User talk:RashersTierney/Archive 10

Re; original research

Oh the message is through but can you qualify it for me? What EXACTLY is original research? If I want to reference a magazine article or quote from a book or magazine is it enough to provide the link to the magazine homepage or Amazon page or does it require more? Also how can I upload pictures to the articles? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolcap (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources. RashersTierney (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • Account activation codes have been emailed.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Politics of the British Isles

Category:Politics of the British Isles has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. --RA (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

who do you think you are?

Are you the owner of wikipedia?

Grow up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.6.20 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Travellers more than just one group?

Looking at the Irish Traveller page I realized that there is no inclusion of Irish Showmen. On the Scottish Traveller page there is a breakdown of the various groups who partially live or historically live within Scotland, including newer arrivals like Irish Pavee and continental Roma. The Irish Traveller page just seems to focus on the wider Pavee community and says very little about the Irish Showmen (Occupational Travellers). Irish Showmen identify with the Traveller label but are not Irish Pavee or speak Sheilta/Gammon. For balance would a short paragraph on the Traveller page (including non Pavee groups in Ireland like the Irish Showmen and Roma) be appropriate as with the Scottish Travellers page? It would cause less confusion to what different groups call themselves within the wider Travelling peoples of Ireland. If you reply could you do so on the Irish Traveller page?Uthican (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there, as requested. RashersTierney (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Eugenics edit

Please see: [From Darwin to Hitler]

I was not the only one who questioned this inclusion of this book. I have begun a new discussion on the talk page seeing as how this is from 2009. Ultra Venia (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for (re)opening the discussion. I'll give it some thought and reply there. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Politics in the British Isles

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Politics in the British Isles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KarlB (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AlriRashers?

Fair enough it wasn't that funny but ya still gotta take down that stuff about the name coming from a port, in this case it would be spelled Longphort when its spelled Longford. A longford is a camp or fortification. It was Longfort Uí Fearaill its named for. Dublin is a viking settlement. Longford is pretty damn far from it one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.246.93 (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still no excuse for pointy edits. RashersTierney (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fooish-born Flooian

There have been many discussions on the matter at WT:FOOTY. My understanding is that, in the case of Leon Best as the example at hand, it is not possible to simply and incontrovertibly describe him as someone who is Irish, but happened to have been born in England. He has two parents, only one of whom is apparently Irish: place of birth also determines, in legal terms, eligibility for citizenship and therefore nationality. Thus his nationality is a complex issue: if his father is/was English, than he is more than simply Irish but born in England; if he was not, then his nationality is even more complex. Personally, I would be happy to apply English-born Irish to those (like myself) who have both parents Irish, and have explicitly and consistently self-identified as Irish, such that place of birth is seen as "in voluntary exile": that distinction has never really gained consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I agree the issue is not simple. The intention of my edit was not to emphasise nationality as such, but to reference his notability as a player in the Irish squad. (I see where the confusion might have arisen). Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons isn't very satisfactory. This proposal appears to be the best available guide that I have found, which is arguably closer to your interpretation than mine. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect picture

Dear Rashers, I write to you as a complete and utterly baffled Newcomer who came across your avatar in a list of the Irish editors, and liked it. (I had Plunkett reading from Strumpet City on the steps of City Hall Dublin in Easter Week 1991, and long ago, produced "The Risen People" with John Molloy playing Rashers.) So not quite a random hit, but a shot in the dark nevertheless.

I only wanted to remove a rather obvious error from an Irish Wiki page, so registered, and then got lost in an overwhelming maze of complex instructions. Perhaps you could do it for me, and with ease?

The offending item is a pic of Sean T O Ceallaigh gracing the page of JJ (Sceilg) O'Kelly. (I'm sure neither would be pleased!) Here's the URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._O'Kelly

Perhaps you can let me know if you got this by emailing me: jlst@eircom.net (that's JLST), my avatar here at Wiki is Amergin23. my thanks, John Stephenson.

