User talk:Setanta747

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived discussion pages:

• User talk:Setanta747/Archive1
• User talk:Setanta747/Archive2
• User talk:Setanta747/Archive3
• User talk:Setanta747/Archive4
• User talk:Setanta747/Archive5
• User talk:Setanta747/Archive6

Contents 1 Wikiproject:Terrorism 2 Replaceable fair use Image:John Marshall Watson.jpg 3 Article assessment 4 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Marillion has been nominated for deletion 5 Lough Neagh in the British Isles or not. 6 Northern Ireland flag userbox 6.1 Animum 7 Welcome back. 8 Northern Ireland flags issue on UK article 9 Redirect of Joe Doyle Actor/Musician 10 Templates 11 UK Flags 12 C3K Trains 13 Flag of Northern Ireland 14 Belfast synagogue 15 The Quiz 16 Fair Warning 17 Image:John Marshall Watson.jpg 18 Template:Irmapping 19 NIHE (disambiguation) 20 Image:NI murals NI football.jpg 21 Fair use rationale for Image:Ruby_Murray_promo_photo.jpg 22 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:M punch.jpg 23 AfD nomination of Kremlin (bar) 24 Speedy deletion of Template:Marillion singles 25 Speedy deletion of Template:Marillionlp 26 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Colourluna.jpg 27 WikiProject Council roll call 28 Sockpuppetry case 29 WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008 30 Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter 31 Blocked, and Probation 32 W projects 33 Report 34 Alison 35 User talk:90.206.36.142 36 SSSIs in Northern Ireland 37 Copyvio on Mary Lou McDonald 38 Template:European capitals

[edit] Wikiproject:Terrorism

Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:John Marshall Watson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John Marshall Watson.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Carl, I was about to ask you about this particular photograph, only I have been needlessly blocked once again. In the unlikely event that you see this message, I'd like to know what the procedure is regarding photos that have been uploaded with the author's permission to use in Wikipedia.

I had went to the extreme of contacting the owner of the picture (two pictures in actual fact) and had gained his permission that the photograph could be used in Wikipedia with regard to the article about the subject. I promised to include a credit on the image page.

I had taken a leave of absence from Wikipedia, and wasn't able to respond to the 7-day limit. Thanks in advance. --Mal 01:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article assessment

Hiya Mal. I'm not quite sure on how to do the whole article rating thingy so was wondering would you be able to see about an article rating for this page Tobermore which i've done a hell of a lot of expanding from the simple stub it was. Mabuska 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mal seems to have left the building. I would rate it is as Start class or maybe verging on B class. You add the rating by placing the following template at the top of the talk page: {{WPNI|class=Start}}, or {{WPNI|class=B}}. Good job on expanding the article. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 20:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject_Marillion has been nominated for deletion

FYI: Wikipedia:WikiProject Marillion has been nominated for deletion and is under discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Marillion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lough Neagh in the British Isles or not.

Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PR^talk 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland flag userbox

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia (2nd nomination), this userbox violates policies and guidelines, and so I have removed it (again). Please do not try to circumvent the MFD. --Coredesat 12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit my userpage again. Thank you. --Mal 23:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to circumvent the MFD decision. You do not own your user page, see WP:USER and WP:OWN. If you continue to revert war, you may be blocked temporarily. --Coredesat 00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalising my userpage. Wikipedia is not censored. If you continue to vandalise my userpage, you may be blocked. If you have a problem with my userpage, feel free to discuss it instead of issuing threats. --Mal 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The userbox was deleted in MFD and consensus was that it was not acceptable in any form. Attempting to restore it is circumventing consensus, and restoring it again will cause you to violate WP:3RR. WP:NOT#CENSORED does not apply here, WP:CONSENSUS does. --Coredesat 00:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You are suggesting that I be censored. I refuse to be censored. I am not using a userbox and I took part in no debate regarding any userbox. Nobody informed me of the debate. Other userboxes have been deleted by consensus, and I have replaced them with code instead - you are not censoring those, nor making an issue there. Neither will you censor this. Again, I ask you: please stop meddling with my userpage. --Mal 00:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a 3RR violation. I suggest you listen to consensus and drop your uphill battle. —[[Animum | talk]] 01:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is my appeal table please? If you're going to waste peoples' time by blocking them, at least do it properly. --Mal 01:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins need not template users; that can be done at their discretion. If you want to be unblocked, use {{unblock|your reason here}}. —[[Animum | talk]] 01:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent] Thank you. Would you mind letting me know the duration of the block as well? --Mal 01:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - I figured it out. 09:09, 14 October 2007 --Mal 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Animum we have a situation whereby Wikipedia is at odds with itself: it respects consensus, yet it also respects non-censorship. I am being censored.

