User talk:Scolaire/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Scolaire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Scolaire, Many thanks for removing my request for review for Neo-Unionism in Ireland and inserting the article into Ireland related deletion discussions. Sorry, I was not aware that that forum existed and agree that it appears to be the appropriate place to deal with the issue. FrankFlanagan (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Places like that can be hard to find if you're not in the know. Scolaire (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire. I'm the IP user who made this edit, which you subsequently undid. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'unauthorised'. Did you even read the discussion? Closing the first survey to open another as I did, was even suggested by an administrator. It's a continuation of the same discussion on a slightly different topic in a better format, rather than a closure. The initial voting remains visible, and the discussion section is still open.

The thing is there's an obvious consensus for renaming the articles to get some standardisation, but there's confusion about which new format to adopt. It's worse than confusion - there's no structure in the initial discussion to determine which format to use. That's why I made the straw poll section, so we can get some clearer idea of what people prefer. I'd appreciate it if you undid your edit, or implement the clarifying section by yourself, so we can get on and find the consensus for the new names. Please leave any reply here as I'm on a dynamic IP. Thanks. 78.146.252.55 (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a right and a wrong way to close a discussion. The way you did it is not the right way. Among other things it is confusing to the reader who is new to the discussion, as I was this morning. That's why we leave it for experienced editors to do. I don't have that kind of experience so I just reverted to the previous state, but leaving your comments in it. There is no rush. The suggestion was a good one and it will be implemented in good time. Scolaire (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Just suggesting that leaving discussion on your own may be good, though staying on is better! Cheers! ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence! However, I feel strongly that in a situation such as we have there, everybody should state their case once and then leave the discussion. I'm cross with myself for even remaining as long as I have.

Allowing one person to monopolise a discussion is not a bad thing. In practice, the more they rant, the less notice will be taken of them when it comes to closing the discussion. On the other hand, if everybody decides just to stop, word-wars can end very suddenly, which raises the probability of an early and satisfactory resolution. Scolaire (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:GAME anyone? I don't blame GTBacchus though. -167.219.48.10 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I think it's much of a muchness really. There is something neat in having the timeline correct within the page order, but I can also see the logic in moving stuff around. Why not post it as a suggestion in the comments section and let others decide on the merits or otherwise. I'm probably not going to be around for much of today in any case. Fmph (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the poll to the page. Mtking ^(edits) 10:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. And thanks for adding the RfC tag; I wasn't sure what the appropriate header would be. Scolaire (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Except you added a poll that you decided on yourself, and not the one we'd agreed to hold. I've now added the one we agreed we'd hold. Bad form Scolaire. --HighKing (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad form yourself! I was the only one who made any effort to have any sort of structured discussion. You were always going to let somebody else do the work and then whinge no matter what was done. I'm out of it now. Yous can all do what you like. Scolaire (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind you making these kinds of edits but, just so you know, my choice of indentation is not a mistake because I 'forget'.

See the examples at Wikipedia:Indentation. In the case above, my comment was in reply to yours (and intended to build on it) so I indented one level more than your comment. Adding an extra indent makes it appear as if my comment was in reply to ComhairleContaeThirnanOg. In fact, I had an edit conflict with ComhairleContaeThirnanOg when replying to your post. --RA (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, if you you stay at the same level as the person before the whole lot looks like a single reply. I get caught out by that every time, which is why I add the extra indent every time. If you don't want to seem to be replying to the post immediately before, you could outdent one level. Then it looks like a reply to the last post but one, even though it's technically at the same level. Your knowledge of essays is way better than mine, but having read the Indentation essay I disagree with the "same level" advice; it is inherently misleading. After all, the only purpose of indenting is to distinguish one post from another. Scolaire (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the original idea behind indenting was to simulate the layout of threaded discussions on bulletin board systems. On those, indents are laid out like in the Wikipedia:Indentation.

