User talk:Djegan/Archive8

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 11-FEB-07 and 12-APR-07.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Official Description of Ireland
Kindly do NOT revert my corrections without any consultation. You do not own this article, as you appear to believe. RoI is ONE of TWO "Official descriptions". One is in the Act you cited; the other is in the Constitution. (Sarah777 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC))


 * You could reduce your tone. Fortunately I am not willing to compromise WP:3RR and if you and others want to cobble togeither a failed compromise then thats your choice. By the way nether the constitution nor law uses the term "official". They merely make it so. Their is a difference. Djegan 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Reduce my tone". As you continue to use abusive characterisations I shall continue to respond in my hyper-moderate tone. Perhaps you'd use a spellchecker before posting in future; show some respect to your readers. (Sarah777 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC))


 * Whatever. You show a rather one sided self-importance. By the way if you dont like my tone then report it. Happy editing. Djegan 23:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Djegan, perhaps you are not familiar with the WP:3RR rule? I suggest you look it up. (Sarah777 23:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC))


 * Its easy to cite a rule, but where have I broken it? Djegan 23:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And in passing, do you think "one sided self-importance" is joined-up English? What does it mean? (Sarah777 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC))


 * Sarah777, perhaps you should read WP:NPA. Djegan 23:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

''Sarah777, I must genuinely complement your ability to accuse. But I am waiting for evidence for said accusations on talk:Republic of Ireland and my user page. Djegan 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)'' What accusations would they be DJ? You must learn to speak clearly. I don't do riddles. WP:NPA is it? I must read that. (Sarah777 23:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC))


 * Your day will come. Djegan 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the edit on talk:Republic of Ireland that required clarification. Djegan 00:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. NPA=No Personal Attacks. So if someone accused someone of being "a hardline Republican", would that be a personal attack? Or if they said another Wiki editor was an 'extremist', would that be a personal attack? Or if they said another was imbued with "one sided self-importance", would that be a personal attack? Or....you get my drift. (Sarah777 23:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC))


 * For your own benifit Sarah777 you might actually show where I have made these "personal attacks" against you. Accusations are easy, evidence, not always so. But I would like to draw attention to this. Djegan 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ennis - subtle vandalism
Hi Djegan. I'm wondering if you'd be able to help me in preventing ongoing, subtle vandalism to the Ennis article, mainly by just putting it on your watchlist (if it's not there already) and reverting vandalism if you come across it.

Often the vandalism is pretty obvious, like this, but sometimes it's more subtle and it's not obvious even to me, such as this edit. It appears to me there is one person who is persistently trying to undermine the Ennis article by adding disinformation. Note that the vandal sometimes appears to be impersonating myself.

Before you suggest it, I have considered whether the article should be semi-protected. However, I dislike the "in-your-face" protection notice that gets slapped at the top of articles, and anyway the actual rate of vandalism is probably too low to be considered worthy of semi-protection.

Hoping you can help... cheers, A bit iffy 07:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A bit iffy,