I will think of a compromise with regard to this matter but I repeat: I will not be censored (unless Wikipedia changes its policy on that particular matter). --Mal 09:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animum

Your edit comment when you censored my user page reads: "No, you will not. You will demonstrate consensus is what you're going to do." Please learn some Netiquette, and learn how not to rile up users - you do NOT order me to do anything. Respect my status as a fellow human being, and do not throw your weight around as an administrator. It is most unprofessional. --Mal 01:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back.

Nice to see a friendly name back on wiki. There aren't enough. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to admit that I can't remember you.. but that's not saying much, as my memory is pretty crap these days! :) --Mal 23:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well .. it was a short-lived return: I've been blocked again, and this time also censored. --Mal 01:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

How pathetic. Well, please don't let it discourage you. It might be worth trying to be a fencer rather than a warrior in future, and not giving them opportunity to block you.

I'm quite recent to wikipedia, and only really started editing after you seemed to have stopped (sort of June 2007). That's when I got wrapped up in this 'debate'. Baptism by fire? I was in awe of your patience with the issue, my lack of which got me blocked twice. Ah well. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I got pounced on by an editor who is particularly prolific when it comes to removing the flag of Northern Ireland from Wikipedia. I'm surprised they find any time to actually contribute anything useful to the 'Pedia tbh - obviously removing the flag and stalking users' contributions is more disruptive than anything else.

I had loads of plans to use some spare time I've found myself with, to pour lots of effort into improving Wikipedia. I stopped editing because I was so pissed off with the pettiness of certain users here, one of which has now been indefinitely blocked, so far as I can tell. That user had actually gone to the extreme of recruiting people from other websites to aid him in his petty campaign. It's ridiculous, and bordering on the scandalous. More importantly, it stops decent editors from contributing.

Much more of this extremist and insulting behaviour and I will probably give up editing Wikipedia all together.

These days it appears that one needs (to be) a solicitor in order to make any edits here. --Mal 18:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. It's quite obvious that I'm contribution-stalked myself. Now that a bit more interest has been developed in this, well, quite important issue hopefully it will be resolved. Though maybe I'm giving wikipedia too much credit there?

The user has been indefinitely blocked. But what does that mean? He's been unblocked by a very sympathetic-to-his-cause admin so that he is able to contribute to the 'arbcom'. But he still seems to have managed to make other edits, like on Talk:United Kingdom. It wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't given yet another chance.

The solicitor comment was complete class by the way, and sadly very true. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland flags issue on UK article

Hi. I noticed you were involved in the revert war that has been ongoing there, so thought I would ask for your input at Talk:United Kingdom#Edit war over inclusion of Ulster Banner. I hope we can take the matter forward there. Best wishes, --John 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a revert war taking place on the UK article. I just added some information I noticed was incomplete. Thanks for the heads up about it though. :) --Mal 23:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect of Joe Doyle Actor/Musician

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Joe Doyle Actor/Musician, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Joe Doyle Actor/Musician is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Joe Doyle Actor/Musician, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Template:Northern Irish cities was created to avoid protection on Template:Northern Ireland cities and was subject to an Tfd where it was decided to make Template:Northern Irish cities a redirect, so don't interfere with that decision.--Padraig 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I created a cfd long ago, which settled the problem you have with the proper noun "Northern Irish". Please don't interfere with that decision.

Do not tell me what to do either. --Mal 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How about I tell you, so. Please stop edit-warring on the flags issue. This is currently the subject of an ArbCom case. Would you like to join the ever-growing list of flag-warriors over there? Your recreated-deleted template has now been speedy-deleted per WP:CSD#G4 and a redirect has been put in its place, redirecting to the proper template (which, incidentally, has been protected by another admin for the very type of edit-war that you have indulged in) - Alison ^❤ 03:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How about you learn some respect also Alison: you DO NOT tell me what to do. As an administrator (as I believe you are), you ought to surely know this. I hope I have taught you a valuable lesson here: in future, please improve your tone with me.

I was not "edit-warring" - you will find that Padraig has been kind enough to edit-stalk me and, as a result, is the one who has engaged in edit-warring. --Mal 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you break the rules, I and others are perfectly within our rights to TELL you to not indulge in that sort of behaviour. The reason I'm here at all was as a result of a complaint which was made against you. Please become more familiar with WP:AGF, WP:3RR and WP:NPA before you reply. Oh, and a certain default respect is afforded to all, needless to say. However, in certain cases that can get eroded based on a person's subsequent behaviour, but I suspect you already know this - Alison ^❤ 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point I have made to you Alison, and therefore you have learned nothing as a consequence. I am familiar with all the guidelines you linked to above, none of which are relevant to our discussion.

I would remind you (again) to please watch your tone with me. See WP:CIVIL.