PS: while I was at it, I attempted the following amendment to Para 3 of the page (Irish history and politics are a lifelong interest), but this somehow failed to go through (boy, do I need guidance!!):

In June 1922, he was elected to the Third Dáil for the constituency of Louth/Meath but abstained from taking his seat. In August 1923, standing as a Republican for the Meath constituency, he was defeated for an abstentionist seat in the 4th Dáil. He was again defeated in the Roscommon by-election of 1925, his last election attempt. After the resignation of Éamon de Valera as president of Sinn Féin in 1926, O'Kelly, who maintained an abstentionist policy towards Dáil Éireann,

My source: http://www.electionsireland.org/candidate.cfm?id=1045

Again thanks, John Amergin23 (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the trouble to do something about the image misidentification and for the kind words. You are quite correct and I have removed it. I also asked the file uploader to add one of Séan S., which is available from this source (second highlighted from the left). I'll have a go myself if I don't hear back fairly soon. I also added the ref to your edit, which seems to have gone through fine. Hope to see more input from you on the project and if I can be of any help, don't hesitate. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for your helpful 'Welcome' response and guide page, Rashers. I'm on holiday, with limited web access, but will get stuck into Wikip in due course. My thanks also for your rapid correction of the 'Sceilg' page, and your kindness in inserting my amendment. (i wonder if the citation ref should be 12 not 4?) I look forward to working with you all, and may well ask you to "adopt" me, if yr open to that. I'll also be joining the Ireland Wiki Project. All in good time.... best wishes, John Stephenson - Amergin 23 (I first tried posting this on your User Talk page, but it wasn't clear to me if it went through.) 90.4.21.77 (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Don't forget to log in when editing. Doing so helps create your editing history and makes it easier to stay in touch while keeping correspondence together. Enjoy the hols. I haven't ever looked into 'formal adoption', but if there is ever an issue you need help with you need only ask. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your exact source for Hardy being implicated in the three killings?

In regard to The Key I know that you've referenced a book in regard to this but unfortunately my library card is tapped out at the moment (researching Arthur Percival). I've been going through all my other sources and I can find nothing to link Hardy to the killing of Mckee, Clancy and Clune other than he prevented Clancy's first escape attempt, he certainly wasn't one of the Auxillaries who shot them and I can find nothing to suggest he was even interviewed about it. Apparently Hardy completed 2 books about his service in Ireland but I can't find them anywhere, do you know their names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolcap (talk • contribs) 10:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added this reference. There is also this. These are some books written by Hardy. The third at least makes some mention of the Black and Tans. RashersTierney (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks. However according to Michael Foy's 'The Intelligence War' this was not the case, he quotes Clune's boss Edward MacLysaght who collected Clune's body and also inspected the others who said their faces were unharmed, repeating his evidence to the inquiry. The idea of them being beaten and executed seems to have been an invention of Erskine Childers who had no way of knowing what really happened. Winter and Anderson conducted their own investigation and were happy with the verdict and Foy makes a good case that they may well have tried to escape. The only people who know the truth were the Auxillaries who killed them and they took it with to them to the grave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolcap (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information, and since Foy uses it as a source, MacLysaght's original typed manuscript (NLI Ms 4750) originally read -
  • I remember those dead pale faces as if I had looked at them yesterday, They were not seriously disfigured. (my emphasis).

The word 'seriously' was later crossed out by hand and did not appear in his book. MacLysaght is also emphatic that the 'escape' was a fabrication and that the three were murdered. For a first hand account of a prisoner's treatment at the hands of 'Hoppy' Hardy in the guardroom about this time, see On another Man's Wound pp 273-280. RashersTierney (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't actually read MacLysaght's manuscript online (are you supposed to be able to? where do I click?) so I'll take your word for it. What proof does he offer for his assertion about the killings, surely he wasn't present? And who crossed out 'seriously' or is that too lost in the mists of time, conspiracy theory and Irish historical academia? (presuming it wasn't MacLysaght himself correcting the text?) As for Ernie O'Malley, hardly an independent or unbiased source, he's prepared to kill for his 'cause' so he'd be prepared to lie? And as he only refers to HIS treatment rather than the incident in question is it relevant? Both Winter and Anderson conducted their own investigations, examining the scene and interviewing the witnesses and were happy with the official account. I'm not saying they couldn't have been arbitarily executed in revenge, it is a real possibility but it's far from conclusive either way. In any case Hardy's involvement seems to be peripheral to say the least. I'll suggest a compromise, 'Hardy was involved in the capture of leading IRA members Clancy and McKee and a civilian called Clune who were later killed in controversial circumstances in Dublin Castle Guardroom'? I've also discovered that the redoubtable Captain King romanced an Irish girl Helen Sophie Gilbert (she is given as born in Dublin) and married her in Rathdown in Oct/Dec 1920 so unless you object I'll include that in the article as it further strengthens the resemblence between King and the character Hardy features in The Key.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolcap (talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 June 2012

