User talk:Mo ainm/Archives/2010/July

Alternate account status
Your user page declares that this is a legitimate alternate account of an established user, yet you have not identified your other account. Please confirm whether or not this is intentional, and if it is, whether or not you have read and understood the points in the legitimate alternate account policy which define the circumstances under which you can and cannot hide your alternate account's identity. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read what it says this is a clean start to get away from prejudiced editors who are intolerant of any opinions differing from their own. A clean start is permitted only if there are no bans, blocks or active sanctions in place against your old account. Which there were none. And You are not obliged to reveal previous accounts...' but I have done and at least one admin is aware of this. So stay off my page and I hope I don't have the displeasure of any interaction with you again, happy editing.  Mo ainm  ~Talk  12:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Demonyms
Hello, Mo ainm. I hope you don't leave the discussion at N.Ireland. I have posted at Micks page here asking him to put his question again that he has in the collapsible box. I've also asked him to remain calm when doing so. I don't believe there is any harm in answering the questions he has put, as that may be the best way to resolve this (no guarantees though). It would be nice to discuss these things without getting hot under the collar, though I'm not saying you are. Jack forbes (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen on the page we are not to use policy by using sources because they are not liked, I said if the source is rubbish take it to the reliable sources noticeboard don't think it has gone there, and anyone that disagrees with the belief of Mick is a Republican POV pusher. I honestly don't need the grief. The admin TFWOR is trying to sort out the mess hope he has a bit of luck. Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources have gone to WP:RS, so we'll see where that goes. Before I posted here I never noticed the above thread and I see you both don't seem to be on speaking terms for the moment. None of us need grief, Mo, but sometimes grief is part and parcel of being on wikipedia. I still think you should stick in there. Jack forbes (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly is that Jack, sure we must be all gluttons for punishment. Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 19:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, but I have no wish to take part in the fishing exercise with Mick. Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your wish to remain anonymous. In order for the thread to be closed as quickly as possible, could you say who the admin aware of the situation is?  N419 BH  20:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Boyle
Boyle may have died 110 years before Ireland became part of the United Kingdom, but he was born to British parents and didn't even live eight years of his life in Ireland before moving to Britain and living there for the rest of his life. He was only born in Ireland because his father, Richard Boyle, 1st Earl of Cork, acquired land there during the Tudor reconquest of Ireland. During this time, many native Irish landowners were displaced by British settlers, such as Boyle's father, who took over their land. Besides, a reliable source has been provided that describes Boyle as British. Feel free to provide a reliable source that describes him as Irish if you are so convinced that that is the case. Cheers. John of Lancaster (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true his father was born in the Kingdom of England and died in 1653 which was 54 years before the Act of Union in 1707 so he was not British. There are numerous sources to back up his birth place I can add dozens if you want but would rather reach consensus on the issue. Mo ainm  ~Talk  10:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then he should be described as English, shouldn't he? John of Lancaster (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A compromise for you maybe Anglo-Irish which is the term used to describe him in this book and the reference used to say he is British is actually list in Encyclopedia Britannica as Robert Boyle (Anglo-Irish scientist). Bjmullan (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to copy this thread to the talk page of the article, better to have this discussion there than here. Mo ainm  ~Talk  15:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I've posted this on the article talk page but thought you might be unaware of the Manual of Style rules for the opening sentence, which can be found at WP:MOSBIO. In short, we use neither country of birth not ethnicity to describe a subject's nationality. We use their citizenship at the time they became notable. I agree there is some argument whether British or English is more appropriate, but Irish is right out. Yworo (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in but I've just had a quick look at WP:MOSBIO and the convention is 'In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable', which is much less conclusive than implied above. RashersTierney (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing
You've been canvassing likely supporters re Robert Boyle. That's not acceptable and here's your official warning.

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Robert Boyle. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Yworo (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * From even a quick look, he posted at least two messages (I got bored of looking at any more diffs by the editors notified after the first two I checked) to people who oppose him, so your "official warning" (sic) is quite frankly a load of Tottenham, as is your rather selective quoting of a guideline in the section above this one. I see by your userpage you would like to be an admin one day, please let me know when you run and I will be there to oppose with a passion. O Fenian (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I love you too, Big O. Yworo (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unwillingness to admit mistakes, people will just love the evidence against you. Shall I hire a JCB so you can dig a bigger hole or do you want go away now? O Fenian (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If they were primarily to supporters, he was still doing inappropriate canvassing. You found what, 2 out of 20 10? Yworo (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I only checked two diffs, which is seemingly two more than you. What is the exact total, I am sure you must have known before issuing your so-called "official warning"? Unless the audience was partisan, it was not inappropriate canvassing. Leaping before looking is not a quality recommended for prospective admins, as I will be pointing out rather loudly when the time comes. O Fenian (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but a warning is a warning, not the end of the world. In the appearance of inappropriate canvassing, a user should be warned. If the canvassing was not inappropriate, they may ignore the warning or contest it. And feel free to use anything I say against me. The purpose of warning is to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. I've not been involved in the issue except reverting apparent vandalism by IP editors until today. And I'm trying to reduce future edit warring. If the user I warned complains, I'll discuss it with them. You, on the other hand, really have no standing to complain about it. Yworo (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So in other words you do not know? Here is what the guideline says "If necessary, neutrally worded notices on the talk pages of individual users who have participated in previous discussions on the same or closely related topics, who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions – for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then similar notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them". The editors that took part in this discussion and this discussion were, in alphabetical order, Chris.exton, Colt .55, Edd17, John of Lancaster, MaxPride, rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, Rondolfus, Seanwal111111 and Theosony. The editors notified of the new discussion were, in alphabetical order and ones who took part in the previous discussion in bold, Chris.exton, Colt .55, Edd17, Filastin (this editor was previously known as Theosony), John of Lancaster MaxPride, Rannpháirtí anaithnid, Rondolfus, Seanwal111111. So he notified everyone who took part in the two previous discussions as you are supposed to, and you are still maintaining it was canvassing? I would also like to know how inviting people to a discussion to hopefully settle a matter once and for all is encouraging edit warring, it is trying to prevent it surely? Please feel free to not answer any of my questions based on the feeble excuse you gave in advance above, as it will only harm you not me. O Fenian (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The warning is not inappropriate even if the canvassing was balanced. The user is free to ignore it. Yworo (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So you give "official warnings" without investigating thoroughly? I had not even looked at the article's talk page, but when I did it was clear in about 20 seconds why those nine people had been notified. O Fenian (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think I "dun wrong", feel free to report me to whatever venue you think is most appropriate. This Wikilawyering on your part is pointless, especially on a third-party's talk page. Yworo (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I will bring it up at the appropriate time, like I have already said. O Fenian (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And so will I Bjmullan (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you have complained about the warning, I apologize if it was inappropriate. Best regards, Yworo (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear Mo ainm,

