User talk:Fennessy/Archive 1

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!

Regarding your edits to Saint Patrick's Battalion
Thank you for your great contributions to this article. It has been in need of some work for awhile, but I have been busy elsewhere. As the welcome template above says, I hope you decide to stick around and continue contributing. Cheers! ---Cathal 19:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I hope we can move this article a few notches higher up the quality scale. If you have any idea where I can find images of the commemorative stamps that were issued in Mexico or Ireland, please let me know.--Fennessy 19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope so as well. I will do some checking on the commemorative stamps.  I have some sources in Ireland who are knowledgable on such things.  Cheers! ---Cathal 03:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
Guess who? Nice work on the article... Jegal 21:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

you fail :XJegal 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail? How?? Fennessy 15:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
On Talmud you placed POV tags on the section "External attacks". Unfortunately, without an explanation on the article's talk page, we have no way of knowing in which way you disagree with the present content.

In general, such tags should only be placed on a namespace article once there has been at least a modicum of discussion on the article's talkpage. It happens too often that no discussion takes place at all and everyone forgets why an article (or section) was labeled "POV" to begin with. JFW | T@lk  12:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On Origen you placed a POV tag on the section "Character". Unfortunately, without an explanation on the article's talk page, your exact objections are not stated, and the tag is reporting an untruth, as it states that you have something to say on the talk page, whereas there is nothing. OK, so even if the section is obviously POV, you have an obligation to put at least, "I feel that the Character section isn't NPOV," on the talk page.

In general, such tags should only be placed on a namespace article once there has been at least a modicum of discussion on the article's talkpage. It happens too often that no discussion takes place at all and everyone forgets why an article (or section) was labeled "POV" to begin with. 207.229.150.96 14:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mexican-American War
I believe this comment was meant for me, not user 76.166.123.129: "Your edits to this article were unnecessary, clumsy and confused. It was riddled with mistakes both grammatical and technical. Important quotes are put in "blockquotes" for a reason. If you feel the need to edit that article again, bring it up on the talk page first, save me some time cleaning up the mess.Fennessy 22:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)"

Your addition is:
 * Goverment was deeply divided into two factions, the "centralistas" and "republicanos," who were at odds with each. This extended to the military at times, where they would rather fight each other than the invading American army. The situation was further confused by another faction, the monarchists, who wanted a King installed and some of whom even advocated rejoining Spain. This third faction would rise to prodominance in the peroid of the French intervention in Mexico.

"Who were at odds with each"? The "where" clause is clumsy because it isn't clear which anticinant noun in the first half of the sentence it refers to. The "some of whom" is grammatically incorrect. "Prodomincance"? This should be rewritten.

What I am more concerned with, however, is your use of block quotes. If you go through this article, you will find many, many quotes. Why did you put a select few in block quotes? What criteria did you use to put three or four in block quotes and not block-quote the others? Usually, a block quote is used if the quote is a long one comprising several sentences. Short quotes are not blocked out but remain in the text. Griot 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As for my grammer, you are for the most part being pedantic. I made an extremely minor spelling mistake confusing a vowel with the word "predomincance". As for you grammer; "the Mexican Army was divided into two factions, the "centralistas" and "republicanos," who were at odds each other in a civil war." "at odds each other"? Whereas I leave out largely unnecessary words, you leave out entirely necessary ones. Contribute something meaningful to the article, dont mess with its structure.Fennessy 03:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of minor edit flag
I notice that many of your edits involving the flag for Northern Ireland are flagged as minor edits, including quite a few places where this is clearly contentious. This may well be an unintentional consequence of however you typically edit Wikipedia, but in any case can you make sure that this flag is only set where the edit is not controversial? It's probably not intended as such, but it could be construed as a disingenuous attempt to slip edits in undetected. Per Help:Minor edit, "reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor". Thanks. — ras52 10:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha yeah I doubt anyone would miss it seeing as quite a few people seem to be obsessed by the issue. But point taken, no ploy was intended. Fennessy 14:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations
Can the admin that has this talk page remove the protection on the Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations page. You (most likely inadvertantly) protected a biased version of the page which includes the Ulster banner, a defunct and offensive flag that has not been in official use for over 30 years. I understand that you protected the page to encourage discussion, but no discussion is taking place, mainly becuse the edit war was orgionally started by only two or three zealots who made extensive use of sockpuppets. In any case, the issue has been largely resolved on the Template:United Kingdom regions talk page by another admin. I feel the quicker this issue is corrected, the quicker the biased edit wars involving the Ulster banner will end. Fennessy 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See The Wrong Version. No discussion has taken place, as you noted, lending credence to continuing the protection. I am not convinced that once the page is unprotected the edit-warring over the flag(s) will end. --  tariq abjotu  16:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats a very amussing page. Heres my Boilerplate complaint; But seriously the situation has really died down, I take it from their lack of trying to convince people to use a secterian flag that was only in use for 19 years over three decades ago as a sign that they have given up the ghost. If you don't want to unlock it I guess waiting till August 23 is really no big deal. Fennessy 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I request you to check out both versions and consider releasing the page as not doing so would be tantamount to rewarding [user] and his friends' aggressive editing.