The revision was made by MacLysaght, though when and why is anyone's guess. It isn't available online, unfortunately. I think reliable sources vouch for the fact that Hardy was involved in the interrogation of the prisoners at the Castle. As for your 'interpretation' of the novel, that is firmly in the realm of original research. RashersTierney (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interrogation yes and he prevents one of them escaping but that's a long way from saying he was involved in their deaths whether those were justified or not. I take your point on original research but I don't think it applies to simply pointing out the paralells between the fictional character and a real life figure who may have inspired him. If we can accept The Key was inspired by Hardy's experiences in the conflict it's hardly a stretch to think the characters were derived from a 'sword for hire' and intelligence officer he knew? As for MacLysaght perhaps the Republican legend of what happened to them was so deeply ingrained (to provide retro-active justification for Bloody Sunday?) that the recorder couldn't accept what he was saying. Fair play to MacLysaght for insisting on the truth. Goolcap (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not revise the citation instead of deleting?

A wiki is basically a synthesis of information. Please review my citation, which is a State of Hawaii official document available to anyone online: http://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/opin_ord/ica/2010/apr/ica28392sdoada.pdf Then instead of deleting every attempt I make to report real citable material, please attempt one contribution yourself. The important facts of the document are 1999-2010 court proceedings between Lee & Young Vs. Brosnan & Smith. Lee & Young asked for their riparian rights to be returned to the original state before Brosnan & Smith created an artificial lake upstream from them. Lee & Young lost. This case is an important precedent for all riparian rights cases in Hawaii, and if Brosnan was an environmentalist he might have considered the precedent he set, instead of only thinking about the artificial lake he needed. I'm not biased either way, please feel free to report the facts any way you see fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quash-asia (talk • contribs) 03:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is as important as you claim "for all riparian rights cases in Hawaii", you should have no difficulty finding reliable secondary sources to back that statement up. Otherwise personal interpretations of primary documents amounts to original research, as has been pointed out to you. 'A wiki may be a synthesis of material', but original research is contrary to policy on Wikipedia. RashersTierney (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, RashersTierney. You have new messages at 69.155.143.207's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, RashersTierney. You have new messages at 69.155.143.207's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

romani vs romanian

I write this here as I have no idea where else should I write it. In my mind, when I hear Romani on Italian TV, I find it offensive for me, a Romanian guy. Why? Because when people read it, one can't "hear" the differences (you can't fight the ignorance, but let Wikipedia show the clear differences), just like "romani" would be a shortcut of "romania" or "romanian". comment added by conualfy —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps give people more credit than that? In any case, Wikipedia is a written medium, so the possibility of 'mis-hearing' does not arise. There really is no reason to take 'offense'. RashersTierney (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an explanation.

I didn't know AP Dryan was a vandal. As for the response... I must have opened the wrong response box. There is nothing for the administrators to fix.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NoRwEgIaNbAcTeRiUm (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 July 2012

I think Feedback dashboard is a very good idea, but responders need to be discerning by checking editing history etc. if it is to have value. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppy Hardy

Thank you for including his photo etc, I was trying but still couldn't figure out how to post his picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolcap (talk • contribs) 17:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There is however a serious issue with referencing cairogang.com at this article, as it appears (see TP) that the site is a mirror of the Wikipedia article. This is known as circular referencing. RashersTierney (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfC

I saw your post in relation to John Tyndall dispute on the WikiProject Ireland page, as you might be aware of I am restricted from contributing directly and I have no desire to get involved in such a contentious issue with Seanwal111111 for obvious reasons. However I can help point you in the right direction regarding sources for the debate.

References

Best of luck to you, just don't make the mistake of getting too involved in it like I did, I paid dearly for my ignorance and short-sightedness. Go néiri an tádh leat. Sheodred (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De Valera article

Hey!

Me again.

As a newbie, I don't know for sure what I did wrong. The citation I used was accurate EXCEPT I had the publishing date on it (I believe I stated 2000 instead of 2009 - typo). Is that what you are interested in? However, that this source is wholly about the librarian controversy, and the pages in the book document this statement.

