically the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST in cooperation with NGS decided back in 1959 to exempt geodetic surveys from the change in the foot and yard, and now they have decided to do away with the exemption at the end of 2022. None of this requires any statutory changes by Congress. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Jc3s5h:, yes, I understand the context but don't really understand your comment. After some debate, the statute measure article says (in summary) that any measure that is defined in statute (law) is ipso facto a statute measure So yes, the survey foot is a statute measure but not the statute measure. Back in 1959, Secretary for Commerce (on the advice of NIST and NGS) defined the US foot (and thus yard) to be identially the International Foot: that to me is the real 'statute foot' in the US. At the same time, the Secretary declared that The foot unit defined by this equation shall be referred to as the U.S. Survey Foot and it shall continue to be used, for the purpose given herein, until such a time as it becomes desirable and expedient to readjust the basic geodetic survey networks in the United States, after which the ratio of a yard, equal to 0.914 4 meter, shall apply. The moment of 'desirable and expedient' arrives New Year's Eve, 2022.
- Or have I completely missed the point? You are referring to my changing 'US statute yard' to 'US survey yard', aren't you? --Red King (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am indeed referring to the change from statute yard to survey yard. The edit summary was "not statute yard, which may be technically true since given in statute, is misleading since statute says that only land surveying is may use it from using the International yard". Although there were some UK statutes that defined a yard, those have not been in force in the US since Mendenhall Order. As far as I know the only US federal statute that defined US customary units was the Metric Act of 1866, which provided conversion tables between US and metric units, and from which one could infer the definition of the US units.
- The requirement that the length of the yard derived from the 1866 relationship 1 meter = 39.37 inches be limited to information based on geodetic surveys was not a statute, it was an announcement in the Federal Register, signed by the directors of the National Bureau of Standards and the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and by the Secretary of Commerce. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Jc3s5h:, yes, I know about the Mildenhall order (though admit that I had missed the historic relevance of UK statute, the 'inherited law' principle), but doesn't that imply that the article was in error before I changed it, that there has never been a 'US statute yard'? Are you saying that I made the right change but for the wrong reason? --Red King (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am indeed saying you made the right change for the wrong reason. There was a yard in the US from the Declaration of Independence to the Metric Act of 1866 which was inherited from the UK. It could have been described a "statute yard", but that phrase would have referred to a UK statue; the actual definition in the US would have been through popular assent, just as today the US does not have any federal statue adopting the Gregorian calendar, so the meaning of phrases such as "March 20, 2020" is through popular assent, not law.
- Beginning in 1866 the yard was defined in law, in terms of the meter (regardless of whether Congress realized that they were defining traditional units in terms of metric units). The operational value was determined by various agencies of the Department of Commerce, and those operational procedures changed from time to time. If I recall correctly, the National Bureau of Standards in 1959 took the view that they didn't need Congressional approval to change the value because the new value was within the bounds implied by the number of significant figures given in the 1866 law. Whether that's what the 1866 Congress really meant is debatable, but the Bureau of Standards got away with it. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Jc3s5h:, yes, I know about the Mildenhall order (though admit that I had missed the historic relevance of UK statute, the 'inherited law' principle), but doesn't that imply that the article was in error before I changed it, that there has never been a 'US statute yard'? Are you saying that I made the right change but for the wrong reason? --Red King (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
References
- A. V. Astin & H. Arnold Karo, (1959), Refinement of values for the yard and the pound [https://web.archive.org/web/20060821223520/http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf Archived August 21, 2006, at the Wayback Machine, Washington DC: National Bureau of Standards, republished on National Geodetic Survey web site and the Federal Register (Doc. 59-5442, Filed, June 30, 1959, 8:45 am)
Thank you for clarification
I just wanted to say thank you for the clarification. Henryguide (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Henryguide:, my pleasure. I've been there. --Red King (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Dividend taxation
Dear Red King: You repeatedly destroy the "arguments against" in Dividend Tax article without discussing your objections on the talk page. If you have a specific issue with some statement (e.g. if you find it un-grounded and required further sources) you should state this problem specifically (in the talk page or even in the article itself requesting clarification). If you feel that arguments in favor are more useful than arguments against you should add the relevant arguments in favor rather than destroying arguments against. Otherwise such actions border on vandalism (though not actually classified as such) and will have unfortunate consequences.
=
Red King: you are completely arbitrary and unspecific in your objections. I do not see what relation your objections have on the text you object to (as opposite to just relations to your political philosophy). If you have actual reasons please say specifically which statements seem un-grounded and as you say political or subjective. 108.26.227.246 (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- As I told you on your talk page, my attempt to engage with you was met with threats and that consequently I will not waste any more time on you. --Red King (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
FYI
I'll AGF, and assume you looked for, but couldn't find, this. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Attendance allowance for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Attendance allowance 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/Attendance allowance 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. jamacfarlane (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |