User talk:Cathar11

Honduras
Honduras is located in the North American continent. There are 2 continents in the Américas: North America and South América. Central América is not a continent. When you moderate the article of Honduras you should let people put that the location of Honduras is North América. You should take a look at the countries who are located in North America (continent). Honduras is one of them. Please, read the article of North América in Wikipedia. You seem to deny the fact that Honduras, Belize, and Guatemala are located in North America. Again, Honduras, Guatemala, and Belize aré located in the continent named North America. Central América is not a continent. Next time, before you delete/modify the geographic location of a country in its article, please verify in which continent the country is located. Note: you wrote on my talk page that I could describe Honduras as being located in the Central American part of North America? That would be the location of United States then. Honduras is located in the south of North America, if Wikipedia is using the continent model that recognizes two Americas. If we use the continent model that recognizes only one America (the continent model taught in the school systems outside the U.S.A) then Honduras can be described as being located in the central region of the American continent, Central America. But again, if you are following the continent model (taught in the U.S.A.) that recognizes two Americas, Honduras then would be located in the south region of North America. Wikipedia needs to be consistent and has to use only one continent model, the one who recognizes only one America or the one who recognizes two Americas. Please, read the article of the continent models in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bono983 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism
I have added back the quotes on islamic terrorism that u removed because the quote is reliable. this is because there are 5 references for that 1 quote.check again

furthermore, this quote is extremely controverisal, adminstrators have checked this quote as well and have discuss it. They have no problem with it.

please check here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Unacceptable_references_to_inane_content

pelase do nto remove it again.as it has been approved by adminstrators

IRMS
Hi there. The section you added "Corduff described it differently" - differently to who? To Farrell's "trouble free exercise"? So the article now states that IRMS were involved in the assault? That bit is certainly pov. As I've stated on the talk page, particulars about the assault aren't necessary - the important thing is that IRMS denied the assault. If you want to cover it in more detail on Willie Corduff's own page feel free (within reason), but it's not necessary on the IRMS one. Quoting Corduff's description of the assault verbatim is also (what I consider to be) pov-pushing. Also, I actually meant "[first sentence] unref'd & [second sentence] pov-pushing" in my previous edit summary, not that the entire addition was unsourced (I also noted the first sentence was actually ref'd properly, my bad). Thanks! Fin©™ 12:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "particulars about the assault aren't necessary" - you seem to be plucking that one out of thin air. I also disagree with your assertion on Corduff's quote. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was doing some research on IRMS on the web and came across articles on Indymedia written by a user with a very similar name to your own on the topic here:. I recognise your right to anonymity however if perchance this happens to be yourself then I would like to draw your attention to some important policies, WP:COI which states:- Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount and WP:SOAPBOX which says Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Please read these and if I can help you with anything, don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 16:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have indeed written some articles on Indymedia. I am not a member of any political organisation or employee of any business connected or oppossed to the subject. I am not on a soapbox and would like wiki to properly reflect reality. Cathar11 (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats grand, I just wanted to make you were aware of those policies. If I can be of assistance, just let me know.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 17:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Not all articles on Indymedia attributed were mine. I would be grateful for your assistance in the future on biographies of Former Garda Commissioners who have no links or online information at present.Cathar11 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, I will help where I can though the Gardaí wouldn't be my area of speciality. I did a bit of research on Garda topics when doing a cleanup on Garda Public Order Unit and created Garda Mounted Unit as result of stuff I happened across when doing this research but Irish rugby is my thing. User: Police,Mad,Jack may be of assistance tho I think he's UK based  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well! Just wondering if security staff do have to be identified, cos this article seems to implicitly state they don't "The authority was mandating all security staff in the State to display badges from next September". Thanks! Fin©™ 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the job of the PSA is to implement the Act. It cant arbitrarily decide which sections are implemented on which dates. That is the job of the minister. It is the law from the date the ministerial order was signed. Cathar11 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah ok - the law, but not enforced. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Spanish
Hiya. The issue isn't that the ref isn't reliable (perhaps it is), it's that references should be in english on the english-language wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned (I don't speak spanish), the ref you added could say anything. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I cannot find any guideline in wikipedia on not using foreign language sources and have regularily come across them.Cathar11 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

revamp work
sorry dude, if youre doing a lot of work on the article then bang this template up:

Good work on Willie Corduff, just a couple of pointers
 * Be careful of spelling and grammar errors, you can click preview and check pages before saving.
 * The section on the alleged assault is slightly lacking context, I know and you know he was lying under the truck as his protest but its not apparent to someone who's not familiar.
 * The last statement in the alleged assault section is a bit problematic. Theres guideline somewhere that says statements shouldnt draw readers to a certain conclusion. Also it wording is unsuitale "Clearly" (see: Wp:weasel) and the source may be problematic under Wp:RS.

otherwise keep up good work G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 13:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

sure, what sort of help do you need? G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I need a hand to merge policing into a new section within the controversy entry I seem unable to do itCathar11 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't rush into anything, there has been an objection. I'd also suggest you maybe touch base with user:bigdaddy1981 first as he's been working at this too. G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ok No Problemns. I thought lapsed pacifist was suspended from editing items around Mayo/Shell. I am working on making some sense of the controversy page. Big Daddy is working on the Corrib project page which is seperate. I'll ask him though. I cant get the flag to work right on the controversy pasge - can u sort it out please the syntax seems to be right.Cathar11 (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No they haven't. I'm not sure where that one is going yet. They have heavy COI but its important everyone adheres to correct process even if they dont. You & bigdaddy should def touch base as you are working on very similar areas. I don't want to get into too many large edits at the moment as a lot of stuff I've done recently has been straight reverted and edit warred on. I will try give a hand though. Flags fixed now, you just had the incorrect bracket. G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 22:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, good work on revamps, I see you've introduced a lot of relevant & well sourced info. Just a point on editing, I see you're doing a lot in small steps and saving. I'm also guilty of this myself but if you could try and do things in larger steps, maybe offwiki and using preview panes? The reason being is that it makes the revision history a lot easier to follow. Cheers G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I will have a look as soon as I can --- I've not been doing much on Wikipedia these last few days as work has been busy. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Revisions
I think that the article is greatly improved(!). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * and again

Shell 2 Sea
Given that there are specifics re republicans who support the terminal and plenty of specifics re non-republicans who oppose it; it doesn't seem unreasonable or POV to give details of some well-known ones who oppose it. I think details on either side should be proportional --- if this is too much possibly negative (although that really depends on ones politics) detail then I daresay that there is too much positive detail. Just my view. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC) I'm actually looking for the quote from Jim Farrell where he said republican involvement was greatrly overstated. Which is the reality. I think WSM are more the culprits. I've never been there(Rossport) but media in Ireland is very unreliale on this. The Gardai have made many apparently false or spun statements which are repeated verbatim. More names need to be omitted. The whole article foes need compacting and rationalisation.Cathar11 (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree --- I'll let you get on with it; I don't want to be adding stuff to balance out things that you are planning to delete. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Corrib Gas Project
I've done some spadework on this article -- have a look. It is far from complete but I think its a bit better now. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Corrib Gas Controversy
The page looks miles better; good work. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Foundation
I'm not an admin, but you can request page protection via WP:PADLOCK - hope this helps. Little Professor (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there
Hi, thanks for helping out on the Honduran crisis article. One word advice, though: never ever never noven ever forever naught ever mention "non-NPOV" in the edit summary of a contentious article. Hilarity typically ensues ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Oops tnx my mistake, tripped up --won't do it again. ;) Cathar11 (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there
What is your problem you are editing stuff leaving sentence fragments and everything else else in an attempt to put across half truths and inuendo. My information is referenced and you need to quit before you get a revision war. Have a nice day.Da'oud Nkrumah 21:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

You seem not to be able to spell well so it seems you don't understand English. You should look at the talk page on it I was invited to add the governments point of view and all my information is backed by the appropriate references. The first reference is to this article http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=axGENUiy9yKs which says "The arrest order she cited, approved unanimously by the court’s 15 justices, was released this afternoon along with documents pertaining to a secret investigation that went on for weeks under the high court’s supervision." Now take your pro-zalaya bullshit somewhere else. Do you not know what unanimous is? Da'oud Nkrumah 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

I am signing with 4~ Newayz I have a problem with the point of view of the existing article. That is correct. Wikipedia editing policies do not require me to talk on a discussion page about any edit. I did so as a matter of courtesy to other editors. But I will not have people removing referenced material because they want to slant a article. If you want to play silly childish games I can play those games as well. Do not remove my referenced material. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Some of us actually care about the integrity of this service. Da'oud Nkrumah 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

I am sorry but where do you get that I can't change something because a bunch of you got together without me and decided it should be so? That is not in any Wikipedia editing policy. Learn about Wikipedia. I don't care what you expect. You have already gotten on my bad side by your ridiculous actions. It was more like 20 referenced sentences you removed. Go remove some pro-zalaya sentences from the article. I noticed your edits did not touch any of them. Now, I don't like you and I do not wish to have further conversation with you. I will request peer review when I am done removing your pro-zalaya slant from this article.Da'oud Nkrumah 00:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well whether you like it or not the courts and Attorney General decide what laws people face. It doesn't say he is guilty it says he faces charges. Again perhaps you are having a problem reading.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31778837/ns/world_news-americas/ says "The new government has threatened to arrest Zelaya for 18 alleged criminal acts, including treason and failing to implement more than 80 laws approved by Congress since he took office in 2006" what about that don't you understand? I will add this reference too since it says specifically that it is the supreme court making the charges. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-07/2009-07-04-voa6.cfm?CFID=296304398&CFTOKEN=25424312&jsessionid=0030c8c9e9358d8321303e627724541c5f2f —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Well, I don't know about the unsigned stuff. I added the reference from VOA saying that it is the supreme court " A spokesman for the Honduran Supreme Court said justices told Insulza that Mr. Zelaya cannot be restored to power because he is facing a series of criminal charges. Officials have said Mr. Zelaya stands accused of 18 offenses, including treason and abuse of power, and will be arrested if he returns to the country." The other reference attributes the 20 years to the court. Da'oud Nkrumah 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Again I add four ~ after every edit.

Ok lets try some decorum: Ha ha. Hey I have it to the point I think its balanced. Yes it says pro-regime things but it also says pro-zalaya things. We are providing both views without approving of one or the other. But look it over. I don't mind you re-adding the part about no governments recognizing them. Just please don't remove referenced stuff. I just removed that to shorten the lead. Da'oud Nkrumah 01:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)
 * Hello. I clicked the link and it just went to the front page of the website. I am just asking that you make the link go to the actual article and it didn't say (policia) anywhere I could see. --Da&#39;oud Nkrumah (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Honduran Judiciary
You might find the following reference useful:

http://irps.ucsd.edu/assets/004/5370.pdf

on the politicization of the Honduran Judiciary. Rsheptak (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the info. Interestingly the policy of redressing the conditions that lead to gang membership was a key planki n Zelayas electoral platform in 2005,Cathar11 (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no
No, I'm really done with this. There's just way too much breakage in the way things are administered. This was the last straw for me. You don't punish everyone for the actions of a couple of hotheads, period.

You can find much of the info you need to work on the article by reading my blog (I'm RNS and my wife is RAJ) http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com where all of the articles have links to reference materials from which they are taken. Good luck.

Rsheptak (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC
There is an RfC in the International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup article. -- Rico  15:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk Honduras
I deleted the likely libelous content and advised Summermoondancer that s/he could restore it, but only with an RS, and only if used as part of a discussion to improve that article. I then warned the single-purpose pseudonym on his or her talk page. You report a user that should be blocked or banned at AN/I. -- Rico  16:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

== I put a second RfC at International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup talk page ==

I put a second RfC on the International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup talk page. I respect your contributions to the encyclopedia and would value your opinion there, especially since Moogwrench continually construes an edit of yours as evidence that you agree with him, in general. -- Rico  15:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes, and well, there is this suggestion that I put the Republican actions info on International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup page. I am trying to be as deferential as possible while still explaining why I thought Cathar supported the inclusion of that info on the page. Moogwrench (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion
Your edits to the "Legality" section in 2009 Honduran coup d'état are not going to last very long unless you add a citation from a WP:RS. Spanish citations are fine if you can't find anything in English. Homunq (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation and attribution added I couldnt find it at the time of posting- only had an intermediate source at the timeCathar11 (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't blanket-undo trims
We're engaged in paring down the article. It should, eventually, be something like half its CURRENT size (that is, 40% of its peak size). We need to go for WP:SUMMARY. Also, moogwrench is a newer user, and undoing is discouraging. I'm going to undo your undo, but I welcome you to manually re-add whatever specific items you wish, and would not count that towards WP:3RR. (Even if you add everything there was before, I suspect you'll find a way to say it better and shorter). Homunq (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * oops, you beat me to it. Cheers, sorry for jumping the gun. Homunq (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2009 Honduran coup d'état
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is 2009 Honduran coup d'état. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/2009 Honduran coup d'état. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI
BigDunc 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Robert Erskine Childers
Hi. Is there a source for "setting up the secret service"? I've removed it for the time being, but it would be a useful addition if a reference could be found. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoaxes
Hello Cathar11. Thanks for drawing the new hoax edit to my attention. I have emailed the college about the abuse originating from their IPs and given the originating account holder, who is probably behind at least some of the edits, his one and only warning. Hopefully either the college will do something about it, or that possibility will convince him/them to give up. But should you find more, do let me know. Rockpock e  t  07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, the sysop at the college that owns those IPs responded wanting the exact time stamps of the edits. I provided the details he needs, so he should now be able to identify the individuals involved and says he will take the appropriate disciplinary action since they take this sort of thing very seriously. I expect the individual(s) involved may be in for a bit of a shock. Rockpock  e  t  00:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Reflinks toolserver
I noticed that you took up my suggestion of using the Reflinks toolserver. I meant to suggest that you don't just take the results given verbatim, but make corrections to clean them up. I tend to find the results need some manual help; sometimes author names and dates don't get added, and links to publishers are to the website which is not really useful, so I link to the wiki article if one exists, sometimes the title is way too long including parent section names that can be removed, etc. This one you just did has some of these issues. A very useful tool I you have used for some of the Corrib gas articles, which I had done previously but they seem to have been removed or overwritten. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was late at night. Thanks for the advice.Cathar11 (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

USC
Hi Cathar, you may be interested in ongoing revamp of Ulster Special Constabulary. 16:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

National Graves Association, Belfast
Hello Cathar. I appreciate you are relatively new to Wikipedia, but I hope you realize that we do not edit by committee. If you have a concern with an edit then you should explain why (on the talk page) with relevance to the appropriate guidelines and policies (just as I did). However, it is not appropriate to revert someone else's edits (which were fully justified in our policies) simply so a third editor can discuss it first. If we did that all the time, nothing would ever get improved.

So, I'm going to change the article back to the previous version and await explanation (from you or Mil 09) to why this material should be included per WP:MEMORIAL, WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks. Please don't revert it back unless you are willing to justify it first. Thanks. Rockpock e  t  01:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Cathar11. Reading back our exchanges from last night - after a little time and distance - I'm disappointed at how snippy and dismissive my attitude towards you was. So please accept my apologies. After many years (too many, probably) of dealing with edit warriors in this subject, I realize my patience with good faith editors is often not what it should be. I'll take your concerns on board going forward. Rockpock  e  t  20:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. It was late.Tnx.Cathar11 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Swift
Re Patrick Swift Hey. Thank you so much. You've been a star. I hadn't actually finished the entry when i decided i had to go 'live'and see if any helpful editors would help. I'd originally though it would be like a blog and i'd just cut n paste. But, no! I'd have spent ages doing it otherwise. So, it's really down to your help. Hence all the little adjustments. There's prob too many names of other artists in there, and often repeated, but i thought that might get the attention of someone who otherwise would ignore the entry. I also wanted each section to be able to be read independently of the other. He's still very underrated. I agree re John Ryan. From what i know he was an important figure in Dublin's cultural scene. He supported a lot of artists and was often the gel that got them all together. With Ryan who have Envoy, Bailey pub, McDaid's, The first Bloomsday walk, fact he always supported people like Kavanagh etc. He was an artist too of course. I noticed McDaid's doesn’t have an entry which it should. How extraordinary it must have been to walk into that little pub and encounter all these personalities. Won't happen again. Also, there are very few people from that era left alive.

TisTRU —Preceding unsigned comment added by TisTRU (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just took a look and noticed there is not mention that the first ever celebratory bloomsday walk was taked by Kavangh, Ryan, Myles, Cronin and one of Joyce's cousins- who just happened to be the only person related to Joyce that they could find.

TisTRU —Preceding unsigned comment added by TisTRU (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Cathar, let me know what you want and I'll see what I can come up with —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mil 09 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Republican Graves
Cathar, Re. Republican Graves in Belfast. let me know what you want and I'll see what I can come up with Mil 09 (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

John Ryan
I know i've seen a photo in a newspaper of them on that walk but probably different to the one you have. Maybe see if you can find out who owns the copyright. And, considering all the people who are in the photo are now dead - as i imagine is the person who took the photo- whoever owns the image rights prob doesn't know they do.
 * Its probably The Irish Times/Photographer depending on what release he signed. I gotin from the Kavanagh Archive in UCD. Copyright in Ireland doesnt expire until 70 years after the artist or photographers death. Its definitely not Public Domain.Cathar11 (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"It wasn't until 1954, its 50th anniversary, that John Ryan, restaurant owner and publisher of the literary periodical Envoy, and his literary friends, novelist Brian O'Nolan and poets Patrick Kavanagh and Anthony Cronin, resurrected Bloomsday in Ireland. There are photos at the National Library in Dublin…of their pilgrimage in two horse-cabs to various locations in Ulysses and several pubs." By the American national coordinator(! )of bloomsday Laura Weldon. And this:

BLOOMSDAY (a term Joyce himself did not employ) was invented in 1954, the 50th anniversary, when the novelist Flann O’Brien and the writer and magazine editor John Ryan organized what was to be a daylong pilgrimage along the ”Ulysses” route. Accounts of the venture are given by Ryan in his book of reminiscences, ”Remembering How We Stood” — renamed by Dublin wits ”Remembering How We Staggered” — and in ”No Laughing Matter,” a biography of O’Brien by the poet Anthony Cronin, who was one of the pilgrims. Cronin’s downbeat version of the ‘’structured and, in a way, humorless” event is probably the more accurate one. The tour began at the architect Michael Scott’s house beside the Martello tower in Sandycove, where the effects of the drink that Scott had laid on caused a scuffle between O’Brien and the poet Patrick Kavanagh. As might be expected, matters went downhill from there, and the pilgrimage was abandoned halfway through, when the weary Lestrygonians succumbed to inebriation and rancor at the Bailey pub in the city center.

I did find two photo's too.An image of Ryan, Kavanagh at http://multitext.ucc.ie/viewgallery/1206

One here too: http://www.irlandando.it/speciali/bloomsday/img/firstbloom.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by TisTRU (talk • contribs) 20:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bloomsday

And this from an article on Joyces father http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jackson-joyce.html

In about 1898 the eldest of the Glenosheen Joyces, Michael Joyce, established a family pedigree from which many of the above family details have been derived. His son was W. B. Joyce, educationalist and author, who also wrote about the history of Dublin. W. B. Joyce's son, Thomas Michael Joyce (1896-1958), was a dentist, who, after many years abroad in England and Wales, returned to Ireland in 1952 and practised in Pearse Street. On 16 June 1954, with Myles na Gopaleen (otherwise Brian O'Nolan and Flann O'Brien), John Ryan, Anthony Cronin, Patrick Kavanagh and Samuel Beckett's friend A. J. Leventhal of Trinity College, he went on the very first Bloomsday expedition, celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the day on which Ulysses is set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TisTRU (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the info on the toolserver stuff etc. I appreciate it! :) Moogwrench (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Electon figures
I left your edit to December 4 in the Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état regarding election returns (with a minor edit), even though I think that the AFP is confused, and the information might be misleading. The reasoning? TSE has been reporting the results as 66% counted with 1.7 million votes since Monday. Their website currently reflects that. As Boud puts it here, we can't take a partial counting of the votes and compare them to the total number of eligible voters and come up with a meaningful figure, unless we somehow try to project out, as Boud does, by dividing them by 66% to get something that approximates 100% of the votes to be counted. What do you think? Moogwrench (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Got your message. Thanks! Like I was saying, this article is about what TSE was reporting, not Hagamos Democracia. I dont know where Hagamos Democracia gets their 2,162,000 vote total but that is not even in the source you cited, and the source says only 2/3 votes have been counted: "The Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) posted figures of 49 percent participation after two thirds of votes were counted, down from 62 percent given initially on Sunday." So again, I have no idea where Hagamos Democracia is getting their numbers. Again, like Boud said in his comment, until we get all the votes counted, you just can't compare 66% of the votes to 100% of the eligible voters. Hope that makes sense. Moogwrench (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand, per your post, that Hagamos Democracia used a different methodology. But my original point still stands: TSE has not released total votes per their website.  The source also says that only 2/3 of votes have been counted. So until those votes are counted, you can't divide partial (66%) votes by total (100%) eligible voters and come up with a meaningful number.  If you have a source that indicates that a total count of votes has been reached, and has a reliable count of eligible voters, why don't you put it as a source? I actually want to understand the data as you are trying to present it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiousity, do you have a website for Hagamos Democracia's election data? Moogwrench (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