However, it is a hack. The wiki code ; and : actually correspond to the HTML tags for definition lists. So, yeah, it isn't perfect, particularly like you say for large blocks of text like we are prone to write at WP:IECOLL. --RA (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's sound advice Scolaire. Normally, I don't spat that much with an IP, but it seems the bloke is likely a block-evading editor - trying to get me blocked. Afterall, how would he know about Snowded's sandbox 'or' how to link to it. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting that he knew about that! Scolaire (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP is apparently seeking to cause disruption and/or merely seeking attention. I'm through with whatever he/she is going on about. The IP is simple being non-coherent. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember guys tonight's Hallowe'en. All sorts of mischief-makers are bound to run amok...doo doo doo doo (Twilight Zone music playing in the background).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing personal Scolaire. I just get frustrated everytime I venture around Irish goverment related topics. Had a similiar experience months ago, concerning 'majority seats required' in the Irish parliamentary election articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring to your attention and other editors that Mabuska, Jon and Goodday (and the usual suspects) are refusing to change this author's nationality from British even though he was born in Ireland and claims that was Irish, they refuse to engage in consensus, even for not even mentioning nationality, could you and the others help intervene. Sheodred tried to help but he was harrassed and accused of being a socket as a diversion to the POV pushing of other editors.93.107.209.165 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. Scolaire (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you left some helpful feedback for newbies. Not sure if you found them though Special:FeedbackDashboard or not, but I wanted to invite you to join the response team. Thanks, Steven Walling • talk 03:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I did find them through the dashboard. I like to give somebody a helping hand occasionally, but I don't think I would do it frequently enough to be worth joining a team. Especially now, when I'm trying to scale down my WP activities due to RL committments (and deadlines). I appreciate the invite, though. Scolaire (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, joining the response team doesn't require any commitment. If you're interested in the feature (even every once in a while) signing up and/or leaving some comments at WT:New editor feedback will help WMF folks make a decision about the viability of the feature and what needs improving. Thanks again, Steven Walling • talk 07:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Scolaire (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am a registered user. Suddenly, without warning, I have got this message: You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, move, or create them. Editing from 86.41.0.0/18 has been disabled by JamesBWatson for the following reason(s): Vandalism. This block has been set to expire: 01:34, 20 January 2012. How can a registered user with a dynamic IP address be blocked because of anon actions? User 86.41.0.0 doesn't even have any contributions! What is going on here? Scolaire (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I have not unblocked the IP address, but I have exempted you from future similar IP address blocks. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Try posting to my TP to see if you are actually blocked. RashersTierney (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Rashers, but I had tried editing a number of articles/talk pages before I posted this. Scolaire (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The block isn't on 86.41.0.0, but on 86.41.0.0/18 - i.e. it is a range-block. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) This is a rangeblock, set to expire tomorrow. If you cannot then edit please post a further message saying so. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot edit. Why did you think I went to the trouble of appealing the block? Scolaire (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides, I thought the whole point of registering was that you would not be affected by IP blocks or range blocks. What is the advantage of registering? Scolaire (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Registered users who have demonstrated their trustworthiness can apply for, and/or be granted, IP block exemption, but it's not automatic (I may consider it in your case, since you don't seem to have caused any problems personally). Registration allows you to use email and preferences, and page semi-protection doesn't apply. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please either consider granting me exemption or tell me how to apply for it. I Have edited WP for seven years and never even got a warning, never mind a block. Scolaire (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Want me to raise this elsewhere? RashersTierney (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can, yes please. Scolaire (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I left a note at ANI. Not sure if its the most appropriate spot, but it should get a response. RashersTierney (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Scolaire (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

My next question is, what is meant by "86.41.0.0/18"? Does it mean 86.41.0.0, 86.41.0.1, 86.41.0.2 ... 86.41.0.18? Because I have checked the contributions for all of those and only three of them have ever made contributions, none of them later than 2007 and none of them vandalism! Scolaire (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see I can edit again. Thanks Amatulic. Scolaire (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. An IP address range in the format x.x.x.x/y means that the last 'y' bits in the 32 bit address (each 8-bit byte corresponding to one of the 'x' numbers in the human-readable IP address) serve as a wildcard. In this case the range of addresses blocked is everything matching the first 14 bits of the address 86.41.0.0 (the /18 means it doesn't matter what's in the last 18 bits). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, 18 bits out of 32! That's one big chunk of IP addresses! Thanks for the info. Scolaire (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A minor correction—the number after the slash – 18 in this case – is the number of leading bits that are fixed, not the number of trailing wildcard bits. So the /18 range covers all IPs beginning with the same 18 bits, and permits any combination of the trailing, least significant 14 bits. In other words, a /18 covers 2¹⁴ (about sixty thousand) IP addresses—probably the floating IP pool of a single good-sized internet service provider.

