Hi there. I saw your note at the village pump, which linked to the discussion.
It might be worth instead/additionally linking here directly, and briefly explaining on the VP page why you have made this suggestion. I suspect that most people will take one look at the length of the footy discussion and decide to stay at a safe distance, but a shorter and graphic summary may get a few neutral people involved. WFCforLife (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back!
Hi Gnevin
I just saw a few edits by you, so came over here to see that your talk page now says semi-retired than retired ... which is great news. :)
I know that you felt a bit overloaded by the extent to which you were involved before your retirement, and I wouldn't try to do anything to change your mind about that, because there's a life outside of wikipedia and that should come fist. But since it seems you have decided to pop in occasionally, I just thought I'd say that it's great to see that your calm thoughtfulness hasn't been entirely lost to wikipedia, and hope you enjoy whatever occasional contributions you make.
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Gnevin (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Rule 42
On January 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rule 42, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Sorry it went ****-up. Since another user complained that it was causing article corruption, I had to chop back the field to 1%. Since there is so many "bits" to change (and check that it all works) - can I suggest that next time (if there is a next time) that you just ask for those pages to be unprotected temporarily (say 24h) - they are only protected as they are a "high risk" for vandals (change one bit and you can corrupt a lot of pages!), and I would think a 24h unprotection would not cause a problem - you can then change the templates and check that they all work OK in the articles as you expect them to. Either request at WP:RFUP or ask me direct on my talk page (I'm around most weekday evenings). Ronhjones (Talk)15:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish tricolour includes orange for a reason. True, it may not have been adopted by that community, but it is still used by nationalists and republicans throughout the island. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB - you do realise that the organisation being referred to as the Celtic League, is NOT the Magners League one? Right? I know that the Magners League has been referred to as this, but it's not the same as the political group founded in 1961, which happens to use the all-Ireland nationalist flag you happen to dislike.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from page: Sporting — This is much less common, although Ireland and Scotland play each other at hurling/shinty internationals. There is also the Celtic League (Rugby Union), and teams from Cornwall and Brittany sometimes engage in wrestling matches. Wales have also played soccer against a putative Breton national team.Gnevin (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Inter county
On January 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Inter county, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
{{helpme}}
I nominated a image for deletion here because I feel its an WP:OI . The bot says I should take the deletion requestion to commons but I'm pretty sure WP:OI doesn't apply there. How do I proceed? Gnevin (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get why it ought to be deleted. It's just a representation of a missing flag, but either way, images on commons can stay there regardless of what they're used for. I could upload an image of a stick figure and put it there. The concept of a "missing image" certainly exists, so why can't we be missing a flag? fetchcomms☛21:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this sound uncivil but I didn't ask for you opinion . I asked how can I proceed in having these removed from wiki as I can't say OI at commons as I don't think it applies but OI does apply here Gnevin (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, as I don't really know of any way to remove lots of the same images at once manually (I think there is a bot that does it for deleted images or something though). fetchcomms☛21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For my information, what is the difference between the IRFU banner and (for example) a town crest? See the rationale on that page. (That crest dates form the mid-20th century if memory serves.) Or these arms. Date of creation is also mid-20th century if memory serves (registered in 1981) but see the rationale. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with the rename "British and Irish Lions from X" (it makes sense), but surely it would make more sense to list them under a single proposal...--MacRusgail (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great work
Great work on all the permutations around {{tl:Fs start}}. Sorry if early stages of our discussion got a bit oppositional: maybe we can claim creative tension. Kevin McE (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smile
Hello Gnevin, Paradoctor has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Don't sell yourself short. The discussion has directed my attention at the problem of intra-project messaging. Even failed proposals generally lead to improvements. :) Paradoctor (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any limit to your dumb nominations? It is people like you that drove most serious contributors from Ireland off this site. You are a reminder of why this site is a failure - with ill-informed posters jumping to conclusions about topics they know nothing about. That is why all so many Irish academics who originally were here all left. Thank you for reminding me that this place isn't worth contributing to. FearÉIREANN\(caint)22:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The file you uploaded is a JPG file, but you uploaded it with the extension .svg, so it doesn't work. If you uploaded it under the name File:IRFU Flag of Ireland.jpg, it would work.
Why shouldn't it? Apparently, nobody changed it. You added the non-working new logo, but somebody else removed it (since it doesn't work).
Also, read carefully the text in the Licensing section of the file you uploaded: copyrighted images must have fair use rationale, or they could be deleted.
A tag has been placed on File:IRFU Flag of Ireland.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gnevin (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mooretwin
Gnevin, can you take a look at [2]. Mooretwin is blocked and unable to contact you, and his appeal revolves around his 2nd edit which he says was made after discussion and consensus/agreement with you. He has asked me to contact you. User:Sandstein has blocked him for edit-warring. If you read his appeal (on his talk page) he states that he was not edit-warring and that he engaged in constructive dialogue with User:Gnevin and reached consensus. Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IECOLL
I've been mulling over the idea of going to ArbCom to have them formally close the Ireland name-dispute process. What's your opinion on that?
