User talk:Spleodrach/Archive/Archive 001

Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:Traleecrest.gif, was tagged with the coatofarms copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as seal. If you have any questions, ask them at Media copyright questions. -- 13:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Mary Robinson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mary Robinson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Irish elections
Hi, I saw you reverted my rv to the standardised format. Just to let you know, the elections series is a standardised template covering all countries (soon to be, anyway - see what I've done so far here) in a certain format. Although other Irish template might be of a different style, this transcends borders as it were, so please don't change it back again! Thanks, Number 57 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the referenda/amendments, there are three problems with combining the two templates:
 * Not all amendments went to referenda (1 and 2)
 * Some referenda for amendments failed (an attempt to make the 3rd failed in 1957?)
 * There have been some non-amendment referenda, such as the adoption of the constitution in 1937.
 * As some of the red links link to years where there were more than one amendment, perhaps they could just be linked to the first amendment that that referendum concerned? Number 57 09:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Tánaistithe
Please see my suggestion on Talk:Tánaiste. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rose of Tralee
Deletion on the grounds that the present international contest began in 1959 is not justified. This was an old Tralee tradition from the 19th century. On evidence from her daughters, before marriage she was the town's "Rose". Accepting she did not "reign" as they do today, the reference is otherwise correct.Osioni 12:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:AlbertReynolds.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AlbertReynolds.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bob 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:AlbertReynolds.jpg
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. This image was uploaded under a fair use rationale, but fails Wikipedia's first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Bob 22:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not continue to upload images of living people unless you can prove that they are freely released. The particular image of Albert Reynolds you re-uploaded today is not freely licensed and may not be used here. Thank you. —Angr 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove warnings about missing licenses from image pages unless they are now licensed.
Please don't remove warnings that an image is missing its license unless you add the license. We need information like that to ensure that no images break someone's copyright. Thanks. Will (Talk - contribs) 10:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

British King of Ireland
Hi there, I see you reverted a change I made to King of Ireland regarding the nationality of the King of Ireland. I fail to see how pointing out that George VI was British is POV. It is no more different than pointing out that Ruaidri mac Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair (Rory O'Connor) was the last Irish King of Ireland or that Edward Bruce was the (first and) last Scottish King of Ireland. That fact is that George VI was not a native of Ireland. There is a heading in the article called King of Ireland (not added by me I add) alluding to this fact. I have added back in my change. Please do not remove it again without discussing it first, regards Snappy56 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC) ''All copied from User talk:Doops
 * Hi. Yes, as I said in my edit summary, I do see your point. But it does seem to me on the other hand that insofar as he referred to himself as "King of Ireland", George VI (or anybody else in the same situation) was ipso facto claiming to be Irish. (You're free to disagree with him, of course.)


 * But anyway, on a more practical note, the real problem with calling him "the last British King of Ireland" is that it seems to imply that there have been non-British Kings of Ireland since him. After all, consider what is implied by saying "the last left-handed King of Ireland was George VI." The introduction of unnecessary, even if undisputed, facts can be downright misleading sometimes; and they can likewise be POV if they were introduced to make a point rather than to present the facts. (This is not to argue that non-Irishness is irrelevant to the page in the way that left-handedness is; but relevance is not exactly the same thing as semantic necessity.)


 * Mind you, I'm not sufficiently invested in this article to make a big deal out of this all. If the editors who really care about the page are fine with your wording, I won't interfere -- I'm just dropping you this line here so you don't think I'm a total nutcase, so you can see (I hope) my point just as I see yours. Cheers, Doops | talk 05:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Irish Election box begin
Hi the reason I switched them round to match Template:Election box begin and Template:Election box candidate with party link also because most templates have the party name beside the colour -- Barryob   Vigeur de dessus  22:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

1992 Israeli election
Hi. The reason I changed it back to using sups is because (a) I want to differentiate between references and notes (b) the notes about the parties changing need to be directly below the table or it would be too difficult to follow, and (c) because this is how it has been done on all the other Israeli election articles. Number  5  7  19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Sean T O Kelly.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sean T O Kelly.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Keith Ridgway
Hello. While I understand that you're trying to be helpful with regard to this article, I am Keith Ridgway and I am tired, really tired, of the fact that the Wikipeida article as it stood keeps on getting quoted back to me now almost every time I do an interview or receive questions about my work. The changes I've made are corrections of fact and deletions of information which has nothing to do with the subject of the article - me as a writer.