Also, the I added the source to the Letitia Dunbar-Harrison page. Again - it is wholly applicable.

Your help is appreciated. I am going to try another edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reflibman (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You gave p80 as your source. Page 80 deals with O'Duffy. No mention of the woman in question. Check the page number. Misapplying references is poorly viewed, particularly when it comes to contentious issues. RashersTierney (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connell article

I fail to understand your removal of Kenyon comment. While he may have been upset by the death of his father, his public condemnation of O'Connell has been well documented commencing with the Kilrush meeting of July 1846 right through to the famous letters of June 1847. I believe that such a disapproval by a prominent Catholic Young Ireland priest is quite significient, and worthy of acknowledgement in the creation of a balanced article on Daniel O'Connell. While accepting the fact that he was a great man, he was not universally loved as most commentators would have us think. Did any of the members of Young Ireland publically disagree with Kenyon's statement? No. Meenagh (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you imply that a statement had an effect on someone's legacy, you need to back that up. Kenyon had effectively been forgotten by historians until 'discovered' by Tim Boland in the last few years. It appears Kenyon's statement had a much more profound effect on his own legacy than that of O'Connell - "He classed [O'Connell's] death as a cause of celebration rather than a great loss. Kenyon's actions provoked condemnation from all sides — even from his own colleagues in the Young Ireland movement", and "While several of his actions throughout his life seemed irrational, those during the period after his father's death appear outstandingly so", for which this source is a reference. RashersTierney (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps by reading Tim Boland's biography (pp 23-75) you would appreciate the situation more clearly. Online introductions (as cited by you) can surely not be sufficient to make judgement. Quote refers to publication of letter in Nation, not initial letter written to Confederation. As may be seen from the chapters covering the event Kenyon had support from colleagues such as Mitchel, Martin, Lalor and Meagher. His only real'enemy' was Duffy. His colleagues disapproved of the timing of the letters to the Nation, because of the embarassment they may cause, not necessarily their content. Actually, his popularity rose after the event. In April 48 he was elected to the Executive Council with a max of 31 votes, matched only by Meagher. He surpassed all including O'Brien, Duffy and Dillon. Personally I consider his views on O'Connell to be worthy of inclusion, as they represent a view from that era. Why include (greater) political figures from a later period with the benefit of hindsight, while excluding those without such benefits. Those views as expressed in the above mentioned book (and fully and clearly referenced) should be studied before the removal of the piece. But then while I think I have a fair knowledge of Kenyon, perhaps yours is greater and I respect that. I rest my case. I only wanted to contribute to the balance of the article. Meenagh (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Anyone home? Meenagh (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not raise it at the O'Connell TP if you are unsatisfied with my answer above? RashersTierney (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you choose to remove the piece, based on an out of context quote, and a lack ok knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the issue.(I write this without malice and with respect) I have given the facts above that prove without doubt the correctness of my addition. Whether you or I agree with something is irrevelant. The facts stand,and are proven. I ask you (with whatever authority you command), to reinstate the piece. I believe I followed proper procedure. Can I delete additions if I dont like the message? It sounds ridiculous! I am becoming confused by this deletion process. Meenagh (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsidered

OK. I'll review Boland's book and reply later tomorrow with a considered re-appraisal of my edit. Fair enough? RashersTierney (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very fair, and thanks. Meenagh (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to recap, this was the addition of yours that I reverted. It was placed in the 'legacy' section of the Daniel O'Connell article. I did it, not because Kenyon's statement was critical, but because I think it was WP:UNDUE, and do not think it had the intended impact on O'Connell's memory. If anything it is apparent to me from Tim Boland's book that Kenyon's letter, reluctantly published in The Nation, more likely had the very opposite effect. Its timing, while funeral arrangements were still being made, provoked John O'Connell into declining a request from the Confederates to attend, making any chance of a subsequent 'united front' impossible. The generally hostile reaction to the letter probably bolstered O'Connell's popular memory because it made more considered and valid criticism much more difficult, certain to invite comparison with Kenyon's outburst. I may have missed some point of Boland's in his detailed, and generally excellent and very interesting book, but I think that is a fair overall impression of the Kenyon/O'Connell legacy issue as presented there. If you still disagree, you are of coarse free to seek the views of other editors at the O'Connell Talk Page, perhaps linking this discussion. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Censorship?