I know I responded facetiously to your post at WT:IECOLL but in effect the process was about the naming dispute. Maybe it could be reopened as a venue to address other disputes (like the current slow war going on between some editors). I think though that process
I know IECOLL turned in a process about the naming issue which I had no issue but that's not what it was intented to do or what or collaberations do . I don't think IECOLL show be a venue from disputes, if we need a venue for these and no one is interested in working together instead of fighting. Then IECOLL should just we a direct to the fight club.
As for ArbCom, I've no real feelings on the topic. I know the country is called Ireland but ROI is a common DAB so I don't really care Gnevin (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call for consensus/conclusion to current Ireland rugby union team icon
Hello, I am contacting you because you have been an active participant in the recent discussion on icon to be used for Ireland rugby union. I have tried to summarise the many strands and come to a conclusion based on what I perceive the consensus to be in this section - Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion. To move the issue to a conclusion I am asking all participants who have signed the discussion to read my summary and comment on the validity of the approach I have advocated, before the issue goes cold. I am keen that the enormous efforts of all contributors results in a tangible conclusion on this occasion.Kwib (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on use of flags and copyright at the village pump
For determination, patience, aways-present willingness to discuss and an unshaking adherence civility on the subject of copyright and what flag to use to represent the Ireland national rugby union team. I hereby award you the first Rugby barnstar award. Well done. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I was wondering if you could take a quick look at the footnote here, relating to the two all-Ireland teams? I'm planning on nominating the list at WP:FLC in the near future, but thought it best to check that I've covered this appropriately beforehand. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you intend to just use club websites as a source then I will have to change my vote to oppose, as I have said before all a club will do is use the birthplace of the player especially on the players who will never be capped. I feel flags should only be used on players who are capped anything else is just using their birthplace. Mo ainm~Talk10:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intent to limit it to the club website, people can use the club if they want, in the majority of cases the club website will be ok , however if you dispute a nationality and can find a better source then add it. This is how the process currently works but no one does it. This proposal is just about getting user to find a RS for the flags which are being added randomly at the moment Gnevin (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But in the case of uncapped players the club are only going to use the birth place for a flag, the club alone is not enough, I would be very reluctent to use the club as a source for that reason. Mo ainm~Talk19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're causing trouble again. Do you know why this note appears on each of the "Arabian Gulf" articles? Because every time it gets removed, some Persian/Iranian nationalists turn up, and start trying to change the name, or move the page. Right enough, I do think it's pretty insensitive for the IRB to allow them to have called themselves such a name (not to mention the fact that AGRFU seem to do little to interest the actual local Arabs in the sport), but that's what it's called. Not that I like it myself either.
However, as usual, you seem to be willing to criticise but not to do something constructive here. Either you rewrite the paragraph (which should remain, considering the persistent vandalism problems, which will never go away), or you need to get some kind of protection on these pages.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC) p.s. Then again, some vandals go by the rule book, don't they now?[reply]
No, not boring. Either do something, or say nothing at all. Don't make a dog's dinner of it like you did with the Irish flag issue. I'm sick to death of people on Wikipedia who like changing other people's work, but do little themselves.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As here. Never okay, under any circumstances. Comments can be removed in certain instances, when they violate certain, specific behavioral policies. You can't strike out comments just because you disagree with them, nor alter them in any other way. You could be blocked if you continue. Equazcion(talk) 22:12, 19 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Interpreting policy is a subjective matter, and if you can't respect other people's views enough to leave their comments alone, you may not be right for this project. I suggest you take a break and cool off before you get yourself blocked. To repeat, never strike out other people's comments. Equazcion(talk) 22:17, 19 Mar 2010 (UTC)
You've admitted after 2 hours of discussion you never clicked the link I've provided several times a link which a core part of the discussion . Have you read it yet?
