User talk:Scolaire/Archive 2

James Spudich
I have added a "" template to the article James Spudich, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Sancho 23:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, Sancho. Go ahead and delete. Scolaire 12:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Cornelius Leahy
I rated the article as start class, but please in the future do not modify the class of any article you are personally involved with - even if it's completely wrong. Instead leave the rating and request a new one. :-) - Duribald 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! I'm still learning slowly. :-) Scolaire 14:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

News Time

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

BetacommandBot 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Irish republicanism project
Scolaire - I've noticed your recent good work and gone through you list of contributions and thought to myself that you might be able to help us out from time to time on the - WP:IR --Vintagekits 09:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good man yerself!--Vintagekits 09:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome. We're slightly disorganised at the moment, but after I've recovered from my weekend on the lash I'll try and get some more tasks and the like organised. One Night In Hackney 303 09:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

NI Parliament succession boxes
Thanks for your note; I like Padraig3uk's solution - it makes the situation very clear. Warofdreams talk 11:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Scolaire. Thanks for your message of support. I hope now that I have shown Snappy that there are other examples, the debate will largely be over (by the way, he didn't edit the template after I put those examples on the talk page - for some reason our edit times and signature times differ by an hour - Snappy hasn't edited the template since I gave him the proof he asked for). However, if it continues, I will ask a level-headed admin like BrownHairedGirl (who I see works on Irish politics) to lock the template as I don't really want to start a big arbitration case. Number  5  7  11:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Easter Rising template
Replied to you here. As I said over at the IR project talk page I've no objections to any changes being made, and would welcome it being expanded so it ends up more like 1981 Hunger Strike. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Do you think another section, say "Other important figures" or similar, would be a good addition? It would be best to carry on this discussion on the template talk page if you do obviously. Thanks. One Night In Hackney  303  09:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Made some amendments to the template, can you take a look and see my comments on the talk page before I start including it on other pages please. Thanks. One Night In Hackney  303  16:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's clear that you have selected the names from the Easter Rising article as it stands - busted! I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of the Rising isn't as good as it should be, which is why I'm happy to defer to your judgment on the template. The article itself is on my lengthy to do list, as if there's one article that should be at least good article class if not featured article class it's that one. Obe thing that will need doing for that to happen is for the sourcing to be improved, ie footnotes. I've got a couple of books I've yet to read (The Easter Rising by Foy and Barton, and Easter 1916 by Townshend), as I'm reading those I'll obviously source anything appropriate. One Night In Hackney  303  11:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just got what they had in Waterstones at the time to be honest. I frequently have to get them to order me more books that I want anyway, so if there's any others you can recommend that would be appreciated. When it comes to sources it's always a case of the more the better in my opinion, if an article is mostly written from a single source it always risks having a slightly skewed perspective. One Night In Hackney  303  15:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think the first four in the bibliography plus the Kathleen Clarke would be a good start. The others are a bit expensive for me, I'm sure Macardle is worth the price considering the number of pages but I'll leave sourcing from that to you I think. The Stephens one is particularly strange, Amazon have a recent 72 page edition selling for £70+ and it's not even a private seller! One Night In Hackney  303  16:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to get some things on Ebay, but others books tend to be more difficult to come by and rather than wait and wait I don't mind ordering from book shops. Plus there's no need for me to get every book if you're already in possession of them anyway. I'll probably be making a start on the article in a couple of weeks, I'm in the thick of the 1981 Irish Hunger Strike at the moment, and I need to source Hugh Torney in the next week or so as well to stave off the threat of impending deletion. Once that's out of the way I'll make the Rising my new main project. One Night In Hackney  303  19:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Easter Proclamation
Excellent thanks! It is much more coordinated now. Chris Buttigiegtalk 11:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Easter Rising
The hunger strike article is up to the standard I wanted to get it to, so that's one project out of the way apart from any minor fixes that need doing in the various review processes. I've still got a couple of minor projects on the go, but thought I'd make a start on reading an Easter Rising book or two later this week and seeing what to do from there. What do you think the best plan for the article is? Whenever I've tackled articles in the past I tend to find the best approach is to source what's there that can be sourced to start with, then see what else needs adding/removing/changing once that's out of the way. Does that sound reasonable enough? One Night In Hackney 303  07:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Up to you really, I wasn't sure how busy you were. I'm happy enough to spend a week or so sourcing everything that's there already, then you can take over and sort the prose out? Obviously I may make some minor changes along the way while I'm sourcing as well. One Night In Hackney  303  07:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. Scolaire 07:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look as if this is going to happen now, as One Night In Hackney has quit Wikipedia. If you read this, ONIH, I miss you. I wish we could have worked together. Scolaire 11:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Found this blackdevil@fastmail.co.uk you might like to give it a try. --Domer48 16:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Give ONIH an Email !!! "about the Rising article"


