User talk:Gnevin/archive 5

Re: images in referendum templates

I will not deny that there is a certain aesthetic quality to the images, but it is easier to identify images than it is words. However, if you still feel that they are distracting, I will not object to their removal. – Zntrip 23:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAA All Star Awards or GAA All Stars Awards?

I m wondering which would be right, with the 's' on All Star or without? (There's both GAA All Stars Awards and Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football)) Sorry about messing up with wrongly assuming there is the term Gaelic Athletics. Though not an Irish citizen, I ve heard of Gaelic games and should have known better. Mayumashu (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its an All star award for a player but an All stars team. So Alan Brogan has two 2 All star awards but is on two All stars teams.[1][2] Gnevin (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cheers Mayumashu (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, GAA All Stars Awards should be GAA All Star Awards, yeah? Mayumashu (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the GAA use All stars as they refer to a collective team [3] . So I don't think so but their is room to explain the difference in the article all right. Gnevin (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Tramways

Gnevin: 

  Please contact me regarding the information you requested about

the Dublin Tramways.Dutcringsend (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Tramways

Gnevin: 

  I was responding to your earlier request for assistance regarding

the article about the Dublin Tramways. I replied on my talk.Dutcringsend (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my talk for a reply to your question regarding reliable sources.Dutcringsend (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

An Arbitration case has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop. -- Evertype·✆ 20:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox German Bundesland

Im afraid there does not seem to be anyway of getting through to him on this. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images in infoboxes

I agree with you in part about photographs in templates. I wouldn't object if you removed them as long as you don't remove the film icons. The Bald One White cat 23:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats me, follically challenged and suffering from severe head cold at the top of Piz Gloria in this cold December LOL. I've just removed the photographs from both templates anyway. The Bald One White cat 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report because of edit warring

I have repeatedly asked you to come to the discussion page but you refused and choose to keep reverting at Template:Infobox German Bundesland. Since this is regarded edit warring at Wikipedia you have been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Lear 21 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Several reasons, including the fact that it is not exclusive to The Simpsons (many animated shows do it) and that it's really not notable within the show - it has only been done a handful of times, and none of those instances was particularily noteworthy. If you want to include every single minor joke, then perhaps The Simpsons wiki is a better place for you. -- Scorpion0422 23:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there is a huge difference: Bart's prank phone calls are a lot more notable (and have a number of third-party sources that could back it up), and the riots, while much more minor, also have their share of coverage. -- Scorpion0422 00:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bonds

I'm sorry, but there is no indication of meeting WP:BIO in the article. Dlohcierekim 02:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that this asserts meeting notability. If you disagree, please let me know what I've missed. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To continue, not asserting notability does not usually suffice with me. In searching for WP:RS providing verifiable information, I come up with nothing that would help me expand the article. Dlohcierekim 02:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having 15,000 listeners asserts notability? How? What wstandard of notability are you going by? There is no significant media coverage that aI can find. No third party sources? i seem to be missing something? Dlohcierekim 02:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

)

The scope of CSD is to remove article that unquestionably do not meet inclusion criteria. That, IMHO, is my remit. That's why admins are supposed o be trusted. I'm supposed to have the judgment to make this call, and the open mindedness to reverse myself when in error. Dlohcierekim 02:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox GAA dualplayer

Hi, just wondering if you get a chance could you take a look at Template:Infobox GAA dualplayer. Seems the only way to make the last two sections work right ("Inter County(ies)" and "Inter County Titles") is if you fill in a 0 for the fields (that don't require a value) in "Inter County Titles", (i.e |icprovincef= ,|icprovinceh=, |icallirelandf= |icallirelandh=, |nfl=, |nhl=, |allstarsf=, |allstarsh=, |icupdate=, |clupdate=). If I try to leave them blank (i.e. to hide) then it somehow seems to merge the bottom two sections into one section and messes up the fields within it. I'm sure I've lost you at this stage :), See Francis McEldowney to see what I mean. Thanks. Derry Boi (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for having a look anyway. Derry Boi (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