I am not a "novelist and short story writer", I am a writer. I was not educated at University College Dublin. Nor is my schooling of any relevance in an article about me as a writer. My first published work was not poetry. I have never been a poet. I do not live in "north" London, I live in London. "Horses" is not a "novella", nor was it my first "major published work". "The Long Falling" was not my "first full length novel". "Standard Time" is not a short story collection - it is a set of interlaced fictional prose pieces. I did not "switch publishers" in 2006. And finally, the last link, to a Harper Collins page on me, is out of date and does no more than perpetuate some of the inaccuracies listed above.

While there's nothing much I can do about an article such as this appearing on this website, I hope that you can accept that I can have a say in ensuring its accuracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kosher123 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

UUP Leaders template
Thanks for correcting the dates from Molyneaux & Trimble in the UUP Leaders template, don't know how I managed to do that.--padraig3uk 09:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tallaght
Hi Snappy - I saw your edits on Tralee (re: removing references to hotels and shops) - I was wondering if you could give an opinion on Tallaght as there are also shops and hotels listed (in the 'Features' section). All I've been doing up to now is removing external links. Thanks. Jhonan talk 14:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fathers Rights Responsibility Party
I think your wrong there I believe they registered just prior to the election.--padraig3uk 13:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There did register but to late for the name to appear on the ballot papers, if you look at this report in the Irish Times.--padraig3uk 13:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they both should be added to the template as I see no reason for either registration to be rejected, although in the People Before Profit case they are really just a front for the SWP.--padraig3uk 13:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Irish states since 1171
Hi Snappy56,
 * (alignment of 1801–1922)

Just to say the alignment was intended as previously, since (1) it's the only entry under 1801-1992; and (2) "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is a long name! Hope you don't mind, therefore, if I revert your good-faith edit. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ''Hi there, what I was trying to do was get rid of the underlining of the blank spaces to the right of the word 'Great'...
 * Ahhh – thanks for this information, as I think I now realise what needs to be done to align the entry as previously but without this result. I'll try implementing it a little later. Meanwhile, thanks again for reminding me of this pitfall! Yours, David (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ...Hopefully all now satisfactory. Yours, David (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Working late!!
Good work there on the Members of the 30th Dail

Hello Snappy

I recently removed some false and malicious edits to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciaran_Cuffe. I noticed that you seem to have edited the page after the vandalism, but you left included false, unsourced and negative information about the subject, and added a 'citation needed' tag, which seems to indicate that you did see it.

This appears to be directly in conflict with the Wikipedia policy as stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material

Can you tell me what your reason for this was? Thanks

Personal policy V Wiki policy
Hi Snappy

First off, I appreciate your work on wikipedia, and I know how many people like yourself put a lot of effort into keeping up standards.

I think that the main criticisms come from people who feel they have been wrongly criticised, which is why I think the policies on information about living people is so important - they are very strict and very explicit for a reason. I don't think it's a good idea to make up your own policies, especially when they conflict. That's why I linked to the official policy.

That said, I can't claim to be an expert, especially technically. I don't know, for example, how to take the comments out of the history. Since they are clearly libellous, I think they should be removed - is this possible?

Tzq99 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions and answers
Hi Snappy

you ask a few (rhetorical?) questions in your last message, but I think that they are all answered in the official Wikipedia policy. It's not clear from our answers whether you reject the official Wikipedia policy in favour of your own, or you're just not aware of it. That's why I linked to it in the first place.

I'll try to be as clear as possible:

Firstly, how would I know what is libellous to one individual and what is not?