Miss World 2003
Thank you for clarifying your edit here. I agree that the Union Jack will do fine on this article. I believe that the Ulster Banner is still in extensive use in this series of articles, are you in the process of replacing all occurrences or would you like some assistance. Assuming that you haven't been receiving any resistance to this change, I would be happy to help, at least within any articles in WPBP. --After Midnight 0001 19:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, any help you can give me with correcting the flagicons used for N Ireland would be of great help. I have been systematically going through every instance were the Ulster banner is used to determine if it is used properly(alot of the time it isnt). Needless to say, this is very time consuming. Here are the guide lines for when it can be used, just to clarify:

1. For historic reasons, mainly illustrative to represent the period of 1953-1972 when the flag was in offical use by the then government of N Ireland. 2. For use by FIFA, UEFA, and the Commonwealth Games Federation, organisations who still choose to use or have been slow to change the Ulster banner to represent N Ireland, for a number of reasons. 3. On peoples userpages for whatever reason they choose.

But it can't be used to represent Northern Ireland, as a political entity or territory in general since 1972. Fennessy 21:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --John 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been very careful about not going over the three revert rule. Very careful. There has been no discussion on the talk page, but I welcome it. I hope to talk to all parties involved. Fennessy 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that "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". The very next time I see you edit-warring, I will block you. Be warned. --John 14:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree edit warring is wrong(not to mention tedious), therefore I have attempted to avoid it. But in this case the beligerant concerned refuses to partake in talk page discussions for the most part, so I mistakenly walked into one. But I will attempt to resolve this on the talk page, I hope this can be settled so I have more time to meaningfully contribute to wikipedia! Fennessy 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fennessy, I totaly agree about the Ulster Banner but this template is used in many sports articles that do you the UB, such as international football and the Commonwealth Games. For that reason this template cannot be changed, until such time as the sports templates are sorted to not use this template. So edit warring on this template is pointless, and not the way to resolve this issue.--padraig 14:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

See this

 * See this here.--padraig 15:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha, thats wild. Intresting how none of the sources cited tried to claim that the Ulster banner has any kind of validity. I actually have no problem with the Union Jack being used, but in the context of the rest of the UK its use would be too confusing. Fennessy 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Template:UK subdivisions, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage
Hello Fennessy. I noticed the question that you left on User:Daniel's talk page. You may edit the "issues to be mediated" section if you feel that it is currently slanted; however, you may not edit it to make it slanted toward your side. What exactly did you want to change? Perhaps you could put your proposed revision of that section on my talk page before you go ahead and do it on the RfM? Thanks. --דניאל - Dantheman531 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems like a fair revision. Go ahead.  --דניאל - Dantheman531 18:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Secret Mark
Whoops, sorry. I'd mixed up my apocryphal accounts.--C.Logan 16:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Fennessy 23:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Mithras
I'm sorry, but I will have to revert your re-addition of a 1st century BCE date and allusions of continuity. Both these theories derive from Cumont (the *original* author of the "Mysteries of Mithras"), and neither of these ideas are any longer considered valid. For the presently accepted date, and for more information on Cumont's hypothesis, see Mithraism. Thanks. -- Fullstop 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC) ps: if you wish to reply, please do so here.

