User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 3

re:Werdnabot
Hi, yeah same, it hasn't worked for me for about a month or two.. Until now i figured i had screwed something up - but look at this User_talk:Werdna, i guess its inactive for now. Dammit.--Celtus (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its back! (See: Template:Werdnabot & User:Werdnabot).--Celtus (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you know what this means
We shouldn't just say The Holocaust when we're taking about Nazis. It'll have to be "The Final Solution, popularly referred to as The Holocaust.... ....  One Night In Hackney  303  17:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

battle of Tecroghan
Hello, Do you know much about the Irish conflict of the 1640's?

I wrote an article on the battle of Tecroghan; how do I add it to the list of battles in the Irish Confederate wars (that appears on the right side of the screen?)

Also, the battle was a minor one in terms of importance. There is another battle like this one that I am planning to do an article on but again it is also not of great importance. Is this kind of article worth adding?.

Thanks for your attention.Inchiquin (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Green movement
If you're ready, I am. Go ahead, and I'll help out with some of the odds and ends afterwards. Fishal (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Burroughs (again)
We don't need both of them. It is common practice to bold like that, and we probably should include William Lee, too. But William Burroughs and William S. Burroughs are too similar. I'll make the change. 23skidoo (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Turned out this was a good call because there was a weird error in the lead that I spotted when I made the change on the names, saying Burroughs started in the late 80s. Weird. 23skidoo (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair
That's probably because he was blocked, although the sock/meatpuppets weren't.... One Night In Hackney 303  23:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're just oozing good faith today! One Night In Hackney  303  23:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I'd be happier with some beer, charlie and a nice young lady, but that'll have to make do for now! One Night In Hackney  303  23:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I've got two out of three, it's just a bit early in the week for them :( One Night In Hackney  303  23:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong page! One Night In Hackney  303  23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what happens when you drink on a Monday.... One Night In Hackney  303  23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably for the best, I doubt you could handle two days in a row at your age. One Night In Hackney  303  23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'll join you... One Night In Hackney  303  01:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Same as I'd reply to virtually anyone, cite a bloody source. One Night In Hackney  303  02:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As it turns out the list was missing one of the secretaries anyway, as there were two of them. I'd say it's a purely editorial decision as to whether a full list is included, if there's no articles it's probably better to just use a partial list of notable atendees, while making it clear that's the case. The fact you were even polite (for you) in your edit summary seems to have gone unnoticed, compared to my usual "rv unsourced" type summary. One Night In Hackney  303  02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out you'd made an effort! According to Hart, "Eamon Duggan, while officially a full-powered delegate, was seen more or less as a Collins staff member by all sides", and that's right after it talking about Collins taking his staff to London including couriers and bodyguards. So we're getting into irrelevant list territory possibly....I'm not overly keen on Childers being there, but he's not mentioned anywhere else so it might be an idea to keep him in.  One Night In Hackney  303  02:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest the whole article needs a machete taking to it. For example "Collins, like many of the rising's participants, was arrested, almost sent to the gallows..." - load of bollocks probably. There were never plans to execute that many people, as there would have been a massive outcry. The number of executions was kept deliberately small to avoid just that. One Night In Hackney  303  03:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for me to get the energy to finish an article and a few other bits and pieces, them I'm off! Collins is one I always wanted to try and sort out, but I can imagine it's one of those where as soon as you do anything drastic the POV warriors suddenly rise from their slumber and it's an instant warzone. One Night In Hackney  303  03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't so busy/lazy/drunk (delete as applicable) I'd have been away weeks ago, just I need to get this one article finished. When it's done, you'll understand why.... One Night In Hackney  303  03:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See the MC talk page. One Night In Hackney  303  16:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And after all that, I've just found that Duggan has an article! One Night In Hackney 303  17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, he's more important than Childers.... One Night In Hackney  303  22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Collins
You may well be the self-appointed biographer on Michael Collins but even so, don't remove relevant information from the article... it just makes you look stupid. It would be much more helpful if you actually have any constructive edits to make rathar than merely preventing others from doing so Lazarus89 (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A thank you for the welcome
Salutations RepublicanJacobite : I got your message, thanks. It is good to be here at Wiki and I will read over the guidelines to get myself more acquainted with them. --TheNightRyder (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien article
Someone has taken umbrage with your recent removal of traditional. I explained (rather brashly) that conservative and traditional mean the same thing... Apparently though, this is a problem for some to understand, and it's been re-re-reverted after I re-reverted it if that makes any sense. I personally feel that writing should be concise -- at least that's what every Professor I've ever had has imbued on me. Apparently, some people don't agree and would rather waste time on adding extra words than time trying to bend their heads around a relatively simple concept. Thoughts?Ryecatcher773 (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ryecatcher: Yes, you were quite "brash" about it, to say the least. No matter, I'm not going to make an issue of it, which is what I came here to tell RepublicanJacobite after his recent revert of my edit. I'm all for conciseness -- in fact, I've made something of a speciality out of reducing the "plot" sections of movie articles without losing their fundamental meaning, so I'm quite aware of the concept.  I also think, however, that there is sometimes rhetorical value in using a number of words (usually three) which are close in meaning, but not precisely the same, to emphasize a point - and this is true of "traditional and conservative". Every word has an "aura" of implications about it which define them just as much as a dictionary definition does, and these two carry somewhat different auras - closely related, absolutely, but not precisely the same. Be that as it may, it's not something worth edit-warring over, or even holding an extended discussion about it on the article talk page, and I just came by to say so.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * May I also say, RJ, that I appreciated the tone of your edit summary when you reverted me. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