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced

My interpretation of this is that we should not be concerned about whether it is libellous, we should be concerned about whether it could be  libellous. If it could, then it should be immediately removed unless it is backed up by solid references.

If someone writes "CC is involved with builders/developers etc", I may think that this in untrue but how can I prove it?

''There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.''

There is absolutely no burden of proof on you to demonstrate that it is true. The burden of proof lies on the editor who inserted it, and clearly in this case there is none.

Can you clarify whether you accept the official Wikipedia policy? Tzq99 18:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Cork constituencies
I've taken the liberty of moving Cork City North and Cork City South to Cork City North West and Cork City South East. The latter two are the correct titles see. I suspect that what led to the confusion is that the elections ireland site has the wrong name in the general election section however note that they do have the correct names in the boundary section. Valenciano 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

John Forrest Dillon
Please stop adding the links to other John Dillons at the top of this article; we only disambiguate from confusingly common article titles to more specific ones, not vice versa. No one is going to go to John Forrest Dillon if they're looking for another John Dillon. Postdlf 22:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your reply on my talk page; if you have a response to that, please post there so we can keep the thread in one place. Postdlf 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Micheal Martin
I notice you've changed the links to his page. Im pretty sure there is no fada on the i of Micheal. See http://www.entemp.ie/corporate/ministersoffice/ --Rye1967 08:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I will revert my changes. Also the article should be moved back to Micheál Martin. Snappy56 09:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous Links
Hi, in your recently created articles about Irish politicians you used the ambiguous link Irish. I think it would be better to use Irish in these cases, or occasionally Irish or Irish might be justified. All the best, Gil Gamesh 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinking of dates in Michael McDowell
You keep removing wikilinked dates from Michael McDowell and citing WP:DATE as your justification. Please stop it, or at the very least follow the guidelines in WP:CONSENSUS and discuss your reasons on Talk:Michael McDowell. Please note that WP:DATE does not support your position, so it is incorrect to use it as justification. Please note you are now also in breach of WP:3RR. DrFrench 08:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have made 4 reverts in 24 hours, I have not. You have breached WP:3RR, I have not. You also said that wikilinking dates is a 'common mistake' please provide evidence of why this is a mistake - there is nothing in WP:DATE to support your view. As I said befroe, please follow WP:CONSENSUS.  DrFrench 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Members of the 30th Dáil
Good catch on the changes to the 30th Dáil, in reference to Ceann Comhairle. I should have seen that myself, and not edited in haste yesterday. Thanks. --The.Q | Talk to me 08:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ministers of State of the 30th Dáil
I notice you recently edited this article. You stated that the Dail had officially appointed the government (you used the word ministers). This is technically incorrect. The government are appointed by the president after election by the Dail on the nomination of the Taoiseach. It is therefore the president who officially appoints the government. I hope this is of help. Additionally the Ministers of State are appointed by the Government. The government meeting to effect this happened on 20th June. I hope this is of help. Rigger30 10:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Independent Fianna Fáil
You have descibed Jackie Healy-Rae as being a member of this (defunct) party. Although he publicises himself as Indpendent FF, and would be "genetically" aligned with the Blaney family, he has nothing to do with that party, takes no guidance from them, has no input to their decisions, or pays any membership there. IFF is a used description by Healy-Rae, not as membership information. So, I think it is inaccurate to link to that party. --Rye1967 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I've changed the Kerry South constituency article. There's no mention of it on his own article. Snappy56 08:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, I think Kerry South is where I saw it.--Rye1967 15:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sceilig
Hi, even though I thought it was Scéilig too, it appears that J. J. O'Kelly's pseudonym was actually Sceilg. I've encountered this on other sites as well.--Damac 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, I presume he took his pseudonym from the Skellig islands, he was from nearby, in Irish the spelling is Scéilig. There are plenty refs to this on the net. The spelling Sceilg may be some anglicised form of the Irish word, in the same way Skellig is. Snappy56 11:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of where he took the nickname from, but please consider: The Royal Irish Academy library catalogue refers to him as Sceilg, referred to as Sceilg in a book title), also referred to as Sceilg, Sceilg again, the Department of the Taoiseach refers to him as Sceilg, the Princess Grace Irish Library (Monaco) refers to him as Sceilg, Mealy's auction house recently sold off documents written by Sceilg, Conradh na Gaeilge also refer to him as Sceilg. I'll make the necessary changes.--Damac 10:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough then, as along as the spelling is consistent, that's the main thing. Make sure you add one or two of those references to his article so there is no question in future. regards, Snappy56 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Louis Walsh
Hi, I see you recently added the category LGBT people from Ireland to the Louis Walsh article. Please could you explain this in the article and add a reliable source for the information, otherwise the category will be removed. Thanks, --User:Belovedfreak 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No "reliable" source but read this:, Boy George should know! Anyway it's well known in the Gay community in Dublin that Louis is gay, an open secret one might say. Remove it if you like, it won't change the facts though! He is a gay man. Snappy56 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:CBI - Series B - One pound note - front.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CBI - Series B - One pound note - front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:CBI - Series B - One pound note - reverse.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CBI - Series B - One pound note - reverse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops.
Sorry for that really stupid mistake of mine, somehow that didn't parse correctly on the way from my eyes to my cerebrum. ;) (Or maybe it's just that I'd personally prefer SF over the PD? ;)) — Nightstallion 23:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No bother it happens to us all now and again! 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ref list on WWI vets pages
Greetings,