There are two things you have said to me which I feel need expanding. Please explain your following statements in more detail:

1. Would you like to join the ever-growing list of flag-warriors over there?
2. However, in certain cases that can get eroded based on a person's subsequent behaviour, but I suspect you already know this

Also, please detail the complaint that was made against me, and point me to where I can find said complaint.

Finally, I intend to make corrections as necessary to the article and affected articles mentioned above, as I consider befits consistency. The CfD I created was quite decisive, and established that "Northern Irish" is the correct nomenclature. The affected article (the one I noticed was inconsistent) points to a template with the correct naming convention, as ratified by the CfD. Any beneficial suggestions to aid me in this would be most appreciated. --Mal 20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK Flags

Read this:

• The Union Flags and flags of the United Kingdom

The English, Scottish and Welsh Flags are National Flags, but none for Northern Ireland except the Union Flag.--Padraig 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at this:

Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg

That's the flag of Northern Ireland. --Mal 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the former flag of Northern Ireland (defunct since 1973). GoodDay 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it was also used as the flag of the former government of Northern Ireland. During and since, it has been used to represent Northern Ireland and is therefore the flag of Northern Ireland. --Mal 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats right support everything thats British, until the British Government says something you don't like, then ignore it.--Padraig 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me Padraig?!? Please leave my personal opinions, or rather what you think they might be, out of this discussion. Do not leave a message like this on my talk page again please. --Mal 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C3K Trains

I really apologise for asking this out of the blue, but if possible, do you think at some point you could add an image or two of the C3K trains used by Northern Ireland Railways? I ask because no one seems to be the least bit interested in uploading some free use pictures, and every time I try uploading one it is classed as non-fair use. I would do this myself, only I live in London, so obviously getting pictures of trains in Belfast is slightly difficult!! I'm asking you because I've noticed you've made the odd edit to the NIR page, and that you live in Belfast. It's a massive bugbear of mine that all the train operators in the UK and Ireland have pictures of their rolling stock except NIR. I'm most grateful. Thanks for your time. Hammersfan, 29/10/07, 21.54 GMT —Preceding comment was added at 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hammer thanks for asking. I'd be happy to do this within the next month or so actually. I'll take a look at the other pics to get an idea of what's expected. Keep me posted - I'd certainly like to know if anyone, within the next few weeks, has already uploaded pics of the trains. --Setanta 07:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Northern Ireland

Setanta, Padraig, VK: I have protected the above article to prevent another edit-war. Given the ArbCom ruling, this really would not be a a good idea. Use the talk page, please. ELIMINATORJR 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh look - yet another article protected by Wikipedia in a pro-Republican agenda state!! --Setanta 00:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What "ArbCom" ruling? --Setanta 01:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest you read what I've just put on the article's talk page, and consider withdrawing that statement. The ArbCom ruling on The Troubles is here. ELIMINATORJR 01:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belfast synagogue

Hi Setanta. My only concern about naming wasn't about the word "synagogue" per se but to shift from a generic to the official name of the congregation. Is it called "Belfast Hebrew Congregation" or something like that? Usually, articles on synagogues use the community's official name. It's so great you live in Belfast, you can find this out for us easily. Or we can just rely on this website: JCR-UK. Listen, I'll move the article and you can revert etc if I've made a mistake, ok? I was going to do it before; seeing the website now makes me think it's correct. Be well and thanks so much for encouraging us so nicely. HG | Talk 12:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, FWIW I think IZAK misread you. It seemed clear to me you meant that Jews in NI is a small topic. Thanks for moving things along, keep up the good work, etc. Kaisershatner 15:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I did Kasiershatner. :) Thanks.

HG, the following info from that website convinces me that the move was a prudent one - I had understood the congregation of the Great Victoria Street synagogue to be called "Belfast Hebrew Congregation", and I was right. But the previous address of the 'Belfast Synagogue' was Gt Victoria St.

Previous addresses: Annesley Street, Carlisle Crescent, Belfast  from 31 August 1904
(foundation stone laid 26 February 1904).
Prior thereto - Great Victoria Street from 1872 (foundation stone laid 7 July 1871).

