User talk:Mabuska/Archive 42011/July

Transformers deletion nominations
Since you edit a lot of them I thought you might be interested in commenting on the numerous Transformers deletions that recently started. WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fictional_elements Mathewignash (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Vitali Klitschko
Hi, What were you trying to do with this edit?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm my restore function screwed that edit up badly. Was only meant to remove the flag in the infobox which violates WP:MOSFLAG. The rest of those edits was unintentional and i didn't even notice that it had made them. My bad for not checking the differences between changes, apologies. Mabuska (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Just wanted to say thanks for my very first barnstar, which now has pride of place on my user page. I don't really know why exactly an Englishman has taken it upon himself to care so much about Ulster-Scotch, but it just seems odd and contrary to NPOV to have all these articles with Irish names—whether they warrant them or not; I just removed an Irish translation from the Church of Ireland article as the church itself has never used the name—and so many without Scots equivalents, especially considering the "parity of esteem" laid out in the GFA. It's just sourcing the names that's usually the problem! JonChapple Talk 08:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Barnstars seem to be handed out very rarely in regards to Ireland articles for some reason, even by those of the same political mind-set - however you have done a great job in helping achieve a form of parity of esteem, and its good to recognise an editor for efforts made. Sources are a great problem for many things, but your ability to find them further adds credence to the barnstar. Mabuska (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Traditional" counties
Everything seems resolved. Mabuska (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to get into lengthy and tangential discussions on WT:IE, partly because I didn't want to obscure the central question and partly because I wanted the thing to stop. I suppose I shouldn't have ribbed you the way I did, but there's a bit of a devil in me sometimes. I meant no offence. Anyway, now that the discussion is (hopefully) closed I am going to answer your questions here:

As far as MacTire is concerned, what happened was that I proposed what we might call my "bare" solution, MacTire responded with what I thought was a sarcastic question and I answered a little brusquely. Later, when I realised he sincerely wanted to know how Dublin and Fingal could both be dealt with within my proposal, I said "these things can be worked around." I made a suggestion, thinking it would be a basis for further discussion, but neither MacTire nor anybody else responded, except for O'Dea who proposed a tweak. Since MacTire did participate in the Bonfire Night discussion, I must assume that he left the county discussion because he was satisfied with my answer. Therefore, I can't agree with you that I was "avoiding" his comments.

I think I need to correct you when you say "traditional" counties was "well sourced" by MacTire. MacTire gave 20-odd sources for "administrative" counties, none at all for "traditional" counties! As it happens, everybody now seems content to ditch "administrative". So, I find myself asking, what justification is there for keeping "traditional"? It is certainly not well sourced.

I'm posting this only because I want to clarify these matters. I don't require any response. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mistakes made are accepted. What justification for the keeping of "traditional"? Because a distinction should be provided between the counties. The real reason why the thing came up in the first place was because of Nenagh and how to describe it as being in County Tipperary and North Tipperary. Mabuska (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That I didn't know! Can you tell me where that discussion took place? There's no discussion on Talk:Nenagh and I can't see any evidence of disagreement in the revision history of the article. Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies Scolaire, it appears my memory must be failing, or maybe i'm getting confused as Nenagh appears to a typical test subject for us to use, due to the fact its in County Tipperary and North Tipperary. Here being its first appearance.


 * It also appears here, and for the record is where i make my turn-around on the word traditional (in my first comment in this topic). Notice how many editors - O'Dea, RA, Bastun, SeoR, RashiersTierney, Laurel Lodged etc. agreed (or conditionally agreed as O'Dea did) with the use of "administrative" and "traditional". The end result wasn't perfect (what in Wikipedia ever is?) but it papered over the cracks for the time and tweaking is always needed. Mabuska (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As you say, Mabuska, Nenagh does appear in both those discussions, but it's not "the real reason why the thing came up in the first place." Where you made your turn-around was on Talk:County Dublin, three days earlier, in a discussion that stemmed from another editor saying "User RA has recently restored terms about the 'traditional' 32 counties of Ireland. This seems to be in pursuance of the irredentist position put forward in his contributions on the WikiProject Ireland discussion."
 * I don't have any objection in principle with six+ editors agreeing a solution to "paper over cracks", but as far as I am concerned we now have a consensus wording that is concise, verifiable and politically neutral, so there are no longer any cracks to paper over, and no further need for tweaking. And that really is all I have to say on the matter. Goodbye. Scolaire (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did say my memory is either failing or getting confused as the issue has arisen several times, and at least i participated in each one to try to resolve the issue. If the consensus (if its even really that) is to implement and maintain an ambiguous and misleading lede (for outsiders) then so be it. It wouldn't be the first "consensus" to be brought back up after a while.
 * "And that really is all I have to say on the matter. Goodbye." - must be me or recently you really have gotten a chip on your shoulder. Less cheek and more AGF would really suit you Scolaire. Mabuska (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sincerest apologies if you found that objectionable! I only meant that I was not on for another long discussion on the merits or otherwise of "traditional". A polite (I thought) way of withdrawing. No chip on my shoulder and definitely no assumption of bad faith. But surely "cheek" is something one gives to ones betters? And if not, would your parting shot not count as cheeky? Scolaire (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose my "parting shot" could be cheeky. My apologies, just couldn't take without giving at least something in return :-) Mabuska (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading this with high amusement. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)