Your view and the view of others is directly against the established con. Please challenge it or risk having your votes not counted.If you not willing to challenge con and prove your right then to me your admitting your wrong Gnevin (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that discussion constitutes consensus for your proposal, though your question there was related. I have no problem with the answer you got at WP:V; I rather agree with it. This flag issue is a bit different. Regardless, again: Don't strike other people's comments. You don't decide whose "vote counts". Equazcion(talk) 22:31, 19 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Could I respectfully request that you stop linking this redirect in your edit summaries. These wp:cross-namespace redirects are discouraged and may well be deleted in the future. This would render your edit summaries fairly useless. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that some admin deleted the redirect page and decided recreating the link for a week would be to much effort Gnevin (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please ensure that any image you de-link is in the public domain. Images licensed under GFDL (including the LPGL), cc-by-sa, or any other attribution-required license cannot be delinked unless the author's name is in the filename or the metadata of the image. Your work on web accessibility is noted and appreciated but your recent edits violated our legal requirement to attribute the source of the images used on at least 30 templates [3]. Please let me know if you have any questions on this. Thank you, –xenotalk15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pretty sure it's not possible, it is in LocalSettings.php, as you said. You could probably use some sort of addon with Firefox to change it, like Stylish, or Jetpack, but without it, probably not going to work. Pilif12p (contribs) 22:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be possible that icon has to come from somewhere and that some where can have a alt text added. I don't mean change it just for me I mean for everyone.Gnevin (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting other people's edits, as you are doing in Wikipedia:Words to avoid. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you.
Three reverts on a MOS which has wide spread CON or should have hence why it's a MOS. WP:BRD suggests you should go to the talk page to discuss , just as I did . You'll find good will for this task force in short supply if you decide your going to force your changes upon the project and then threaten 3RR on people . Gnevin (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gnevin, you said to let you know when the tighter Words to avoid version was ready. I think it's now more or less finished, if you'd like to look at it here. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, SlimVirgintalkcontribs21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gnevin, I just looked at the history and see you you reverted my striking of the discussion. I did not just strike the comments I don't like, I struck the entire discussion due to reasons I explained. In other words, I accept the consensus, and withdraw the discussion to prevent further acrimony. Your reversal would only allow others to think that the request is still active, and fuel further acrimony. Please do not revert it again. Regards!Victor9876 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your explanations make various accusations of fellow editors ,either strike the entire section or just strike your own comments. You can't strike everyone else so you have the last wordGnevin (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re slang "yoke" in Ireland
Hi, I thought I'd bring this to talk, rather than simply annoy you by forever changing edits! I completely see what you mean about "two meanings", and I have no special knowledge of this slang use of the word "yoke", it was already in the article; but as it stands there really is some duplication going on there, which ought to be compressed - "Slang term … mostly in Ireland". After all, it is only a disambiguation page. I thought I'd covered the "two meanings" aspect with my edit 356011407, which set it out in the format "Slang term for x, also y", i.e., "two meanings". Maybe have another look at that? Or perhaps we can compromise on a more explicit statement? How about:
Slang term, mostly used in Ireland, either as a placeholder name in general use, or more narrowly for the tablet form of the drug 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), otherwise known as "ecstasy"
Well fine, yes, that seems to say pretty much the same thing to me, and I can see that it further underlines your concern to distinguish the two meanings! Only, do we need the numbers, it just seems a little inconsistent with the rest of the page - the meanings could simply be indented, with either and or, though I'm not familiar with what the style guide might say about it. Anyway, something like:
That's great, and thanks, you too. Any particular reason why "3,4-" is outside the link for "methylenedioxymethamphetamine", as it's part of the full name on the linked article? Not that I'm particularly bothered by it, but otherwise I'd be minded to include it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just moved the profanity core to a live page, Wikipedia:Profanity/core. I was wondering if you have identified, or could identify, any pages besides Words to watch where it would be appropriate to transclude it. We should start seeing how the concept works in practice, which we're not really testing unless the transclusion is happening on multiple pages. Or perhaps profanity is not the best example, and there's another one that leaps to mind as calling for multiple transclusions? Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more, very important, thought for you: I deeply admire this concept, but—in practical terms—for it to take hold, it needs to be broadly applicable. I've identified a (rather small) web where WP:Profanity/core applies. But if you want to make this work, you need to identify, say, two or three additional webs of guideline/policy pages where it would make sense to transclude a core from a different, specific guideline/policy page. I am ready to assist in any way I'm able, but you need to take the lead now if you want to make this happen. If you do, it can.—DCGeist (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked at your sandbox presentation of Hans's proposal. That is the most transparent way to implement the concept. Yet I have two concerns:
(1) The question you raised on the main MoS talk page: Would users have an issue with template markup in the middle of guideline pages? Like you, I've got no problem with it.