Just wondering what the purpose of those edits are? Notice at the bottom that all the years (1999-2007) are linked.Ryoung122 23:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I replaced and   elements to "support scrolling of table bodies independently of the table head and foot" … but as usual, we have to work within the limitations of the pathetic browsers in use rather than the decent ones we should have. [end rant])

I have considered a few presentational tweaks such as re-ordering the columns, but the best I can come up with is User:BrownHairedGirl/List of Irish by-elections_v3, with the winners names in bold. Better, but still not entirely clear.

So my thinking for now is that the best idea would be to use the sortable table to create a separate list of by-election-winners, like User:BrownHairedGirl/List of Irish by-election winners (which needs intro text etc, but that can be done later if it's used).

I rather like the separate list of winners: one of the first things I did was to look for anyone who had won two by-elections, and found only one: Thomas Hennessy, winner of both the Dublin South by-election, 1925 and the Dublin South by-election, 1927. But what do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see the advantage of sortable tables, and for that to work you need one big table. I think the User:BrownHairedGirl/List of Irish by-election winners table is the best, perhaps you could bold the Winner column as well to make it clearer and more visible, after all by-elections are about producing one winner!
 * Btw are you planning to create articles for all the Seanads from 1922 to 1997? That's a lot of work! Snappy56 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I have moved the winners list into mainspace at List of Irish by-election winners. Like the list of List of Irish by-elections, it needs more entries in the reasons column, but it's a useful start for now.
 * I don't know whether I'll succeed in doing lists for all the Seanads, but I'll certainly do a few more of them. Most of the job is quite simple; the basic data (names, panels and parties) is available on the Seanad section of the Oireachtas Members database. The difficulty arises when vacancies have been filled, because the database isn't always clear about that ... so trying to figure how and when each one arose and when it was filled can be a bit of a sweat, but I generally manage to do it without reading through every official report from the Seanad in that period.  I do wish I had a shelf full of Nealon's guides, but at £100 or more for each of them secondhand, I don't think that's very likely to happen soon :( BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Members of the 20th Seanad now moved from userspace to mainspace. It's fairly well-referenced, but it needs some explanation of how there was a change of govt mid-way ... and like all the Seanad articles it needs a section on the officers (Cathaoirleach, Leas-Cathaoirleach, Leader of the Seanad), which in the 20th Seanad gets to be a rather long list. I think that my next effort will be to finish my list of women in the Seanad, which has been languishing in draft form for too long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I made some progress on the Seanad list by writing a perl script to help sort and format the data in the lists of Senators in the Oireachtas Member Database, which meansd that I can produce the initail lists (sorted and properly formatted, but not disambiguated) in about 10 minutes for each Seanad (it was taking hours manually). Sadly, the Oireachtas database is quite patchy in recording party affiliation before the 1990s. So I have ordered a copy of Walker's "Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland 1918-92", which should fill in the gaps. With that reference, I think I'll be able to do the lists relatively easily. Fingers crossed :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's excellent! Using a Perl script, definitely beats doing it by hand. I have a question for you about categories, I'll put in on your talk page. Snappy56 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seanad lists
My copy of Walker's "Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland 1918-92" arrived today. It is very thorough in its coverage of elections to the Daíl, the European Parliament and the Parliament of Northern Ireland (as well the various sort-lived assemblies in NI after 1972), and the first few refs I checked threw up an inaccuracy in the Oireachtas database.