I have absolutely no reason to oppose the move. Good call. :) --Setanta 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You're right. Maybe it's ok to say "the only", I was thinking (tired?) that it meant the only that's ever been (since there have been others). However, when I write, I try not to reference the current time, since the articles will last and we may not be around to note changes. But I leave it up to you. Also -- to which building does that description apply (eg circular)? Maybe you'll find out when you visit the old ones.... Have fun, Take care, HG | Talk 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the circular one (with the Star of David motif on the top) describes the current building. There was a link to it as viewed from above on Google Maps I think.. hang on... (keyboard seems to be acting up - Ill post the link here later) --Setanta 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK the link is here - you can see the circular structure clearly. We should be able to link to that in the article without a problem. --Setanta 08:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Quiz

You might be interested in this --andreasegde 15:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys know much more about the Beatles than I do.. and I know more about the Beatles than anyone else I know in 'real life'!! Thanks though - keep in touch. :) --Setanta 09:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Warning

I invite your attention to the following edit. [1]. SirFozzie 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So you are QUITE aware of the whole situation, there was recently an Arbitration case based off articles about Northern Ireland and The Troubles, amongst other things. ArbCom is the highest level of authority on Wikipedia (well, of coourse, besides Jimbo Wales). One of the remedies passed by the Arbitration Committee is that editors who get involved with edit wars on articles like the one you are on currently, can be placed on a probationary status (where you are limited to 1 Revert per WEEK on the contentious articles). Since you and Padraig were not named parties in the ArbCom committee, I had to specifically notify you that there is the possibility that if you continue your actions, that you can be placed on probation, and blocked if you violate that probation (once placed). Let me give you A link to the Arbitration Committee's finished case so you can see what I'm saying is true. SirFozzie 00:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So you chose to ignore the above advice and revert the article despite the fact that a discussion was taking place? (Not to mention that the article now makes less sense, because you've moved the Union Flag into the section which discusses the Ulster Banner?) Can you give me a good reason why I should not now invoke the terms of the ArbCom ruling?. ELIMINATORJR 09:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of reasons, yes. Firstly, I was not named, nor involved, nor even aware of the ArbCon ruling (until yesterday). If Padraig was not mentioned or involved in it either, then I would presume it doesn't affect him either. Secondly, I did not realise it no longer made sense - the last few times I corrected the article, it seemed to make sense. Certainly, it makes sense having an image of the actual subject of the article at the top of the page. I will look at the article again, and try to find a more suitable position for the Union Jack - thanks for pointing it out to me. --Setanta 09:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I assume that you are now aware of the ArbCom ruling and what it means? ELIMINATORJR 10:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said - I was not involved. There is a list of involved parties here. --Setanta 05:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It is binding on all of those invloved in editing on these subjects. You have been editing warring and editting in a disruptive manner on this over the past week and inflaming arguments that other editors are trying to settle. You have been warned - expect admin to act if you continue.--Vintagekits 09:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't, and I resent your personal attack - I never asked for your opinion, and I find it odd that you should even find yourself on my talk page. I hope you're not another of my wiki-stalkers. --Setanta 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for non-admins to chip-in here when they seem to be handling it fine themselves. It's just asking for trouble. Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion.--Vintagekits 10:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the ArbCom ruling, after a warning, parties that were not originally involved are also subject to the ruling. You may take the note above as such. ELIMINATORJR 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Eliminator, to be frank I'd rather not have to trudge though a mountain of words on the subject. I suspect nothing has been said that hasn't already been said. Do what you feel you must - if that includes blocking a valuable contributor who is interested in this encyclopaedia reporting the facts, or otherwise taking action against me, then so be it I guess.

You may take note of my objection, considering I wasn't involved in the discussion.. or whatever process this 'ArbCom' went through to arrive at the decision or policy it did arrive at. --Setanta 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:John Marshall Watson.jpg

I looked at that image again since you asked. The issue is that the photo doesn't show Watson racing, receiving a prize, or otherwise document an historic event. It merely shows what Watson looks like. Our nonfree content policy doesn't permit the ue of nonfree images for the purpose of showing the appearance of living people. If the photographer would like to grant us permission to use this image, they must release it under a license that we regard as free, for example CC-BY-SA. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is far too complex for me. It didn't seem quite as complicated when I uploaded it and obtained permission. Frankly, it seems like I wasted my time for nothing. Thanks for answering anyway. --Setanta 23:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Irmapping

Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Irmapping, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NIHE (disambiguation)

Per this edit, are you going to actually add anything else to NIHE (disambiguation)? It is pointless to have a disambiguation page with one blue link. In fact, I think that used to be specifically mentioned as a reason for a housecleaning speedy deletion. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I see someone else has changed the redirect back. There's really no reason to have the disambiguation page before the one red link is turned blue so I will re-delete that page too. I see in your talk archives where you discussed this with someone but I think the logic was flawed. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question: if I don't, somebody else will (see also Template:Northern Ireland tasks). Having the red link there will undoubtedly encourage people to create and write the article. Please stop re-deleting it. Thanks. --Setanta 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No it won't. Even if there were such an article, an entire disambiguation page is not needed. A hatnote on the other NIHE page would be sufficient. There are now two people disagreeing with you and no one agreeing so I'm puzzled how you're so confident as to blindly revert. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added the hatnote for you. Can we call that good enough? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Now the silly dab page is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NIHE (disambiguation). —Wknight94 (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NI murals NI football.jpg

