User talk:Setanta747/Archive5

Northern Irish people Article
Mal, this is a friendly notice that I've formally proposed the article for deletion. We argued this point back in September, but the article remains as it was. I hope our discourse can remain cordial. Best regards. Windyjarhead 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

SFD notification
This message is to notify you that a stub category you created is up for deletion at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr  =^_^=  16:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter Issue 8, December 2006

 * 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.

Killyhevlin Hotel
I've added the "prod" template to the article Killyhevlin Hotel, 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). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Killyhevlin Hotel. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Fram 20:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

northern irish
See my advise in Deletion review/Log/2006 December 26. `'mikka 21:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Appologies for the difficulty in understanding Wikipedia's complicated deletion policies. In the Deletion Review, you quoted from the proposed deletion (prod) policy page, but "Nothern Irish people" was deleted using the more formal articles for deletion (AfD) procedure. The discussion was located at Articles for deletion/Northern Irish people and ran for over a week. While prods contested in good faith are always undeleted, deletion review will generally only overturn an AfD if the closer made a clear error in judging consensus or if new evidence (such as sources not considered in the previous discussion) are brought forward. Thus, even though you are making your request in the right place it will be rejected unless you can show clear procedural error in the AfD or new sources which unambiguously demonstrate that the article conforms to the key policies of Notability, Neutral point of view, No original research, etc. Eluchil404 07:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I explained on the deletion review page Eluchil404, the article conforms to NOR, verifiability and what Wikipedia is not. These extra policies you have added, but which are not mentioned on the guide for deletion discussions are notability and NPOV. Certainly I think Northern Irish people are notable and I think you have a bloody cheek to even attempt to suggest that they are not - it smacks of racism to be frank. Also, as the article was barely started I'd hardly think it could be considered to be non-NPOV.. would you?


 * This is what will happen: I will create the article again - thankfully I have it archived somewhere in my userspace subpages.


 * Here is a bit of advice for both yourself and for mikka: apply common sense before making rash decisions which merely create more work and wasted time for all involved. --Mal 07:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you 100% ignored my advise and headlong into battle. Let me spelly you once more in the cae you simply didn't notice it:
 * I suggest you to do the following: (1) get yourself very familiar with wikipedia policies Verifiability, no original research, WP:CITE, reliable sources (2) create a well-sourced draft in User:Setanta747/Draft page (well sourced in the sense or reliable sources that explicitely say that Northen Irish is a separate ethnicity), and (3) come back here well prepared. Easy as 1-2-3 :-)
 * Where bloody cheek you see any hint that I say that Northern Irish are nonnotable? The problem is not with Northern Irish, not even with you, but with your text. `'mikka 21:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC) `'mikka 07:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me explain to you once again, in case you didn't notice my reasoning:

''As I explained on the deletion review page the article conformed to NOR, verifiability and what Wikipedia is not. It also conformed to notability and NPOV.''


 * I was already familiar with the policy guidelines of Verify, NOR, CITE and RS.


 * Regarding my comment about the Northern Irish people being non-notable, that was directed specifically to Eluchil404, as he had mentioned notability. You will note that I replied directly under his post, and only mentioned your username after I had made this comment. --Mal 07:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Wiki
re. your question on Stubacca's page see Added or removed characters Weejack48 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Weejack! :) --Mal 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 9, January 2007

 * 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.

Your question on WP:ODM talk
Hello, re your recent question on titles, I've put up an answer (of sorts). Hope it helps you out.

X damr talk 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Mal 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Message, Barnstar etc
Mal

Thanks for kind words, sorry I haven't replied sooner. I might be interested in the NI Sport Project later in the year. Right now I'm getting ready to go off on my travels and will be disappearing from Wiki in a few days time for a couple of months.

Cheers

David (Jack is the dog!!)Weejack48 08:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Enjoy your travels. :) Is it going to be a working holiday? --Mal 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sabattical from work. Australia, NZ, Singapore and Malaysia - will take in a couple of the cricket one dayers and a couple of Super 14 games (still seems strange calling it 14 after it was 12 for so long!)Weejack48 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh excellent - nice tour. You might want to look up the Formula One calendar for Australia and Malaysia too then, if you're into that. I think it starts in March, and Australia's usually the first race of the season.. Have fun anyway - I'm jealous! :) --Mal 21:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on the AFD Anglo Celtic isles


I stumbled upon it and my question is, why on earth would you keep demanding an apology when you where the first to insult a whole load of people (Read WP:CIVIL)?? Some people dislike the term "british isles", is it really your place for calling them small minded and bigotted??? Thats trolling to say the least! Please (re)read WP:CIVIL Billtheking 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, before even going back to read some comment on a talk page debate I made some time ago now, I will give you the definition of trolling: to drag up an old debate from the past in order to stir things up... which is what you appear to have done here.


