User talk:Traditional unionist/Archives/2007/September

Template:Baseball in Ireland
I altered the above template, feel free to revert if its not suitable.--padraig 10:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats great, thanks very much. Not very technically minded.Traditional unionist 10:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, in future just drop me a message on my talk page if need help with them.--padraig 10:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Orange Institution
Question for you.. I see that the talk page has degenerated a bit (and I have to admit, I don't much like your Threat/Promise to edit war on the page if you don't get your way), but I think I see the way forward. Would you object if I added the sentence "Opponents have accused the Orange Institution of being a sectarian organization, due to its goals and exclusion of Roman Catholics as members" to the lead paragraph? the lead is supposed to be a microcosm of the article, so it's not violating the undue weight guideline. You can reply here or on my talk page. Thanks. SirFozzie 20:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read what I said again, you should see that I specifically said that I would NOT edit war on that page - I was pointing out that realistically if the word sectarian is used as a matter of fact to describe the order, that is what will happen. Indeed it would probably make the press here so insensitive and downright inaccurate would that statement be.  I actually hold this project in high regard, as it is the single most useful on the Internet, so I don't want to see that.  I wouldn't object at all, provided that the fact that this is rejected by members of the order is there - that is exactly how it is in the body of the article, and rightly so.  I also agree that it is right that something like that should really be in the lead paragraph.  I apologise for any misunderstandings about my intentions, but there are some very objectionable things being discussed at present across wikipedia.Traditional unionist 21:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey. I'd like you to comment on the Orange Institution page.. some things have been found in research, and I want to make sure that you get at least a look in on it. Have a good one! SirFozzie 23:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

FIFA 08
Derry city don't play in the Northern Ireland League, and as the Ulster Banner is only used by the Northern Ireland National Team there is no justification for the use of the Banner in this context, it is not the Northern Ireland Flag.--padraig 18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The flag is only used when Northern Ireland play in a international game, the flag is not used to protray individual teams in the Northern Ireland League, which in any case Derry City are not part of, so the Ulster Banner is not required in this case.--padraig 18:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your still missing the point Derry City are not part of the Northern Ireland League and don't play under the Northern Ireland Football Association, therefore the use of the Banner for them is incorrect.--padraig 18:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if you believe that the same can be said of Toronto FC and Cardiff City, then fix it I have no personal interest in football, I just believe flagicons shouldn't be used out of context.--padraig 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your wanting to use the Ulster Banner out of context is showing your own POV, the Ulster Banner is not the Flag of Northern Ireland.--padraig 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it is accepted that the Northern Ireland National Team use the Ulster Banner, But Derry City are not part of the Northern Ireland League, and don't play under its Authority, so using the banner in this context is a political statement nothing to do with sport useage, read WP:Flagcruft .--padraig 19:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They play in the geographic and political jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, and the Government of that Jurisdiction along with the British Government don't recognise the Ulster Banner as representing Northern Ireland.--padraig 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened
Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you have now been named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk, SqueakBox 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC) I took the liberty of striking SqueakBox's comments out because procedure wasn't followed. You are not currently listed as an involved party, but there's a motion being drafted that could potentially list you as involved. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was following a request Vintagekits made on his user talk page, SqueakBox 20:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've posted to your talk page, SqueakBox, and I've posted to the workshop page of the case as well. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know what the procedure is, could you make up your minds?Traditional unionist 20:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because you were not listed as a party when the case was accepted, either 1) an Arbitrator would have to add you to the list, or 2) ArbCom can pass a motion too add you. Right now, the second option seems to be in progress. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see that a request was made for me to be added.  Do I have a right to know why?Traditional unionist 21:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure of the reason a request was made for you to be added. That you will have to ask the other involved editors. I'm just doing the housekeeping tasks. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Referencing
Below is a handy guide. But the easiest way it just to copy citation templates from an existing article. All you need to do is copy these and change the details to match.


 * Websites -
 * Books -

Hope that helps. One Night In Hackney 303  22:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Guide to referencing
Click on "show" to open contents.