All good so far … except that there is no sign at all of any data on the Seanad. So far, I can't even the words or "Seanad" or "Senate" anywhere in the book. :(  I don't regret buying it, because it's a very useful reference for the Daíl and the European Parliament, but its useless for the Seanad.

That makes me wonder what sources might be available. The Oireachtas Members Database is bad enough on the Daíl, but it's very poor on the Seanad: see for example the list for the 13th Seanad, where there are so many Senators without a listed party affiliation that the best I can produce is this list &mdash; more disambiguation can be done, but having no party info for 25% of senators is ridiculous, and I'm not sure how much I trust what's there (see for example Patrick Baxter).

The best I can think of so far is the Irish times digital archive, so I'm going to try that. But if it doesn't do better than the Oireachtas database, I may have to conclude that the lists are impossible without massive original research ( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fingal County Council
Please do not redirect this page (and equivalent pages of other counties) to the county's own page; this redirect had already been specifically deleted by myself before you reinstated it. There is no reason why, in the absence of a page about the council specifically, it should go to the county page; it would be similar to creating a redirect at a football player's page to the team he plays for, which would be equally pointless. You may instead wish to expand the page; I think the only Co Co page we currently have is Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Thanks. --Schcambo (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously Fingal County Council should be redirected to County of Fingal because it has a section on the County council in it. Snappy56 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snappy. In the absence of a specific article in the council, it is quite proper to redirect to the article on the county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Euro Coins
About Future Designs of the Euro coins. I have to disagree with your comment, Wikipedia is full of these dates all over the place, and although true that they have not been confirmed, it is worth for people to know these are tentative dates (and Slovakia for 2009 is more likely to happen). So I have put the dates back and added a small comment at the bottom of the table.

For your reference, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro#Post-2004_EU_members

If you are OK with it I will change all other pages as well. Thanks!

Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wikipedia is full of dates, many of which aren't sourced or cited properly. Have you read WP:CRYSTAL? Anyway, Estonia has changed its proposed date 3 times from 2007 to 2008 and now 2011; the Czech Republic has changed its date twice and will probably change it again.


 * It's probably best to leave the dates in as it is useful information. I have updated 1 euro coins with some grammar, spelling and re-wording changes. You should use this format for all the other euro coin articles. Snappy56 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Euro coins
Template:Euro coins has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