infobox gaa player

i have made an attept to make the gaa infobox more efficient looking. click User:macca7174/sandbox, but when i fed info into it, sections were missing. could you have a look at it?--Macca7174talk 13:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no i didn't mean to remove fullname. I knew there was an extra }}, but i couldn't figure out where. Thanks for the help. It looks better wouldn't you agree? The infobox seems to be stating the same thing twice regarding club and county that the player is currently at.--Macca7174talk 15:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the default should be just to put the Intercounty position that they would be most associated with. If their club position merits such a mention that could be stated in the main copy. Sean Cavanagh plays in all sorts of positions for Tyrone, but I would still class him as a midfielder, and Finbar McConnell is more likely to be considered a goalkeeper by the majority, even in Tyrone, despite playing in midfield for his club. Dual players could be treated in the same way, where their intercounty positions would take precedence.
also, i suggest since most players infoboxes, the code work is <position>, rather than <icposition>, <position> should denote the intercounty position, and if neccessary add a new field for <clposition>. (if you understand what I mean.--Macca7174talk 14:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not achieved by the comments of one person

PLease STOP making template changes until a fuller discussion is given on it The Bald One White cat 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry only seen your message now , all the templates have been change , but if you can build con to revert i will personally do so Gnevin (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why is not that I am opposed to the idea evne if it makes them look very bare indeed, its just actually by rmeoving some of those icons it has revealed that some of them are redundant templates anyway and we should come to a consensus on them. I think a number of them should be put up for deletion, chiefly the ones which only link list and cinema. We have footer templates for this and basically we should keep only the ones which connect to film lists which they are intended for right? The Bald One White cat 21:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we should do is create a list of the side templates which only have two links in them the list and the cinema and then delete those actual templates. Once we are left with the remaining ones which have all the film list links in them (or potentially could) as intended we can make a fuller decision about removing any images. The Bald One White cat 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why revert , you seem to be mixing two issues. Why not just put the bare ones up for TFD and see what happened > we should just put to AFD instead of listing them off , a 2 link template is pretty useless Gnevin (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going too far with flag removal?

Hi Gnevin. I agree with many of your flag icon removal edits, but wonder if you are going too far with some of the navboxes in particular. The documentation for Template:Navbox does not discourage the use of flag images (at much larger than icon size) on the right and/or left side of navigation boxes, if desired, and that is not an uncommon style in possibly hundreds of navboxes. I do agree with you that icon images in the navbox title bar, or in horizontal lists of countries within the navbox contents, are probably best removed. As an example, I question if it was really necessary to remove the 72px SAARC flag from Template:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in this edit? (The remainder of that edit is good, IMO.) Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

Thank you for creating this project. There may be a great opportunity for it - please check out talk:Ireland#Ireland article names: Request for Remedy 2 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. — Sebastian 06:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NZ rugby union team move

Hi,

The point of the {{move}} template is to alert users to imminent moves of the page they are on. It is not to sound a general alert about pages elsewhere, which is what your current request is about. Right now it looks like the majority of the discussion concerns moving the original page back to All Blacks, which is what I'd originally thought the talk template was about. Anyway, regardless, by reverting rather than just re-adding the template you messed up the rest of the header cleanup. Please check to see if you're revetring anything you don't mean to be when hitting the undo button. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

`

Hey Gnevin, some people over at Template:' are talking about how that template currently adds an extra space before the apostrophe (since it's mostly used after wikilinked italicized terms), and are brainstorming ways to also have an apostrophe template that doesn't add a space (for use with wikilinked terms that are not italicized). I suggested using {{`}}, but I noticed that it might be in use with {{BirthDeathAge}}. Do you know if {{void}} would work just as well with the BirthDeathAge template—and, if so, would it be possible to steal {{`}} for use in something else? I just wanted to check with you about that. Politizer talk/contribs 20:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette in question

You've been mentioned on Wikiquette alerts for edit warring to hide dispute [4]. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect History of rugby union matches between France and Sourth Africa

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on History of rugby union matches between France and Sourth Africa, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because History of rugby union matches between France and Sourth Africa is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting History of rugby union matches between France and Sourth Africa, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DUDE!