Hi I was working with some images on the NI page, adding a lot of free ones, and removing one fair use one Image:Northern_Ireland_wall_of_heros.JPG. I was looking at the image you uploaded Image:NI_murals_NI_football.jpg, it could be vunurable to being deleted as an imagevio, could you supply a reference as to the artist releasing the image into the PD, Thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ruby_Murray_promo_photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ruby_Murray_promo_photo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:M punch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:M punch.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Kremlin (bar)

I have nominated Kremlin (bar), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kremlin (bar). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Marillion singles

A tag has been placed on Template:Marillion singles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Marillionlp

A tag has been placed on Template:Marillionlp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Colourluna.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Colourluna.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Setanta747 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008

	The Space-Time Telegraph
	The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter
	Issue 1	March 2008
Project News We have five new participants: Sm9800, Seanor3, T saston, Type 40, Jammy0002. One editor has left the project: StuartDD. The Doctor Who portal has expanded to increase the number of selected stories to 33. Articles of note New featured articles None New featured article candidates Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (FAC) New good articles Dalek (Doctor Who episode) Astrid Peth Delisted articles None Proposals A proposal for changing the layout of the episode pages is under way here. A discussion about the formatting of the cast lists in episode pages is under way here. A discussion to move United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to UNIT is under way here. News The Torchwood project has become a task-force under the project's scope. The Torchwood series 2 finale airs on 4th April, and the 4th series of Doctor Who will start to air on 5th April. For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC) You have received this letter because you are on the newsletter recipients list. To opt-out, please remove your name.

[edit] Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

	The Terrorism WikiProject April 2008 Newsletter
News 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was made a Featured Article Omar Khadr has an ongoing peer review as it begins the slow crawl towards Featured Article status Trials have begun this month in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Benbrika affair and 2006 Toronto terrorism case, each article could use a good vetting, and the articles on specific alleged terrorists are desperately in need of some clean-up. Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein had his case overturned by the Iraqi courts and was ordered released, although the US military says they will not release him. China announced that they had disrupted a plot targeting the 2008 Summer Olympics, while detractors claim it was fabricated. The bail hearing for Abdullah Khadr, fighting extradition to the United States, is scheduled for April 29 Former Turkish Member of Parliament Leyla Zana is sentenced to two years imprisonment for praising Abdullah Öcalan. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list needs votes on whether or not it should be kept on Wikipedia.
Archives • Discussion

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked, and Probation

I am additionally warning you that any further sock puppetry will result in an indefinite block. You are hereby placed on probation for one year, per the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Enforcement. Please read and follow those restrictions, or you may be blocked without further warning. Jehochman ^Talk 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me - the case hasn't been closed yet. In fact, there was no result: no action had been decided. I have not engaged in sock puppetry, and I take offence at the suggestion.

Perhaps you didn't read the comments I had made, which you subsequently deleted. The only thing I might be considered guilty of is not understanding your policy regarding archived articles in Wiki-space. Had you been a little more helpful regarding the deletion of my arguments, I wouldn't have felt it necessary to re-add them. As it is, I now feel like I am being censored and not able to defend my points. I appreciate that may not in fact be your intention. However, it remains that the defence against accusations has been removed. Where would you have suggested I placed the comments in response to those particular statements?

I think this is also quite a sudden, stern and stark decision by you. You have made a summary decision that I am guilty of sockpuppetry, despite my arguments, and despite the fact that the case remains open and without conclusion.

Do you not want to listen? Is that too much work for you? Presumably you have better understanding of policy, and perhaps you might have fixed it for me, instead of becoming as annoyed with me for having re-added my comments as I had been with your removal of them. I don't think you have been particularly helpful to this point, though I am asking for your help now. If you do not wish to help me, please offer me an admin who wouldn't mind. Thank you for your time. --90.206.36.159 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, according to the block log: [2] This account is not even blocked... What is going on here?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. I have now fixed that. The account is blocked for two weeks. If the socking continues, I will extends this to indefinite and request a community ban. Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't appear to have listened very well Jehochman - there was no socking in the first place. --90.206.36.177 (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be the case that my IP address has not been blocked either. I have however, not edited any Wikipedia mainspace articles since I became aware of the block. I was advised, on my own talk page, to respond on this user talk page. --90.206.36.159 (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding the unblock request again, if you don't mind. If some you or some other admin is currently investigating the problem(s) associated with this account and my IP address, and is fully aware of my request, feel free to remove the request and keep me informed here. Thank you. --90.206.36.159 (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] W projects

Indeed - perhaps you'd be interested in WP:Unionism in Ireland, unless your interest is mostly geographic?Traditional unionist (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My interest is mostly in Northern Ireland specifically (not just the geography of the country), though it does extend to the rest of the UK and to the whole of Ireland too, obviously. I started the NI WikiProject a fair while ago now, and the unionism project seems to be a new one. After I created the NI and Belfast wikiprojects, there were created both an Ireland WikiProject and a Scotland one, both using the NI one as an initial template. After that, an 'IRA WikiProject' was created, which was subsequently renamed. Now we have this 'Unionism in Ireland' WikiProject. All of this leaves the NI project basically unattended. My initial thought had been to work on the 'main' NI project and, once complete, create smaller spin-offs (such as geographical ones like the Belfast WP) and work on them and concentrate harder on those areas.