 * I will shortly place a statement on my user page about future in wikipedia. It is not directed at you or your comments but rather due to other unrelated issues. Djegan 22:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Toodles
Sad to see you go Djegan. Whilst I didn't always agree with your thoughts or edits, you've certainly played an important role in the Irish community on here and kept the more mental of editors in check. Regards, a fairly insignifagant editor -- Pauric ( talk-contributions ) 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too. You have my total admiration for your long held principled line on WP:NPOV. In the middle of a series of edits it can often seem a pain, but actually, almost always, on reflection, I have seen the long-term benefit you have brought. Walk away, but keep in touch. Good luck. Frelke 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * wishing you a calm sea, a fair wind and a star to steer by.
 * you will be missed, my compliments & regards
 * I agree with your analysis of the problem ClemMcGann 08:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * DJ, you're going to be seriously missed, especially around the Irish pages. You've always been one of the stalwarts of Irish editing and it seems almost like you would always be here. A sound, solid, learned contributor, I'm going to miss you. Be well, dude! - Alison✍ 19:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Djegan, sorry to see you go. I too left WP 18 months ago, and similaiar. I put a lot into it, but not as good as you Djegan. Goodbye 2 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you've gone - I too have concerns about structured vandalism, but hopefully it can be overcome. I wish you well. Autarch 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh NO!
Not you too! I've had enough of good people like you being forced to leave because of ludramains and vandals. See my Proposal: Infinite Ban on all Wiki Abusers at the Village Pump under miscellaneous and proposals, 11 February 2007. We MUST collectively take action on this, because you and all the others are WAY TOO VALUABLE TO LOSE! Is mise le meas mor, Fergananim 12:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Fergananim as this week alone I have seen 2 more great editors hang up their Wikihats and the week is not over yet. There is too much POV pushing, personal abuse and reverting good edits, in addition to vandalism, to continue as we are, otherwise Wikipedia will fall into disrepair and eventually fail. Sorry to see you go. ww2censor 14:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * DJ, don't go. You are too good an editor to lose.  We need you around, otherwise WP will be full of uncontrolled vandalism, and self opinionated editors. 86.42.155.213 03:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and a hopeful suggestion
You were the Wikipedian who kindly and warmly welcomed me, and so it's only fit for me now to do the reverse and regretfully say goodbye to you. First of all, thank you for all your wonderful work, most of which, vandalised or not, will survive and be useful to people day after day for a long time.

I've not yet become frustrated by Wikipedia; in fact, I love it. Thinking of the reasons for that, I'd like to make a suggestion how you could continue on Wikipedia, but peacefully and enjoyably. First of all, identify an article or small group of articles that seem relatively quiet (there are lots, for sure), and then work on them in great depth. Get all the books, work on the references, take lots of time (I think, if you have a job as well, it might take up to four months to get one article to a minutely professional standard). Build a small group of such favourite articles and commit yourself to tending them (because you would have only a small patch or set of patches to look after, it should be possible to address the vandalism and good-faith adulteration quite successfully, preventing the deterioration of your work). I operate this way myself, and I enjoy it: I calculatedly leave it a few days before addressing vandalism and adulteration and so almost never get into a conflict about it because those responsible will have moved on. I never revert, just edit.

Perhaps the above would be too boring for you, but it makes a wonderful hobby for me, at least. I look forward to sitting down to my desk with a drink and some music to potter about among books and references, and, for the most part, people leave me to it. Maybe the best thing is to forget about "the project" and just be selfish, say to yourself "how can I get the most fun out of this?" and go from there.

Please ignore all the above if it seems naive or unsuitable. But thanks again, and best of luck. qp10qp 15:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarah777
I know your page says you're leaving active editing, but since you've involved yourself in the discussions on the WP:IMOS page I thought you should know she's still doing it. Her most recent edits and reverts to Northern Ireland are at best confusing, and at worst WP:POINT and persistence of the highest order. Something needs to be done before it all comes crumbling down and I am just one man. Ignore it if you wish, I won't think less of you as you've said you're leaving the editing, probably because of stuff like this, but you've always been an editor I respected due to your neutrality and fairness. Ben W Bell  talk  23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point I am on this issue for the long run as its too fundemental. But if a failed consenus is delivered like at Republic of Ireland their is little I can or am willing to do. However the good faith of this editor is no longer an assumption, this editor is simply a troll - intentionally or otherwise. By the way you maybe one of the few who are against said editor but I suspect that friends of that editor will quickly disperse, if not already. Extremism is not a popular view. Djegan 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Extremism is not a popular view?"