a prince among editors!
Oh wise and venerable Jacobite, see how thy minions adore thee: "the article has meanwhile thriven and grown under the expert and objective counsels of RepublicanJacobite." скоморохъ  23:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War
I noticed that you removed a whole bunch of what appear to be flags. While I'm not doubting your reasons for doing so, I'm trying to get a handle on various MoS rules and procedures and I a fairly junior editor. Could you tell me your reasoning for removing the flags? Rockfall (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was the one who put the flags there. I think they were removed because of anti-flag guidelines. I didn't quite know about the guidelines, sorry. --Jedravent (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The MoS on flags is fairly ambiguous - mainly down to editorial preference. To be honest, I think the removal of the flags from that infobox makes sense - it didn't add a great deal to the article. I was checking that that was the reason you removed them and that there wasn't some hard and fast flag rule that I was unaware of! Thanks for the reply. Rockfall (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Clean slates
See Template messages/User talk namespace. Level 1 is generally for assuming good faith, so that can definitely be bypassed second time round. If it's definitely the same editor I'd go straight for level 3 (or 4 depending on the severity of the vandalism), otherwise level 2. But I could be wrong.... One Night In Hackney 303  20:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Feh, your tone is normally better than mine. One Night In Hackney  303  20:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You cheeky £$%^!!! But I'm not the one who has aspirations here, so it doesn't matter that much to me. One Night In Hackney  303  21:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, but without checking the entire history of the page I couldn't tell if it was sarcasm or not. I suspect it was knowing you.... One Night In Hackney  303  21:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for tweaking the text in Terry Gilliam. I was trying to avoid making it sound like a tax dodge, but your revision improves on that. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hypergraphics merge
Now that you have reminded me of it I will get around to that merge sometime probably this weekend. If you feel qualified please merge the articles yourself as I am only passingly familiar with the topics. Hyacinth (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yo, if you've got a minute
Would you mind weighing in here? I've got a GA nomination on the line and I need to resolve this content dispute one way or the other. Muchas gracias, скоморохъ  02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Art sources
Sorry for the delay in replying. RL presses. I use google as the primary tool, basically looking for mentions in sources that meet WP:RS, maybe investigating the source further if it's not clear what its status is. Sometimes a site will anyway provide a clue and maybe lead to another. I also do google advanced site searches of newspapers, if there's likely to be material there, plus using the newspapers own search facility, as sometimes different results ensue. www.findarticles.com can be productive. I have access to various Oxford books online, like the Grove Dictionary of Art, and a good UK newspaper archive, accessible via subscription or certain public library membership. Google books can be productive, and also searches in amazon.com and amazon.co.uk to see if there are mentions in books. http://www.intute.ac.uk/artsandhumanities/ is an academic database, administered by Oxford University in liaison with others.  Ty  02:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Situationism
I wasn't quite pursuaded by your arguments, though i weakened a little. Given the near-total lack of response, I would wait awhile before re-opening. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