...which is not to say that any of this will help you if you're caught in a rangeblock.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've copied over the new section as requested. I wasn't trying to be obstructive just I'd rather do a job properly, shame that the real world kept butting in! Kernel Saunters (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as indignant. I just prefer to do things in real time rather than the recent back and forth business. Scolaire (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You're receiving this message because you recently edited Park51. Ed Poor has proposing splitting that off part of that article to create Ground Zero controversy. We're discussing it on the talk page here and would appreciate your feedback. Raul654 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

... for merging the talk page at Hugues de Payens! I have now added to the text the references that you identified for the Nocera dei Pagani claim. Andrew Dalby 09:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Andrew. Scolaire (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Politics in the British Isles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KarlB (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

		The Ireland Barnstar of National Merit
		For opening the RfC on Republic of Ireland and seeing it through. benzband (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And BTW, to add the boxey things you can put the following templates to surround the closed discussion:

• {{discussion top}} at the top
• {{discussion bottom}} at the bottom

Cheers, benzband (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I always think barnstars are silly things until someone gives me one ;-) Scolaire (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, and your participation in this discussion may be critical to finding a resolution. Thank you! Your input is always very welcome. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I think taking it to DR was premature. I will continue to discuss it on the article talk page for the moment. Scolaire (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A wee message for you here. --SonofSetanta (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• You forgot Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#You forgot Poland

As you were the one performing the 'merge' and redirection for this redirect, I thought I would mention to you that it's going through RfD right now. You're welcome to comment or not at your discretion. BigNate37_(T) 19:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd forgotten I had done that merge. I'll leave a comment. Scolaire (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much for editing down the monster section at the end of this article. I don't know if you know, but there's been a war on the Internet about the piece in the States and in some neo-cons abroad about it and so it kept lengthening and lengthening. THAT SAID, I am going to bring some context back into the edit, as I think Joan Juliet Buck should have a chance to defend herself. And I think there is some UK-Irish-based bias by ending it with a quote from someone at the Guardian?

Secondly, I am going to create a new article about the controversy as it had been suggested in [a discussion about what to do with that unwieldy section]. Please, please, please talk to me first if you feel that that needs to be edited down too before you do it. thank you and I love your country--Aichikawa (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"Please, please, please talk to me first" is a bit ironic since you failed to talk to me, or to anybody else, on the article talk page, and still haven't as of now. I won't get involved with editing any new article, so you needn't worry about that. Once the existing article is reasonably balanced the controversy article can say what it likes.

I've never heard the phrase "UK-Irish-based bias" before. If you saw some of the arguments between British nationalists and Irish nationalists on Ireland-related articles you would realise how ironic it sounds. The Guardian is in no sense an Irish paper. I only retained that quote because I thought it rounded off the paragraph better than the others. On reflection I think it can go.

FWIW, I think that edit-warring with IPWAI over the Totten comment is a bad idea. The quote is no better or worse than the other quotes that were there. The rationale, that it was already three to one (could you not have taken one of the other three out?) and that Totten is a neocon, is not convincing. It just gives the impression of ownership, and if it does go to dispute resolution down the line that is not going to look good for you. Not that I care either way, just offering my 2c. Scolaire (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You cut an entire section down, that's what I was responding to. If you felt that I didn't speak up before when I could have why not bring it up instead of saving it up until now when I responded to your vast cut? Ugh, I knew you might say something about UK-Ireland whatev, I just didn't get why it ended with that quote and now it's back in. Thanks for your two cents.--Aichikawa (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted what I thought was an intelligent critique of the section on the talk page, suggesting that it be cut down, and noting that there was no discussion there on the talk page. Nobody responded for 24 hours, but you and IPWAI continued to edit-war. When I was bold and did the edit, you responded here at my user talk page, continuing to ignore the article talk page. Why didn't I bring it up before? I did. I think you need to get into the habit of discussing the article on the article talk page. That's how articles get improved. Anyway, I'm done dispensing advice. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! As a DRN volunteer, ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire can i request that you revert your change of "killed" to "shot" on the Corporals killings article? As you may have noticed the issue was recently the subject of an edit-war that resulted in 6 editors (yes 6) being topic-banned for at least 3 months. The wording "killed" has been in the article since August 2008 until Asarlai changed it in March 2012, from which the edit-war would start.

Whilst your rewording is not controversial or problematic in my viewpoint, i think it might be best to keep the wording the way it has been in the article for nearly four years.