I'm not sure what that means DJ, as it is not view per se, but rather a characterisation of a view or views - directed at one with whom one cannot disagree with any civility. Your constant accusations of 'bad faith', 'extremism', 'trolling' etcetera  clearly mark you as an extremist amongst the group of editors who generally share your bias on various Irish matters. └ Jared ┘┌ talk ┐&ensp; 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC) But extremism is a relative term. Views that might be very average in South Armagh or even in NI Catholics may appear "extreme" to a cabal of Wiki editors. But where does name-calling get us?

As for these 'friends' you are hoping will 'desert' me - who the heck are they?!! Do you mean your fellow seasoned editors, most of whom are not as personally abusive as yourself? (Sarah777 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC))


 * Thats right, keep digging yourself in deeper. Simple fact is you dont realise how inappropriate some of your comments are, they are documented on the page above. You refer to terms that I have used without stating the context, but in any case I am content as both mine and your comments are documented and I dont really care how you interpret mine. Djegan 00:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bystanders can judge for themselves. They will not take my or your spin on it, just read the above comments. Djegan 00:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

keep digging yourself in deeper - deeper into what DJ? Please be clear, I have asked this of you before. It sounds like some vague kind of threat? Are you going to try and get me banned DJ?

you don't realise how inappropriate some of your comments are - hey, snap!! I too am glad our various exchanges are on the record. For very obvious reasons. (Sarah777 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC))


 * If you feel I am abusive go ahead and report me, but please stop filling my page up with your spin on my comments. Our respective comments speak for themselves. Djegan 01:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of reporting you DJ; if I have a quibble with you I will tell you straight up, post signed. Regards, let's please stop this fighting (Sarah777 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Not to be rude or invasive, but it seems, Djegan, that, despite your "Statement of Intent" on your main page, you are contributing to the problems in Wikipedia yourself with your snappy comments. I apologize if I am getting this all wrong, but from what I see, it seems that you are being very assertive yourself and don't refrain from speaking your mind. It just bothered me when I saw these comments above after reading your SoI because you seem to be going against some of your morals. Lots of people have problems with the integrity of Wikipedia, and yes some do speak their minds, but it seems that you have done so for sympathetic reasons and just to make a point, which bothered me. Again, I am sorry if this seems offensive to you, but I couldn't let the above comments go without pointing out your obvious hypocrisy. └ Jared ┘┌ talk ┐&ensp; 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Ireland
Hi there, I´d like to know why did you put back the old PNG coat of arms of Ireland. Which problems do you identify in the new SVG file? Cheers. --Tonyjeff 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The svg file is not as good a reproduction (in terms of faithfulness with the genuine article) of the coat of arms as the png version is. If we are going to use a version of a states arms then these should be as good as possible in that respect. And I have only reverted a very small proportion of your changes. Djegan 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually that version you have is quite good. Djegan 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland debate
You have been involved in the flag debate on the Northern Ireland talk page. If you remember there were four option listed about the way forward. If you wish you can go here and make your position clear. regards--Vintagekits 21:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaving certificate
it says this on the website are you blind?

Irish Leaving Certificate The points required for entry in 2007 are likely to be similar to those required in 2006 (570 points).

Six Year Programme - A minimum of six subjects in the Leaving Certificate Examination, which must include Irish, English, Mathematics, a third language * (*NUI Matriculation requirements) and a science subject from the group Physics, Chemistry, Physics/Chemistry, or Biology.

Five Year Programme - Students may be eligible for entry to the five year programme with two sciences. Applicants must obtain a minimum of six subjects, which must include Irish, English, Mathematics, a second language and a minimum of grade B in higher level Chemistry and Physics or Biology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.1.229.15 (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC).