What's the point in going to a talk page? It's not exactly busy, is it? If you have now read Boland's biography, (for which I compliment you for doing in such a short time - it took me weeks) perhaps you missed out on Kenyon's address to the Confederation on 30 August, two months after letter (p 87). His popularity in the reorganisation of the Confederation (143-145), not to mention tributes by Mitchel, Martin, and Charles Gavan Duffy. This surely overrides your 'undue' comment. I am disappointed that Wikipedia allows such censorship infringe on its excellent project. For long enough out children were given a one-sided view of Irish history. Why should they think that the great O'Connell was universally loved while he was 'most unloved' by the majority of Young Ireland, an important political force. (See above references.) It is part of our history. In fact, wasn't Young Ireland blamed for 'killing' him. I will now rest my case and wonder at the exclusion of my piece (which was complete with references - thanks to Jim Boland's book,) while so much positive comment in the article goes unreferenced. Right, that's it. I give up. PS Let's hope nobody will try to include Ellen Courtney in the O'Connell family section! Meenagh (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Michaela McAreavey

I'm not sure but in my opinion user Kingroyos is doing biased POV edits on the Murder of Michaela McAreavey article.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It appears to be an ill advised 'counter campaign' against a minor local expression of frustration. Cracking a nut with artillery can only make the nut look very important indeed. Hopefully the page will settle down in due coarse. For the moment there is a lot of tabloid rubbish included due to recentism. RashersTierney (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenia

So you said i havent provided a source but the source was the link ( article) southern europe itself that has all the citations to reliable sources also the citations for this dilemma central/southern in the article slovenia thst confirms my point so there was no need to add more citations.Anyway since this is "controversial" issue ill let others decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.65.62 (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was to refactor a referenced statement, basically 'correcting' a factual error relating to the source. I reverted this as 'dubious'; the ref'd claim has stood for some time. A wikilink is not a valid reference as, technically, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I've added a welcome to your Talk Page with links to help you with referencing on Wikipedia. The issue in question is controversial, as you say, therefore particular attention should be paid to making sure that references say what is claimed in article text. We don't just change the wording of ref'd text because we personally prefer some alternative.

RashersTierney (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that what i was referring to the actual sources of the wikilink in southern europe(United Nations geoscheme,Climatical definition,Phytogeographical definition) in said article .i didnt change with any particular preferece.Anyway thanks for your reply.

Waterford Crystal

why did you delete my edit to Waterford crystal? I only rephrased words to make them more coherent and accurate. pls rply. thankx bals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.152.175 (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because this edit was a 'deliberately introduced factual error', as have been all of your subsequent edits. Please stop wasting peoples time. RashersTierney (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Volunteers

Whilst i'm not objecting to the change entirely, i must point out that the Ulster Covenant is properly known as "Ulster's Solemn League and Convenant". The way it was before your edit only omitted "Ulster's". Mabuska (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern was that someone clicking on the link is directed to the appropriate article, which was clearly not the case before|. If you want to pipe Solemn League and Covenant (Ulster), I've no great objection. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for intervention (maybe a Nazi troll)

Hi RashersTierney, looking at the history of Nazi human experimentation, I noticed that you also reverted an obstructive edit by the same user (IP 199.64.72.252). - Maybe, he should now be blocked (permanently). Since I'm not registered to WP (and don't know about the procedures), I think perhaps it would be best, if you had a look at it yourself to see what's going on there and take the appropriate measures. It's about trust for factual accuracy... And furthermore it's absolutely not a topic to be ridiculed or poking any naughty fun at all. Best regards. -- 176.0.23.238 (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking an unregistered user is technically possible by an Admin, but also sometimes prevents other potentially constructive editors from contributing. In the case of persistent IP disruption to a particular page, it is usually simpler to protect it, but even that measure is used sparingly. I'll keep the page, and edits from this IP, under review to see if further measures are needed. Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia. I'll post some links to your Talk Page which may explain better the issues involved. RashersTierney (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I also appreciate your invitation on my talk page and will give it some thought. - Just wanted to tell you that I've read your reply here. (In case you want to do some housekeeping and delete this section or store it in the archive.) - My IP is a dynamic one, but WHOIS will show that it's still me. - Best regards and thanks for the warm welcome. -- 46.115.38.94 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No prob! If you do decide to register, drop me a note. Happy to help out in future. RashersTierney (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RashersTierney, thanks again for all your help. Did the registration today, so that these annoying changes of IPs will stop for good. (I really hated it.) It was such a hindrance to any meaningful discussion. - Meaning of my moniker: reading a lot (swallowing huge amounts of coffee) and merrily riding my bicycle (whenever the rainfall stops here in the northern part of Germany). - Warm regards -- CaffeineCyclist (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your message! Bonus bon (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved. RashersTierney (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for warm welcome message!