Are you actually checking your work? Your edit to 2009 Six Nations Championship squads, while good-intentioned, actually did no good at all, and even messed up a few links. Please be a bit more careful. – PeeJay 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That, that dude looks like a lady! --Mark Lessig (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six Nations Flag

Why not include the Irish flag on the Six Nations, I could not find the reason listed. N.B. it was not the image of either Northern or the Republic or Ireland, and was representative of the Ireland national rugby union team. Dirk Valentine (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union WikiProject interview

Hello Gnevin! I am investigating the Rugby union WikiProject for Wikipedia Signpost and would love if you could assist me by participating in an interview for the feature. If you are interested, please answer the questions I've written up, and I'll add more in due course. I'd really appreciate it. Thanks in advance,  GARDEN  22:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for responding :D  GARDEN  09:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you'll see this, but... would you instead be available for an interview on GAA?  GARDEN  09:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll write some questions for you to answer at User:Garden/int. Thanks muchly!  GARDEN  10:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some more there now. Thanks again,  GARDEN  16:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks a lot! :D  GARDEN  20:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:Referendum rejected

Sorry about the revert, but I would like to discuss the new template here. Keep in mind that I like the new template, but I would first like a little explanation about how it is used. – Zntrip 01:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?

I just recived your message and I I don't understand why you asked me not to use the Union Flag or the shamrock flag.

The shamrock flag (if you click on it) clearly states its the Ireland Rugby flag

And as for the Union Flag, there are other pages that use the Union Flag as the flag of The Lions so I assumed that was the flag so I meerly followed suit —Preceding unsigned comment added by The C of E (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential NavBox!

How can I build consensus on this when others' are so hostile and opposing!Bluedogtn (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen_Harper#External_links and Tzipi_Livni#External_links. Bluedogtn (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Referendum

All propositions that use this template is having its "No" vote in bold regardless if the "Yes" is more than "No". Can you take a look at it? Example: California Proposition 1A (2008). Thanks.--Will74205 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying red/green thing

Hi, I can't work out how you fixed BHG's thing, so could you let me know how to fix mine? I asked at the Village Pump ages ago when it started to over-write the text, but no-one had any suggestions! Thanks in advance. PamD (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks in real time. That's great. PamD (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Flag

Ok I will no longer add the flag, did'nt realise about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryangiggs69 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six Nations Championship

Rather than this petty revert cycle, please put your issues to me directly or via the discussion page. The source image I used to create the symbol was already on Wikipedia as "fair use" as in the "Six Nations Championship" it was used to denote the IRFU. Also an image of 10*13 images almost certainly cannot be copyrighted - similar to the law on music which limits copyright on any tune shorter than 7 notes. I think that the IRFU will find it laughable when they see the size of the image in question, that is if they get a chance as you seem intent on making sure they don't.Bloodholds (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this image is not detailed, but surely that strengthens my point that this does not infringe copyright. The IRFU have a mini icon used on there web pages - this is obviously public domain. Surely, the current image will suffice in the short term - until someone can create a more pleasing version of the IRFU emblem at this resolution. Please feel free to contact an administrator to rule on the "use" of this image. Regarding the WP:3RR rule, we should both be mindful of it. And you youself state in your last revert that the image is WP:PD. I have no choice but to revert again, as it is important that the IRFU have a chance to see the image in question. Please stop you reverts untill the IRFU have a chance to see the image - give it 'till Friday. If they haven't responded by then I will not oppose your reverts.Bloodholds (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more flag templates to delete...