 * Now to answer your.. question - is that what this is..? To respond anyway...


 * Some people dislike the term British Isles? Yes, perhaps that is the case. I'm convinced this is because they misunderstand the term, or choose to ignore its historical context. However, I've explained about the actual term on that page you linked me to.


 * You wanted to know why I asked for an apology and you stated here, that I was the "first to insult a whole load of people".


 * Its simple. I wanted an apology for this statement by Jtdirl: "your tendency to launch rascist abuse and snide attacks against Irish people, and your POV-pushing elsewhere." As I recall, that was the culmination of a number of personal remarks made to me around that time.


 * It was indeed a personal insult made specifically to me. Whilst you suggest I was "the first" to have insulted "a whole load of people" (though I'm not quite sure where I'm supposed to have done this), even if this were the case I still had not made any personal insults.


 * I'm quite aware of the WP:CIVIL page and even how to be civil to my fellow human beings, because I've had to suggest to more than one editor of this 'pedia that they have a read of it. The simple fact of the matter is that a couple of editors didn't agree with my opinion and one of them took it upon himself to accuse me of being "racist", of making "snide remarks" against Irish people, and of "POV-pushing".


 * I hope that's answer your question. Feel free to ask any others if you're still confused. --Mal 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

small=yes
This addition to the project templates is the coolest thing yet. I get so tired of seeing them dominating the top of every major talk page and this totally solves the problem. Thanks!--Curtis Clark 23:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I didn't develop it, but I added the function to about three templates there. Its certainly great when there are multiple templates on a talk page! :) --Mal 23:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

About time you got one

 * Thank you Ben! :) I'm going to display this (with pride) on my user page when I figure out a way to revamp and re-vitalise it! Getting this award from a fellow editor, and one as notably neutral as yourself, doesn't mean I'm going to give Wikipedia less. In fact, it makes me want to contribute more. Without getting too 'deep' here, I'm learning every day as an editor and as a person. I hope I never stop learning. And that's what Wikipedia is for. -- Mal 03:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cities Participation
Hi, your name is on a list of active members for WikiProject Cities. We have recently revitalized the project by including an article assessment department. Presently there is a great deal of work to complete in rating/tagging all of the 1000+ article which have not been assessed or tagged with the new WPCities banner template. Further, we have made changes to Infobox City that require some formatting changes in the articles that use the template. Your assistance at this time of change would be greatly appreciated. Alan.ca 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I'll take a peek in the next couple of days or so, to determine what I can do to help out. -- Mal 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Clubsound reference
Hi Setanta747 ..... I've been working on the Van Morrison article and I'm now making footnotes as requested before the article can be more highly rated. I ran across your reference to Van playing with Clubsound and so far have found no reference for it in material I have. ( I've got several books) Do you have a source in print that can be footnoted? Did you perhaps mean the Thunderbolts? Please reply to my talk page.... Thanks, Agadant 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Zwolle
Hi Setanta! You've recently rated the article Zwolle as B-class. I am trying to get that article up to GA, A or perhaps even FA-class in due time. I was wondering what is needed to improve the article. There are two things that I know need fixing: there's only one reference in the article, and the history section is minute. Any other suggestions/issues/etc.? A ecis Brievenbus 21:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm currently going through the article for minor things like WP:MOS etc. I'm going to put citation tags in too, where statements are made but there don't appear to be any sources to back them up. I came across this:

[Zwolle Basilica:,]


 * I was wondering if those were pictures of the Town Hall? It isn't clear why those pictures have links in the article. They're great photos and, if they aren't copyrighted, maybe you should try to upload them and include the actual photos in the article somewhere..?


 * What version of English is it recommended to use in Dutch articles? British English or American English? Which ever it is, it should be consistent throughout.


 * I made Blauwvingers a sub-section of the History section to see how it looks. If you don't like it, feel free to change it back. It seems logical to be a subsection though.