MacBride/McBride
No worries a chara, reverted it just now. --Domer48 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh...
Do you ever have one of those days/weeks/months/years (delete as applicable) when you're sick and tired of dealing with tedious braindead morons? I'm thinking it might be a good idea to get some proper stuff done over the next couple of days, so I can avoid the riff raff...hope you got that business sorted out? One Night In Hackney 303  03:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm just hypothesising in general terms, not speaking about any specific editor as that would be a personal attack after all! Is your brother ok as well then? Email about a completely unrelated subject heading your way in about two minutes. One Night In Hackney  303  03:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Vanity, thy name is....
Persistent. Pity they didn't take your sagely advice really isn't it? One Night In Hackney 303  18:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all a bit formal and bureaucratic for you. Who are you, and what have you done with the real RepublicanJacobite? One Night In Hackney  303  18:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

George Stamatis
Done...I think. I haven't done this before, so please check to see if you can create the page or not. Thanks. GBT/C 18:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

SGGK help
This article will be on the main page soon, so I may need help keeping the chaos under control. Wrad (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Nations
No, that's right, it was the anon IP editing before that fudged it up. The other "Ireland" flag template links "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland", when it's the full 32 counties that are classed as a Celtic Nation, regardless of what any bigots think. One Night In Hackney 303  19:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Four Provinces Flag.svg|22x20px|border]] could be used instead, it is on the Pan-Celticism article so it could do with being consistent. One Night In Hackney  303  19:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Coolcrease
It seems to be written relatively neutrally at first glance. Despite the possible author's unhappiness at the other account, it does seem to be presented in a reasonable way - both versions are included. One Night In Hackney 303  21:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll make a good editor out of you yet! ;) One Night In Hackney  303  23:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Jazz Master
Hello, I lack some info, so hate to bother you but there was a black jazz master who died in 1910, from midwest, around 33 years of age, any idea what the name may be? May be there is a musician death list circa 1910./ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.2.30 (talk • contribs)

Christos Papachristopoulos‎
Tagged for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted material. That'll teach them not to add references that are mirrors of the old article, talk about making it obvious! One Night In Hackney 303  21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Do you want to take a look at the edits of ? It's difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff, but there's definitely Papachristopoulos adding vanity mentions of himself to the Camus article, but I don't see the point in doing half a job when it all might need a hedge strimmer. One Night In Hackney  303  14:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably for the best. Don't know too much about the subject matter and don't have the time or enegery to actually check what's being added, think you're being slightly harsh as it's not all self promotion but whether it's relevant is a different matter. One Night In Hackney  303  14:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the phrase was "promotion of nonnotable writer", and it's mostly not promotion of the writer in question.... One Night In Hackney  303  14:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And dynamic IPs too. Still, it's relatively contained and easy to spot.... One Night In Hackney  303  16:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's all Greek to me! ;) I'll get me coat....... One Night In Hackney  303  16:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it is a famous saying. One Night In Hackney  303  16:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Says me and 122,000 hits on Google. I s'pose I faked them too? ;) One Night In Hackney  303  16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's true. In fact what actually happened is I invented a time machine, went back to the 1590s, waited while Shakespeare was sleeping and slipped the saying "it was Greek to me" into Julius Caesar and he never noticed, just so the phrase would enter common parlance for my use centuries later. That's about as plausible as David Lauder's "I'm innocent, this is a frame-up by the Irish" defence..... One Night In Hackney  303  16:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aaaargggggghhhh! One Night In Hackney  303  13:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not as persistent as this character by the looks of things.... One Night In Hackney  303  18:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The persistence of anons...
I wish Papachristopoulos would get that message. Unless every source about him is in Greek, he's not very notable. One Night In Hackney 303  08:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of the Camus article shall I, obviously you're too busy swanning about doing other things ;) One Night In Hackney  303  15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That!. One Night In Hackney  303  16:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Feh, I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt since the anon's edit was made at 15:53 and my revert at 15:58, and there's a gap in your contribs with the exact same time period. I'm thinking it might be time to bring this up on ANI or similar, especially after the unanimous AFD, lack of sources, mention on fringe theories noticeboard etc etc. One Night In Hackney  303  16:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heathen?! You don't know the half of it. Some years ago one of my former house mates was getting married, and despite being an atheist was getting married in a church. I didn't care much for the council estate scrubber he was marrying, who wanted to get married in a church. Had he been religious I'd have considered attending, but as it was there was no way I was setting foot inside a church so I offered to go to the reception instead. That was met with a frosty "if you don't bother coming to the church don't bother coming at all", and I've never spoken to him since. He had no respect for my proud atheist beliefs, so there was no way I was setting foot in a church for him! But yeah, happy Easter anyway ;) One Night In Hackney  303  16:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And to think Jesus walked all that way to his death carrying a cross and you're not even going to church because there's no bus. Shame on you! One Night In Hackney  303  16:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said I didn't believe in Jesus?! I just see him as a historical version of David Icke, maybe with a bit of Paul Daniels thrown in for his tricks. One Night In Hackney  303  16:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That was uncalled for :( One Night In Hackney  303  16:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to find an adequate response that won't result in all kinds of problems ensuing. Anyway, ANI report on your Greek friend coming up shortly. One Night In Hackney  303  16:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Make that WP:COIN, I figured I'd try there first as it's more appropriate. One Night In Hackney  303  17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant. One Night In Hackney  303  17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll not be holding my breath on that one. You chipping in over at COIN? One Night In Hackney  303  17:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. He doesn't seem to be taking the hint does he? One Night In Hackney  303  16:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we can rangeblock Greece.... One Night In Hackney  303  16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, that! I long ago gave up trying to decipher the ramblings of the mentally challenged. One Night In Hackney  303  16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks mate
thanks for the clarification. i had figured that but it wasnt entirely sure. Smith Jones (talk)