As unionism concerns the union of the UK, perhaps 'Unionism in Ireland' is not the best, or most encompassing title. Is there currently a 'British Unionism' or 'British Isles unionism' WP in existence? Is the 'Unionism in Ireland' WP purely geographic? --Setanta747 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As with most things, it doesn't exist without members. I would certainly be open to extending it. I think it is the way it is now due to the all Ireland context to Unionism historically.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "Unionism Wikiproject", which might avoid some of the unpleasant petty objections we've had in the past to various established nomenclature? Is 'Unionism', as an ideology, used in any other regions of the world and, if it is, is there a level of commonality? Not that it seems possible to edit many articles on Wikipedia anyway, considering the ownership of articles some people have (see below). --Setanta747 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Report

I have file a report here over your breach of probation. --Domer48 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are blocked 48 hours for two reverts in a day. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Only one revert was made by myself, after I had made an edit. Therefore:

{{unblock|I have agreed to the conditions suggested by Alison in the section below. My 'conduct' regarding BigDunc has nothing whatsoever to do with this and was, in any case, well within policy guidelines. If you, or anyone, has a problem with my notifying BigDunc about his own 'conduct' in regard to edit warring, feel free to discuss this with me here on my talk page. Please read my statements below, as well as Alison's offer before making a decision with regard to my block. Thanks in advance.}}

You appear to have been unblocked. I checked and there is no autoblock of you so you should be able to edit. If you cannot, please clear your cache and try again. If you still cannot, check and see if the block message has an autoblock ID # and please add a new request with that number. Thank you. --B (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alison

I'm not sure you should be involved with my unblocking requests, as I'm not confident you would necessarily be completely non-partisan - I seem to recall having seen your name quite a few times regarding Northern Ireland-related articles. Therefore, I am putting up another unblock request, above.

As regard a separate issue you seem to have about BigDunc's userpage. What is it you feel I deserve a "warning" about. Some kind of "behaviour", you say..? Feel free to reply here because, as seems to be becoming the norm recently, this is the only page in the whole of Wikipedia I believe I can edit. I'm sorry you haven't had such a good day. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've remained non-partisan on NI issues for quite a long time; I'm equally disliked :) Go ask. As for Dunc's page, you should know that repeatedly warning him, esp. boilerplating is entirely unnecessary and point you to the fact that users are quite welcome to revert talk page comments as they see fit. Go ahead, BTW, on the third unblock request. Hopefully, a numerically-challenged admin will be along this time ;) - Alison ^❤ 17:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh! :) Nevertheless Alison, you have an interest. I can't remember having had much (or maybe any) discussion with you, but your name is familiar to me. I'm happy you you haven't taken what I said as a personal slight against you though, as it certainly wasn't intended that way.

As for WP:DTTR, I've never been aware of that until there now. Of course, it hasn't stopped people from repeatedly doing it to me.. then again, I've not deleted them. In point of fact though, I restored the template itself what .. once? Then I realised that the job of the template was done, whether it was still present or not, as it's job was to notify the user of policy, and I made a reply advising of that. After my last edit to his talk page, I even went so far as to try to find information in WP policy regarding removal of templates from user talk pages. It wasn't particularly easy to find, though I did note that opinion is very much split on the matter.

As for my latest unblock request - I noted the one reversion I made. After that reversion, I made no others. Besides that, there are still the other matters I brought up, one of which was dismissed off-hand: apparently 3RR only applies to one individual. Of course, that doesn't help if one is sprung upon by multiple editors, reverting every time one makes an edit. Nor did the admin in question suggest where the page exists to note a "team-tagging" campaign.

Just to note, as I'm sitting here writing out explanation after explanation (which I had done on my edit to the article in question, while my 'opponents' get away scott-free, if you notice, with not having attempted to explain their reverts), it struck me as ironic that I seem to spend most of my time in Wikipedia discussing actions taken against me, then working on actual articles.. which is why I started editing Wikipedia in the first place! I don't necessarily want to get to know personalities or get involved in the administrative side of things, or have to get involved in bloody Wiki-lawyering.