(2) Even the tiniest alteration—inadvertent or otherwise—to the coding on the master page would create a horrible mess on all the target pages. I'll raise this on the main Talk thread.—DCGeist (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting other people's edits, as you are doing in WP:Words to watch. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. Five reverts in 14 hours.—DCGeist (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've no issue with [Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style, would you also change Arts (Wikipedia Manual of Style) ? 12:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I would include 'wikipedia' throughout. I think there have been similar cfds in the last few months but cannot locate them. I think if the top one is done then the others can be speedies, particularly as you seem to be the sole editor involved. Occuli (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) - Thoroughbred Racing
I notified the Talk page (twice) that I would consult the Thoroughbred Project members which, not only is an absolute right that does not require your or anyone's approval, was politely acknowledged and encouraged by User:Quiddity. If you and one or two others chose to ignore my clear and precise notification, then that was your decision and irrelevant to the much-used right for all Wikipedia editors to revise a guideline by consensus at any time they choose, be it today, tomorrow, next year or whenever. Thank you. Handicapper (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, as I said on the Guideline Talk page, I had to gather facts and info to make a proper presentation. You do agree that one should do everything to ensure accuracy, don't you? Question: why claim a "consensus" when you know that the Thoroughbred Project is in process? Is this such an urgent crisis that waiting a short and reasonable time for the opinion of knowledgeable others isn't possible? Sorry, too, but I must be dumb as I don't see this temporary consensus you refer to. The last thing I read was an astonishing false claim by User:Andrwsc. Would you be good enough to organize a proper summary that is short and precise as to how and who exactly arrived at this "consensus" that chose to deny the members of the TBR Project the right to have any say in the matter. Thanx again. Handicapper (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is denying the members of TBR the right to have a say. As such I am willing to wait for that discussion to be resolved before reconsidering the issue againGnevin (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx, but I questioned your alleged "consensus." Inasmuch as you stated a consensus existed, please respond to my request to support your claim and organize a proper summary (on the Guildeline Talk page) that is short and precise as to how and who exactly arrived at this "consensus". Thanx again. Handicapper (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop stalling. I will make this my third and last request before I follow through with the approriate source to rule on this. I do not see any consensus of any kind. Please organize a proper summary to show how and who exactly arrived at this "consensus". Also, your last three edits reverting me in favour of Rettle.... smacks of a cabal and the statements on consensus are eerily similar to the actions used by you and a tiny group supporting you to shut down the legitimate efforts for dialogue by User:Oicumayberight in changing the Guideline to suit your opinions. Handicapper (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MoS cats etc
Good work on Category:Manual of Style. I don't think I'll get much of a chance to work on Wikipedia:Comparison of guidelines, BTW: RL has caught up big time and I might be on Wikibreak of indeterminate length from Friday (long story: family issues). Good start though and I'll be thininking about it while I'm away. Hopefully no longer than a month, but... I'll have to sign off the music audits, also. To be frank, the music MoS's are nowhere near in as bad a state as the rest of the MoS. We need to decide where we are going there anyway before the major sub-Mos's are rationalised, IMO. I'll get the audits signed off tommorrow after a chat with Tony (if I get a chance). Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman02:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is proposed that summaries of articles be kept in a subpage ~/Sum and that a (to-be-written) template transcludes the summary into (a) the lead after the first paragraph and (b) any other article that needs to summarize the article. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Proposal_for_a_new_template_and_/Sum_summary_pages.
Thanks for uploading File:RUeyegouge.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk)15:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:Notoforeigngames.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Notoforeigngames.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk)15:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File copyright problem with File:Dublintram.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Dublintram.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
File copyright problem with File:Dublinlockout.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Dublinlockout.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
The image has non-free use rationales, but no actual image licensing tag. Tags such as these have been required by our policies for a long time; this image seems to just have slipped through the cracks. (ESkog)(Talk)19:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Singapore-related articles)
I am not sure why you have declared "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Singapore-related articles)" to be "currently inactive" because it is "no longer relevant, or consensus on its purpose has become unclear". Just because the guideline has been stable for a while does not mean that it is no longer relevant or that it no longer has the consensus of editors working Singapore-related articles. A perfectly plausible alternative explanation is that such editors continue to accept the guideline as correct and are styling their articles in accordance with it. Will you consider reverting your changes? — Cheers, JackLee–talk–20:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:CCC" states that consensus can change, not that it should continually change. The thing is, how can you tell just by looking at the guideline whether it is "being used"? Editors may simply be consulting it (rather than changing it) and then styling their Singapore-related articles according to the terms of the guideline. Anyway, I will do as you suggest and repost this discussion at the Manual of Style talk page. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–11:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the links to the MoS and they where very limited . Its not 100% actuate but better than nothing. Post at the main MoS is the best idea Gnevin (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The MILHIST style guide was, in fact, intended to be part of the formal MoS, not merely a project-level recommendation; it's one of the two WikiProject guides to have undergone a formal consensus-building process to establish that (the other being MEDMOS).
If there are concerns regarding the page title, or anything of that sort, I'm certain that the project would be happy to accommodate whatever standard the rest of the MoS is using now; but I don't think it's appropriate to change the status of the page merely because it happens to be located in the "wrong" place, even though it continues to enjoy wide consensus. Kirill[talk][prof]23:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine . I've done a WP:BRD run on inactive and other problematic MoS's. For me Military History was a very boarder line case as it covers a large number of wiki projects unlike others I removed so I removed it just to see if someone objects. However this may be of interest Gnevin (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, interesting. I don't think there would be many issues with pulling subject-specific guidelines out of the "MoS proper" and either simply leaving them as WikiProject style guides or collecting them as part of some supplement to the MoS.
