User talk:Eimhin de Róiste

Welcome!
Hello, Eimhin de Róiste, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! bonadea contributions talk 11:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

talk
I'm not sure what you are intending to put at the start of your comments but talk returns a redlink. Just FYI.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 12:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the formatting tip antiqueight👍 I wasn't trying to achieve anything. I was trying to format things correctly. I have amended my error in at least two places now. I will try and check for any others. There's an awful lot of markup kinda stuff to learn not to mind where to put things. I have apologised to a lot of the participants for trying to contribute in incorrect places. Is this too much of an experienced area for a rookie to be trying to debate? I see it comes out red, looks like I'm trying to highlight or shout or something else, in reality I barely have a clue what I'm doing😵. Another one of my issues/problems is I'm trying to do this on a phone 📱 my research breakthrough this morning was to click onto the desktop version link on my phone 😌. Thanks for the help, it's the four tilds thing at the end of my section and that's the basic format covered?Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically. Four tildas solves the signature at the end of whatever you say and you are signed off. In reply to someone start on a new line and put a colon. Put one more than the line above you and it will keep indenting your comments - indented comments are replies to the lines above. I have no clue what it looks like on a phone. I would hate to try edit or in fact do my main reading there. I prefer to research on a pc and I prefer to edit source not visually so I'm not at all certain of how it looks to you. Arguing a topic like this before you have the basics down does leave you at a significant disadvantage. It might be better to work your way through the pillars and other welcome notes and do some back ground reading before trying to change the direction of a pretty established tide. Everything on the Wikipedia is done through consensus so it helps to know how to go about creating one and what the history to the issue is. The more formal parts of the wiki are rarely the way they are without someone having put a significant amount of thought and discussion into it. But if there hasn't been discussion about it, if it isn't a contentious topic, it's pretty easy to go about changes.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 14:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, I had missed the indenting. I knew I should do it but didn't know how. I have basically been trying to copy format aspects from content immediately around me which isn't always possible (if there isn't an example there). I got over excited (intellectually not emotionally) when I realised I could actually make an edit. I fully realise I need to stop trying to run when really I don't know how to crawl. I get that I need to research more and learn more and contribute less in this phase. I really, really appreciate your time and effort other than the tea house where they were telling it was OK my mistakes weren't too bad. I felt I was annoying people everywhere (in this ROI area) and essentially doing damage which was the opposite of my intention. Thanks a million. Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"Cos Brexit"
I'm think I'm getting there, its not about expressing my opinion but providing sources that have helped form my opinion, could be useful?

Some recent poll results and quotes from key players in Northern Ireland post Brexit vote Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Irish border issue and Brexit, I'll get a better source, no paywallEimhin de Róiste (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Karen Bradley NI Secratary of State perhaps her lack of background knowledge is a good thingEimhin de Róiste (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for opinions. There are several essays on this which might be of interest like What Wikipedia is not  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 08:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much Antiqueight! the perfect link for me to study😉. I will do nothing until I think I have understood that guidance.Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is a UK government think tank a better source than a newspaper article?The articles have quotes from people directly involved ("primary sources?"). I understand think tanks can't be presumed to be unbiased. How the Institute of Government describe themselves All guidance much appreciated (and needed 😌)
 * this I feel confident is a good source and stays directly on topic of common usage?Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those links work for me at all. Besides -what does it matter to the Wiki what someone thinks might or might not happen after brexit? Until it happens or except as a detail on a Brexit related page it has no impact to any article. Also- be careful assuming editors are male unless they specify it.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 11:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Antiqueight, I have prioritised searching back for my inappropriate gender reference; was it this "you guys"? I have used this for several years as an informal means of addressing groups of any type female/male/mixed. I can see that this usage probably isn't appropriate online. Was that my poor language usage or have I used something worse. I would really appreciate your help with this. It is a top priority of mine to try to do things properly and really appreciate all your helpEimhin de Róiste (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not specifically sure who you were referring to in the edit summary of "Thanked a very experienced editor for his great sage guidance". I tend to neither notice nor care about "you guys" but until I know a person's preferred pronouns I tend to avoid making assumptions.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 18:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have been so helpful to me, I am ashamed of my sloppy word usage, offence was the furthest thing from my intention. Thank you for pointing it out, it would have taken me ages to find it. It was only yesterday I discovered I could see my own edit summaries. I realise now these must be viewable to everyone. I will apply more rigour to these and everything I attempt to do here.Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to worry at all. I certainly wasn't offended but it's a topic I take care with. Every word on wikipedia is viewable to everyone unless it gets deleted by an admin. So it's always good to be careful about what you say to or about others or yourself. Everything stays in history. Edit summaries are important because they allow you to see what change was made or what section was changed in an overview without having to go in and look at each individual diff. They are what you see on the watchlist when someone edits a page you are watching.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 19:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Striking out contributions
Hi Eimhin. With regard to this, nothing you said there caused me any offence or annoyance; it wasn't necessary to strike anything out and it certainly isn't necessary to delete it. It will all be preserved in the page history anyway. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Governmental style guidlines, country names




:The Ireland result page




 * Please tell me you're not collecting a large set of links so you can start another move request at Ireland Collaboration! I've looked at your links, and there isn't anything there that wasn't discussed ad nauseam ten years ago. Nobody minded your recent attempt, because you were, in your own words, "an enthusiastic noob", but you've had the situation patiently explained to you now, so starting it up again after a week would be disruptive and would seriously annoy a lot of people. You seem to appreciate getting editing tips from fellow-users, so I'll link you to an essay that's very often cited in discussions: Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Happy Editing.  Scolaire (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

January 2020
Hello, I'm Dartslilly. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Names of the Irish state—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Dartslilly (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Hi Dartslilly, thanks for the interest in my edit. Just to confirm you removed my link to here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Éire linked for the first time the one of constitutional names of the Irish state gets mentioned, (have I the right edit. I have made an error here already today and also a fair few edits). So I'm not sure if I understand, why not constructive? Thanks for your time.

