User talk:Ras52

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page. For ease of reading, if you leave a message here I'll reply here unless you request otherwise. If I leave a message on your page I'll be watching it for a while, so feel free to reply there, and not here. Please include a link to the article in question, and sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~).


Contents

[edit] Marilyns

Thank you very much for your persistent work on tabulating the Marilyn pages - a tedious job I know, and nicely done. Congratulations on the time and effort! --Mark J 19:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Munro maps

Thanks for your comments about my maps. I've been asked about them before, so I'll paste something about them on the talk page. Remind me if you don't see it in a day or so. Thruston 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject British hills

Hi, I've just created Wikipedia:WikiProject British hills and thought you might be interested in joining. Cheers, Blisco 23:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beinn Tarsuinn

[1]: Yes, that was a typo. Thanks for fixing it. --Stemonitis 11:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geograph

Thanks for uploading some Geographs to Commons (including one of mine!) -- it's always nice to see the project being put to good use. I don't know if you've discovered this, but it's a good idea to tag Geograph images with {{Geograph}}, in the form {{Geograph|number|photographer}} (the number can be found in the URL). This provides a standardised link to the project and also adds the image to Category:Geograph images, making it possible to track usage.

On an unrelated matter, have you thought of creating a user page? If you'd rather remain in the shadows you could always redirect it to your talk page, but if nothing else it would be nice not to be faced with the edit page when clicking on your sig. --Blisco 22:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the {{Geograph}} template. I'll make sure I use that in the future, and I'll try to go back and convert the ones I've already uploaded. And I've finally got around to creating a user page — I've been meaning to for ages, but never seem to have got around to it before. — ras52 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I wondered if your user name betrayed a Cambridge origin. Straying further off-topic, I like your BIhills userbox - could you convert it to a template? Maybe Template:User BIhills. I'd have a go but I guess it's not desirable to nest {{userbox}} inside another template, and I wouldn't know how else to do it. --Blisco 19:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NI flag

I agree in your comments about a page on hills being the completely wrong pace for political discusssion surrounding flags! However, note that this has also been happening on other pages such as List of British flags, Template:United_Kingdom_regions, Template:British_Isles, Template:Irish states since 1711 and Template:UKFlags - some have also been protected because of recent reverts. I have even also been warned by administrators on such pages for not discussing the issues on the talk pages on each article, despite the fact that padraig3uk et al simply regurgitating the same rhetoric as on Talk:Northern Ireland. I think it would be helpful as an outsider if you could also make a similar comment on these articles. 20:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:United_Kingdom_regions and Template:British_Isles are the only two of these that my argument really applies to, and it seems that these have settled down to using the Ulster Banner again. If the argument flares up again, drop me a message and I'll suggest converting them to use {{flagicon}}. — ras52 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The Ulster Banner is not the Falg of Northern Ireland, and it shouldn't be used in templates, unless dealing with the period 1921-72.--padraig3uk 08:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't issue 3RR warnings when you are involved in the same content dispute, and I'am removing POV and mis-information.--padraig3uk 11:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The Union Flag is the official flag for the area, not the Ulster Banner which represents one section of the population and has no offical status.--padraig3uk 16:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop adding an un-official flag to templates, it dosen't represent Northern Ireland.--padraig3uk 21:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. I'm using the non-POV {{flagicon}} template. If you don't like what that does, take it up on Template:Country data Northern Ireland. — ras52 21:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The {{flagicon}} template should only be used on sports templates for people representing northern Ireland in the commonwealth games etc, it shouldn't be used in templates that are political or geographical. I would be careful with your comments in the edit summaries are that could be regarded as a personal attack on a editor.--padraig3uk 22:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That's utter crap. Where on Template:flagicon does it say that the template should only be used on sports templates? — ras52 22:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That is not a neutral template. That is not the flag of Northern Ireland and therefore should not be used as such. This issue has been covered in Talk:Northern Ireland - feel free to contribute there. regards. Vintagekits 09:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The template is neutral; it is what the template expands to that is not neutral. The point of the {{flagicon}} template is that it provides a uniform use for everyone who wants to add a suitable image to pages. I'm not in the least attached to the Ulster Banner; indeed, you'll see I've suggested elsewhere that other images (such as the map currently on the NI article) might be appropriate. But I do feel that this should all happen within the flagicon template — i.e. the country data template should be altered.
Elsewhere in Wikipedia, I make occasional edits to a list of islands by highest point. As is usual in Wikipedia, this list contains flags next to the names of the country/countries that cover the island. That means well over a hundred different flags. Now I'm sure some of these flags have local connotations that are POV (for example, some Argentinians may dislike the Union Flag-based Falklands flag being displayed by the Falklands). My point is that I shouldn't need to worry about these issues. I should be able to use the flagicon template (or equivalently the three-letter {{XYZ}} form) and trust that to do the right thing. If you convert those templates not to display an flag for Northern Ireland, I won't object, especially if some neutral image can be found instead of a flag — in fact, I'll probably support such a proposal. What I will continue to object to, is altering a uses of these templates, which are not per se anything but neutral. — ras52 09:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Ras, that is incorrect - the flag you are inputting ceased to be the Flag of Northern Ireland in the 1970's. Please read Northern Ireland flag issue, Flag of Northern Ireland and their talk pages for further detail. regards.--Vintagekits 10:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What did I say that is incorrect? I have never claimed anything about the merits of the Ulster Banner versus another flag (or no flag or another image or icon). I'm claiming that using the flagicon template is neutral, and that any problem lie with the definition of that template. Fix the template by all means, but don't "fix" the uses of it because they don't need fixing. — ras52 10:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hewitts and Nuttalls in England