Terrorists
I didn't actually see the date, and the article did exist briefly before being deleted. I was in "good faith" mode, there's a first time for everything I know! One Night In Hackney 303  09:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My memory of it is somewhat hazy for some reason, I think by the time I'd looked at the article it had been sent to AFD and the original author had blanked the page, so I felt my original edit was vindicated and my momentary lapse in assuming good faith was an aberration ne'er to be repeated. One Night In Hackney  303  14:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Joke? *puzzled* One Night In Hackney  303  14:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I realised that much, I just don't see what was funny about it.....no joking or japery involved! One Night In Hackney  303  15:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Feh, it's just genetic. We're all plain speaking where I come from. One Night In Hackney  303  15:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I know you'll enjoy this
The State of Siege seems to have been the target of some abuse in the past, see the last entry on the deletion log. Have you seen the articles for creation version here (click "show")? One Night In Hackney 303  15:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Freewebs? GeoCities? One Night In Hackney  303  15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I much preferred the internet before they started putting it in public libraries and places like that. Back then it was generally restricted to people who had computers at home or their place of study, so uneducated people didn't lower the tone as much. One Night In Hackney  303  16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but at least it's better than the other methods Bush and co use to deliver democracy. One Night In Hackney  303  16:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While Rome burns.... One Night In Hackney  303  17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion needed
Can you take a look at this for me please? It's been deleted once before, I tagged it ages ago and it was deleted as A3, although if my memory serves me correctly it was even more of a linkfarm then. Do you think it's a valid article, or due to the spaminess would we be better off with just Category:Debating societies? One Night In Hackney 303  21:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The big/small R debate
Small r tends to be the norm. One Night In Hackney 303  18:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're bored. I know how much you like moving pages and fixing redirects.... One Night In Hackney  303  18:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What's that saying?
Beware of Greeks leaving messages or something like that? One Night In Hackney 303  22:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RBI sounds good, except we're just bypassing the "block" part and going straight for the "ignore" part. Having had a quick look at the IPs I'm thinking it would need to be a spectacularly big rangeblock, which probably won't be justified by the occasional talk page rambling. One Night In Hackney  303  22:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the DimisNasis account has been blocked, which was the latest actual account. Plus you've got that report to point back to to prove what's going on here, and that any potential edit wars (and IPs that need blocking) are because of indef block avoiding sockpuppets. One Night In Hackney  303  22:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you read that book he'll go forth and multiply? One Night In Hackney  303  22:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK on Luby
Thanks for that, just noticed:) --Domer48 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Bonfireofvanity = Keith Wigdor
Hi RJ, I've had a longtime interest in what goes on with the wikipedia Surrealism article, and I've noticed that there has been a new user making trouble, "Bonfireofvanity". If you check the previous entries on the surrealism discussion page, you will notice an uncanny resemblance between the language used by this new user and that of some previous Keith Wigdor sockpuppets, like User:Classicjupiter2 and User:Madsurrealist, just to name 2 of them. At least 2 rounds of sockpuppetry/userchecks have been done, successfuly exposing this guy. This individual, K. Wigdor, has been playing these disruptive games for the past few years now. Anyways, I hope you had already figured out that Wigdor is back to his old tricks, but in case not, I wanted to bring it to your attention. I noticed the most recent exchange went on for quite a few posts, and I was just hoping you can see that Wigdor feeds off of this kind of trolling; he's an old problem that never quite seems to go away. Just wanted to give you the heads-up. --TextureSavant (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do a little digging, you'll find that in 2005, there was a "Keith Wigdor" wikipedia article that was deleted on the grounds that Keith Wigdor (as an emerging "surrealist" artist) is non-notable, and that because he wrote the article itself, it was classified as a vanity article and then subsequently deleted by a VfD procedure, executed legitimately, of course. From there on out, Wigdor has had a sour-grapes attitude, doing his best to sabotage the surrealism article on wikipedia. I think what we're talking about here is an adolescent personality trapped within a 45-yr-old body. A sad but unignorable nuisance. As a member of the surrealist community, I've witnessed Keith Wigdor's disruptive online antics in many other online domains, such as newsgroups, forums and indymedia websites, for several years now, so what he does on wikipedia by way of sockpuppetry and trolling is not the least bit out-of-character for him. --TextureSavant (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Cairo Gang
Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look at my edits to the Cairo Gang and see if they pass muster. I have most of TP Coogan's books anyway. I have been given to understand by some college mates who use Wikipedia that you are the man. Thanks. Culchie (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully a week of peace and quiet
Bliss.... Pity you don't have RMS to deal with too! One Night In Hackney 303  21:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The criminal always returns to the scene of the crime.... One Night In Hackney  303  22:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said you were a criminal! However you just did..... One Night In Hackney  303  22:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment - The criminal always returns to the scene of the crime.... Your reply - I never did. That'd be more than enough for the likes of the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad... One Night In Hackney  303  22:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know that feeling. The only time I ever got nicked resulted in a "no comment" reply to all questions, and a swift release. Last time I checked it was the responsibility of the police to prove I did something, not for me to help them disprove it. One Night In Hackney  303  22:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They might merit an entry here as "The Moron" or something similar. I can't believe the amount of possible BLP violations I've just had to remove from that page..... One Night In Hackney  303  23:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you really suggesting "MIJIE" - Perompak Analog PS2 isn't a valid entry? One Night In Hackney  303  23:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume it's something to do with a Playstation 2 controller, due to the Analog and PS2? One Night In Hackney  303  23:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True. And good call on the flagcruft removal on the ICW article, seeing as both sides claimed the same flag! One Night In Hackney  303  23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Art and Auction
Yes, its becoming a very popular and interesting publication, very much about contemporary art as it happens now, the market, the newest and latest etc. The cites concerned the retirement of Robert Pincus Witten who coined the phrase Postminimalism in the 1960s. I'd prefer a better source but the article was at hand at the time. Thanks. Modernist (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome!
Hello. Yes, thank you for the welcome. I did feel a bit left out seeing other people's talk pages with welcome messages of their own :) The Baroness of Morden (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