Mabuska ^(talk) 10:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is not controversial or problematic, what possible reason is there for reverting it? Because of the topic-banning of the editors, the mediation case over "killed" v "summarily executed" could not proceed. I substituted a word that is not controversial or problematic, but is different, which means neither side can claim a "victory" by default. This minimises the potential for bad feeling, and improves the article since two "kill"s in consecutive sentences is not especially good writing. I call that a win-win. Scolaire (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you think it's best. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire I want to thank you too for taking the time to post a detailed explanation of your views on my talk page. I appreciate your guidance, I really do, and that's not just me saying "I hear you". I must admit I didn't consider there'd be earlier editwarring or similar battleground behaviour on the Provos article when I should have. I thought I could do a better job than was there and in particular in "dumbing down" the style of prose. Anyone using the name Óglaigh na hÉireann is a bit of a red rag to me because the IDF has been re-establishing its claim since RTE used the term a couple of years ago on the Paddy's Day parade in Dublin and I'm very opposed to anyone trying to establish a tradition out of the myth, if you get my drift? Old wounds sting a bit too when you consider the people who always seem to become involved at Troubles articles, present company excepted.

There are things in the article which I find POV. Some of the wording is terribly slanted towards a Republican POV. We shouldn't allow that. Not for Republicans, Loyalists or anyone. Straight forward facts are what a reader needs, especially if the Wiki is ever to be a reliable source for people researching at third level. You've only seen me in action on one or two articles. If you read through my other articles you'd find I apply that everywhere.

I have other things on my agenda at the moment but yes, if we could perhaps have a closer look at the article again after Stephen's Day then perhaps I can work along with you to create something everyone finds agreeable and which is not only factually correct but written in an academic style. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I want to thank you, too. It's not often that someone appreciates my advice, rather than accusing me of provocation or disputing my post line by line. I think that you do have the right mentality for WP, as long as you can learn not to react to that "red rag" ;) It's probably better to say nothing more about the article itself, lest it be seen as a breach of the topic-ban, but I wish you every success on your milihist articles. Scolaire (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you can't stay away, huh, LOL. Saying a contract not being renewed isn't important isn't convincing. They're time- based, so after a year or a three- or a five-year mark hits and it doesn't get renewed, it's a big deal, believe me. I look forward to your getting involved in this article again LOL.--Aichikawa (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there's a full-scale edit-war going on again, so I will be staying away. I thought it was stable so I corrected a grammatical nonsense. If a thing never happens again, you can say that the following day it didn't happen, or several months later it didn't happen, or fifty years later it didn't happen, and no one of those statements makes more sense than any other. On the other hand, if a thing does happen, for instance at the end of a year when it is expected to happen, you can still say that after several months it didn't happen, and that might be quite true, although it would still be nonsensical and in this case also misleading. I changed it to "Buck's contract with Vogue was not renewed", period, which in fact gives exactly the same amount of information. If you knew when the contract was due to be renewed, you could say that, and that would be a useful addition, but nobody has ever thought to do that. In any case, if you're busting a blood vessel and writing a splenetic message on somebody's talk page over such a simple edit, it might be time for you to take a step back and try to get a sense of proportion. It looks as though you're letting that article take over your life, and that is not healthy. Scolaire (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You commented in the RfD discussion about Criticism of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Wikipedia. That discussion was closed as "moot" due it having been unilaterally converted to an article during the discussion. I chose to boldly implement the apparent consensus of that discussion and the previous discussions linked from it, and reverted it to a disambiguation page. That action has been reverted due to a perceived lack of discussion. I would welcome your comments at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia to see if consensus can be reached again for an dab page, article or redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire, I don't really mind your editing the closed discussion in this case, but weren't you the one who initially commented on how the discussion wasn't taking place at Talk:Derry (first comment after the IP's proposal)? You also didn't sign your recent comment; I thought you might want to add that yourself as long as we're discussing it. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't log on again since I posted that particular comment. Yes, I felt, and I still feel, that IECOLL is the appropriate place for recurring discussions about Derry/Londonderry. What I thought was suspicious in this case was that an IP who seemed to come from nowhere should have known that it was the appropriate place. I didn't want to say outright that it was a sockpuppet, but a couple of participants after me did say it outright. When you responded to that initial comment, I didn't say that I disagreed with you, because I didn't want to start a discussion within a (sterile) discussion. But when you closed the discussion with the comment that IMOS would be a more appropriate venue, I felt I ought to register my disagreement. Thanks for pointing out the missing sig. It's a mistake I rarely make, so it annoys me all the more when I do make it. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Dixon (Irish republican), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McBride (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Should have been John MacBride. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)