 * Please see here regarding this, and here for some similar work I've done. Email address is above ;) 81.154.127.231 02:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

James Mac Guill
Can you take a look at this for me please? Is it legit or not? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The story is a fairly typical story from the Tan War, and the Witness Statement is fairly typical of statements taken by the BMH. I would oppose its inclusion on the grounds of notability, and not worry about verifiability. Scolaire 07:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I originally moved it out of mainspace to save it from impending deletion to be on the safe side. I'll nominate it for deletion in that case. One Night In Hackney  303  07:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Link removal
The link to the Labour Party in the Sheehan article is there for a relevant reason, and had been there for over two years with noone having a problem with it. Just deleting it without comment is not very friendly, particularly for a lad in his fifties. I might just take the opportunity to add that the page is in the form it is in to largely reflect the background, situation and outcome of a nationalist MP caught up in the turmoils of 1914-18. It is not intended to be a "family tree" thing, even when his family is included. I grew up in an Irish speaking republican family where I was steeped in the 1916 tradition often marched up in Rathfarham to meet Margret Pearse at St. Endas. In an interview I saw by Jimmy Wales founder of Wikipedia, he was very clear in stating that his purpose was to have historic information made available to future generation which would otherwise be lost in archives or which historians would otherwise sive out of their interpretation of events. I have no bother providing the document I sent J.L. to anyone who wants it. What more can be provided than Sheehan's handwritten statement, admittedly there is the need to have the writing verified, but J.L. recognises it for sure as he has been long involved with DDS research (and we know each other personally also). Please see the note I have added to the Sheehan discussion page. Greetings Osioni 23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Leahy (athlete)
Hi, Peter! Ok, no problem, this was not my best idea. But he competed for Great Britain, because Ireland was not independent in 1900? Maybe the text can be rewritten like "... Irish athlete competed for the team of Great Britain and Ireland..."? The next problem are the categories. I try to make the "Olympic bronze medalists" empty from competitors. So that every person is listed under the appropriate subcategory for his country. And I just pulled out the last competitor from the category "Olympic atheltes" :-) (except three ancient athletes, all other are now also listed under their country) Do you have an idea what we can do in these cases? The problem is, that we do not have "Ireland at the 1900 Summer Olympics". Please have a look here: 1900 Summer Olympics and here 1900 Summer Olympics medal count. The medals were won officially for Great Britain? Maybe we can create a special category called: "Olympic medalists for Great Britain and Ireland"? Maybe we can list him as athlete twice? Under "Olympic athletes of Great Britain" and also under "Olympic athletes of Ireland"? Thank you and :) Doma-w 15:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter! Thank you for your nice answer. I can create a category, this is not the problem. May problem is, that we must create first of all a background. Here I think, that the best possibility is to start an article about all the Irish competitors at the Summer Olympics between 1896 and 1920 (In 1924 the name was still Great Britain and Ireland but Irish sportspeople competed seperatly for the first time for Ireland see Ireland at the 1924 Summer Olympics). So that we have a mainarticle, because we can not create an "official" article. I know, that there are about 10 Irish sportsmen winning Olympic medals in this period. Are you interested in starting such an article? I can offer my help from the Olympic side and I can do all the background like categories. Only to write an English text is no so easy for me, because I am not a native speaker. :) And I do not have enough historical background.


