User talk:Red King/Archive 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 2006
[edit] The cent sign and the euro
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 Euro#Trivia concerning the coins, I changed "50c" etc to "50¢" etc. The cent sign, while used in the U.S., is not "a U.S. notation" any more than the dollar sign is "a U.S. notation". "$" can, and does, refer to pesos, dollars, bolivianos, reals, and escudos. The ¥ yen sign is used for the yen as well as the Chinese yuan. The point is that no country owns these currency signs. As the Wikipedia 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. Evertype 22:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm OK with putting a note on the Talk:Euro page... but where did you want it? Evertype 18:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re Trim Castle
User:JesseW deleted it on 10 December 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. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 16:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
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 User:Proteus has left here in frustration, User:Mackensen 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) :-) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flavius and the Border Commission
Re: Operation Flavius; see policy on words to avoid. Only one side is being indignant as regards the shoot-to-kill policy, RK. If it cuts both ways, why all the denial? The Provos never pretended otherwise. Re: Irish Boundary Commission; I'm working backwards from current census data, assuming all areas had (at least slightly) higher unionist populations 80 years ago. Sinn Féin controlled both Tyrone and Fermanagh county councils at partition, hence the surprise there among nationalists when the commission decided the United Kingdom just wouldn't be the same without them. As the Irish Parliamentary Party performed far better in Ulster than the rest of the country, I'm guessing the nationalist majorities (i.e. SF plus IPP) were significant. Antrim and Down always had large unionist majorities. As far as I can make out, Derry and Armagh are close to even today, so I'm guessing they had unionist majorities back then.
Lapsed Pacifist 13:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sinn Fein etc
Nice work on Sinn Fein 1905-1921. A few judicious links would be a good idea I think. It would also then be possible to cut the Sinn Fein article substantially.
On a related point, I've completely re-written the Irish nationalism 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?
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. Jdorney 13:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep an eye out. User:Ruy Lopez 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 FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] €2 commemorative coins
You might be interested in that article, if you haven't seen it already — and possibly also its WP:FAC nomination. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 08:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I've raised the issue of that deletion at [deletions talk]. This really is getting beyond a joke at this stage. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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. Jdorney 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 History of Ireland (1801-1922). Jdorney 18:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eamon Casey
I'm sure. See http://www.1335.com/rome.html, down near the bottom.
Lapsed Pacifist 14:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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. JACooks 03:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Admin help?
I can help out on commons:, thankfully, but here? No...too much responsibility and very little thanks! ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 00:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] provos
Hi, Could you help me out on the Provisional IRA 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, Jdorney 12:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trim Castle
I think that phots not bad actually, but do whatever you think best, I'm not committed either way. Jdorney 17:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging Image:CaprixTermini.JPG
 |
|
Thanks for uploading Image:CaprixTermini.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright 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 Wikipedia (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 {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags 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 "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia 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 criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 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 The Nation 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 The Nation 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 Talk:The Nation. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flags
Yep. See the article's discussion page. Guinnog 02:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rv Provo page
Hi would you mind reverting the Provisional IRA page for me? My browser keeps losing the end of the article. This arshole keeps writing crap and reverting what everyone else is writing. Jdorney 13:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Irish Civil War
After our talk on Michael Collins page, I went and changed the Irish civil war 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 Irish War of Independence 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 Provisional IRA 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. Jdorney 19:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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 Hedge (finance). Otherwise I'll do some, but my views of the subject may be quite radical. Smallbones 13:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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 Nakis 18:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Nakis g
[edit] 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. Scolaire 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. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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, Sentinel75 12:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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. MAG1 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. MAG1 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. MAG1 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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. MAG1 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Re. republic: don't worry, it's a private view to be used in conversation only. MAG1 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] British Isles
Hey, you have unbalanced the paragraph in the British Isles page. Have you not being reading talk! The paragraph deals with the history, not 2006. -86.42.134.177 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. -86.42.134.177 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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. :) merlante 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. :) merlante Merlante 13:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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.
Jdorney 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. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Mal seems intent on breaching 3RR over and over on Northern Ireland. Could you revert him? I'm going to make a report. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re : Open Europe
Done. Next time, just tag the article with {{deleteagain}}. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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.
[edit] Rockall revert
While I acknowledge the revert you carried out on the Rockall 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 Assume Good Faith, someone less mild mannered could even take exception to such. M0RHI 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 Wikipedia's nature. Kind regards. M0RHI | Talk to me 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 Wikipedia format. I'm sure you'll understand it sufficiently though! Lesh gagh yeearree vie. M0RHI | Talk to me 01:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Northern Ireland mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee. It doesn't list you as a party, but you may wish to add yourself. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland and, if you wish, add you name and indicate that you agree to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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. MAG1 22:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] irish-struct-stub
Hi, thought you should know that this stub type has been nominated for deletion/renaming at WP:SFD. 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 WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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 the appropriate talk to get involved. Thank you for your time. Ben W Bell talk 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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.--Dejudicibus 15:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