O Bradaigh and Resistance Campaign
OK, what would it take to convince you that it was important for O Bradaigh that it was the Resistance Campaign and not the Border Campaign? Sean Cronin referred to it as the Resistance Campaign, and in the final press statement O Bradaigh, as lead author of the statement, referred to it as the Resistance Campaign. White's biography of O Bradaigh even notes that critics complained of a "Border Campaign." If it's not important, why does O Bradaigh's paper call it the Resistance Campaign? WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish Citizen Army badge
With reference to my own knowledge of Irish Republican history i.e i know the I.C.A used it and this: Red Hand it shouldn't be more clearer as to the I.C.A's use of this important Irish Gaelic symbol, a symbol that was greatly associated with Hugh O'Neill and Ulster. Ulster was the last Irish province to fall to British rule. Hence the defiance in using this symbol when fighting the British at this crucial era in Irish history. Later a statue was commemorated at Dublin GPO, of CuChulainn of Ulster in memory to the fallen of the Easter Rising 1916.

If you read the article more clearly the author has broken down the point. The Red hand of Ulster is commonly known as such. It is also known to a lesser degree as the Red hand of the O'Neill and the Red hand of Ireland. Eireabu(talk) 21:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I must insist you read the article then in particular: " ''The most famous ITGWU badge was the red hand with the letters ITWU and the date of 1913. This was the emblem of resistance in the Lock-Out and was adopted as a cap badge by the Irish Citizen Army in later years. Like all badges, membership cards and letterheads until 1919, the Union was simply referred to as the ITWU, although registered with the Registrar of Friendly Societies as ITGWU.
 * At the time of the Lock-Out, the four provincial emblems were being used in rotation: the red hand of Ulster in 1913; the three crowns of Munster in 1915; the Connacht arms within a blue circle in 1917; and the harp of Leinster in 1918.
 * In 1919 the ITGWU Executive decided to revert the badge of 1913 – the red hand of O’Neill – which was still the right way round, that is a right hand not, as subsequently in the ITGWU, a left hand.''