 * To become a Featured Article of course, there should be no redlinks at all.


 * I hope I was helpful. I'm about to save the small changes I made. Check out the article's talk page in a few minutes - I'm going to add the auto peer review bot's output to it. -- Mal 22:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the town hall, but the local basilica known as the Peperbus (pepper holder), dating back to 1399. Commons has a few images of it: Image:Zwolle Peperbus.jpg and Image:Zwolle Peperbus Bevrijding.JPEG.
 * I believe there is no preferred version of English in the Netherlands. Are there any inconsistencies?
 * Thanks a lot for the output/suggestions on the talk page. They're very helpful. A  ecis Brievenbus 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. As for the spelling and grammar - I did notice the American-English spelling of a word that ended in -ize (the English spelling is with -ise).. so I wondered if that was consistant throughout the article. I hadn't checked though.


 * I find that auto peer review bot is a great help. ;) -- Mal 22:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Van Morrison Article
Thanks so much! Looks like you've helped a lot with the Van Morrison article. It looks like it may shape up to be a nice article. What do you think? I'm still working on the references. I've got 5 books to look through for references which really makes it sometimes harder. How long have you been doing Wikipedia? Thanks again!-Agadant 06:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No sweat. I think I've been on Wikipedia about a year now, in a semi-serious way anyway. It seems you're doing some great work too by the way! I'm just following the style guide really. I don't know where you're from, but I decided to follow English spelling instead of American-English (as per WP:MOS), as Morrison was born and grew up on this side of The Pond. I'm nearly finished the style changes I was doing, then I'll search for the spellings.. honour/honor, criticise/criticize etc. I thought adding some Cquotes in would break up the text nicely too.


 * I've been using the cite book template as well: cite book, and using these to copy and paste each time I have to change a reference...


 * I think this article is pretty close to being GA-Class - they're pretty tough, and there's a lot of POV in the article. I like Van Morrison, so its hard for me to get rid of POV in the man's favour! ;) If you need any specific help, feel free to ask me. How long have you been editing by the way? -- Mal 06:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to look in the music WikiProject soon too, to see if they have any standardisation or a specific manual of style or whatever. I've actually just started a WikiProject on the group Marillion. Something similar to it might be of benefit to Van Morrison and all the articles relating to his work.


 * By the way .. all these citation flags I've been putting in - sorry for making more work!! -- Mal 06:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the citations you put up should be helpful as I was uncertain as to exactly what needed to be sourced. I'm sure you know, I've only contributed to the article in the last few months. And so much was entered previously with no sources but I am trying to find them. I haven't found Clubsource yet, but will keep looking. One thing I'm really confused by is the POV thing, especially since- on what I've contributed I used the Dylan article and others as a guide. Dylan especially-as it has the highest rating. I understand there are two points of view to everything, but if writing mostly about their work and if a certain album is mostly judged favorably - then why waste a lot of time finding what negative remarks were made. Perhaps the POV perception is because the least favorably reviewed albums are mostly ignored, but that had already been the case and I just didn't feel like digging up negatives on what someone else left unsaid. Actually isn't that POV to go looking for negatives? On a more personal level, there are plenty of negatives that could be discussed at length, but I thought it was POV and quite useless to discuss so many other people's personal opinions of him. Does anyone else really know who we truly are or why we acted in a certain way? I've tried to quote him when possible because after all it is an article about him. (Dylan's article also mostly ignores his personal failures.) I know the issues that  only concern his well-known notorious performance history and interviews would balance it with negatives but the article has been set up on mostly an album by album review of his work and hasn't focused at all on the concerts. It's getting lengthly already. Those things are really subjective- In Dylan's case (the famous booing Incident) it related to how fans didn't want to accept his new music and were trying to force him to conform to what they wanted so that makes it about his work. Perhaps I'm missing the point completely and hope you can point out to me in an objective way where the article leans towards POV. Maybe it can be corrected without adding too much more length to the article. It's hard to communicate in writing w/o being perhaps misunderstood. I am sincerely wanting to know your reasons for the POV perception.....Thanks again for all your help and interest....Agadant 13:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the thing is that POV goes both ways.. its the positive remarks that should be a cause for concern. Here's an example:

His third studio album was really fantastic, though critics panned it.