The one major concern I do have is that WIAFA currently requires only compliance with the MoS itself, not with any other guidelines (indeed, this change is what drove MILHIST to try and make our guidelines part of the MoS in the first place). I think that, if there's going to be a push to reduce the scope of the MoS to cover only core topics, then there need to be corresponding changes made at WIAFA (and related criteria) to give the guidelines being removed from the MoS an appropriate status. Kirill[talk][prof]23:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there may be minor changes it all depends on how the discussion above evolves but I wouldn't think to much Gnevin (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Now that the scope of the article has been expanded, do you think this should be included? Its the chaps whos' picture you had in the article and it seems to have gotten a lot of coverage, dunno how notable it is tho GainLine ♠♥17:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it notable enough to be in get an mention in an article about eye gouging sorry "eye contact" (wink wink , nudge ,nudge) but wouldn't be notable enough for an article on it's own Gnevin (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if "eye contact" is a suitable phrase here, since it tends to mean something quite different most of the time in English, i.e. stealing glances. I prefer the term "gouging", as it describes it to a T... Does the IRB use it? --MacRusgail (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editor seems obsessed with changing Arabian Gulf to Persian Gulf. It is not wikipedia's fault that these organisations and teams chose this particular name, and in fact I do not agree with the use myself. However, it is disruptive Edits have been occurring repeatedly over a long period, but page protection has been denied for some reason.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I don't know anyone who calls it the Arabian Gulf (usually it's the Persian Gulf or just the Gulf), and I don't like the term either, but this is what AGRFU etc describe themselves as, and it's in their official name, so we have to stick with that. Not sure about Rugby union in the Arabian Gulf - that could be changed as it isn't an official title of any kind.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[5] Both the rationale and the change to historical, I mean. I only noticed just now after the MOS cats were renamed. I still think the page contains useful advice but I am reluctant to reactivate it yet. I'll have to look at some actual articles about stringed instruments to see if its advice is followed. Then again, if those articles actually follow the patterns suggested but appear to do so anyway (i.e. independently of the page's existence) then the page could just be good old fashioned WP:CREEP. I'll have a think and get back to it when I get a chance --Jubilee♫clipman00:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Conservation status and Taxbox needs help
OK, I just took a look at King of herrings which is a pretty big fish that popped up in the news today, and clicked on the Taxobox Conservation status link to find out what abbreviation NE stood for. Instead, I get an article about conservation status indexes, and had to click again at the top of the page to bring up Wikipedia:Conservation status which I find this ugly mess. Two problems need to be addressed, the Taxbox conservation status link should go directly to Wikipedia:Conservation status, lots of articles would then link to the appropriate page and, of course, the "historical" template replaced with a cleanup and/or attention tag perhaps. --Modocc (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I left a request dif on the Taxbox template talkpage for someone with the tools to consider changing the link. Once it is established, perhaps the page will get the attention it needs. --Modocc (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree if taxbox is going to use shorthand it should explain it . There may also be a case of WP:OR, that of creating an abbreviation that isn't common outside wiki. If you wish to change Wikipedia:Conservation status to cleanup or what have you go ahead. For changed to the box I'd suggest asking at {{Taxobox}}Gnevin (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Ireland national rugby team
What consensus? I think you'll find that WP:IMOS FLAGS clearly says that the St Patrick's flag is used for that time period when Ireland was united while the other policy page you directed me to only explained why they use the current flag on WP due to copyright issues. I was using it in the correct fashion because at the time that was the flag of Ireland. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Rainingmen.GIF requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gnevin (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:RUeyegouge.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RUeyegouge.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Your moves of MoS pages created a mass of double redirects everywhere
I've done about 3 pages worth of subpage moves (including archives) and archive setting updates, and it was pretty slow work. Maybe there's a quicker AWB way to do this, or a bot could do it. Pretty much all of these pages you moved need their subpages moved and archive settings updated, and there are a lot of these. I just noticed the discussion on this, so I guess I'll wait on further work here for now. Equazcion(talk)06:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I think it's brilliant the way you've been pursuing this. Unfortunately, it looks like the current RFC won't achieve consensus. But this concept is so productive. In fact, your efforts on this inspired me to rationalize Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:List of guidelines. Obviously, what those pages can't adequately accommodate is the chaos of all the subject-specific guidelines. Here's my idea about how to move the rationalization process forward:
(1) Individually move to retitle and retag all the subject-specific guidelines currently under MoS titling and branding to SSG titling and branding. I think we'll find this much easier to accomplish than the current universal RFC.