European Constitution referendum: Intro bolding
Care to comment here, or shall I be bold and revert? jnestorius(talk) 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Incipient Edit War
undo moronic edits is not an appropriate edit comment as it constitutes a breach of the Wiki policy WP:NPA and possibly WP:AGF and certainly WP:Civility. In fact you are possibly in possible breach of so many Wiki-policies you leave me breathless. Please amend your ways. Sarah777 (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha! That edit summary was a joke or jest, a merry jape! Humour sometimes is lost in print. But anyway, you've been blocked numerous times for gross civility, harassment and derogatory comments, so go away you hypocritical stalker and stop quoting policies at me and try following them yourself! Snappy56 (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's not very friendly. But I was doing a bit of merry japing myself so I'll forgive you:) Sarah777 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're are all a pack of jokers, let's end it before anyone gets hurt! Snappy56 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Spire of Dublin
Sorry, deleting the gallery was a mistake. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bertie Ahern
yes I can!!!!! Markreidyhp 07:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bertie Ahern and 3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Snappy, this edit is your 4th revert. It's a few hours outside the 24-hour period, but if brought to WP:ANI/3RR, that sort of thing is regarded as gaming the system ... particularly since you have also been adding order numbers to other Taoisigh, while the issue is under discussion at Talk:Bertie Ahern. Please stop, and discuss the issue to seek consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, my reply is on Spannerheads talk page. Snappy56 (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Snappy, I'm shocked!! How dare you insult spanners by that comparison?  All the spanners of my acquaintance are straightforward and honest, and no spanner that I have ever heard of has ever sent an underpaid former secretary off to be economical with the truth under oath.
 *  ;) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC) with tongue in cheek
 * I apologise profusely for any slur or offence that I may have unintentionally made about Spanners. I now realise that all Spanners are totally and scrupulously honest, and that having large sums of cash in various currencies, on or about their person or premises at various times in the past was totally credible and plausible and not at all unusual behaviour in any way. Again, my humblest apologies. Snappy56 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sire that the the spanners will happily accept your apology, and make you an honorary nut ;) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish Politicians Pages
Allow me to introduce myself. I am an administrator, Thegeneral, of the politics.ie/wiki website. You appear to be familiar with the webiste, and may be a user on the politics.ie site like myself, as a number of articles that I have written have been cut and pasted onto this website by yourself and passed off as your own contributions without any accreditation to either me or the politics.ie/wiki. I have been shocked by your audacity in doing this given that I am engaged in research professionally and therefore am aware of research and professional etiquette. In addition I have also published articles in international journal and contributed at conference for my PhD so it baffles me that you have appeared not to even consider examining the copyright guidelines of the politics.ie/wiki, which I should inform you, you are in breach of.

I look forward to getting a response from you before I decide to take this further on behalf of the wiki. Generalissimo1 (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What's this then, have a go at Snappy day? Listen Corporal, don't come to my talk page and try to bully me! Audacious, thanks, haven't been called that in a while. Professional, PhD, blah blah blah! Anyway, what's this website you are blathering on about? I tried to access www.politics.ie/wiki but there is no website at this address. No website, nothing to discuss! Snappy56 (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:10EUROFR.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:10EUROFR.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions.

WP:BRD
Hi Snappy

As you have probably seen already, I have added a few comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, and I hope that something can be worked out to accommodate everyone's concerns. I think it's unhelpful that ONIH has been so strident in his responses, but I wanted to point out to you that I think I can see a bit of how things escalated, and how that could have been avoided.

Basically, it boils down to WP:BRD: bold, revert, discuss. It's a very important essay, which IMRHO should long ago have been uprated to a guideline, because it is invaluable in helping to avoid a disagreement escalating into a dispute. Basically, it suggests that if you have been WP:BOLD but your edit is reverted, don't revert again, and instead discuss the issue with the other editor(s). I think that if you had applied that principle in this case, it would have helped to keep things calm.

Please may I ask you to seriously consider this for the future? It's an approach which really helps to avoid wikidramas. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will use this approach in future. The user One Night in Hackney has been more than strident, he's been ignorant, rude, insulting, patronising and arrogant, but it doesn't bother me. Furthermore, he only objects to the IrishR template and has ignored the Loyalism, Unionism, Nationalism and Monarchism ones. He also has repeatedly avoided answering the question as to why the Template:Politics of the Republic of Ireland is not contentious when it too was changed without discussion and is also collapsible in style. Snappy56 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second!!
I helped you not vandalized you!!!Ehccheehcche (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You undid an edit to this page by Snappy56.
 * How does it help Snappy for you to undo Snappy's edit to his/her own talk page? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)