The work I have managed to get done (most of it before this latest craze of informing on others and ownership of articles) stands for itself: I have been a valuable contributor for around three years now, and the thanks I get are these stupid red tape processes which only ever serve to anger and frustrate - especially when the complaints made are from the same predictable old faces.

There needs to be something done, otherwise Wikipedia will lose yet another prolific and balanced editor. Don't take that as any kind of threat, by the way. I'm just stating a fact. Of course, I appreciate that Wikipedia will go on without me! But hey - the more this kind of thing happens, the more editors Wikipedia will lose, and the less credibility Wikipedia will have. As a fellow Wikipedian, Alison, I'm sure you can appreciate what I'm talking about. --Setanta747 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your frustration here, having tried to referee Troubles articles for some time. And yes, you're a good editor :) I've had a word with the blocking admin just now. The blocking policy notes that blocks are meant to be preventative of disruption, not punitive. With that in mind, can you undertake 1) not to edit-war on Troubles-related articles for the next 48 hours? 2) Can you also undertake to leave BigDunc and his talk page alone for the same length of time. If you agree to this, I will gladly unblock - Alison ^❤ 19:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this episode and I must agree with Setanta. I'm feeling very disillusioned about the way items connected to Irish history seem to be manipulated. I'm very sad about it.GDD1000 (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't let yourselves succumb to edit warring, breaking arb sanctions, etc. That's the worst way to handle this. Use the WP:DR process and refrain from those tactics. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Alison what you propose seems quite fair to me. While I don't appreciate having yet another inappropriate block on my record/log, I would certainly agree to what you propose.

I should note that it had not been my intention to get involved in edit warring in the first place: I edited an article in good faith (an edit I had made before, earlier this month, which was also reverted on me earlier this month - again, with no explanation) because I felt the wording of the part I edited gave undue weight in a relative sense.

As for BigDunc, as I explained earlier, I had conducted myself in a wholly appropriate manner in accordance with guidelines throughout Wikipedia. By placing the template on his page, I had performed my duty as an editor and the point had been made, so there is certainly no reason to edit his user page again. Besides that, his 'shouting' at me in his edit comment, where he 'ordered' me to "stay off my talk page" etc, makes it quite clear as to his feeling toward me, and I have (and had) no intention of provoking him - he's obviously quick to anger.

I agree to not edit any articles relating to Northern Ireland for the remaining period of my block (should you decide to unblock me). I say "any articles relating to Northern Ireland" because it is more than just articles relating to the Troubles that some editors seem to have a problem with, and constantly guard.

Although there is not long to go now on my block, I would still like to be unblocked under the terms Alison set out. To that end, I will be adding another unblock request (with a comment for the last admin that refused me), above.

Rlevse, I appreciate the advice you have given me. I would like to stress though, that it is not easy to avoid getting into an edit war with people who refuse to explain their reversions of your edits. I invited the editors to discussion on the talk page, and they ignored my request (until after one of them had reported me with regard to ArbCom (by which time it had obviously been too late). What I fear however, is that any edit to articles relating to Northern Ireland may well be blocked (especially ones by myself, it seems) by the editors I have mentioned, and others who often seemingly work in tandem with them. This makes any changes and attempts to balance an article a hugely lengthy process, for even the merest of changes, involving implementation of policies, possible long-winded debate, repetition, and the possibility of the dreaded consensus policy which would inevitably lead to a continued protection of unbalanced articles. This is a highly undesirable situation.

When I say that it is hard to avoid getting involved in an edit war, I mean that it is hard to see what type of edits will appear to offend those who obsessively defend certain articles. This is exacerbated by the fact that, I believe, my contributions are being watched by certain people. Perhaps this keeps me in check, to a certain extent, and that in itself is no bad thing (though I have to say that I don't of course feel it is necessary to do this in my case). But it leads me to a question: who watches the watchers? They appear to be more obsessive, more numerous, better defended by admins, and to have better knowledge of how the system works - because it appears to work favourably for them in the vast majority of cases - the merit of each individual edit which becomes 'controversial' never seems to be taken into consideration. It is simply a case of who conformed to policy, who complained first, and a numerical advantage. This is the reason 99% of the time, that I have been blocked.

I have no doubt that my block log will be used against me at some point in the future, ignoring completely the quality and quantity of work I have made to Wikipedia. In fact, an attempt to do so has been made in the past (I think it was by [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits). Any admin not quite so familiar with my good relations with other editors, my extensive contributions, my positive and accommodating attitude in 99% of cases, may well look at my block log and decide to 'punish' me excessively for any future technical 'infringement' that I have been manoeuvred into. You will also notice that any time I have been blocked, it has always been as a result of my attempts to edit articles relating to Northern Ireland. This is an area that I had attempted to avoid in Wikipedia for a while, hoping that a certain obsessiveness by certain editors would die away, or be replaced by reason. I have not been blocked for the editing of any article which doesn't relate to Northern Ireland, and have a good record of communicating with others and attempts at resolving any conflicts that have arisen.