 * That was not my point! My point was that it did not indicate:
 * Irish citizens are required to submit Leaving Certificate results. Djegan 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
I hope you will come back, but if not, your contributions will be sorely missed. Autarch 14:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarah777
DJ, after my latest attempt to resolve disputes with Sarah777 on the Republic of Ireland talk page, I've decided that I'm tired of constant, dogged and soul destroying attempts to convince her to debate civilly, or indeed at all without mudslinging, straw men, avoidance, obfuscation and an unrelenting refusal to meet any kind of compromise, respect consensus or honestly discuss an issue. I would like to put her behavior on Ireland-related talk pages to a Request for Comment. Before doing so, I would like to know your opinion on the matter. I've also contacted Mal requesting his. --sony-youth talk 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will certainly comment if an rfc is raised as the said user has long passed the point where good faith can be assumed. Djegan 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've created a RfC at Requests_for_comment/Sarah777. Can you take a look before it "goes live." I think it can be improved. --sony-youth talk 04:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh
You're not in favour of having a pic of Westlife replace Rory Gallagher, then? ;-) Bastun 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Its the Queen of Ireland nonsense that mainly concerned me. Djegan 14:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the former is more of an affront, really. Still - could have been worse :) - Alison ☺ 15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dj, if you get back in time, Alison ☺ is for wp:rfa 86.42.140.241 18:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

DCU
So, we are now taking a stalinist policy on removing everything controversial about DCU? Dude, I work as a staff member there and I can forward you 100-200 emails sent to allstaff talking about the very points I had put in controversies. Stop being a know-all dictator - I work in DCU, I think I know the place a bit


 * Please read WP:VERIFY, its a policy and you have to live with it. Your personal emails and thoughts count as nothing here. Djegan 11:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case "Dude" I assume that emails sent to you in the course of your employment are considered confidential. If you have concerns about your employer, the university, then theirs better places than this encyclopedia to raise them, certainly by reproducing emails in your inbox is not the way to go. This is not the tabloid press. Djegan 11:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * These are email sent to every staff member - by no means are they confidential - SIPTU is a public organisation - their emails are not confidential - Irish independent is a newspaper and their articles constitute sufficient reference


 * Read WP:VERIFY thoroughly first. Those emails are not in the public domain and theirfore they are not acceptable sources here. Djegan 11:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am just trying to present the facts - as someone on the inside and privy to all the hundreds of staff emails that keep bombarding us here, it seemed totally stupid that the wikipedia entry didn't even give a hint of what was happening. A little bit of negative never hurt anynone - and anyway, why are you taking this soooo personally.


 * Sorry. This is not a place to "air" your staff grevance, its intended to be a professional encyclopedia. I have no problem with fair critism but what you are presenting looks like it is a national discrace. The university has a "corporate behaviour", "commercial debt", and "President as a de facto CEO" as you primarily argue - so what. This is the reality of modern life. Quit living in the past. Djegan 12:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Come on - "The university has a particularly strong research record" - by what metric - citations per staff? Nooo way. Other a few small groups, this is a totally false statement - how do I know - the OVPR (office of the vice-president of research) last year released a detailed study on this very issue


 * You only added those citation requests as a counter to my requests. Sabotash. Vandalism. Djegan 12:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Its research team working on sensors at the National Centre for Sensor Research is considered one of the best in the world" - I work in the NCSR - while it is a pretty good place for ireland, it is in no way the "best in the world". God!! The Oxfords, MITs, Stanfords of this world would die laughing!!! Hell, even the TCDs and UCDs would take offense to that!!

If it wasn't one of the best research centres of its kind why would an ivy league university like Cornell have a strategic alliance with it?

Other Sources: http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/7.10.03/NBTC_symp_cover.html

http://www.engineering.cornell.edu/news/information-update/info-update-archives/single-issue/index.cfm?volume=5&issue=20

"The TCDs and UCDs would take offense"? They don't have anything like the NCSR, envy might be a more appropriate word than offence. Beta


 * "DCU students enjoy exceptional teaching and research facilities" - I teach under-grad labs and while it is true that some undergrads from third-world countries feel that this is true, I do not think that anyone who has experienced US or continental EU labs will agree with that statement


 * Sorry. What you have a great difficulty in understanding is that this encyclopedia is not about your personal life and experiences! It is about facts, facts that can be verified - and thus well known. Not about what you said or did at work last week. Its not a running commentary on your inbox. Face it. Move on. Create a personal blog somewhere else. Djegan 12:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouting is rude - putting it in bold does not make your statements more accurate or relevant!