 * I am sorry, but to change the infobox and the flag template will be impossible, because all these things are in line with the official statements of the International Olympic committee! But with such an article we can make perfect links to all the relevant pages. Maybe we can name our categories Irish pre-1924 Olympic competitors and Irish pre-1924 Olympic medalists? Maybe this is better and more useful than "Olympic medalists for Great Britain and Ireland". So we can explain, that we only mean Irish sportspeople.


 * I would be very interested in such a project. Are you? Thank you and :) Doma-w 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter, I am very glad, that you are interested! This is really fine! There is no problem we have time, so we can ponder. First of all I will think about the category and show you here if you are satisfied.


 * Well, you see, that changing the template is not the problem, but one hour later somebody reverted. This is the problem I meant... Doma-w 21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is my first try: Category:Irish pre-1924 Olympic competitors (The text between the lines are the head of the category)

This is a list of Irish sportspeople who participated in the Summer Olympics from 1896 to 1920 while representing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

See also:


 * Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Summer Olympics (Includes this period)


 * Great Britain and Ireland at the 1896 Summer Olympics
 * Great Britain and Ireland at the 1900 Summer Olympics
 * Great Britain and Ireland at the 1904 Summer Olympics
 * Great Britain and Ireland at the 1908 Summer Olympics
 * Great Britain and Ireland at the 1912 Summer Olympics
 * Great Britain and Ireland at the 1920 Summer Olympics

I would include this category into:


 * Category:Irish sportspeople
 * Category:Olympic competitors for Great Britain
 * Category:Olympic competitors for Ireland

In this three categories our new category will be shown as subcategory.

Here you can see an example for an existing category in the same style only without the links "See also": Category:Olympic athletes of the United Team of Germany

Corrections are welcomed! Kind regards Doma-w 02:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter! Are you still interested in this project? Kind regards Doma-w 19:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All I can really say is "kind of". I was working on one article, collaborating on another and hoping to get started on another couple (including this), but, truth to tell, I have kind of dried up lately. Also I got involved in no less than three disputes, all very emotional and occasionally very nasty, and all of them concerning Great Britain and Ireland and relationships between them. I am seriously considering taking a wiki-break of a week or two. Maybe then I would get my enthusiasm back. Don't give up on me. I like your layout above and I would like to get involved when I get my act together. Cheers. Peter (Scolaire) 21:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad to read this. OK, no problem, the time will come. I only want to let you know, that I havn't forgotten. :) Kind regard. Doma-w 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicating your proposal
Sorry! I'd forgotten you proposed that. It's difficult to keep track of everything with such a large page. At least we seem to be heading in the right direction now. Readro 09:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Readro. I was only having a laugh. We do seem to be heading in the right direction, but I suspect we'll have to work hard to keep the discussion focussed on that proposal, and not keep going off at a tangent. BTW, when do you think it would be appropriate to put that proposal on the project page? You would probably be the proper person to do that since it's your baby to begin with, and also it would look more like a POV edit coming from me. Scolaire 13:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Help wanted
I'd appreciate input on the dextroamphetamine talk page. I'd like to finish this discussion.--scuro 15:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Categorising prisoners from The Troubles
Hi Scolaire. Better late than never, eh? It turns out that there isn't a mechanism for discussing proposed category creations at CfD itself, so I went to the talkpage, and invited the appropriate wikiprojects to comment. I have held back on proposing the criminals renaming yet, because its a mammoth task and I would prefer to get a groundswell of support (or otherwise) on the talkpage before tackling that, I think, would would be a controversial change. See:


 * Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 14

Rockpock e  t  00:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the nod. I've added my 2½d to the talk page. I think renaming Category:Criminals would be a big mistake. My point all along was that there are people who are objectively criminals and people who are considered by some to be justified in their actions, but who are imprisoned on criminal charges. I think if we get a favourable response we should go ahead and create all the cats, and have them as subcats of "Prisoners and detainees" as agreed, and leave "Criminals" well alone. Scolaire 08:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with that, because we can't title a cat in a general way, then exclude what we consider to be so-called "common criminals" on an arbitrary basis (the opposing argument, of course, is that if a person is jailed under common criminal charges, they are a common criminal irrespective of their political claims). The title of the cat has to reflect the contents, and as it is the title essentially reflects a duplication (or a large subcat) of criminals. We could go ahead and do what you suggest, but it will lead to further problems not too far down the road (such as a merge with criminals leading to the these arguments of the last month all over again). If we are going to do this we should do it properly and completely now. Rockpock  e  t  08:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ouch! You're right, of course. I'm going to go and have a cup of tea and see if I can figure a way around this. If I come up with anything, I'll post it on the talk page. Scolaire 08:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From your response, I gather the cup of tea had the desired effect :-) Scolaire 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha. Yes. I don't think it solves the ultimate problem, but it does bypass it in an elegant way. Thinking more about it more over-night, we have anough on our plate trying to keep everyone happy as it is, and it would be a real shame if the whole thing was brought down on this issue. It may be that by leaving criminals out of it completely to begin with, no-one will try and bring them back together in the future. If they do, I guess we can deal with that then. Rockpock  e  t  17:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Scolaire, thanks for your words of support at ArbCom. I appreciate it. I just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten the POW recategorisation plan. I just thought it prudent to avoid editing Troubles related articles while the ArbCom is ongoing. Things are complicated enough without that issued being dragged into it. (Though, in some ways this is a good example of how constructive progress can be made in this thorny field: thrashing out compromise with discussion, then moderate editors move forward towards consensus while marginalising those who are interesting in POV pushing.) Anyway, once everthing settles down, I will get on with implementing the plan of action. Rockpock  e  t  18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Republican Movement (Ireland)
Scolaire, I see you provided sources on this article one to the IRSP website one to an RSF statement on indymedia these would not be regarded as reliable sources on their own.--padraig 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I said on the talk page they were not good sources. I'm only trying to write an article that shows how the term "Republican Movement" is used. I don't want bits being deleted just because they don't suit a particular POV. Scolaire 22:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then find reliable sources, not the POV of any one group.--padraig 22:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you find reliable sources. I can't be arsed. Scolaire 22:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Back, sort of
Got a few things that need to be taken care of here, but once they are done I'll be gone again. Still not got much further along with the Rising sorry, been quite ill for the last month or so. I'll hopefully have some progress after the weekend. One Night In Hackney 303  14:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back! Sorry to hear you haven't been well. And I'm sorry to hear you can't be persuaded to stay. Good luck with the ArbCom. I see I'm a mentioned party (below) so I'll probably make an appearance there at some stage. Scolaire 08:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and good luck with the FAC, too. Scolaire 12:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the result is in! Now onwards and upwards to the main page on 3 October with any luck... One Night In Hackney  303  22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hurray! Well done! Scolaire 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case
User:SqueakBox has filed Request for arbitration and you are a mentioned party. Kittybrewster  (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened
Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 11:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Category
My watchlist shows you're busy removing it, I've just started a discussion about that on the category talk page actually, if you want to add your views. One Night In Hackney 303  23:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go to bed now. If he hasn't reverted by tomorrow somebody will have to. Scolaire 23:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been busy preparing for the campaign to get the hunger strike article on the main page. I created this then realised that if blanket protest and dirty protest were going to be linked to from the main page they'd need improving slightly from the stubs they were, so I've been busy with that. There's still plenty of room for improvement and expansion on both, but they're acceptable enough for now I think. One Night In Hackney  303  23:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Update
After many weeks of illness I'm feeling slightly better and I'll crack on with some more research for the Rising article, and the ArbCom case will probably last long enough to fix that up. I've still got to write an article about the "other" Brian Keenan too, but that's a relatively simple task as I've got notes for all the source material done, it's much easier when I just have to use bits from various books rather than read several books in their entirety. One Night In Hackney 303  14:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