 * What we have to do is provide a citation that proves the album was "really fantastic", or else re-write the sentence. Its hard to do - especially when you agree, or when you like the artist. The article has to appear neutral, unemotional, unevocative.. even bland! Encyclopedia articles are just supposed to report the facts. That's kind of the way its been explained to me anyway! Its not easy because different editors have different levels of strictness too. Its a nightmare when it comes to FAC! Take a look at the article for Paul McCartney and its featured article candidacy. Good luck - I'll help when and where I can. :) -- Mal 13:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working on Van Morrison! (Will this be my life's work?) Here's a question I thought maybe you could best answer since you're from Northern Ireland too. He's listed in the category of blue eyed soul singer but his name doesn't fall in a category (list of names) set up because he would have to be English or British soul singer, there's no Irish blue eyed soul singer. Should he be put under British blue eyed soul singer or just left out of the named listings like he is now. Does this question make sense? Agadant 02:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh! A Wikipedian's work is never done! ;)


 * Well Van Morrison is Northern Irish. Northern Irish is a sub-nation of British. Its also a sub-ethnicity of Irish, if you will. On top of that, Irish citizenship is available to any Northern Irish person if they wish it. I have no personal knowledge if Van Morrison has ever considered changing his nationality from British, but here's a solution I find that works: create a category (Category:Northern Irish blue-eyed soul singers - not an expression I've ever heard before by the way!) and pop him into that cat. Add it to the British super-cat and, if anyone feels the desire to add him to an Irish super-cat too, that's fair enough I suppose. To me, the word "Irish" is ambiguous - it can refer to either nationality, or to ethnicity... but I don't think the categories themselves specifically state which is the case. However, sometimes they are included in super-categories Category:Fooers by country. The problem is accuracy: is Van Morrison a citizen of the Republic of Ireland? The answer is no. -- Mal 03:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Setanta747: Could you or someone upload the album cover to the next Van Morrison album to be released next week? I haven't done any image uploading yet.  (Have a feeling that might be disastrous!) There's an article already but so far no one has added the album cover. — The Best of Van Morrison Volume 3. I was too slow to notice recently that some of the album cover images were up to be deleted because they didn't have a fair use rationale on the image notes.  So 4 of them were taken off. Avalon Sunset, The Best of Van Morrison ,The Best of Van Morrison Volume Two and Back on Top. I went into each image page and added fair use rationale for the rest that were up to be deleted. If you can look this situation over when you get time, it would be greatly appreciated & make sure everything looks okay.  I would hate for us to lose anymore.  What is  the procedure now to replace them?  Thanks as always:( Are you surprised I'm still around? Ha! I'm tough!)  Agadant 00:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey mate! :) Glad to see you're still working away here.


 * As far as uploading images, there has been a rather stringent campaign of removing images which have no source information (which is fair enough), or don't comply with 'Fair use policy' (which is daft), or that are not proven to be irreplaceable (which is completely over the top!)


 * So basically if a photograph was taken by yourself, of a non-copyrighted, non-commercial subject, then it's safe.


 * Otherwise, forget it. :(


 * It seems that a few Wikipedians got together and decided to enforce extreme policy with regard to other types of images - including images which Wikipedia policy regards as 'fair use'... such as promotional material (for example: album covers)!


 * I'll probably have a look at it some time, but for now I'm too annoyed at the ultra-conservative attitude of a minority of editors here. -- Mal 20:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Clubsound reference
I'm finding a lot of stuff about George Jones in all the books but only involved with Van in the Javelins and Monarchs. One reference to George later as a member of Clubsound. I think Clubsound may have been formed after Van formed the group Them. Do you think this is right? I'm leaving the material in for now. Thanks again for your help....Agadant 19:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on the last few references now. Wonder if someone is impatient for the article to finish up? Haven't heard. Have you found anything on Clubsound connection- I haven't yet. I don't guess you could find a reference about the John Minihan connection could you? Nothing in my books-nothing to verify the paragraph in the article online (that I could find). I hate to remove it- I'm sure it's true. Thanks, Agadant 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm .. all I can find right now are the links below, which verify that Jones and Morrison were in the same band at one point. But I do remember reading an article, online, in which Jones describes how Morrison would come round and 'jam' with them. I don't think it was Clubsound at the time - he was probably talking about the period before they formed the Monarchs.

http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/565092 http://www.carlwayne.co.uk/Main%20Pages/Wayne's%20Words/Radio/ulster.htm