(2) Once that is accomplished, go to the WikiProject-maintained subject-specific guidelines and:
(i) Strip them of their MoS templates (if any) on the basis that MoS templates are granted only to MoS-titled guidelines, all of which are (as of step 1) general in scope.
(ii) Individually launch RFCs to retitle and rebrand the WikiProject guidelines as SSGs, according to the paradigm we established with the (now-former) MoS style-specific pages via step 1.
This may sound terribly labor-intensive, but I think we can write up a generic text for the RFCs for the WikiProject-maintained subject-specific guidelines. I think if just a few of them fall into line, we can advertise that fact and the rest will follow suit. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've no problem with a bit of work. My only concern is if the SSG fails users will see we are proposing moving "their" page from MOS to a rejected essay .
The following is a bit of a rant, sorry . I have to say I'm quite disappointed with a lot of the votes at the RFC, while I respect users right to vote no, a lot of them seem to be opposing for fear of change and others are drive by opposing and won't even reply to attempts to have them express there concerns in greater detail . I'm afraid this Vote and not interested is something I've seen more and more on wiki. While I don't want to name names we've both seen certain users I've seen just vote !No to everything. At the current RFC only one possible no user has given any feed back as how to improve the SSG, which has been positivity taken on board. It's the same as we seen at WP:W2WGnevin (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. The power of inertia is strong. While people like the idea of change as a general notion, most of those involved in any organized system (as Wikipedia has developed into) tend to be afraid of actual, specific changes in how the system runs. People are creatures of habit and they get upset when their habits are threatened, even when the proposed change would actually make their lives easier. It's very frustrating, I know, but we'll have to expect more and more of this as Wikipedia and its practices become more and more institutionalized.—DCGeist (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!
Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I understood that you're an Irishman (I wish I can visit your wonderful country some time soon!), so can you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country, music and language! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GAA redirect change
Hey Gnevin, how are things these days? The GAA redirect has been changed from Gaelic Athletic Association (wherre it has redirected for seven years) to redirect instead to GAA (disambiguation). I thought I'd mention it to you just in case you disagreed given that you reverted attempts to do this before. Tameamseo (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gaelic Athletic Association is the primary usage and it should stay at that. I've seen an IP reverted but I will try to keep an eye on it Gnevin (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is Gaelic Athletic Association the "primary usage? What is the reason for giving this one use priority over all the others? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the sense that GAA meaning Gaelic Athletic Association is by far the most common. GAA directed to Gaelic Athletic Association for 7 years Gnevin (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phooey
You withdraw your nomination (which I commend you for) just as I was putting a finishing touch on a summer reading list of books that I thought might interest you. No nevermind, I'll share it below. It suggests a notability of the intersection (as notability is measured for wiki purposes) that might not have been immediately apparent to you:
Hi, we know each other from MoS talk, where you've been active. I've noticed a large number of deletion requests emanating from you recently, particularly concerning Jewish themes. It's a very sensitive cultural matter, and I'm unconvinced that the deletion requests are necessary (although I haven't examined them thoroughly). So I wonder whether you might ... um ... slow down a little? Tony(talk) 05:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Ah, and I see Epifleche has entered a rather long post above. Tony(talk)05:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm understand they are culturally sensitive but I've no alterer motive, I seen pages and categories that I felt should go and so I nominated them, I'm not going to hold of just because it may upset a few people. As for slowing down. I'm not actively looking for pages to nominate, if I stumble on to them and I think they should go I will nominate them Gnevin (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but, for example this one sets out a list of possible issues without supporting details, where the devil is in the detail. I don't believe it's a strong case as it stands. Let me say, also, that the community is loathe to remove lists and cats involving minority or cultural groups unless there are compelling reasons to do so. At the Gay WikiProject, I argued fairly successfully against the linking of items such as "lesbian", "gay" and "homosexual", since it marks them as somehow different or exotic; but there could be not a jot of consensus for ending categories such as "homosexual artists", even though I have a number of issues with how it is applied. Not quite the same, but a little. Please take care and be cautious. Tony(talk)16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I remember you were heavily involved in the discussion the last time this article was renamed. Its cropped up again, with an editor renaming it without any prior discussion. Discussion id here if you want to get involved GainLine ♠♥12:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate where you were coming from on this, but I don't know quite what to say about it. When it comes to the religion vs ethnicity thing, Jewishness falls between two stools. About the nearest equivalent I can think of here, are some of the Celtic FC supporting "Catholics" and Rangers supporting "Protestants" in west central Scotland, who wouldn't know anything about the transubstantiation debate, let alone what the inside of a church looks like.