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, List of Hewitts and Nuttalls in England, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on April 21 where you can improve it if you see fit. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 26 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Hewitts and Nuttalls in England, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 05:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit flag

I Just checked 'my preferences' and it was turned on by default, I have unselected the option.--padraig3uk 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of Marilyns Mediation Cabal

Consider yourself summoned † DBD 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kinnoull Hill

Just looking for clarification on why, as you stated, the above isn't a Marilyn. Its height is referenced here. - Dudesleeper · Talk 03:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not about it's height; it's about it's topographical prominence which is the minimum reascent needed to reach higher ground. I don't know it's precise prominence, but from a brief look at a map, it appears to be a little less than 100 m — to be a Marilyn, it needs to be at least 150 m. The complete list of known Marilyns in the British Isles is published in several books and websites, and, although there may be the odd change where a 140-something m is resurveyed at over 150 m or vice versa, the list is quite stable and there is also a list of near misses which does not mention it. Within the last month, a provisional list of British hills down to 100 m of prominence has been created (I can't link to it, as I'm only aware of password-protected copies at present — sorry!) and that doesn't list it either, so I think it's pretty certain that Kinnoull Hill is not a Marilyn. — ras52 10:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templating my talk page

The trouble with usig templates, is they are mostly crap. It is generally better to not use them when talking to experienced editors. Anyway, I've replied to you on my talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, now I've got to ask you, what are you talking about? It's several months since I've used a template ({{tl}} aside) on anyone's talk page; certainly I didn't just now on yours. — ras52 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You wrote that out by hand? Well I never! I assumed it was a template because it kinda read like one. Sorry I inferred it was a crap message. (takes foot out of mouth) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologise. This discussion did start with me misinterpreting your edit, after all ;-) — ras52 23:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your request at Medcab for UK subdivisions

I think you should consider going for more formal mediation, as you have already requested informal mediation and the edit warring continues. This is a highly emotional subject, and perhaps a more formal process might help more. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. How do you suggest I proceed? Is a formal mediation request appropriate as this isn't really a content dispute? The aim… my aim is to move all of the individual identical arguments on the N. Irish flag to one place where they can be properly discussed and won't cause disruption for everyone, as this has been going on for months, and is in danger of being "won" by the side that shouts the loudest and longest, irrespective of merit. (That isn't to say their argument isn't right: I have no real opinion on that. I just want to see the underlying question on flags settled by consensus rather than bloodymindedness.) Any suggestions? — ras52 19:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd be willing to take this case but Cerejota is right - you might want to look for some more formal remedies given the continued edit warring over this problem. Technically you do still have a content dispute so formal mediation request might be an applicable step. If nothing else, the resolution offered by a formal mediation might help to ensure that all participants work toward a central discussion on the topic, or at the very least, to abide by the outcome of more centralised discussions. I'm holding this case open in case you want to go forward with it, let me know if you still want to or if you intend to try some other dispute resolution. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK subdivisions