Re: Aghnatrisk
Fair point. Aghnatrisk does still qualify as a settlement (loose definition) with housing developments, a definite boundary and a church. It appears as an area on Google Maps. May be small but still counts (i.e. some could argue the Maze is just a row of houses with a racecourse and bar.) It (just about) deserves its place here. Denzell393, 22.31 UTC, 7/9/07 I always think of the Maze to be Gowdys/Down Royal and the Kesh Rd. Halftown being the (former) prison. Culcavy is definitely far more superior (at least it has a shop). I wonder if Aghnatrisk's small handful of resident (couldn't be more that 100) call where they live. Denzell393, 22.40 UTC, 7/9/07

To be honest, I just knew the road until I seen the 'settlement' name on Google. I'm down there quite a lot and any folk I know on the Kesh Rd. just say they live 'near Hillsborough', 'at the Maze' or 'outside Lisburn.' Don't think anyone around there is really sure where they live. The 'Aghnatriskians' deserve a very slight mention, even if don't even call it that. Denzell393 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a civil servant actually. Any reason for asking? Denzell393 22:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case
User:SqueakBox has filed Request for arbitration which became Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Evidence and you are a mentioned party, - Kittybrewster  (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Urgh. Kittybrewster added you without a motion passing or action from Arbitration Committee, and as such, I've removed you again pending motion. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 16:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, now that Fred Bauder instructed so, you are hereby listed as a party to the above mentioned case. Notice given by an Arbitration Clerk. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Belfast Northstars‎
I offered a few suggestions on Talk:Belfast Northstars‎ that if applied might improve the article's chances of passing GAC, good luck. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to WP:DATE, full dates should be linked for example: October 1, 2007 -> October 1, 2007. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  11:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

New Lodge in East Belfast
The reply's on my talk page. All the best, Valenciano 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Londonderry
The naming of this city on Wikipedia as "Derry" is ridiculous. How pathetic that an encyclopedia usurps fact to appease opinion. --Counter-revolutionary 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have said so in the arbitration.Traditional unionist 20:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you send me the link? --Counter-revolutionary 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Workshop#Consensus
 * Just wondering does it not do the same with the Ulster Banner by calling it the flag of Northern Ireland. BigDunc 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No.Traditional unionist 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry out of courtesy do you mind me posting here.BigDunc 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all.Traditional unionist 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you as I said on our last encounter on FIFA 08 I am not against facts that is why I opposed UB use in that article and as you point out Derry/Londonderry debate facts should be used only. BigDunc 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is that the NI Flag is the de facto flag, and the only flag that exclusively represents Northern Ireland. That is why it is used in sporting contexts without controversy.Traditional unionist 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But it is the UB not the NI flag and I have not removed it from articles about the NI footbal team just it's misuse/mislabeling is what I dont agree with.BigDunc 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not listening. It's the de facto flag of Northern Ireland.Traditional unionist 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not the de facto flag, even the UUP or the DUP don't try and make that claim, in accordance to them the Union Flag is the Flag of Northern Ireland.--padraig 22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is true. But that is not specific to Northern Ireland.  The NI Flag is, and its usage makes it the de facto flag of Northern Ireland.Traditional unionist 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem there is the Ulster Banner ceased to be used in 1973, when the government which it was the banner of was abolished along with the Northern Ireland House of Commons. Its use today by a minority of Loyalists dosen't make it de facto, nor does it use in international football or the Commonwealth Games.  To claim de facto status it would have to be widely accepted in Northern Ireland by the population and it is not, most Unionists use the Union Flag as they see the UB as being identified with extreme Loyalism.--padraig 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Padraig, there are so many things wrong with what you have just said. Traditional unionist 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Castlereagh Borough Council do not represent a minority of loyalists
 * It is used widely throughout the world to represent Northern Ireland, who uses or does not use it in NI is neither here nor there
 * Unionists do not in a wholesale way view the flag as representative of extremists.
 * Stormont being suspended made very little difference to the use of the flag, t means much more than the legalistic facts of it's history.

Sock Accusations
You seem to make a issue out of me not editing for a couple of months after my first edit the reason for this and I will put in on evidence page is if you look at my talk page you will see that I am studying for a degree and as you have done this yourself you know that you dont have much time, but then the summer holidays come along and happy days you can edit as much as you want, but alas another term is starting next week so maybe my edits will decrease again. But as I enjoy this I am sure I will make time to drop in at least once or twice a day.BigDunc 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will assume good faith in relation to your evidence. I'd understand if you were not aware of the following,,. As you will see, accusations can be used in a discussion, if editors feel they are not getting their own way. I will put some evidence together and post it on the evidence page. Thanks. --Domer48 09:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Stop referring to edits as vandalism.,, unless you can prove it is per WP:VANDAL. If you can, then report it to WP:AIV or Long term abuse. Otherwise you are in breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Argue your case on proper grounds, please. Tyrenius 19:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Diffs