Thank you for the warning. It is sincerely appreciated and I will certainly take it on board. I respect fully your decision not to assume good faith as I probably wouldn't either, under the circumstances. Kindest regards, Qwerta369 (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And what was you good faith edit trying to signify? Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, I respect your decision not to assume good faith. Qwerta369 (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said on your page Your edits appear to constitute vandalism now you haven't explained why you made the edit when I asked so I will ask again what was the purpose of your edit? Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Mo ainm, I sincerely appreciate your time in replying to me, especially since you seem to be rather busy at the moment adhering to Wikipedia's policies. At this time we can neither confirm nor deny whether the edit was in good faith.  I know that you will understand this uncertainty.  While I wouldn't usually make such assumptions, I do feel it is appropriate on this occasion since you also assumed something about me.  I'm really happy that we found each other on Wikipedia, Mo ainm.  I admire your skills and experience as a Wikipedian and I am certain that I can learn a lot from you, if you have no objection to my making this assumption. Kind regards, Qwerta369 (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

re:ulster banner
Because on other Rugby Union articles they are using the Tricolour and Ulster Banner instead of the IRFU's flag and this page is following that. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well they are all wrong. Mo ainm  ~Talk  12:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you point out the other incorrect flags and I will fix them with the proper flag which is this one 🇮🇪. Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I beleive it's in some of the Premiership clubs. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Gail Goode
I have declined the speedy on Gail Goode. I think that a candidate for a major national political position is inherently notable, even if the sources for this politician have not yet been developed. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This article was speedy deleted earlier today and it looks like it is a sock that has recreated it also. 2 editors creating the same article in a few hours quack quack. Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the motives of the author, but the subject, as a candidate for the US Senate, should be notable. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not according to WP:POLITICIAN also fails WP:GNG I will AfD it for a wider audience. Mo ainm  ~Talk  21:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Patrick Bittan
An article that you have been involved in editing, Patrick Bittan, 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. jmcw (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on McKownville, New York. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem I won't be making any further reverts on the article, and I will use the talk page but at best a spurious claim in an edit summary that the talk page backs up a revert needed to get corrected. Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Mo ainm thanks for the warm welcome. I have just tried to add my first contribution - got into trouble because I accidentally pasted some stuff from a website. i have changed it now and asked them not to delete it - what do i have to do next? Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Grivers (talk • contribs) 14:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the speedy tags as it is no longer a copyvio. What you need to do now is to find some sources to add to the article. As all biographies need to have sources. I have added one to show you the format that we use. Mo ainm  ~Talk  14:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Mo ainm. Do articles from newspapers/reputable third part websites etc and from the organisers pages (such as the Great Swim) not count as sources? Sorry, I'm not very good at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Grivers (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some do some don't, it can get confusing. Have a read of this it should answer everything you need to know. Also dont forget to sign your post using 4 tildas like this ~ Mo ainm  ~Talk  15:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"In One Ear"
I recently completed editing "In One Ear" by Cage the Elephant. I cited all of the sources, added the chart history, and linked the article to its appropriate categories. I feel as though the nomination for deletion is pointless now, since everything has been accounted for. WereWolf (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said in the AfD there is not enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; article is unlikely ever to grow beyond stub. You have completed it and it contains 9 sentences, so I will let the community decide. Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you kinda jumped the gun by nominating this article fifteen minutes after it was created. You say it's not likely to grow beyond stub, but you haven't given it a chance to. The song's currently at #1 on a major chart; surely there's plenty of room to expand. Nine sentences is two paragraphs, which is well beyond stub sentence. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly, I will wait to see what is added to the article because at the moment I still feel it fails WP:NSONGS. I know you have a lot of experience with music deletions and take on board what you have said. Mo ainm  ~Talk  19:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have took your advice and closed the AfD. Mo ainm ~Talk  21:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you scrambled the words a bit when closing this AfD (There was no result mentioned). Have tried to reconstruct what you wanted to say, could you please check Articles for deletion/In One Ear (song)? BTW, it is good practice to state your withdrawal in the body of the AfD and let someone else close it, non-admin or not. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah just seen that and looks good. And will do in future, not that I intend to make hasty decisions ;) best. Mo ainm  ~Talk  10:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)