Hi RashersTierney, answered in new section on my TP. -- CaffeineCyclist (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem!

Compare this and this. No good faith or welcome needed..... 2 lines of K303 20:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. User:HarveyCarter has long outstayed his welcome. Sock alarm must have been on 'snooze'. RashersTierney (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop hassling me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.2.71 (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Alice Maher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dab'd. Who'd have thunk. RashersTierney (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema in Ireland

Nice. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. The only value anything has here is when it's ref'd. RashersTierney (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Reference citation in "O Captain! My Captain!" article

This is in reference to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Captain!_My_Captain!

Hello RashersTierney! Thank you for reviewing my edit on this article! I'm still a bit new to editing here on Wiki, so any help is appreciated since I'm still learning. I add a citation for one of the many shows that references a line from the poem "O Captain! My Captain!" (specially, the show, "Bunheads"). Did I do this incorrectly?

Thanks again for your assistance. --Turnofphrase (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turnofphrase. The problem with your edit is that it didn't explicitly verify your claim, even though someone familiar with 'Dead Poets Society' might be expected to make the link (at least with 'Bunheads', but not the other shows). This source, for example, is more direct. I notice that even more shows have since been added to the section, none of which are referred to in the reference. We would need to separate these from the citation for it to have value, and each should be individually ref'd. I can edit the article accordingly if you wish. Hope this helps. RashersTierney (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RashersTierney. Thanks for the explanation, I wasn't aware that when there's a list of other items being referenced in an article, they should each be cited individually. In the case where I can only find a citation for one item in the article (in this case, just the show 'Bunheads') is it acceptable for me to make a citation for just the one show, and not the others? I would love to see how you would edit the article to use as an example, as you offered. Thank you very much for your help! Turnofphrase (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seperated the part that can be ref'd from those still needing citations and applied the direct ref I mentioned above. As you find references for the others, just apply them after the appropriate comma, e.g. It has also been used in such shows as Archer,[ref 1] How I Met Your Mother[ref 2], Parks and Recreation,[ref 3] Family Guy,[ref 4] South Park,[ref 5] the BBC show Bad Education,[ref 5] and the video game Mass Effect.[ref 6] Hope that makes sense. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, and totally makes sense. I'll make sure to reuse the way you code citations, as well. Thank you again! Turnofphrase (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier than it might look. There is a very useful tool that takes a lot of the work out of manually adding refs. Go to Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners#Using the refToolbar and watch the video. It will soon become second nature, and don't worry about 'giving it a go', you won't break anything. Referencing is really what Wikipedia is all about. Good luck. RashersTierney (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great video, thank you for sharing! This will definitely make my life easier. :)Turnofphrase (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British People

Hi Rashers :)

My name is Mikael, I'm just replying to your message regarding the article: British People. I changed the number of British people from 140 million to 150 million. I did not back it up with a proper reference however, so you reverted it to the 140 million. The reason why I changed the number of British People is because I noticed that the number of English people had been changed from 90 million to 100 million in the article English People, a change of 10 million. So I just thought it natural to change the number of British people with 10million as well... If I did something wrong I apologize, I'm not a professional editer, only a hobby one, and I realise I should have put a proper reference there, but I dont have one apart from the number change in the English People article...:)