 * I'll have a look at the Clubsound reference soon. -- Mal 08:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm almost finished adding footnotes and material to the Van Morrison article now. I want to go over it and double check the footnotes and punctuation, etc. in the next few days. I added to it today and incorporated the Clubsound reference. I hope you'll read it and change anything glaringly wrong that I may be too close to see. Thanks again for all you help......Agadant 02:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Noticed author's name misspelled on footnotes (VM article)
Is there an easy way to fix it.? In the book reference footnotes Brian Hinton-Celtic Crossroads is spelled Hilton. Can it only be fixed by going into each reference? If so I'll do it as you've been so helpful already. Let me know unless you know an easy fix. Thanks...Agadant 03:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The only way I can think of is by using a decent editor (like UltraEdit-32) and using the Find/Replace function. If you haven't done it yet, I'll do it. :) -- Mal 11:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I appreciate everything you've done so much! I didn't know how to do the footnotes at all. Problem is I don't have a lot of time to learn new stuff right now. Especially trying to contribute to the article since fortunately I  have the books. You're the greatest! Agadant 23:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations
Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.

If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.

If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay  ( Talk )  12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by EssjayBot. Please direct any questions to Essjay.

Marillion-project
Well, hello! I would be glad to contribute on the project. I´m a totally beginner in projects, I have no experince at all, but I do have a great interest for Marillion. I listen to the booth eras but prefer the Fish-era. Whatever I might write, please check my spelling and grammar, I´m not a native English speaker (I´m from Sweden). I hope this will inspire more wikipedians to join it! /Johsan 20:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're more than welcome. I've updated the project page now and there is lots to do. The article assessment and the mathbot template etc all seem to be working fine. :) -- Mal 07:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Martial Arts origin
''Hi. Just noticed you had corrected a spelling error on an article I had edited, and thought I'd look up your userpage (just out of curiousity). I noticed you seem to be quite interested in martial arts, if your user page is anything to go by. I was wondering if you could answer a question for me: would it be correct to say that Chinese and Japanese (and all other Asian) Martial Arts originated in India? Thanks. -- Mal 13:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)''


 * Yes and no. Well for one, the India we see today did not exist before the arrival of the British during the 1700s. Prior to that, India was actually smaller kingdoms and countries. As for martial arts going to China and Japan from the Indian sub-continent. There are legends that state Bodhidharma was the one to introduce the 18 Lohan and formed Shaolin Kung Fu. In India itself, many people claim that their art was the one that reached China. For example, in the southen state of Kerala, is the martial art Kalarippayattu. Because it has been so popularized since the late 1990s people think that was the art which influence Chinese Kung Fu. There was even a documentary on the Discovery channel here which blunty stated that. However, that would be false since Kalarippayattu was formed between the 11th and 13th centuries CE, while Bodhidharma went to China during the 6th century CE. Also, most biographies on Bodhidharma state that he was born in Kanchipuram which is situated in Tamil Nadu and not Kerala. So, since Bodhidarma was alive 500 to 700 years before the birth of Kalarippayattu and he was born in Kanchipuram I have found a source that he studied the Tamil martial art Varma Kalai in the book called ''Varma Cuttiram: A Tamil Text on Martial Art from Palm-Leaf Manuscript published by the Institute of Asian Studies in Chennai, Tamil Nadu.


 * I would also disagree the he walked north over the Himalayas as most people tend to believe about how people used to travel to China from the Indian sub-continent. Not only would crossing the Himalayas be difficult, Bodhidharma would have to go through hostile kingdoms like that of the Chalukya dynasty just north of the Pallava kingdom in present day Southern India. Note that during those days both the Pallavas and Chaluiyas were at rivals with each other. Also, the Pallavas had a navy who travelled frequently to Southeast Asia and as far as China and Japan. Interesting book to read on this topic would be Traditional Cultrual Link Between India and Japan. So, Bodhidharma would have travelled to China by ship to China.