Why have you reverted this again, to what you claim is a neutral position, a neutral position in this case is to remove all the flagicons bar the Union Flag in the title, which covers all the sub-nations, this is what has been done on other templates. As for the dispute these are caused by one editor pushing his POV on this issue who fails to accept the facts on this issue.--padraig 20:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think anyone even Astrotrain would say that the Ulster banner is a neutral symbol. It has been discussed extensively and there is non consensus to use it, therefore it shouldnt be used.--Vintagekits 20:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Just go Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland and resolve the question there. Stop annoying everyone else by repeating the same argument everywhere. That's what the mediator in the last case told you to do. Frankly, I don't care whether you get your way, or Astrotrain gets his. And I have never claimed the Ulster Banner is a neutral symbol — it's patently obvious that it's not. I said that using {{flagicon}} is neutral, and if what it does is not neutral, that is a bug in it that should be addressed, which is what I'm encouraging you all to do. — ras52 20:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You shouldnt have readded it to the template if you knew it wasnt a neutral or appropriate symbol!--Vintagekits 20:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, I just want you to all piss off and take your argument with you. Is that clear enough? — ras52 20:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I am sure you are aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, if you are going to make unsourced against concensus edit as pointed out expect it to be questioned. I have engaged with you in a civil manner, I expect the same, Please apologies or I will inform admin of you breach of policy. regsards--Vintagekits 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I shouldn't have deleted your comments. That was unreasonable of me. Sorry. But can we continue the conversation (as we seem to be) on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-11 UK subdivisions, rather than here? — ras52 21:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 12 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Far Eastern Fells, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I have no problem with that, but it is pointless unless User:Astrotrain and User:Biofoundationsoflanguage refrain from edit warring to inserting POV and OR into all these templates and articles in the meantime.--padraig 13:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem. You're just as bad as Astrotrain and Biofoundations. It takes two sides to edit war, and you're doing it just as much as they are. As for POV, both sides are points of view; the questions are which (if either) is a majority point of view, and are either points of view justifiably offensive to a significant body of people? And OR sounds like nonsense to me: what precisely is original research? If they'd made up a flag, that would be OR; if they produced their own statistics to back up the choice, that would be OR; but they haven't done either so far as I've seen. I really don't think that making allegations of POV or OR is helping your cause, which, at heart, is a content dispute.
Anyway, I'm pleased you've agreed to accept mediation; the request has just been filed. I'm not sure of the procedure, never having been involved in one before, but I think a bot will post a link onto your talk page shortly. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not expressing an opinion on the flag. I'm quite content to go along with the consensus. My aim, all along, has been to shift the argument out of the article / template namespaces. — ras52 13:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Numerous sources have been provided by me and others that the Ulster Banner is not representative of Northern Ireland today or recognised by either the British government or the government of Northern Ireland the Northern Ireland Executive to ignore these facts and continue to protray this Banner as a modern day symbol or flag of Northern Ireland is WP:OR as no sources have been provided to support that claim, if they continue to insert this during mediation and edit war I will bring this to arbcom.--padraig 13:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you should give mediation a serious try first, and not approach it with the attitude that it's a prelude to arbcom. I really do think Astrotrain et al. are acting in good faith, just as I believe you are. Sure you fundamentally disagree, but I really do hope that a experience mediator can help focus the debate and allow a consensus to be achieved. Re OR, it's not all that difficult to find sources that postdate 1973? that use this. For example, when I was at school (in the 80s), the UB and St Patrick's flag were both used in textbooks, and I doubt all these books were pre-1973. Now it's quite possible that these sources are misguided, or outdated, or even outright partisan, but they certainly exist. You have a very strong case in that the flag is offensive to a part of the N.I. population; I think that by sticking to that line, and not bringing in accusations of POV and/or OR, your argument will be better served. — ras52 14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I am away for a few days Ras, but will have a look at the mediation page when I get back. Just to note that there are other sources out there for what is the flag of Northern Ireland (eg the Flags.net page for Northern Ireland is written by Graham Bartram, a British vexillologist) and lists the UB as an unofficial flag and the UF as an official flag). I have tried to add this into the List of British flags page only to have this sourced material removed. I can't see why anyone would remove a flag image from a page about flags and say it is OR (particularly when the section in question is describing the flag). So compromises be me have failed- and Padraig continues to edit war on this issue. He even edit warred on the Merlins template after mediation ruled in your favour- hopefully he will listen to consensus this time. Astrotrain 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If you have time to visit Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Template:UK_subdivisions and note that you agree to mediation, that would be useful. Everything else can easily wait until you're back. — ras52 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Flags.net is a commercial site that sells flags, it is not an authority on the issue, but even it states This flag is a banner of the arms of the old Government of Northern Ireland. The flag ceased to be official in 1973, but continues to be used by Unionists. On no account should it be used for official purposes. which discounts your claim for its usage.--padraig 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Astrotrain isn't claiming the flag is official. And the fact that flags.net says it continues to be "used by Unionists" means that the site is relevant to his claim that the flag is used to represent N.I. by some people. Perhaps a better source could be found, though. It's also relevant to your objection, Padraig, that it is partisan. It's quite possible that better sources can be found for both arguments, though. Anyway, my talk page isn't the place to argue this through. However, that aside, Padraig, are you aware of any sources that quantify how large a proportion of the Irish population find the flag offensive? For example, if there were a survey across the whole of Ireland — the republic and the north — that said x% found the flag offensive, y% actively supported its use and z% had no strong opinion, that would be extremely helpful. — ras52 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
My last edit on Template:Lists_of_Marilyns was on 20th_May so Astrotrain don't be telling lies.--padraig 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The very use of this Banner on an template conveys that it is somehow official, This flags ceased to officially exist in 1973 to use it to represent Northern Ireland today is POV, remember this is an encyclopedia it deals with facts not wishful thinking on the part of editors.--padraig 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If the UB were entirely uncontroversial, yet unofficial, I can't imagine any objections to using it. (In fact, that's pretty much the case with St George's flag, or the Welsh dragon flag. They perhaps have de facto recognition, but not de jure officiality.) You have a strong case in that the UB is offensive to a portion of the population. I don't see that you need to use the argument that it is unofficial. And accusing Astrotrain of lying isn't helping your cause either: perhaps he was using "you" in its plural form to refer to you, Fennessy, Vintagekits and the other anti-UB editors; or perhaps it was a genuine mistake and he misremembered the exact sequence of events. Don't be so quick to take offence and accuse others of acting in bad faith. — ras52 16:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Hi

