User talk:An Siarach/Archive 4

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VII (III) - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lough Neagh. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. --kingboyk 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VIII (IV) - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mifheinaigcoltami.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mifheinaigcoltami.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mifheinclchr.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mifheinclchr.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cornwall

Can I suggest you read Constitutional status of Cornwall before you claim that there is no sensible argument that Cornwall is not a legal part of England. It may be run as part of England (as Scotland more or less has been for three hundred years) but that doesn't make it so.

There are many examples of where the law in Cornwall diverges from that in England. For one, death duties don't go the Queen, they go to the Prince of Wales.

In addition, the EU has recognised that Cornwall represents a special case. --MacRusgail 19:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes Cornwall unique?

Image tagging for Image:Dùn Èistean map.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Dùn Èistean map.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Dùn_Èistean_map.JPG has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. RHaworth 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot

Hi An Siarach/Archive 4, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)   This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue IX (V) - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Siarach, sorry for templating you - I should have taken the time to write you a personal message. My concern is that most of your edits are marked as minor, but many of them do not meet the generally accepted criteria for minor edits.

From Wikipedia:Minor edit:

• "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."
• "If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please, do not mark it as minor."
• "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text."
• "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances."
• "When a page is disputed, and especially if an edit war is brewing or in full eruption, then it's better not to mark ANY edit as minor, unless you're sure that all other users will agree it's minor, like correcting a misspelling."

You frequently mark edits as minor where you've added content that other editors might not agree with, or removed material that was not blatant vandalism (for example, [3], [4]). By marking deletions as minor, you deprive the people who added the material of the opportunity to defend it.

Moreover, many of your "minor" edits have subsequently been disputed by other editors (for example, [5], [6]). This should never happen.

Note that I'm not criticising the content of any of your contributions - it's just that by marking them as minor you risk bypassing Wikipedia's normal review process. If you're not 100% sure that an edit is minor, please don't mark it as such. Thanks, Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Request

Can you cast your eyes over the modern language versions of names on List of monarchs of Scotland, looking for missed accents and such other things. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just another question here. When you hear or read Ì Chaluim Cille, is the Ì part now understood as "island" or is it still meaningless? I ask because it is supposed to be a (now) meaningless place-name of uncertain etymology, but the Iona article claims it means "island". Besides a feminine pronoun, I've never come across the word being used for anything, but that doesn't mean, I presume, that moderns don't have a false understanding ... say, presuming it's short for innseag or something. Anyways, tell me what you think before I alter the Iona infobox. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks, that does answer my question. Language is of course something that changes over time, and present meanings/implications are have their own validity. I think it qualifies for slight tweaking and footnote commentary. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Island going

Welcome to WP:EILEAN - just let me know if you need any assistance. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Amadain

Tha mi duilich, ach tha amadain a' cur spam links air an duilleag gd:Uaireadair-grèine‎ a-rithist agus a-rithist. Is dòcha gum b' urrainn dhut semi-protection a chuir air an duilleag seo? Mòran taing. User:84.63.63.207|84.63.63.207]] 20:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sgoinneil, tapadh leat. Sionnach--84.63.17.156 21:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I see that you have refered me to an Admin of sorts for my Modern celts edits, i may add that YOU have made three reverts, and along with Sony four edits, arguably a team of sorts. The fact is the article remained how it was for a long time so it was YOU who initially started to make edits, i simply reverted as you made no attempt to discuss the changes until quite late. Gazh 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Glesga

You have effectively made an endless loop with this redirect. Ursasapien (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Glesga, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ursasapien (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

English/Scottish/etc.

You may be interested to know that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles) has now been created and there is a discussion taking place on the talk page. Readro 21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Gaelic vs Scots Language Status - Scotland Article - Discussion

Please feel free to respond to my last - taking the time to educate me as to why I "have spoken nonsense and blatant untruth". Comprehensive detail would be appreciated in your counter argument as to why Scots is not an 'Official Language', yet Gaelic is. I do not dispute the status of Gaelic, just your counter claim regarding Scots. I fail to see what the Scottish Parliament has done re. Gaelic which has not been done regarding Scots, other than the GL(S) Act and provision for local authorities to provide for Gaelic Medium Education. The Scottish Parliament has a site in Scots, amongst other languages, therefore it cannot be disputed that the Scottish Parliament recognises it as a language in its own right. The UK Govt. accepts this also by having ratified the ECRML and included Scots on the list, alongside Ulster Scots, Cornish, Welsh, Irish and Scottish Gaelic, leaving Manx Gaelic to the domain of the IOM Govt. I know of know specific legislation which confers Official Language status in the true sense upon Gaelic. Its satus is therefore neither de-facto nor de-jure and can only be regarded as an Official Language in regard to its recognition by the UK Govt. under the terms of the ECRML. These terms also apply equally to Scots. Promoting a language by establishing a Government body is a status afforded to Gaelic, but not Scots. However, Scots Language NGOs receive state support in the form of grant aid, for example the Scots Language Centre receives support from local authorities, e..g. Falkirk Council Education Department, and the Scottish Arts Council, much in the same way organisations like CnG do. As I've said, I'm not disputing the status of Gaelic, just do me the courtesy of explaining your stance re. Scots fully on the discussion page. Is mise le meas...80.41.201.183 21:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F. Thank you. Delivered on behalf of user:xaosflux 01:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Most great discussion of football, yes?!