 * As for Southeast Asia, the arts there were influenced by both the early Pallavas and later the Cholas from Tamil Nadu. At the time there was no Tamil Nadu or Kerala but Tamilakkam (otherwise known as the Ancient Tamil country) which included parts of Sri Lanka at the time. But then, all martial arts did not come from present day Southern India. If one were to study the ancient Tamil literature and the natural disasters such as the recent 2004 tusnami we would find that there was some connection between Southern India, Australia, and Eastern Africa. Tamil literature such as the Silappadikaram and Manimekalai mention of great floods and of how cities were buried under the sea during the early part of the first millenium. What they were referring to was a tsunami. There was also a tsunami during the early 1900s in that part of the world too. The 2004 tsunami has unearthed much more pieces of evidence in the ancient city of Mahabalipuram in Tamil Nadu. Recently scientists have been doing underwater excavation of what they call the Indian Atlantis, or the Lemuria (continent) (called Kumari Kandam in Tamil). Well, they have found architecture buried in the Bay of Benglal which they believe could be part of the 7 pagodas of Mahabalipuram. Only one pagoda is standing today.


 * There is a possibility that the martial arts we see today in Tamil Nadu and Kerala must have its origins from Africa thousands of years ago and evolved over time. Some of the ideas and concepts of martial arts introduced to China also had its own devlopment which later was introduced to other parts of Asia too. I hope this lengthy message was of benefit. Hopefully there could be more research in this department of martial history. Regards. Wiki Raja 19:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to give me such an extensive answer. :) I had suspected there would be no definitive answer to be honest, our knowledge of history being what it is, but you certainly provided me with intriguing information which I may take the time to follow up on at some point. Again, my thanks. -- Mal 01:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 10, February 2007

 * 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.

delivered by ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

british v irish
The British and Irish rail networks are completely separate (please read the articles to find out more, I can't be bothered to explain).

I'm sorry if that offends your misplaced sense of nationalism, but crap like this is exactly why I left Wikipedia in the first place, (and I probably would have ignored your comment if you weren't so obnoxious). Temporary username 10:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Trains WikiProject does not include functionality for "Ireland", but it does include functionality for "UK". Northern Ireland, last time I looked, was part of the UK.


 * Try to keep your own misplaced sense of nationalism, and your fretting about who you think might be obnoxious or not, to yourself. -- Mal 13:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Storey
I'm not including his birth year at present, as there doesn't seem to be a reliable source for it. This article claims he was 63 in 2005, while the Independent article claims he was 70 in 2006. Either way it's not clear, and even if you take one to be correct neither gives you his actual birth year only his age in a particular month. Thanks for the help though. One Night In Hackney 13:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Sorry for re-adding the info you had corrected - Wikipedia gave me an error when I tried to do a further update to the article, which wouldn't go away each time I tried to submit. I ended up just copying the entire text of the article (in the state it had been before your corrections) re-opening the article edit page and just pasting over it completely. Sorry for causing you the extra work! Although your "spelling" correction was actually a typo correction! :P :) -- Mal 14:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll probably add something about Boxing for Peace later when I have time. I'd think there might be plenty of information offline about him, but being in England it's much more difficult for me to find especially in terms of newspapers.  Thanks. One Night In Hackney 14:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Judo is "controversial" and/or "divisive"?!?
If you can give me the name of the original userbox that had the image on it, I will look it up for you. But, I can't do anything without a pagename (you can't search deleted pages). -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi RG. Firstly, thanks for even considering doing this for me. :) I think the original article name was Template:User Judoka, as that is what it is called on my User page in the list of things I've created. Cheers. -- Mal 15:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I can find, the image was reuploded to commons under commons:Image:Judo - Ippon Seoinage.gif, deleted here as being on commons, but was deleted as being a copyvio on commons. The userbox (with all of it's history) now lives at User:UBX/Judoka. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent - thanks very much RG. :) -- Mal 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

NI Terrorists/Paramilitaries/Freedom Fighters/etc
Thanks for your note. In the first instance, I agree wholeheartedly that, a) the categories are merited, and, b) they should be consistent. Therefore, despite the qualms over the use of 'terrorist', Northern Ireland certainly should not be treated differently from the other countries listed.

'Terrorist' certainly suffers from a disadvantage, being a preferred term of abuse amongst a variety of groups on the international stage. However this does not, or should not, detract from its serious usage. I am strongly disinclined to replace it with any of the alternatives eg, militant, paramilitary, guerilla, or, worst of all, freedom fighter. WP:OR does not demand that we cloak our meaning with euphemisms. 'Paramilitary', which appears to be the preferred alternative, suffers from a further problem; many countries in the world (eg India) have a separate militarised police force which they refer to as their 'Paramilitary forces'. Therefore the term is not completely unambiguous.