I'd like to end by letting you know that I intend to appeal against the probation enforced on my account (via an ArbCom that I was not informed about, nor invited to take part in, nor even aware of until after my only warning with regard to it - despite the fact that I am a prolific editor with regard to the set of articles it relates to), as the admin responsible for the decision was not in possession of the full facts. Perhaps you could let me know of the appropriate venue to make such an appeal. --Setanta747 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Per above agreement. Thanks for that. Request handled by: Alison ❤ 22:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. And yes, I can totally understand where you're coming from there, and the frustration involved. If you wish to appeal the probation, you can probably directly appeal to ArbCom via email. Or possibly post a request to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarifications_and_other_requests and nudge an arbitrator to comment on it. But yes, you definitely have recourse - Alison ^❤ 22:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Alison (and B) - just to clarify, it seems like the unblock went through OK. --Setanta747 (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add my thanks to Alison and also point out my support for an investigation into obsessive "ownership" issues regarding items pertaining to Northern Ireland and the Troubles.GDD1000 (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:90.206.36.142

I've replied to your questions at the IP talkpage. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The edit history has been transferred over to User:Setanta747/Kremlin (bar). I don't think there's much of a reason for having an article on this bar, but I wish you good luck in proving me wrong. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I tried to say, I think it's likely quite a notable bar as far as Belfast is concerned. Thanks for doing that for me. :) --Setanta747 (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SSSIs in Northern Ireland

Hi

We need to resolve the issue of whether Northern Ireland appears in the SSSIs template. As you appear to be aware, NI doesn't have SSSIs, so I would prefer to see it left out. If we can find a good reason to keep it in, we're going to need to find a suitable title for the template that covers both SSSIs and whatever types of Northern Irish sites we want to include, as the current one isn'wouldn';t be appropriate for obvious reasons.

SP-KP (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer it to be kept in. Northern Ireland does have SSSIs, only they are called ASSIs ("In Northern Ireland the designation Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs) is the equivalent of the SSSIs" ref).

I'm not sure the template necessarily needs re-naming - at the minute at least. The article on SSSI mentions the Northern Irish version, and the JNCC states that SSSIs and ASSIs are equivalent. The one thing I'm currently not clear on is whether the ASSIs are generally organised by county or by council regions. I suspect the latter, though I can't be sure. It may be that they are allocated on a governmental basis, treating NI as a whole entity, which is why I've placed List of Areas of Special Scientific Interest in Northern Ireland in the template as a placeholder until we can determine how the "Area of Search" is organised here. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio on Mary Lou McDonald

Re. this comment. I'm not suggesting for a second that you "did it for a laugh". However, as I stated here, I'm not seeing any copyvio. Can you please quote the exact sentences in question, as I can't see them at all - Alison ^❤ 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you didn't suggest I added the copyvio tag for a laugh Alison, but you gave no explanation for removed the tag after I had added it. To me, it seemed as if you had discounted my edit as mere vandalism. Obviously I gave explanation, as I added it to the relevant alert page.

You can see in the difference here that the text is sufficiently similar to warrant concern. I also think the tag should remain until this is sorted out. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a serious {{sofixit}} moment. I'm not really seeing a whole lot of similarity, to be honest. Best thing is to excise the line if there's any doubt and write your own version ... - Alison ^❤ 04:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, though I spent more time trying to find citations for the article. I showed you the difference between the web site text and the article, and there is only one word different (removed). It's hard to not see the similarity! --Setanta747 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This look okay? - Alison ^❤ 17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine, Alison. Cheers. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for being patient :) - Alison ^❤ 18:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And you. :) --Setanta747 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:European capitals

Hi I noticed this edit this edit, I was wondering by what definition England has a capital. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would have understood a capital city to be the seat of government, and obviously England doesnt have a goverment in anyway that cannot be equally applied to any other non devolved part of the UK. 10:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasach Nua (talk • contribs)

Hi Fasach Nua. That London is the capital of England, as well as the national capital, is quite well established. The capital was moved from its previous location of Winchester some hundreds of years ago. As is tradition with the UK, most capitals are I believe de facto - neither the UK nor England have had a written constitution. England is therefore in a unique position as such (and because, as you say, it doesn't have it's own government), but it is generally accepted that London is that region's capital.

In common with the rest of the UK, England is administered from London. The laws governing England and Wales are legislated from that city. It's complex, and I understand your questioning of it to be honest, but I do think it's pretty much established, in the absence of any other, London is the de facto capital of England. British citizens are taught this in school at an early age. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)