LLoC report
Just in case you weren't watching my talk, I responded to your post regarding the LLoC report here. I think it would be good if we fleshed out both the criticsm and the strengths section, though as I noted, I did put in a bit of defense regarding the whole "does Congress have the power to interpret the Constitution issue" already. Moogwrench (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC at 2009 Honduran coup d'état regarding mention of the constitutional crisis in the lede
I'd like your opinion, and that of other editors that have been interested in the Honduran articles, at Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Envoy Found some pretty intersetig info on Envoy. Again, in America? The first to publish J. P. Donleavy, Brendan Behan's first short stories and his first poem, and an extract from Samuel Beckett's "Watt," http://irishliterature.library.emory.edu/pdf.php?id=MSS043_1001419 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TisTRU (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning
You are consistently ignoring 3RR if you continue your account will be nominated for blocking.--Proofknow (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning by Proofknow not appropriate

 * I see 4 reverts by Proofknow, 2 by Sinneed and 2 by Cathar11. The warning at Cathar11 was not appropriate. -  Sinneed  01:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Foundation
On my talk page you wrote:

User Proofknow s/He has done 5 of the same reverts. I've warned him about 3RR.Can he be blocked for the reverts before the warning?Cathar11 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I have opened a 3RR violation thread at wp:3RRNB, probably the editor will be warned sternly. I think we both agree the deleted section belongs, but needs work. If you are interested, perhaps you would propose new wording on the talk page? The article is not badly harmed over the short term by having the content ommitted, and it would be a show of wp:good faith to propose an alternative, even though the deleting editor declines to do so. - - Sinneed  00:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning left for User:190.53.244.15 regarding Manuel Zelaya
I just left a 3RR warning for User:190.53.244.15 here on his page, along with a list of his recent reverts. Unfortunately I have got to run, but if he keeps reverting/edit warring he has been warned and you can take it to the admins. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. I just noticed that has already been blocked for edit warring before so maybe you can just report him again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogwrench (talk • contribs) 00:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis
I think you are definitely right, what with all the POV, indiscriminate, and fringe stuff added with so little discussion, and I am willing to back you up (with discussion, and reverts if necessary) on the edits you feel are necessary. Revert when necessary, though try to modify his edits in a NPOV direction when possible, so he doesn't get too defensive and just start reverting wholesale, and I will try to do as much content editing as possible. If I edit a lot of content, though, I will also need your backup as well, as he may revert. I think SqueakBox would probably be willing to help too, if you ask him. Does this sound like a decent course of action? Moogwrench (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I am sorry, I already started working, do your rollback, and let's discuss the changes with the new editor. You might consider asking for protection if he doesn't want to discuss them. Moogwrench (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rollback locked. Moogwrench (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Rollback_feature, could you set up an RfC on the crisis page, so we can notify the reasoning behind the rollback and our previous discussion? I think you can frame the issues a bit better than I can. Moogwrench (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll do it little by little then, the wheel of Wikipedia rolls on. Moogwrench (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The african bees thing is essentially fringe speculation that Chavez inadvertently let slip that he was planning (in code) a violent seizure of the Toncontin airport when Zelaya was going to land there or, worse yet, a massacre at the Toncontin airport by provocateurs among the crowd and/or police, that would then be blamed on the Micheletti regime. Moogwrench (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gigantic reverts are not acceptable
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.

Sorry, but these kinds of gigantic reverts to some old version that destroy dozens of improvements by multiple editors are not acceptable.

For the sake of other editors, could you please do edits one by one?

--Alb28 (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues
I am sorry, I must confess my ignorance about exactly what to do about the articles. I will put a and we can maybe report the pages to Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Should they be blanked? Nominanted for deletion? I am kind of at a loss because my depth of knowledge about Wikipedia is still pretty shallow. I will put the warning on his page though, let me know what you think should be done and what you would like me to do. Moogwrench (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I left him an extensive warning at User_talk:Alb28. Where do you think we should go from here?  Maybe we should ask Xavexgoem? Moogwrench (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you leave him a message on his talk? I already left him an RfC notice this week and I don't want to seem like I am pestering him too much. Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, you might want to see if he can deal with these two guys, too. I saw him comment on the talk page, but maybe he hadn't looked at the edit history closely. I swear, it's like they are coming out of the wood work these last 2 days. Moogwrench (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cathar. I need to log but I'll be back on later.  Good luck.  Moogwrench (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, cool, hopefully between BLP, ANI, and 3RR all looking at this articles and users we'll get some effective resolution. Moogwrench (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello, Cathar11. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue concerning your edits. Thank you. — Cactus Writer |   needles  13:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Holy moly, I will look at that ASAP. Moogwrench (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Casting a cold eye
For your information, I added the following sub-section to the most recent AN/I post by Alb28 regarding you:

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

Let me know if you have any questions or comments, or need any specific help with any issue. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
User:Acalamari, he seems like a really nice admin, actually, very helpful to people who want to contribute to WP, at least from what I could read on his talk page. Moogwrench (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there Cathar11, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request on my talk page. You are right that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam, and that using it to revert anything else (by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse, and some admins will also remove rollback from accounts that have been blocked for revert-warring, even if rollback was never used in the revert-war. This all being said, rollback is a very handy tool for dealing with vandals and spammers. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 16:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts
Thanks for watching out for my page. I appreciate the reversion of that vandalism. Moogwrench (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

human rights foundation
you would get along much better with other editors if, rather than undoing their hard work, you actually engaged in discussion on the article's talk page. your form of editing simply inflames a situation and gets people's backs up. i fully intend to defend the edits I made, regardless of how many other editors we have to bring into this discussion and referee your reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdadseadicha (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinion pieces, court records and other primary sources
Here in the US, we sometimes use "(news) columnist" for a regular contributor to the op-ed page page of a newspaper, someone like David Brooks or Thomas Friedman. But an editorial is always an opinion. Always.

Regarding court records and other primary sources, they can be used but only for descriptive, not interpretative, statements (any interpretation has to be backed up by a reliable second source).

Thus we can say, for example:

"In Heller v. District of Columbia, the majority opinion in the US Supreme Court stated: "In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediateself-defense."

But we cannot say, for example:

"This opinion established that the right to bear arms is a individual, rather than a collective, right for all Americans at the state and federal level."

unless we have reliable secondary source which states this interpretation.

At least, this is what I have gathered from WP:PRIMARY. I hope this makes sense. Moogwrench (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information.

Alb28 (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas to you and yours, Cathar. Let's hope that this New Year is a Happy one on Wikipedia, eh? Best regards, Moogwrench (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you... yes, hopefully Honduras calms down a bit this next year so we can go see family and friends again. Moogwrench (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis
I really do think that the lack of judicial independence is something that needs to be noted. How large a mention is needs is debatable but a lot of people could have the misconception that Honduras has a professional/lifetime judiciary (like in the US), and this is clearly not the case, either constitutionally nor in practice. This is why I readded content in coup article while adding the Reuters source, which does demonstrate a link to the notion of the Honduran judiciary being a factor in the crisis. I also think that Arias' criticism of the Honduran constitution is also a factor that can be mentioned, because the Honduran constitution does not provide for a clear method of impeachment.

I think the media ownership is slightly less important issue, a briefer mention will probably do. I think that everyone pretty much assumes that rich, monied interests with political motives and connections are going to control the media.

I think that the Human rights violatgions infos should try to be as compact as possible in the crisis article, but be given a more ample exposition, such as the table you suggested, in the Interim Presidency of Roberto Micheletti article.

Yeah, I knew Santos had resigned precisely because otherwise he would have been in violation of the "artículos pétreos" of the constitution to run for president as a sitting VP, and it is kinda crazy that they tried reforming Article 240 - http://www.loc.gov/law/help/honduras/pdf/%281%29%20Articulos%20petreos/article%20240%20%5BDoc.%201.5%5D.pdf so many times... I wish everyone in Honduras' political system followed the rules, instead of all the fingerpointing and of course the illegality.

Good work, btw, on all those BLP issues with David Romero Ellner, etc. We just basically have to keep keeping on. I am trying to keep aware of all the edits going across the Honduran articles while still trying to contribute meaningfully to WP in other ways. Moogwrench (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

All titles changed to controversy
I have chnaged all the titles which say "terrorism" or "revenge" to -> "controversy"

if you do not discuss this with me i will report you to an admin. You have been deleting stuff because you think that people are not allowed to say "critics of islam think this is a terrorist attack"

just because terrorism is not historical in your view. The references mention this (they mention terrorism). so what is your problem?

why do you remove it? you have got some misunderstandings regarding wikipedia policy.. just because it might not be historical it does not matter since these are the views of the 2nd side.if the second side said the moon is made out of CHEESE. i am allowed to say this, if it is a view of he majorirty. even if its stupid

theres no such thing as THE TRUTH on wikipedia.

theres no such thing as fixed rules on wikipedia.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

red this.

'''Statements of opinion Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.''' There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source).

Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully.

this is what i have done

AEG
How are theyunreliable. the idea that they are a scam is your view. your are ignoring everyone else and just removing what you feel like --Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC) '''furthermore, even if the source is unreliable. i am allowed to mention it not for its reliability. but for its opinion. which you just dont seem to understand. what is it in your head that stops you from udnerstanding this?'''--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

how is a video link an unreliable source. this tiem i did not use it as a reference. but just as a link--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How could the opinion of an author that uses a self publishing scam company be notable.Cathar11 (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_and_assassinations

i have set up a third opinion section in the talk page of Muhammad and assassintions. Please get involved and discuss you concerns.

i have added back the views of Rodney Phillips. not as a reliable source. but as an Authors opinion

only some people have been scammed by AEG. that does nto mean their books are not rleiable. they are just a publisher. NOT THE AUTHOR. so you can just say everything related to this publisher is a scam.