More power to you! I'm following the ArbCom but damn-all else. My Free Derry efforts haven't got any farther than a couple of paragraphs on paper. Just so long as they don't go ahead with that idea of a blanket ban on "Troubles" edits! Scolaire 14:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah well, that was W. Frank's response to the motion I proposed to stop edits like this. Note that the really important part is the addition of "and regards this heritage as important for continuing electoral success", which isn't supported by any source.... One Night In Hackney  303  14:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd certainly support a ban on him! Dammit - now you've got me editing Provisional Irish Republican Army! Scolaire 14:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry! I'm coming over to Dublin some time in the next few months hopefully, I'll drop you an email about it when the event is organised. One Night In Hackney  303  18:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello
I've just returned from Wikibreak, and seen (after spending most of the morning going through the relevant pages) that you've taken exception to a posting of mine (see here). I think that you've probably misinterpreted what I've written (just for the record, Giano's stupid attack page is quite wrong in its interpretation). Please could I trouble you to set out what you find offensive in my post and I'll comment further. Thank you in advance.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Major Bonkers, when I said "the whole section 'Champagne' on User talk:Kittybrewster, culminating in this diff" I meant only that yours was the last post to that section, so that by linking to that diff I could show the section in its entirety, including the heading. By "culminating" I did not mean to imply that your post was in any way climactic, or particularly offensive. To be honest, I don't understand most of that post. It seems to be written in some sort of private lingo. Reading it again now, you might actually be chiding Kittybrewster et al (I had no idea what "Aytong or Arrer" meant until I re-read Giano's page just now), but I genuinely can't be sure. My problem with the whole section, as I said, was with the use of a user talk page by a group of mates to abuse disparage a fellow editor, however disruptive, while sipping virtual champagne. As far as I can see, there has been no evidence or proposed findings of fact against you personally in the ArbCom, and I'm fine with that. Scolaire 09:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for yours. I don't really want to comment on the Vintagekits/ Troubles arbitration, as it seems to me to be a quite pointless waste of time - apart from anything else, at the moment, it's Hamlet without the prince. I'm sure you're aware of Kittybrewster's take on the situation, and I'll just repeat my own view that he's suffered more than anyone else from Vintagekits' behaviour.


 * I see that the 'stupid attack page' link is now red. How anyone could think that 'Eton' and 'Harrow', pronounced with a Irish accent, come out as 'Aytong' and 'Arrer' is beyond me. I give my Irish relations credit for knowing how to pronounce the letter 'H'! Perhaps Giano learnt all about English accents from Dick Van Dyke's famously mangled cockney accent in Mary Poppins!--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you mis-read my post. I certainly didn't mean that I want my talk page used to disparage a fellow editor. Scolaire 17:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that a legal training encourages close reading of texts, so I don't think that I have misread what you have written. I am sorry if you see it as abusive of Giano, which wasn't the intention. However, if you go seeking offense, you're bound to find it.--Major Bonkers (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, Peter! Thank very much for your help! No problem, I know, that the time will come for your article. :) Kind regards! Doma-w 14:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Padraig Quinn
Is there anything that can be done with this, which I saved from a disruptive AfD nomination (4 minutes after it was created!). There's been mentions of him in various other articles for quite some time, so it's reasonable enough to assume he's covered in some sources which I'm not in possession of, but you might be? One Night In Hackney 303  14:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit of a mess, really! According to the article his notability is for the War of Idependence, according to Chronology of the Irish Civil War it's for freeing the prisoners in Dundalk on 27 July 1922, and according to Sean F. Quinn it's for being shot in 1923 when the Free State troops tried to recapture Frank Aiken. Fourth Northern Division of the Irish Republican Army brings in the bit about the ASU in Dublin, without any context. Neither he or Seán F. is in any books that I have. Eoin Neeson's The Civil War confirms the account of the attack on Dundalk jail, but gives no names apart from Aiken's. It might be worthwhile asking Jdorney, who wrote the Chronology of the Civil War article. He might have a source for you. Scolaire 13:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed
The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that ''[a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given''. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Daniel  08:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak
The user is on a wikibreak. There's just too much rage around here right now. Scolaire 23:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)