Hi Gnevin, I don't have the patience to deal with this, but you might... Please look at the set of Category:Dominican Flags templates (all with non-standard "country codes" and larger than usual images) that were created (it would seem) only to support the articles in Category:Miss Dominican Republic Universe. What a mess. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland collaboration

I'll try, though I don't accept one of the subtypes as valid! --Red King (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave my layout alone: it makes the sequence and precedence clear. Six =s are OTT. Maybe it is the 'standard layout' that is at fault? --Red King (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC) rewritten - accidental paste![reply]
Ah, ok, I didn't realise that it was to fit into another page. Ok, I see that I have to accept it. --Red King (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added my proposal expressed according to the solution pro-forma/template. Is that really waht you wanted? --Red King (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which are the three separate parts that you have in mind? (I'd gladly lose the pro-forma if that's it. I've gone to a lot of trouble to justify my position, so it is a bit sad to see it reduced to ticks in boxes.)
and yes, I'll do a second page as suggested on the Ireland (country) thing - I'll just copy and paste that bit of my first page. --Red King (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what you meant about 2.2 and thus that I had misunderstood the pro-forma: I've redone, hopefully correctly this time. No, I don't think it makes sense (and I should be in bed anyway) to break up the article as you suggest because the points all relate to each other, I don't see how you can split them. But thanks for all your help so far. --Red King (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, I see that it has to fit into Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements as a statement on 1 or 2 or 2.2 or 2.2. I'll have to do it. Mañana :-( --Red King (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Road Bowling

Does Road Bowling fall within the scope of the Gaelic Games project? Albatross2147 (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LIDL article.

Hi - you added a flags issues box to the LIDL article, I didnt put the flags, in and have issues with the table in general due to an inability to accurately keep such a table up to date... But I never thought the flags would be a problem. So I quickly read through he Flags MOS linked from the issue box and found the following text: 

The flag icons were created for use in lists and tables (especially of sporting and other statistics), .

I'd personally say that using flag icons in the table in the LIDL page falls within that usage. While I may doubt the accuracy of the stats in question, I dont think its likely that you could view this as anything other than a table of stats and falls within permitted use guidelines? I'd be interested to hear why you think otherwise before I consider removing the issue box beardybloke (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the update to the section on "long" lists at my Talk page, but what constitutes long... The list is currently just under 30 items (dont recall exactly) and there are 10 on the list of planned expansion so presumably the list would then be nearer 40 items in the near(ish) future and thers a couple of countries missed from the list (Egypt for example). So as a rule of thumb, what constitues "long". beardybloke (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Bit of an arbitrary distinction. I can understand the need for removing them from main article prose as it breaks up flow of text, but in a list where the flag allows quick recognition of the data I dont see the harm or even that it contravenes the guidelines in the MOS page. I think you've been a bit over-zealous in application of the template. I'll leave it - if you wish to go in and remove the flags thats up to you. I personally disagree beardybloke (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Daniel Day-Lewis

Re: this. The main reason I reverted it was because the box you added widens the succession boxes well beyond the borders of the rest of the article when it is opened up, leaves the succession boxes within it off-centered and, with using broader templates within a template, makes it more complicated for newer editors to use. Having said that, I'd much rather be rid of the endless succession boxes than fold them up, they're redundant to everything already in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Is there anything that can change the problems I noted? If not, I will return it to the old version. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On my browser, which is Firefox, the box extends nearly an inch beyond the right margin of the main article. I looked at some of the other places you've placed it, and it seems to look fine there. Perhaps it's because the templates inside it are also collapsed, or... I don't know. A function of the structure of the succession boxes? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded them to photobucket. The image with the boxes closed is here and the one with them open is here. Note: I use Windows XP but I use the old settings. Sorry they aren't any better quality, but you can see the difference. The off-centered text kind of makes me dizzy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurlers and other GAA players

While there is discussion about GAA players in general and specifically some of CorkMan's creations, another editor Kerryman also seems to be prolific in creating many, often unreferenced, player's stubs that may not be notable, even in GAA terms. I am no expert on the Irish sports scene but happened across many of them while assessing articles for the Ireland WikiProject, mainly finding them through this bot generated list and its archives. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, wrong Kerryman. Try Kerryman2. And, some of those club articles seem pretty non-notable to me too, but as I said I am no expert on that pitch. ww2censor (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my comments to you in that discussion, it is a discussion not an RfC. You are quite right to engage anyone you choose. Again I am sorry.--2008Olympianchitchat 18:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008-2009 Cork Hurlers strike