Regards.--Eireabu (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Importing
Well I read through the instructions and now my brain hurts. After that I figured the best way to deal with the matter was this. Now it's somebody elses problem. I would give them a few days as I'm not sure how often they check in and see what they say. No great harm will be done if the article sits here a bick longer. Hope you don't mind but I also formatted the above section to stop your page from scrolling off to the right. I'm anal like that. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes they must have crossed. I left another message at User talk:Jusjih on Wikiquote saying it had been fixed. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

23 Enigma
Ah that old thread. Yes I'm afraid I despaired of it as it needed policing hard to stop it bloating with rubbish. You've done nicely there and I agree that material should be at 23 Enigma. I favoured that idea a while back the only change is we should try and avoid a 23 in popular culture and such things creeping back in.

As mentioned RAW goes into a lot of detail in Cosmic Trigger vol 1 (I think) and it'd be worth digging out examples of what people like him considered significant. I'd be wary of including all references to the number 23, as down that road lies madness, but there are probably others worth mentioning where it is discussed. The last version I edited shows the scale of the problem but also some examples I'd like to include - in particular the Grant Morrison mentions as they actually discuss 23 - it might be a good idea to use a scan of that panel as an illustration. After that edit it yo-yoed between being bloated and being hacked back to nothing, so I gave up. I am surprised it wasn't deleted but the work you've done looks encouraging. One thing I'd recommend considering is adding back in some of those links - they contain vast quantities of 23 the majority of which I wouldn't touch with a bargepole but would argue the links are useful if only as highlighting the vast amount of interest in the issue.

So yes I support the move. It allows the entry to stay focused and if there are 23s in numerology people are welcome to remove the redirect and add them there. Remember though that this will need very hard policing and I'd recommend putting comments in the sections dissuading people from adding examples without carefully considering if this is explicitly about the 23 Enigma and not just an odd 23 they spotted. Anything that doesn't seem to fit we can take out and drop into the talk page - if people can justify it they are welcome to put it back but it needs doing or it will get out of hand.

So thanks for that - this might encourage me to get stuck back into things there ;) (Emperor (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC))


 * OK cool. I'll be out of touch for a couple of days but I'll pitch in when I can. We should be able to get some good examples of what people like RAW thought were important while avoiding every mention of 23 ever.


 * The Black Magic comic is interesting - the Wowio link suggests you can download a copy (legitimately if I recall - better check) but only if you are from the US (if I recall again) so you could probably check it out. It'd be important because it is a very early appearance pre-dating Burroughs. Let me know what you find there, as I'd be very interested - I just posted something on Kirby and the Face on Mars.


 * And yes it does drag you in ;). (Emperor (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Ah I see - all I get is a big "you aren't allowed in" notice so I didn't get any further. I'll see if I can find someone who has an account there and get them to email me a copy or something. (Emperor (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Good call
I was just looking for sources for the proper NICRA demands when you reverted. One Night In Hackney 303  20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've got a pretty shrewd idea who that is and there shall be an extensive sockpuppetry report in the next few days. One Night In Hackney  303  20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Most people tend to. There's probably nothing block worthy due to reasons which will become apparent when I make the report, but probation is pretty much a dead cert!  One Night In Hackney  303  20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That would largely depend who you think it is? One Night In Hackney  303  20:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Too true. Plus it's generally better not to give the person responsible too much advance warning. One Night In Hackney  303  20:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And my "pretty shrewd idea" is now 100% confirmed. One Night In Hackney  303  21:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Two words - "edit summary". One Night In Hackney  303  21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That! One Night In Hackney  303  21:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I couldn't be happier about it carrying on, the more evidence of disruption and biased editing the better. The removal of sources that don't match the bigoted loyalist POV is just the icing on the cake really. One Night In Hackney  303  21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting you do anything either one way or another, far from it in fact. Report is coming along nicely anyway.... One Night In Hackney  303  22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Childers
There's the odd-bit of peacock language, but to be honest it's a situation best resolved with friendly discussion not unclear (for a new editor) messages in edit summaries, or worse still templated messages. All I'd recommend is a friendly message explaining what the problems were with the language in question. One Night In Hackney 303  21:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)