Eimhin, you shouldn't use the long URL (http://en.wikip etc) in a link. Either just put the name of the article in [s or (if you intend to link to a section, then use pipename . The edit that got reverted above was because it was not needed. Éire by itself is all we need. --Red King (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Red King, I've been trying to edit using the visual editor, I had edited with the "wiki script" in the past (sorry I've forgotten the correct term), but I think its what you mean; where every bracket and colon etc is critical. I thought in visual editing it was more a copy and paste process. I'll go and research further on visual editing now. So its not my that content link is wrong (this time ;)) the problem is the embedded link could have been more efficient with the characters used ?

Éire
Hi, thanks for your message. I recommend that you check WP:REPEATLINK which states that one link to another article in any article is sufficient. Regards, Denisarona (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Denisarona, thanks for the help and please excuse my over enthusiasm. I have studied that and it makes perfect sense, another editor had pointed me in this direction too although they pointed me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Overlinking "What generally should not be linked" here they give guidance on over linking (repeating links) but also examples of this that shouldn't be linked (or not many links anyway) I would really appreciate if you could give me some guidance or your opinion on this,  the guidelines suggest not to link to the obvious things that most people know and actually give the example of country names. So my question is these pages are country and country name related pages and there are multiple country name links do you think they too are over linked?
 * Hi again have you removed the link to the definition of Republican? it was the first mention and the only link, I'm sorry could you explain my mistake there, when you get a chance please.
 * {reply to | User:Denisarona} Hope this works to ping you. Could you explain this edit I applied the not overlinking principle its the first and only link usage on the page. What have I done wrong. Whenever you have time no rush I appreciate all the help you have given me so far. Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You have reverted my link to the definition of Republic. It was a new link on the page to link to the general term of republic all the others where linking to Irish specific "republic" related links so I thought it was adding to the clarity and the information to link to a general definition decontextualised from the Ireland situation and simply define republic for the reader. Where did I go wrong?


 * Hi, It's not that the link is wrong, just that it's not necessary. If you look at other articles on Wikipedia, you will notice that normal, common words are not linked. Anyway, continue to work on Wikipedia, all help is greatly appreciated. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * {reply to | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Denisarona} Republic and Republican are defined political terms, I don't believe everyone understands these. The not requiring a link/definition I'm applying, is a young adult likely to know it eg everyone knows what a dog or a cat is (I assume) but does everyone know what a Liberal is? or a Democrat or a Republican well I don't think so. Is this the issue, you feel I'm sort of dumbing the information down, condescending to the reader? Eimhin de Róiste (talk)

Replying to another user on your own talk page
Eimhin, If you reply to another user on your own talk page, you can't assume that they will see it any time soon or even ever, unless you alert them to it. See template:rto (reply to) for how to do it. --Red King (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * {reply to | RedKing} Thanks RedKing sorry I forgot about the ping back trick, very helpful yet again. Partially testing now ;) I wonder if you'd be prepared to have a second look at that last edit above that Denisarona edited above (hold on I'll try and dig out the old edit link) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Ireland&diff=next&oldid=935287256&diffmode=source Is that a working link to an edit. Obviously no rush, I've a lot of learning to doEimhin de Róiste (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It is a wp:template, so needs to be enclosed in double {s, not (s. --Red King (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox already defines republic so it didn't need to be done again. Occasionally repetition is justified for an obscure term and being done a long way down the page but this is not such a case. --Red King (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks red King. I'm going to take a few days to digest this, I think I've become over excited about this. I'll be studying info boxes, repeat links, overlinking, replying to; mainly. I seem to have a bit of a logic lock out on this. Thanks very much for you help. I'll do my research, fix some broken links on my own page. I like to think I have something to offer on the editing front, perhaps I'm fooling myself. Many thanks for you patience you have been helpful in the extreme. Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your experience is very common among new editors who didn't quite appreciate how much they would have to learn, so I hope you don't get discouraged and give up. I reckon that the only problem is that you are trying to do too much too quickly, and spending your time on controversial/newsworthy articles that have already been done to death. The clues are that the article has had lots of edits (and reverts!) in the last few months and a very busy talk page. There are thousands of articles in need of TLC with serious issues of grammar, incoherence, absent citations – but rarely absence of wikilinks: editing these would be far more rewarding but hard work.
 * I suggest you revise the topics suggested when you were welcomed (top of this page) and then get to work on those unloved articles. And do as I say (not as I do!) preview preview preview. --Red King (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * More Great suggestions! I'll include all those in my study set. Thanks so much for the sage advice Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism
For these edits

Hello, I'm Canterbury Tail. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 15:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * {reply to Canterbury Tail}} Hello Canterbury Tail thanks for taking the interest in my edit. I was trying to add a link to explain why maps showing the commonwealth typically use the colour pink. This was my first time adding an external link and I had been trying to make the link simply show the original text "pink" as the link. I used a square bracket the hyperlink followed by a space and then the text pink close square bracket. Is the link the bad idea or my incorrect formatting. I saw a little talk/squabble somewhere about why pink so I thought I'd link to the explanation.
 * That type of link would fall afoul of WP:EASTEREGG, so wouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. Anyway we don't do inline external links, only internal links. Canterbury Tail talk 17:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Canterbury Tail I see now, I made both mistakes; bad formatting Easteregg and really I see it is a bad source. I was interested in the printer legibility part of the explanation but I see the rest of that source gets a quite moody and political. Very sorry about that, I should have been much more careful Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)