I've always disliked the use of anti-Semitic to mean purely anti-Jewish, as Arabs etc are also by definition Semites. Anti-Jewish is better IMHO, but I can't really get people to use it.--MacRusgail (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply .It seems the majority of people don't care to make the distinction and I'm happy enough with that outcome . Gnevin (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Dublinlockout.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Dublinlockout.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
Thank you for uploading File:Dublinlockout.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
Just to let you know, we've reopened the discussion about the status of MILMOS, and have proposed that the page be split into three separate guidelines (style, content, and notability) to allow the style portion to move into the MoS namespace correctly. The feedback so far appears to be generally supportive.
I have a couple of logistical questions about how we would proceed with this that I was hoping you could answer:
I assume that the "Article content" and "Notability" sections of the current guide would be broken out into their own respective pages, and that the style portion would retain the other five sections ("Naming conventions", "Usage and style", "Sourcing and citation", "Templates" and "Categories"). Is this the correct breakdown, or are there additional sections that should be moved from the style portion to one of the other two?
Once the page was split up, what would be the best way to go about getting the style portion fit into the new MoS category structure? There doesn't appear to be a MoS sub-category for history/humanities/etc., and I'm not sure that we would really fit under the science one.
Hi there Gnevin. I didn't want to disrupt the sourcing discussion with further discussion of this, and you say above that you aren't watchlisting pages, so I wanted to let you know that I've started a deletion discussion for National dish, located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National dish. Your opinion on the matter is quite welcome - let me emphasize that I agree with your redactions from the list, but I happen to think the remainder is not salvageable. Thanks for reading. — Gavia immer (talk)18:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to drop a personal note here to thank you. Thank you in engaging in a rational discussion with respect to automatic removal of unreferenced material. Despite us not agreeing on the appropriateness of automation, the discussion didn't spin off into stupid-land. It remained on-topic and and about the improvement of Wikpedia. Cheers and thanks! -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop vandalizing 2010 tour de france
Stop deleting the images of the stage types. The images aren't used "per se" but to clarify everyone what kind of stage it is, the text is not enought.
WE ACCORDED TO MAINTAIN THEM AT THE 2008 VUELTA AND 2009 TOURS, SO STOP BREAKING THE CONSENSUS WE MADE OR I WILL OPEN A REPORT ON YOU.
I'm pretty sure the text is enough as the icons don't add any understanding . Also please be civil and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXSITS isn't an argument ,if there has been a discussion about these I am not aware of it so please provide a link Gnevin (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand what "as against WP:FU" means. However, as far as I see it, they are logos, just as File:Lions2009.svg is a logo, or File:Wru logo.png or File:RFU.svg is a logo. Just because they are old logos it does not meant they are of less encyclopaedic value, quite the contrary, they are more valuable!
WP:FU in a nut shell say we can use copyrighted material such as logos if by not using them it would cause a lose of information. The old logos are not fair use they are not core to the understanding and are being used in a purely decorative way also they are the out of date which could misrepresent the brand. The tuskers could be used on East_Africa_rugby_union_team#Tuskers_Tours but only once and only if File:Tuskers.png is update to include a reason for it's inclusion. I'm sorry if this isn't clear if you have more questions I suggest asking at WP:COPYGnevin (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can they not becore to understanding? It would be inappropriate to put the modern version of the logo there; if someone were interested in seeing what the jersey badge of (for example) the Welsh rugby side looked like when they played East Africa, where do they go? Let us imagine that they have found a photo that they believe may have been taken of that match but are not sure, inspection of a Welsh players' jersey in the photo might provide a further clue as to the origins of the photo. As for the Springbok logo, comparison of that with the modern image would provoke further questions in the reader... "why is the springbok facing the other way, when did it chage and why, were there intermediate logos between this and the modern one"? My aim is to provide information on the history of rugby union and provoke interest.
Because I don't need to see a logo to understand that the lions played a match. While it's ok to use a welsh logo on the welsh page because it would be impossible to describe Gnevin (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then why didn't you contact me in the first place and explain this before deleting the file, perhaps then one of us could have moved it to the Welsh page and started a section on how the Welsh logo has changed over time, thus increasing the content on Wikipedia rather than reducing it! Mbwa mwitu (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The files I have uploaded and included don't misrepresent the brand as it states clearly that that is how the logo looked at the time... in fact it more accurately represents the brand by showing that the logo has changed over time! And, yes by not using them we are losing information, we are losing information concerning the change in the "brand" over time. By contrast, your deletion of the files has caused a more real "loss of information".
I'm not sure what your definition of "Encyclopaedic" is, to me it is "comprehensive", "relating to people, places and information that is not purely linguistic" and to quote Denis Diderot in Encyclopedia our purpose is to "transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come". Quite clearly, knowledge of how a logo has changed over time isEncyclopaedic. Mbwa mwitu (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is my belief that File:Tuskers.png was used only once on the page, correct me if I am wrong. It is stated clearly in the summary why it is there and the article explains why it differs from the "home" shirt patch. What don't you understand about that?