Here are two instances of compliants on the use of flags to intimate people.

UTV report on erection of flags. report on intimidation by Loyalists erecting Ulster Banner outside peoples homes.--Padraig 20:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted them on the mediation page as well, but thought I would bring them to your attention as you ask if any existed.--Padraig 20:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I knew that there must be some out there. Thank you for digging them out. — ras52 20:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Mediation has hit the buffers again- Padraig is now deleting my suggestions. Any thoughts? [2]Astrotrain 21:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain I made it very clear I was not going to discuss each article and template individually, you then added a new section to discuss an template before the previous discussion was agreed, so I removed it.--Padraig 21:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hugh seat

I have now added an article on the "sub-Hewitt" peak, Hugh seat - thanks for pointing me in (I hope) the right direction. OldFaw (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matterhorn

Hi, thanks for your comment at the talk page of the user who made personal attacks in response my deletion of his trivial edit. If that sort of thing bothered me I would not have become a Wikipedian! Viewfinder (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal Maps

Hello Ras52, I understand that you recently uploaded images of the United Kingdom, coloured for the different counties, principalities and home nations; it is with this in mind that I gratefully ask for a image like Image:BIThumbMap_SCO.png, but with major countries only highlighted, i.e. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England on one image. I'd be glad if this could be done, as I'm currently working on a few portals. But if not, they it doesn't matter. Best regards, Rt. 21:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to produce some more of them if that would be helpful, but I'm not quite sure what it is you're after (perhaps that's my fault: I have just returned from a New Year party). I take it that Image:BIThumbMap_UK.png and Image:BIThumbMap_ROI.png don't fulfil your needs? (There's an index to them all here.) Happy New Year. — ras52 (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for replying so swiftly. :) Erm, I was wondering whether you'd be able to do Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland on one map, but all different colours. Thank you. Regards, Rt. 15:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:86.42.90.145

Hello there!

I think you've answered your query in the question. I removed the additions because, simply they were thoroughly unhelpful; basically trolling. I was guided by the spirit within the principles of Wikipedia:Deny recognition and Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore, but mostly WP:COMMONSENSE. If the material stays, I imagine it simply serves to polarise the editting community and take attention away from the encyclopedia.

I'm not sure about the identity of the user (although I strong suspect he's got an account somewhere, given he's aware of signature protocol). If there's a correllation with the user you mention (in terms of writing style), it could be that he/she's using a friend's or public IP address temporarily. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is also guidance at WP:TALK.
I've since raised his efforts at WP:ANI. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ras52/Ahnentafel/doc

Categories shouldn't be added to pages in user space unless they're marked off with . Corvus cornixtalk 23:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your message. The only category that that page is in is Category:User_documentation, and looking through that category, it's almost exclusively filled with sandbox documentation. — ras52 (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This edit said "add categories at the bottom". Corvus cornixtalk 03:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right. That's just how the {{tl:Documentation}} template default-generates a documentation subpage, coupled with the fact that edit summary for a new page contains a truncated version of the page text. I'm not actually intending to put any categories there, but thanks for the reminder (and the subsequent explanation). — ras52 (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear. Just confused. And confusing.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)