 * I get the feeling from one of the diffs I read on Domers contributions that you are not going to edit here anymore. That would be a shame as wikipedia needs editors like you and me to make this a worth wile project. I might be wrong on my asumption hope I am because this project needs both sides of all arguments to be involved so re consider. Me and you will seldom agree but that is what it is all about getting together and working things out, sincerly, BigDunc 00:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"thoughts of Wikipedia as to how their website should be operated, however in the 21st century I suggest that public opinion especially in the world of politics is vital and should always be easily accessible whether it is what we want to hear or not. A truly representative political institution must take the rough with the smooth and must have the initiative to stand out from the crowd and answer it’s critics rather than shy away." . --Domer48 12:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I know the author well. I don't think he means what you think he means.Traditional unionist 12:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is he really considered a young unionists? I think he means that information "should always be easily accessible whether it is what we want to hear or not," and that you "must take the rough with the smooth." I second BigDunc's views about "getting together and working things out, sincerly." So less of the name calling then.--Domer48 13:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Who has been name calling? I've just been called a troll. Traditional unionist 13:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar
It's appreciated. :) SirFozzie 14:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Table
Looks like its been fixed already.--padraig 10:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unionism
Do you think a Wikipedia project Unionism, or similar, is in order? I don't know how to start such a thing but will help. It could serve well to improve the (pretty poor) articles on the PMs. --Counter-revolutionary 09:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do, we should see how to do that. There is a lot of good work could be done on bios of Stormont MP's, but particularly ministers.  I did my undergraduate dissertation on James Chichester Clark, which is an article I've meant to do some proper work on recently.Traditional unionist 09:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A-ha! Marvellous. I note Mark Carruthers's dissertation is used as a source for Lord Faulkner's entry.  Perhaps an admin. could tell us how to go about it?  --Counter-revolutionary 10:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * His is an MSc Thesis! Mine is just a dissertation!.  I've emailed you.Traditional unionist 10:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've replied. We should get the swings in motion on this! Who will we ask? --Counter-revolutionary 10:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just waiting for it to come through! Alison and Sir Fozzie are always helpful.Traditional unionist 10:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've just came across this by accident. It's good idea, but the obvious scary part would be if it bacame one of two "camps" vis-a-vis WikiProject Irish Republicanism. That shouldn't put you off, but maybe liasing with someone there (I'm not a member) and vice-versa would be in order. Maybe having the two under some over-arching quasi WikiProject (not necessarily something formal) would be a way to avoid tribalism. --sony-youth pléigh 10:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine the two would, on the whole, edit very different articles. --Counter-revolutionary 10:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, anything that covers both would ne WP:Northern IrelandTraditional unionist 10:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK - if you think that other's won't see them as "competing" projects ... --sony-youth pléigh 10:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So how do we go about getting this off the ground?Traditional unionist 10:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't care in what light they see it, I certainly shan't see it as such. I think we should ask a few administrators, or someone already involved in one of the other projects on the go. --Counter-revolutionary 10:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WikiProject_Council/Proposals (see WikiProject_Council/Guide first). I'll sign. So that's three out of five you need. (In honesty, these were linked from WikiProject Irish Republicanism, another reason not to work in isolation.) --sony-youth pléigh 10:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject_Council/Proposals

NI Infobox idea
I'd like to invite you to comment on my thoughts behind a specific set of NI infoboxes. I'm just mulling the idea over on my talk page. Thanks. --Blowdart 13:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject recruitment for WikiProjects
Traditional unionist,

Would you be interested in trying to make your (proposed) WikiProject becoming a succes by actively involving yourself in a recruitment agency aimed at establishing an active base of participants for a WikiProject?--Daanschr 10:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I think my introduction is too complicated and not to the point. For more information on the recruitmentproject that i want to start, you can click on the link in the title of the invitation.


 * The reason for contacting you was that you are applying to start a WikiProject on unionism. I had started two WikiProject which both failed due to lack of participance. One WikiProject was aimed at basing editing on intellectual debate on relevant literature of a subject. Another WikiPorject had the aim of establishing a free available historical atlas. Both WikiProjects didn't fail because the goal was not right, but only due to lack of participance. So, now i am trying to to let my old WikiProjects become active again thanks to a recruitment agency.--Daanschr 11:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's okay. I only got one question for you left. Was my introduction clear enough? Should i change something about it? I will not bother you anymore, just want some short feedback.--Daanschr 11:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh in the British Isles or not.
Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PRtalk 07:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Unionist Party
I would appreciate your input at Talk:Ulster Unionist Party. I am looking for an opening that, without necessarily casting the party in a bad light, allows for the fact that the party in the years 1921 - 1972 was on one side of a political conflict, and so was not "moderate", which suggests standing in the middle between two sides. Scolaire 10:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mayors and FOI
Thanks for the note. I've not made any FOI request; I'm very happy for you to do them; I suspect this would fall under original research, but should be a useful process, anyway. Warofdreams talk 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I should think it wouldn't be OR!Traditional unionist 17:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)