Again... so why didn't you contact me and tell me this so I could change it, rather than just deleting it...! Or better still, just change it yourself. Your behaviour baffles me; you have been accused of vandalism by someone working on the 2010 Tour de France and by MacRusgail concerning the Arabian Gulf (see above) and I am forced to agree with them. Mbwa mwitu (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for me asking somewhere else concerning this subject, I think you should at least have the courtesy to respond to my queries; I'm sorry if I'm taking up your valuable time, but your deletion of work that I have done in good faith is taking up my time! Not just the loss of work I have done, but the time it will take to reinstate the files. Perhaps in future you should contact the uploader and try to resolve the problem, not just destroy what someone has done!
I'm not trying to brush you off but I've attempted to explain several times and we seems to be having a difficultly communicating hence why it might be helpful to get someone to explain Gnevin (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now you are continuing to do the same with almost every file I have uploaded, deleting them from articles for no real reason but supporting your actions with spurious references to Wikipedia rules. Mbwa mwitu (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you have done to Mbwa mwitu here is completely unfair, and I expect you know it. Instead of deleting all of these files, why couldn't you have done something constructive, and added the appropriate tags?
Mbwa mwitu's edits to pages on East African rugby have filled in a massive gap on wikipedia, and s/he has done some great work. It doesn't help when someone comes along and stamps all over it. Instead of bombarding Mbwa mwitu with Wikipedia jargon, you should have tried to help. It's obvious that s/he is fairly new to Wikipedia, and so should be guided, not hindered.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged what I could. The others where not savable as they where not being used in a fair use way, unfortunately wiki is very strict on copyright issues and rightly so, getting sued could be the end of wiki. Mbwa mwitu work on Rugby article is extremely commendable and I hope they carry on. I've as much guidance as I could here and pointed the user in the direction of other who could help. However the issue of these pictures couldn't wait Gnevin (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that Wikipedia is strict on this matter, but I believe that some of the usage was indeed fair use. The reason I say this is that the usage was obviously non-commercial, and was being used where no (c) free images could be used. I don't really see how the Tuskers etc could object as the cases in point are promoting interest in them.
However, as a newish user, s/he should be helped out. Wikipedia isn't immediately obvious to people, and takes a few days at bare minimum to get acquainted with. (Not to mention the constantly shifting rules and regulations).-MacRusgail (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only one that was possibly fair use was tuskers and it wasn't in that state when I found it. I'm not sure what you expect me to do. I was a helpful to the user as possible while also helping the project. So times these two goals pull in different directions Gnevin (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:MOSCORE.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gnevin (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well...I copied the template and subpages over to my own user space, so I could try things. I think the only change needed would be to the 'core' subpage you mentioned, so I tried changing the last bit of that to;
...and I created a 'test' page with a copy of a couple of the articles - User:Chzz/cardtest.
Can you have a look at that, and see if it looks right? It does, however, also need alt text - what should the alt text be? Chzz ► 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 'stand-alone' (suit only) function does not work on the existing template; note how template:Cards says, Stand-alone suit symbols: ♣♦♠♥ gives . - ie it does not work. There are subpages e.g. Template:cards/hearts but they're not linked from anywhere.
The talk of using alternate colours for a 4-colour deck will not work with icons, of course
I'm concerned that those specific icons are not terribly clear; the drop-shadow effect doesn't look great at 12px, I don't think.
As it is used on lots of pages (inc featured list, etc), please give this some thought. If you want to boldly go ahead and add the few lines to template:cards/core as below, then by all means, go for it. Or any questions to me, please ask them on my talk page. Chzz ► 16:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea, so we'll see what happens.
Re. talkback - well, I did take a note to check back here, but I wouldn't have noticed so quickly, so it was useful, thanks; and the same applies re. the discussions; I have noted to check back on the page, but I could well forget for days, so if you need me for something, please shout. Cheers, Chzz ► 08:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Just to update you on the situation, User:Thumperward has been working on the matter in small doses off-wiki. I don't have the exact diff, but he stated during the height of the matter that he didn't want to go ahead with a proposal until emotions on the matter have cooled. For the same reason I'm doing nothing; anything I directly work on is now going to receive emotive and irrational criticism because I started the whole thing.
Thumperward also stated an interest in introducing the light/dark shading that User:ClubOranje attempted during the RfC, in preference to the colour scheme in the alternative solution Thumper introduced here. Given that squad numbers are random, that will prove to be a very difficult bit of coding. --WFC-- 13:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update , looking at the squad issue. It looks to be pretty much impossible to get the colour right without extra parameters Gnevin (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](http://www.fira-aer-rugby.com/medias/IRFU_Provinces_Flag.jpg){kind=link}