I desire to talk of football, maybe big ginger beard of jock at Inverness? or southern poof at Haerts? yes, which is your favourite my mates? Also Henry and Goram, Goram is English yes? YESYESandmanygoals 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Permanent North American Gaeltacht

I was dismayed to see you had contributed to deleting my entry. Try checking the news: (http://www.gaelport.com/index.php?page=clippings&id=1974&viewby=date), (http://www.daltai.com/events.htm) list it, (http://www.lennoxandaddington.com/buzz/arch.cfm?a=showone&EID=41) shows it, I was personally at the opening, here is the official invitation(http://tribes.tribe.net/diasporagael/thread/247c1da6-f749-42e6-9508-604737b5e63a), we got an official recognition letter from Eamonn O Cuiv, Mary McAleese, and TG4 was present. I resent being called a crank for telling the truth. I am from Tamworth (the actually site, Erinsville is the closest town), I speak Irish and I live on a hill called Bailehack since the 1700's. Its nice to see that all my hard work in making an information page has been deleted by people who don't look into things. I will repost this, if only someone with more experience will tell me how, as now the page name is blocked by Wikipedia from being recreated. If necessary, I can provide more transcripts of the letters we received on our opening. user danjdoyle

Lough Neagh

Hi. I'm trying to get some constructive discussion going on over at Talk:Lough Neagh. As an editor that has been involved in discussion to date, would you be interested in taking a look and giving your thoughts? I'll be reminding all of the editors that I'm inviting to remember to keep it cool, and assume good faith. I'm sure that if all editors work together here, we'll have this one nutted out in next to no time. Mark Chovain 23:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings

Thanks An, for your explanation. It's much appreciated. GoodDay 13:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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 07:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my novelty on the subject; but you're correct the British Isles is the correct term (wether the Irish nationalist like it or not). Therefore, I've restored British Isles to the article - the consensus is in favour of it (currently 13 to 4). Sorry for the inconvenience. GoodDay 21:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

An Sairach, sorry for sticking my head in but I'd like to clear a few things up from your comments on the Lough Neagh page. The first is that this is not simply something concerning just a hard core bunch of editors out to push some POV. The term is considered obnoxious by a broad section of Irish people, not simple those could be called nationalist.

To begin with, as it's just something that vexes me, your summary is quite the orthodoxy but far from the history:

• Ireland was a part of a cognate term to "British Isles" 2000 years ago, that is true - so too were Iceland, Norway and Denmark, suggesting that that term might not be the same thing as the modern one!
• 1000 years ago, Ireland was not a part of any term similar to "British Isles" as none existed then (the Greco-Roman term appears to have dropped out of use very quickly after the conquest of Britain, when "Britannia" etc. became associated with the south of the island, later expanding to cover the island itself, displacing the earlier name, Albion, which contracted to mean only Scotland, as you're probably aware).
• The modern term dates from c.1600, OED puts 1621 for first recorded use. As HughSheehy pointed out on the Lough Neagh page, the author on that occasion had to take time to explain the word to his audience, his justification indeed buried in the Greco-Roman texts.

In any case, this is no reasons to choose to use one term or another. Many words that are thought to have ancient origins are in fact relatively new, that doesn't mean that they are any less valid.

My concern with the term is simply that it is seen as a provocation by a broad section of Irish readers (and so contributors too). I linked to a few references that point out the problems with the term (here). Around February this year an attempt was made to put the British Isles template onto the Ireland page. This immediately resulted in uproar, with editors who would not normally be excited by nationalist kind of stuff arguing that anything to do with Britain was simply not relevant to article, and was no more than an attempt by a small number of British editors to push a nationalist POV (remind you of anything?). The issue was resolved when I suggested that the template be modified to allow for an alternative title. That, to my mind, represents an NPOV. My concern for the Lough Neagh article, along with a couple more, is that the argument from the "pro-British Isles" side is that it must be "British Isles" and nothing else, and that anything else is simply an Irish-nationalist bias. That, clearly, is not NPOV as it does nothing to attempt to represent "fairly and without bias all significant views" but instead drives one view through against the protests of others.

My preference would be for the use alternative phrasings on Ireland-related articles (e.g. Lough Neagh is the largest lake in Britain and Ireland), this is hardly anything new. I provided some examples of alternatives in use on the Lough Neagh page (see another here - click on the map itself to see it title). One thing I really want to make clear is that this is not the "Irish nationalist POV" - unless you think that the BBC and National Geographic have been infiltrated by Sinn Féin! That POV would be to oppose any reference to Britain and say that it is a British bias. Gooddays edit seemed pretty fair to me. It got precisely the same information across but without use of inflammatory language. Surely that is the example of NPOV?

Ar aon nós - le meas, sony-youth^pléigh 10:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain vs Ireland

Hello An Siarach. I've checked up on the British Isles, Great Britain& Ireland articles. All I can say is 'wow', these disputes have been going on for quite sometime. Hope things get ironed out someday. GoodDay 16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Irish language (and GD)

Siarach, coming out from a few conversations with others, I've created a Gaeilge task force to coordinate translations of Irish place names and other Irish-language related work. Since you seem to have an interest in this stuff, you might want to get involved. Also, do you know of any related Scottish project? Maybe starting one, or linking up, would be possible? In any case, maybe drop a line on the talk page so that we can all "get to know each other" as the man might say. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)