I'm fine with that, as long as you provide specific footnotes on the article. Unless you do that it really looks like you are pushing a POV, seeing as I have no real vested intrest in this subject and you have been very aggressive in your editing style thus far. Fennessy 19:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats a fundamental problem with Cumont's date and hypotheses. They were around for over 70 years (until the '70s), which means that their effect continues to be felt even today. That Cumont's ideas are the basis for some very fringy secondary ones (and hence popularized en-masse on the web) doesn't make matters easier. So, even though long rejected, they are constantly repeated by wp editors, hence "oh no, not that again." In the past, citing hasn't helped at all, because the next guy just plonked Cumont next to it and then claims "balance." Even explaining matters in detail lower down in the article hasn't always helped. -- Fullstop 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am aware thar religion is one of those subjects where people who know nothing about it try a project there own views onto issues, but trying to portray me in that light really isn't going to get you very far. Your failure to provide specific footnotes in your edits and use of —— and I hate to repeat myself here —— POV language concerns me a great deal. I think the article talk page is the correct place for this discussion. Fennessy 19:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not trying to portray you in any light. I think you've misunderstood me (but I'm not sure where). And what POV language (do you mean bias?) are you specifically referring to? -- Fullstop 20:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see where we talked past each other. In my initial comment here I was referred to your re-addition of the date/allusion to Cumont's continuity hypothesis. Per your comment on article talk, I see you thought I was referring to your earlier edit on the name (which was also incorrect, but since you didn't revert back to that I figured you had followed the link I provided in my edit comment). Anyway, I've responded to the name issue on article talk where you addressed it. -- Fullstop 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Battalion
Your edits have been rv. You had no right to unilaterally remove the tags I added. The piece has strong POV, and if necessary, I will seek an administrator to protect the page. This is something that should be worked out by consensus and on the article's talk page. Barbara Wainscott 18:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unilaterally? You have no right to unilaterally decide whats on the article and whats not. See Assume good faith & Don't template the regulars. And follow your own advice about the talk page, I already responded to you there. Fennessy 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the above message before I checked the article's talk page, and, thus, felt you had acted unilaterally. I sent you a new message on the article's talk page, which you have probably seen by now anyway. Sorry if I came off as overbearing.Barbara Wainscott 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fennesssy, I just noticed from your talk page that you are a proud Cymru. Obviously I could not have known from your surname. Do you speak any Cymraeg? Do you think Wales will ever be independent again or be a Labour stronghold indefinitely? As you can see I follow UK politics a little bit. Barbara Wainscott 18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... I can count to 99 & say basic greetings, thats about it. And I think it will be a labour stronghold(unfortuantly), Plaid Cymru has had it's day. But I hope the Liberal democrats will make gains. Idependance would be nice(welsh people should learn to stand on their own two feet) but it's never going to happen. Ever. Fennessy 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage
I don't mind representing those against the misuse of the Ulster Banner, onless anyone else wants to.--Padraig 20:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm really not on here enough to commit to it, seeing as I have unforeseeable 3-4 day gaps between internet access. Plus you seem to know the ins-and-outs better than me or the other guy. Just one thing—— bring up the first two pillars of Wikipedia(if nessasary). It's clear that the use of the Ulster Banner would be a violation & contradiction of these pillars. Fennessy 00:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The first pillar: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; Wikipedia is not a democracy.
 * The second pillar: Wikipedia has a neutral point of view.

Template:WPRT2
Please help me the template Template:WPRT2 won't add any b-class articles to the category for b articles--Java7837 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to do that myself, to be honest... who decides the rating an article gets? There are alot of Religious text articles with no ratings at all, maybe I can help out. Fennessy 16:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

see WikiProject_Religious_texts/Assessment for how to rate an article also if an article has a template on the front page it should be rated as stub template:stub looks like this ''This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it]. ''

there are other stub templates such as which looks like this

also articles should never be rated featured or good unless it appears on one of the lists on WP:GA and an article should never be rated featured unless it is listed on WP:FA --129.115.102.13 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stub template on user page
Hi. I hope you don't mind that I subst'ed the stub template on your user page and removed the category link; I did this so that your page doesn't turn up in a category of articles for editors to expand.

--NeilN 11:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)