Regards

Mikael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.166.166 (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikael! Don't worry about it; nothing was broken :- ) I've added a 'welcome' template to your User Talk page to explain a little more about Wikipedia. It is important when adding or changing figures and statistics in particular, to make sure to have reliable third-party information to back that up. Your assumption seems reasonable, but Wikipedia, because it is so open to editing by anyone, is not a reliable source for this kind of information. I am not saying you are incorrect; the info at the article may not be confirmed by the citation, or the information may be dated. I did a quick search to try to find a definitive ref., but the phrase 'British people', unlike 'UK citizen', for instance, is not so easily confirmed by official stats. RashersTierney (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stop stalking me

would you stop puttting in stupid things lets face it knock airport is in castlebar they say bergamo airport i in milan yet its a 40 drive away knock airport is only a 30 drive from castlebar so its in castlebar be realistic and get a life!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.66.19 (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 86.44.66.19, or should I say hi again Castlebarguy. Stop socking to make the nonsensical claim across the project that Castlebar is a city, and I promise I won't give you another thought. RashersTierney (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


FW Lexicons

Thank you very much. What you say makes sense, so I will soon provide a global link for all of them, keeping your format.

Universitate ub (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Universitate UB[reply]

Very glad to help a new editor, as I'm sure were the other contributors. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move for Ireland

Why did watching Religions in national symbols

Why did watching Religions in national symbols when I find something that relates to religion 99.229.41.79 (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are asking why I have reverted your edits to this article, and it is clear there is a language/communication problem. Unless I am mistaken, this is not the first time I have reverted you under various IPs. Your edits are generally unreferenced and/or WP:OFFTOPIC. Most national symbols are made up of, well, other icons or symbols with specific and intentional meaning, but if they are not religious in nature they do not belong at this article. RashersTierney (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have to read a book about symbols 99.229.41.79 (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a start. RashersTierney (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nais Tuke!

Thanks for your kind welcome and invitation RashersTierney. I'll give as much help as I'm able. Hopefully we can get things moving again, but it looks like the hard work has been done already! (Xamurrochokas (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You're welcome. And the hard work on Wikipedia , like the washing up, is only 'done' til it needs to be re-done : -) RashersTierney (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trout

Why did you removed the trout. Huon said "If I've been too thorough in removing flags, please feel free to trout me." 99.229.41.79 (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because he wasn't! RashersTierney (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I whack 9.229.41.79 for "silly talking" instead NewFranco (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did want an axe

Why did you want an axe on Religion in in national symbols 99.229.41.79 (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry will get you blocked from the project quicktime. Please don't bother posting at this page again. RashersTierney (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MMA

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page.

Kevlar (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The reason is pretty clear within the context"

Eh... not to me. Care to elaborate? The spellings were almost all at "ize" until some user (who also invented the "Irish Citisen Army") changed them a couple of weeks ago. Changing them back to the original form seems to make sense to me. --ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Izn't it? RashersTierney (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Ireland

On Wikimedia Ireland, I saw you were an interested user. Someone needs to submit bylaws to the chapter committee for approval, and you seemed an experienced user, so I am reminding you. If your'e wondering, I am not an interested user.--Lucky102 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps time to ask around. Thanks for reminder. RashersTierney (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I won't help is because I don't want to reveal my name.--Lucky102 (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. RashersTierney (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012 re: Golden Team

Hello RashersTierney, thanks for getting in touch with me. I had just started to make contributions on the article Golden Team. I am not exactly sure why you had reverted it back to a previous form when new content was added. As I tried to explain in my input, please put your input into the talk section of the article. May I ask if you are an active follower of this article? In a way I feel you may feel prejuidiced against perhaps the content or some other items contained in it. I don't feel you've ever made a single contribution to this article, but you feel somehow the article lacks a certain quality -- is that correct? I ask that the content be reverted back, and all discussions and debates, however dissenting be heard in the Talk Section which is precisely where everyone knowledgeable in the topic goes to discuss matters. Does this sound fair to you?

I'm compelled to revert the article to its more original form if you don't mind, just temporarily if needed. Please leave it as it for tonight, then we'll discuss tommorrow what needs improving and bring in experts to weigh opinions. Does that sound fair to you? To me it actually does. Thanks for you attention, hope we'll talk again soon.

User:George1485 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so. RashersTierney (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maith thú!!!

One of the best books ever written! Thanks for the reminder.

You Can Act Like A Man (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Battersby, for one, thinks so, and undoubtedly she is not alone. RashersTierney (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: October 2012

Hello, RashersTierney. You have new messages at 70.248.178.35's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied again. 70.248.178.35 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Thanks for your correspondence. 70.248.178.35 (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote a reply. 70.248.178.35 (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied with sincere apologies. Mea culpa. RashersTierney (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]