Hi, you seem to have created this about the exact same topic as 2008-2009 Cork players strike. :) Tameamseo (talk)

Notability

Notability is conferred by only one thing: reliable secondary sources from which an article can be verified. Please read WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. These articles should not be posted until they have references, they should stay in the sandbox until they are ready. I have no interest in searching for sources, that is the responsibility of those who post the articles. I have created articles in which I am interested, such as the 2002 NFL Expansion Draft, from nothing. Go look at that article and see how it is referenced with third-party sources. I am not attempting to make a point, if these articles are "clearly notable" as you put it, they should survive the AfD no problem.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then add the sources. I am skipping all the articles that I find that have sources.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tag removed.--2008Olympianchitchat 20:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For your contributions to try to save various Gaelic games related articles from deletion, regardless of the outcome you deserve this! Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that! A very well-deserved barnstar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

I do not appreciate you blindly spamming my bot and triggering its shutoff. --Carnildo (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Spam" is an inappropriately harsh term to apply to someone who made one small mistake whilst kindly taking the trouble to notify editors of progress an arbcom-ordered attempt to resolve a dispute which has festered for several years. I'm sorry to hear that the bot was stopped, but the incivility of this message is quite unnecessary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar

Civility Award
For your unswerving grace under pressure, and your constant civility even when you deeply disagree with other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland collaboration

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I am attempting to take part. Can you explain, however, why my statement on Problem 1 is not showing up on the page. It says page does not exist. But it does: WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyMooretwin (Problem 1). Mooretwin (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Thanks for the message. I've not been around for a while so I'll have to either crawl through the talk history or have someone explain where we are. I don't expect either to happen but I'll look out for the new conversations to see what's happening. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category naming/renaming

I have declined your requests to speedy delete Category:GAA in Scotland and Category:Australasian GAA. I did not find a valid reason for speedy deletion on either category, and both categories still have contents. If you are renaming a category under the speedy renaming criteria, please indicate in your request which criterion applied, and do not nominate the old category name for deletion until it is actually empty. If you want to rename a category for any reason outside the speedy renaming criterion, you should post it for discussion on WP:CFD first. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin and Páirc an Chrócaigh

Hi Gnevin, I hope you don't mind but I reverted your unexplained removal of a clarification in brackets on Dublin GAA. While Parnell Park is the official home ground, surely it should also be noticed that in practice big games, e.g. the recent NFL match against Tyrone, often are played at Croke Park? Hve you any particular reason for removing it? Tameamseo (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem if that's what that infobox section's meant for. Tameamseo (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name dropping Ad hominem

Can you refrain from using me in your arguments such as Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Victorian_bushfires and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Suggested_Rewording. I have changed the guideline very little and even if I carried out major changes the WP:CON supports it , your issue is with the guideline not the person who edited it Gnevin (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about part of it. My issue is with the guide. The guide is poorly worded with a strong bias and is a vague substitute for policy. The way you use the guide as a false badge of authority to enforce your own personal taste is evidence of what's wrong with the guide. So like it or not, what you did is a classic example of why the guide is faulty. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What has my usage of the guide got to do with the above conversations? What particular edit do you have a problem with? Will you please stop with WP:Creep I get it you think it's Creep Gnevin (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not just speaking to you about the WP:CREEP. I'm speaking to anyone who may be concerned. And you were involved in the bias editing of the guide while it wikicrept into more vagueness with the inclusion of generic icons. The consensus was weak at the time, but they shared your bias while no potential opponents had any reason to suspect what was going on. And then you invoked the guide as a reason to remove icons, some that didn't apply to the guide, and some that were only vaguely addressed by it. You also failed to correct users when they referred to the guide as a policy in disputes that you were involved in, showing full willingness to use their misunderstanding to your advantage. Your latest attempt to keep that vagueness in the guide[5] by opposing my attempt to make it clearer is more proof of willingness to misuse it. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were the first to not assume good faith here [6], I reported you on the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts‎ here [7]. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing icons from sidebars

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Icons in sidebars. SharkD (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Can I have your e-mail address, please? (You can use mine to send it.) - Sebastian (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in America

Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in America, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in infobox

Please explain to me how this edit is inaccurate? The reason for the flag in the infobox is there in order to indicate nationality - it is not meant to have anything to do with the team. For example the Italy national rugby union team infobox has coach = South Africa Nick Mallett, the Wales national rugby union team infobox has |coach = New Zealand Warren Gatland. This flags all indicate nationality and all rightly so. The tricolour should not be used to represent the Ireland national rugby union team but please explain why you think its infobox should be censored from displaying the flag of the coach's international nationality unlike every other infobox out there?MusicInTheHouse (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image

I didn't restore it, I simply readded it to the template for the Irish cricket flag for us in cricket articles without touching the image itself at all, I was not aware that it was a copyright violation. SGGH ping! 11:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but what makes the image a copyvio may I ask? SGGH ping! 13:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see... so there is no issue then? SGGH ping! 13:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On this issue - is there not a way to use the image but acknowledging the copyright of the image, such as using [8]? Sorry if this is showing my ignorance - im not well versed in copyright issues! Waterhogboy (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So although there may be scope to use the image on Irish Cricket Team with a fair use, it would not be able to be used in the {cr} template for cricket team flags without permission from the owners of the image themselves? Waterhogboy (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic football players of the 1980s

Hi Gnevin. I got your name from WikiProject Gaelic games as you seem to be one of the most active users there. I'm currently in the process of creating articles for the Compromise Rules series which took place in the 1980s. First up, I am trying to built a list of the squads from the 1984 series but the web references I am working off only list each player's surname and initial. I've established who the Australian players are without much difficultly but as my knowledge doesn't extend to Gaelic football I am struggling with the Irish players. I've been able to piece together some by looking at All Star teams of 1983, 1984, 1985 etc but am stuck on the following: N. Roche, T Dwyer, S Walsh, R Connor, J Costello, L Hayes, P Mc Ginnity, M Martin, F Mc Mahon and P Donagh. If you could be help me out with some of those names that would be great. Better yet, do you know of any website that gives more comprehensive squad lists? Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help recreate a page

How do I request a page is recreated ? Gnevin (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What page is this? Why was it deleted? Acebulf (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread your question. You can request undeletion (if thats what you mean) at Wikipedia:Deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acebulf (talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gnevin (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you can also ask that a copy of a deleted page is copied to your own user space - it's called WP:USERFY. You can then work on improving the article, and even ask others to check it, before trying to make it live again. This is usually the best way to proceed. If you want that, just put another helpme below, and tell us the name of the article - or you could talk to us live.  Chzz  ►  23:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Can you userfy Killybegs GAA andDungloe GAA for me .ThanksGnevin (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've userfied them for you at User:Gnevin/Killybegs GAA and User:Gnevin/Dungloe GAA, respectively. Please don't re-activate the categories until and if they are moved back to mainspace, though. GlassCobra 23:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gnevin (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Ireland Wikimedia email list

Hello Gnevin:

I'm pleased to announce that we've started a new Ireland Wikimedian email list, that you can join, at mail:WikimediaIE. For Wikimedians in Ireland and Wikimedians interested in events in Ireland and efforts in Ireland. It's there to to discuss meetups, partnerships with Museums and National Archives, and anything else where Wikipedia and real life intersect :) --Bastique demandez 20:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Navboxes!

I am trying to make the United States governmental offices navboxes diffrentiatable from the other navboxes. In order to try and get consensus for these new navboxes, I am comming to the ones that were critical of my previous attemps before. I am doing this on my sandbox, which is located at User:USAAuthority/Sandbox1. I would love it if you give me your imput on their or go to Wikipedia:USA to comment on their talk page. I am trying to do these like the Canadian ones. I would love for you to go to the sandbox and put your edits in, and achieve consensus for a new navbox standard for these. I made them to the colors of the United States Flag Red, White, & Blue. USAAuthorityDC 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Ireland article names

Hi, I nominated File:Dublinandantrim.jpg and File:Donalog.jpg for deletion. Hekerui (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]