The authors of the book ar good people. that may have been scammed by them. however, there is nto much reliable evidence that they are scams, other than forums and comments on pages. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * i will not revert your edits on the article on the caravan raids. thanks for improving the article. lets not get involved in edit war. i just wanna ask a question. "The article only contains one side, the view of muslim scholars i.e Muburakpuri". No critics. is this neutral? will u accept it if i add the view of critics?

Phillips as a reliable source
I see that you removed sourced content from Battle of Hamra al-Asad on the basis that the author holds a fringe opinion and is therefore not a reliable source. As I see no discussion of this topic on the article talk page, can you please point me to where this discussion about the author has taken place, and where a consensus has formed about the reliability of the source? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response on my talk page. I don't know Phillips and hold no opinion on his views. Can you point me to a discussion on Wikipedia in which his reliability has been evaluated?  Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article talk page discussion about Phillips I've been pointed to is non-conclusive, as it's basically a few editors arguing their point of view in a "yes it is / no it isn't" fashion. I would suggest that all parties cease adding or removing content sourced to Phillips to all articles until a discussion has been started at the reliable sources noticeboard and a consensus has been found as to whether his work, and that of AEG, is reliable enough to be used on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

the source, Muslim empire and the land of Gold is being assesed by Adminstrators for its use on wikipedia Cathar11 please do not remove or edit any more articles. OR entire sections of articles because you think the soruce is not reliable for now. Until an adminstrator makes a judgment...--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Misconceptions2: I'm afraid you misunderstand the process -- admins do not make those kinds of determinations, Wikipedia editors do by discussing the issues involved and reaching a consensus. Once that has happened, admins can then enforce the consensus decisions (and they also, being editors too, can participate in the discussion), but they do not make the decision.  Also, for the record, I am not an admin, merely another editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Sole Soul (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the refact. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Tesco
Hi, the 'good faith' edits I made were to address the facts that the refs don't coincide with the content, the previous editor is a spammer (see contribs) and the info is either incorrect or unencyclopedic. Please advise.  raseaC talk to me 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'It was one of the first to build self-service till and use cameras to reduce queues' isn't true and not covered in the ref. 'and more recently the company has been working on security with Wipro' is unencyclopedic - it adds no real info. Explaining what they've been doing might make sense, but as it stands it hardly informs the reader of anything. 'A core part of the Tesco expansion strategy' is surely POV, the info in the ref is not really anything different from any number of other companies so I don't really see how it's noteworthy. Finally, I'm not sure who supplies a company's phone services is really noteworthy for WP. Thanks,  raseaC talk to me 23:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They certainly use technology in a smart way but then loads of companies do that. The article currently lists a bunch of facts that frankly aren't noteworthy. The heat sensing cameras are possibly the only noteworthy bit, other than that I think it can all go. It's simply spam at the end of the day.  raseaC talk to me 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Do you have any interest in working on William Baxter Godbey it needs some work, but as you found by reading Hamilton's web page. Pulling out biographical material from the analysis is a lot of work. I had to read the entire article four times to find what exactly his credentials were. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Onward
Thanks for the comment. Olive branch (twig?) accepted. Two responses. 1) Some of your comments were personal. 2) I was negligent to quote a sambo joke without commentary or warning and I regret that. That said....onward. Buz lightning (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats what happens when you start editing and go to sleep for the night, the only way around it is to not sleep, just edit Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Flickr
If you ever can't find a new topic check out Flick Commons. The United States library of Congress posts images that it needs more info on. Most are easy to find right here in Wikipedia, others require more research. See one of the ones I added to Wikipedia here: Mary Harrison (golf). Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Koestler article -- use of direct quotation
You were kind enough to pick up my invitation to add a section to the article on Arther Koestler about his controversial relations with women. Only some time later did I realize that the text you added incorporated several sentences lifted verbatim from a published article. Could I, in a constructive spirit, suggest that when direct quotation is used on this scale, it is good practice to indicate explicitly that the the text is, indeed, a direct quotation (i.e., to go beyond just footnoting the source). Thank you again for your help with this article. Nandt1 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Kavanagh
Hi. I recently read an article in the Irish Times that erroneously credits John Montague with editing Kavangh's first collected poems: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0306/1224265693073.html Admittedly the article was by Montague. Kavanagh himself in his Authors Notes says: 'Besides The Great Hunger there are many poems in this collection which I dislike; but I was too indifferent, too lazy to eliminate, change or collect. For these and other reasons I must offer thanks to Mr Martin Green who made the collection.' See: Link to Martin Green’s letter in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jan/08/featuresreviews.guardianreview8 Link to Kavangh’s Author’s Notes: http://www.ricorso.net/rx/az-data/authors/k/Kavanagh_P2/anthol/text3.htm I was going to email the Irish Times editor but then thought that perhaps you might want to as you are far more of an authority on kavanagh. For the record it was actually Patrick Swift's brother, Jimmy, who had ‘rescued’ Kavanagh's poetry, which was lying around the poet’s flat, and sent it to Patrick Swift in London. Patrick finished editing Kavanagh's work before, with the poet Anthony Cronin, looking for a publisher.I know it's not really of much importance- and Montague probably was involved - but as Kavanagh is one of Irelands greatest poets of the last century(who was shunned by many so called 'intelligentsia' when he was alive) I just feel we should at least get his basic biographical details correct- especially when it comes to The Irish Times! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TisTRU (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason I mentioned it was because I had previous come across a letter in the guardian by Martin Green where he seems actually quite annoyed at the suggestion that Montague edited the collected poems:

Kavanagh caveat While we must be grateful for Seamus Heaney's balanced appraisal of the poetry of Patrick Kavanagh, in his review of the new edition of his Collected Poems ("Strangeness and beauty", January 1), I cannot understand why he wishes to perpetuate the myth that John Montague "put together" the first edition. It was I who made the collection for the MacGibbon and Kee first edition, for which Kavanagh thanked me in his Author's Note. It was following the suggestion of the painter Patrick Swift and the poet Anthony Cronin that the publication came about, and John Montague's sole contribution was to suggest that we included the poem "On an apple-ripe September morning" which appeared on the last page of Kavanagh's novel Terry Flynn, and which was added to the collection. Martin Green Penzance http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jan/08/featuresreviews.guardianreview8 Ultimately it's a trifle really but I do think credit should be given where it is due. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TisTRU (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Cathar
Hello, I hope that you are well. Hey, I noticed that you had deleted some material at Manuel Zelaya, most of which had to go, definitely. I was wondering, though, if there might be a way to restore the part about Zelaya supporting the legalization of drugs in some part of the article. I know that this was big news when it came down, even in the US, and if there were a way to mention it without being prejudicial (i.e. without trying to connect it to dropping approval rates, supposedly high rates of homicide, delinquency, etc.) I think that would be good, just because it was a fairly notable announcement from him. Can you let me know what you think? I wanted to be considerate of your edit. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Kavanagh
Hi. Though you might be interested in something I found on Kavanagh in An Anthology from X. David Wright who published 19 of Kavanagh's poems in Nimbus in 1956 says: These poems had been posted to me by Swift, whose brother James had invaded the poet's flat in Dublin, gathered up the trampled manuscripts scattered about the floor, and had them sorted, typed, and bound. One of the carbon copies was sent to me. I may be wrong but I think it was largely due to Swift and Cronin approaching different publishers with these poems that his first collection came about. As Martin Green says in his letter to the Guardian: it was following the suggestion of the painter Patrick Swift and the poet Anthony Cronin that the publication came about. I also notice on kavanagh's wiki that it says: In London he often stayed with his publisher, Martin Green & his wife, Fiona in their house in Tottenham Street. Fitzrovia. It was at this time Martin produced Kavanagh's Collected Poems That implies that Kavanagh was staying with Martin before he decided to publish his poems. If Martin says the publication came about following the suggestion of Swift and Cronin this can't be so. I know he stayed with Swift in London in the early 60's. He must have stayed with Martin during the publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TisTRU (talk • contribs) 18:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I read Antoinette Quinn's bit in Kavanagh's biography. Suppose we have to assume she is correct, but she says that Jimmy Swift posted the set of poems to Green in 1956 (2001 verson, p: 351). Yet Green didn't publish the collected poems till 1964?. Also, Green says that it was 'following the suggestion of the painter Patrick Swift and the poet Anthony Cronin that the publication came about." Sounds more like they met him and persuaded him- which was what I had thought. I was under the impression that Swift -and Cronin-, armed with the typed poems sent by Jimmy Swift, tried to find a publisher in London. Antoinette Quinn also says that Montague basically put the collection together, and that Kavanagh was unaware of this. I'll be honest, this I doubt. Firsty, Martin Green refutes this. Martin quite modestly accepts that it was Swift and Cronin who persuaded him- so doesn't sound like he is out for glory. Secondly, I read that Kavanagh and Montague didn't get on so terribly well at the end. It's interesting to note that Montague was not involved with X magazine.
 * All a little trivial I suppose- no real harm in someone exaggeration their role. But it does seem to have annoyed Green. And, in a sense, because it is Kavanagh, who was shunned by so many, it probably is important to acknowledge those that actually did helped him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TisTRU (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Antoinette must be right as have to assume she confirmed this with Cronin. Yet Green does seem adamant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TisTRU (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi to an old friend...
I noticed that you edited recently after roughly a year and a half wiki-break (not counting the one edit you did earlier this year).... just wanted to say hi, and hope that you were doing okay. I just recently got back in the swing of things after about a 10-11 month wikibreak myself... I have been trying to write new content, fight vandals, and as always keep an eye on the Honduras articles, though truth be told all the partisans are pretty much much gone and more than anything the articles need trimming and WikiGnomery (linkrot issues, etc.) Truth be told, I haven't had a ton of extra time, and also, I just haven't really wanted to touch them that much, especially without someone to bounce ideas off of. Check out my user page and look at some of the contributions if you like, and let me know if there is anything specific I can help you with, and perhaps we can collaborate on something in the not too distant future. In any event, in case you aren't getting back to regular editing, drop me a line sometime. Take care, Moogwrench (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)