Today is 25 June 2024

Archives
Archive 1 - February 2007 to December 2007 Archive 2 - Jan 2008 to December 2008 Archive 3

Useful links

I just looked at the total edits to the article, that'll teach me not to edit in the middle of the night! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, a rough weekend I'd suggest:)--Domer48 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I should have said that on your talk page instead of the AfD page. I did it without thinking. If you change your comment you can remove mine. Scolaire (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Peter, I did check to see if there was an article, spelling was correst, and I got nothing. Still, I stand over my view that there term should be merged. I will have to come up with another example though. Regards, --Domer48 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You left off the 'h' from 'tiocfaidh'. I was actually going to do a similar thing myself. After discovering that 'Tiocfaidh ár lá' was an article I considered using "cherishing all the children of the nation equally". If you Google "cherishing all the children of the nation equally" -proclamation you will get hundreds of results, all of them on-topic, even indeopendently of the Proclamation. But of course it doesn't have an article. I've made my contribution to AfD so you're welcome to use this. Scolaire (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have {{prod}}ed it as you suggested. Scolaire (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have supported this suggestion, and put forward another example in its place. Now I will look very hard on you if you pop up with an article on “A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people.” LOL, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, but somebody has LOL. Scolaire (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look, I should have known (or maybe I did). Would you like to look this over, comments or opinions welcome. What other ideas could I give people:) LOL. --Domer48 (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"ONIH has displayed a very sharp and cognisant understanding of Republican related articles" ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are but one of a vast and silent or silenced majority of fine Englishmen. That you use logic, reason and a willingness to investigate the history of Ireland is a testament to the character of most English people I meet. You are by far the most unbiased and even handed of editors on Wikipedia that I have yet come across. It just pissed me off that you should have to waste your time dealing with editors that have no other objective than petty point scoring. Having addressed the issues, they resort to personalising and snipping. The best answer to them is to keep producing the articles you have been, like Strangeways, fair play to yeh. --Domer48 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright enough of the love in :) and back to work.BigDunc (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the expansion of Charles Kickham. Another fenian with a decent article. I have to confess I am not a great fan of block-quotes, and I think his account of 1848 in Mullinahone might be lost without any great harm to the article. Otherwise it's a very nice job. Leaves me wondering when the article on the Confederation Club is going to be written. Scolaire (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you about the Mullinahone bit, I might shorten it and place the full account in wikisource. I still have to do O'Leary and Stephens and before I even go near the Confederation Club, I have to do something about the Thomas Davis article. That article is really starting to bother me, and I have tons of stuff on him. So much to do and so little time I'm afraid. Anyhow, thanks for that, take care, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.4.199 (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did what you asked on the template talk page and checked out your recent edits. I want to try to explain what my problem is with long quotes. People read an encyclopedia because they want to be told in a concise way what happened, what was done and what was said. Forcing them to read large tracts of text defeats the whole purpose. What it important or exciting to the editor who put it in is "just another long boring speech" to the reader. And, of course, any reader who wants to read the whole thing can be pointed to Wikisource. I haven't liked the insertion of long quotes on any of the articles they've appeared in recently, and to be honest, I don't remember anybody else coming on the talk pages to say "I think they're really good." A short summary of the text with, if necessary, a very short quote from it will make for a far better article. Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Peter, and like with the Charles Kickham I'm more than willing to take your views in a positive way and act on your suggestions. As you can see on the Roger Casement talk page, I flagged it up the speech in Oct 07, looking for suggestions and got no reply. I agree with all you have suggested above, and also pointed to my own difficulty in how it should be addressed. I hope you agree that I can be reasonable, but just have no time for narrow agendas. I have responded on the Casement article, and have put forward suggestions on the Manchester one. The only problem is, my friend and their well polished chip has no intrest and even less knowledge to be even intresting. As we say, children my play while fools look on --Domer48 (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I really think it's up to you to decide what are the essential points and do the pruning. It seems funny to ask them what they think should stay when you know they don't want any of it. Also, what I say about text in articles applies equally to text in footnotes; I think that just moving the whole lot down into a footnote is not a good solution. Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll giving them the option to decide, because if I do it, it just allows then the oppertunity to bitch and moan. If they refuse the oppertunity, well I'm more than willing to have a go. I'm a bit tied up on the O'Leary article, and expanding the Stephens one a bit more. Once I have that out of the way, I will focus on the changes. If they don't want any of it, their going to have a tough time justifying it. I think you know what will happen when I attempt to do it? --Domer48 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note your comment regarding the inclusion of extra material on collusion. You feel the item wasn't agreed. May I draw your attention to the page history and the fact that it was SilkTork, the third party editor, who included this information. As far as all are concerned and I believe this includes ONIH, the article is now balanced and verified and requires no further major editing with the exception of verifiable new information. I have undid the changes and hope you will accept that, subject to further discussion?

GDD1000 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on my test version, as explained at Template_talk:IrishR#Green_border? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do tell why this line: "taking responsibility for IRA operations in the six counties of Northern Ireland and also County Donegal" is permissible to describe the geographical limitations of the so-called "Northern Command" whilst in the body of the text but cannot describe the vague term "north of Ireland" in the first line? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If as I suggested you read the entire article, why you are persisting in advocating an incorrect piece of information be added to the lead? Domer48 (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that a request for arbitration has been made with regards to the Ulster Defence Regiment page. You may file your comments at [1]

GDD1000 (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]