Now, what to do? I'd be inclined to wait for the present CFD to run its course. My reading of the discussion is that there is a strong possibility that it will be renamed for consistency. If it doesn't work out, then I'd wait a couple of weeks and give it another shot—consensus can change after all, and I've noticed that this seems to apply particularly to CFD. It's probably a little late now, but you could try publicising the debate to interested WikiProjects etc.

X damr talk 14:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't know where to begin publicising it really, other than the Northern Ireland notice board (which I had done) and possibly the Ireland one too. Obviously many, if not most, of those who read notification of it there will be attracted to the 'terrorist = freedom fighter' aspect, on one side of it or another, and will probably disregard the rationale as has happened this time. One new WikiProject (WikiProject IRA) .. well, I'm sure you could guess the opinions of those involved with that one!


 * Also, I'm not sure that 'pimping' for supporters, as such, is condoned in these situations, is it? Maybe I should leave a note to the closing Admin, describing how the rationale had been ignored by most contributors.


 * Other than that, I think I'll follow your advice - cheers. -- Mal 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant publicise the debate generally, not just to those who might be expected to vote in favour; although thinking about it, it doesn't sound too bad an idea, especially if you use a throwaway sockpuppet account so it can't be traced back to you. No, no, must be good, no more naughty ideas ;)


 * X damr talk 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * lol! -- Mal 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I still had this watchlisted after our earlier discussion, and think I can add to this conversation. Firstly I'm a member of the (renamed) WikiProject Irish Republicanism, however this isn't because I'm an IRA supporter, it's just a subject I'm always been interested in and have several books on, so I feel I've actually got something to add. If there was a Loyalism project I'd probably join that too to be honest.


 * One problem I see with use of the word terrorists in categories is that sometimes the use might not be appropriate, whereas paramilitary is a more inclusive term. For example if someone was known to be a member of the IRA but can't be verified as having taken part in any terrorist activities, there might be WP:BLP concerns describing them as a terrorist.  Sound fair? One Night In Hackney 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With the greatest of respect ONIH, your reply to me highlights exactly what we had been discussing - you are talking about concerns for point of view, when the category was nominated for renaming for an entirely different reason: consistency.


 * Since you mention it though, I would suggest that a member of a terrorist organisation can logically be defined as a terrorist. There is more to terrorism than merely physically taking part in rioting, bombing, shooting etc. I would suggest that, if a person can be verified as being a member of a 'terrorist' or 'paramilitary' (for the sake of argument) organisation then one must logically deduce that they are therefore, a 'terrorist' or a 'paramilitary'.


 * With regard to the IRA project, I'll not be joining, I don't think (although I had considered joining it to, as one editor put it on its deletion nomination page, "keep an eye on" it). I'm am positive it will cause problems in Wikipedia later on though - even if only due to the name of the project. I would also be highly suspicious, if some editors had got together and created a WikiProject UFF, for example.


 * You mention that, had there been a "Loyalism project", you would have joined that as well. I note to you that the name of the project you have joined is not the polar opposite of Loyalism - Republicanism - in the context of Northern Ireland. It is, in fact, "IRA". Perhaps a better move would have been to become a subsidiary of the WikiProject Terrorism (which I just noticed, notably fails to mention Republican terrorist groups, but mentions Loyalist ones).. WikiProject Irish terrorism or WikiProject Irish paramilitarism perhaps.


 * As you are interested in subjects relating to Northern Ireland though, you might want to join the NI WikiProject.. it could use your help tbh! :) -- Mal 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your point with regards to logic, but my concern is more of a legal nature. As I'm sure you're aware WP:BLP is policy, and while your statements stand up logically (I actually agree with them) it's slightly dangerous to label someone a terrorist without actually being able to prove it.  But with paramilitary there's less problems in my opinion.


 * The Wikiproject was actually renamed because we wanted to get away from just being an IRA project, its scope is on all aspects of Republicanism. So under the circumstances being a subsidiary of WikiProject Terrorism would be just as problematic as the original name. I don't want you to think my comments are coming from a biased IRA supporter who objects to the term terrorist because I'm not biased or an IRA supporter.  Thanks.  One Night In Hackney 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Had I thought you were particularly biased, I probably wouldn't have asked you for your help with the NI Project. ;) I understand your thoughts regarding WP:BLP, however, it doesn't negate the point about ignoring my rationale. In fact, if anything, it supports it: all the categories together should be nominated for change if there is concern enough. This is just one category however. -- Mal 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just throw a point into the debate here; surely we shouldn't be contemplating including anyone under these categories unless their membership of a terrorist/paramilitary group is proven? Whether in Court of Law or by overwhelming evidence, or personal admission, etc? WP:OR applies to inclusions within categories just as much as to content within articles. Provided OR is satisfied, BLP really isn't too much of an issue.