 * Neither is it supposed to be an act of fiction - and why are you soooo hung up on DCU? Or you being paid by DCU to make sure that nothing negative gets in?


 * Thats right now start peddling more of your conspiracy theories. And screw up the article in the process. I am not saying that that article is perfect, it leaves much to be desired, but the edits on controversies is blown out of proportion. So the university is not you ideal employer, so what, move on and get another job. Djegan 12:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Come on dude, no need to get all hairy. I am just trying to contribute to the accuracy and content of wikipedia - at the end of the day, it doesn't really bother me if people want to REALLLY REALLLLLY put in that DCU is better than MIT - everyone knows well that wikipedia entries have to be taken with a large pinch of salt.


 * Where does it say "DCU is better than MIT"? -- your problem is your totally misrepresenting whats been said, just like your citations misrepresent (I have yet to check the unison ones). That controversies section will be removed "en masse" if you cannot back it up properly. Djegan 12:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And I will keep putting it back in - Your stalinist censorship will not work


 * Who made you the arbiter of what shall be in and what shall not?


 * WP:3RR applies to everyone. Djegan 13:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that you are an alumnus of DCU - well I can now understand your rose-tinted glasses and you absolute opposition to anything even remotely negative. But my friend, I am afraid your censorship is futile.


 * And as you can see from my user page I entirely agree that wikipedia is a nonsense. Made so by failed editors of all types. Djegan 13:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you still here then - get a life. Stop being all "Ooooo, look at me, I am such a big important person since I can control whats on a totally minor topic on an insignificant corner of the wikipedia website"


 * Equally applicable to yourself mate. Djegan 13:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But I do have a life - unlike you I do not spend all my time trawling through the dregs of wikipedia trying to impose my ideas on some miniscule topic


 * Are you so sure? Djegan 13:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am going to be out on this nice warm Saturday, while you will be refreshing all the pages you are "guarding" to prevent anything from spoiling your "view" of the world!!!!
 * Obviously its a bitter old life reading your DCU inbox emails every day! Djegan 13:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I sure its better than sitting unemployed in front of wikipedia every hour of every day shepherding your "favorite" articles!!

Listen, it was "interesting" meeting a wikipedia fanatic like you - unfortunately, I have to get on with my rather more interesting life - Maybe next Saturday when I have more time I might look back at the DCU article - in the meantime best of luck with all your furious censorship!!


 * I am not unemployed. I have a full time job (and incidentially a career)! I am not some half-assed idiot who bad mouths my employer (who incidentially puts money in my pocket in the form of my salary) on the internet by telling all that goes on within the organisation and giving a blow-by-blow account of my email inbox. You should be unemployed, well at least you are an unemployeable bitter old fool. Muppet! Djegan 13:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And its not censorship. I just dont present "sources" in a misleading fashion. Keep to the facts not the morning drudgery of your email inbox. I dont care that you obviously have zero job satisfaction. Djegan 13:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. John254 13:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have begun putting in citations for information in the DCU article on DCU's talk page as per London-based troll (83.147.172.138) user's request. Some things like the Digital cafe do not require a citation as there is a link directly to DCU's website and I don't know why S/he is requiring them. The article is also being vandalized by user 136.206.1.17 from DCU in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way.Beta


 * I will review the article in a day or two when things subside. I may revert to before the issue started. Ultimately the article requires a substantial rewrite, like many wikipedia articles that get edited in a piecemeal fashion. Djegan 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Irish Infoboxes
I note that you had long discussions with Boothy443 regarding. From those it seems that it was intended to replace at least 3 other infoboxes. But none seem to be marked as deprecated. Was that by design or omission? Frelke 22:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)