Further, BLP is not really a valid reason for preferring 'terrorist' or 'paramilitary'. It is the substance of the accusation that is potentially troublesome, not the way it is expressed. If we label someone as a 'paramilitary' then in effect we label them as the member of a coercive group, with all that that entails if we are wrong. Simply choosing to avoid the term 'terrorist' does not absolve us from the substance of our allegation.

X damr talk 19:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll just clarify my point. For example, some Irish Republicans have been convicted of membership of the IRA, but haven't been convicted of any other offences.  In that case I think it's quite reasonable to refer to them as paramilitaries, as they are members of a paramilitary/terrorist (delete as applicable) organisation.  However I don't think it's appropriate to actually refer to them as terrorists unless it can be verified (by the evidence you suggested above) they have actually taken part in terrorist acts. One Night In Hackney

To answer the both of you in the same response here.. I agree that there should be pretty strong evidence before we add any person to a category (whether it be named terrorist or paramilitary). Another category could be set up for 'alleged' terrorists and in fact I think there was or is such a category. The latter I am less interested in personally - if the structure exists and there is enough evidence to suggest that an individual who has an article in Wikipedia is alleged to be a terrorist or member of a terrorist organisation (parliamentary priviledge, news stories etc), then I would add said person(s) to that category.

As I said before, with regard to the word terrorist - terrorism doesn't imply that one has had direct physical involvement with an event which was considered an act of terrorism. Being the member of a terrorist organisation is enough. The goal, after all, of terrorist groups is to gain a voice through terrorising the populace and bullying the establishment, rather than by gaining a voice through the process of democracy. Almost always, these groups are a minority or see themselves as an oppressed group. That the group that the terrorist organisation claim to represent is actually oppressed or disenfranchised or not, is not in question by defining them as terrorists - the action they take defines them as terrorists.

There are three general defining characteristics for terrorists:[*]

1. They are weaker than their perceived enemy, numerically and technologically (in terms of firepower etc). 2. Their actions define them - both in asserting their identity and calling attention to them and their declared 'cause'. 3. They attempt to change or replace the System by destroying it.

But there are also those organisations who don't fit snugly into those categories that are also terrorists. For example, the UVF. That terrorist organisation has chosen its perceived enemy but 'fights' against that enemy in 'defence' of the status quo (and claims to defend the people it represents). It has also however, attacked the state.

On the other hand, the Provisional IRA's stated goal is basically to destroy the state infrastructure - a goal that was achieved to an extent when the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland resigned but, ironically, the subsequent imposition of Direct Rule made Northern Ireland 'more British' in a way, than it previously had been (it had been the first region of the UK with its own devolved government).

Around twenty-seven years ago however, tactics changed: the 'information war' started in earnest. The Provisional IRA's goal was now both "the bullet and the ballot box" (Danny Morrison, Sinn Féin, circa 1980).

I suspect there is less resistance to adding Loyalist terrorists to the category in Wikipedia, as evidenced perhaps by the fact that only Loyalist terrorists have been categorised. My suspicion is, and I haven't looked up any edit histories yet to confirm this, that there is a more orchestrated resistance to describing any members of the IRA as terrorists - I'm sure there have been reverts and edit wars regarding categorisation of a few articles.

Dictionary definitions of the word terrorism:
 * Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments.
 * the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion

[*] ''"Networks, Netwar, and Information-Age Terrorism", Countering the New Terrorism, USA: RAND, 39-40. ISBN 0-8330-2667-4.''

All this said and done though - the emphasis of my nomination with regard to this single category was that it should not be treated any differently in Wikipedia than the other categories. While I would, given a group nomination, support the continuation of these categories as being named Fooian terrorists, I would accept consensus. I do not accept each one being treated individually as this causes inconsistency within Wikipedia, and appears to lend more credibility (albeit slight) to terrorist organisations from one region and one region only. -- Mal 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)