User talk:Scolaire

Archives

Archive 1: Sep. 2005 - Mar. 2007 Archive 2: Apr. 2007 - Dec. 2007 Archive 3: Jan. 2008 - Aug. 2008 Archive 4: Sep. 2008 - Dec. 2009 Archive 5: Jan. 2010 - May 2010 Archive 6: Jun. 2010 - Dec. 2010 Archive 7: Jan. 2011 - Dec. 2012 Archive 8: Jan. 2013 - Dec. 2013 Archive 9: Jan. 2014 - Dec. 2014 Archive 10: Jan. 2015 - Dec. 2015 Archive 11: Jan. 2016 - Dec. 2016 Archive 12: Jan. 2017 - Dec. 2017 Archive 13: Jan. 2018 - Dec. 2021

Talk:Easter Rising

I am not aware that I reverted anything. I guess it was a mis-click. Sorry. The Banner talk 12:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I posted at your talk page. You needn't respond. Scolaire (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread about User:Jonathan f1

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jonathan f1 should be prohibited from editing Ireland-related articles. Thank you. ComradeKublai (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have joined the discussion. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bungling that thread. I could see that the diffs you posted were the most important part of the discussion but for whatever reason when the user in question got way into the weeds of the Clontarf article I just couldn't help but respond in detail. I'll try to stay on topic in any future Wiki administrative matters. ComradeKublai (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As I say, he does seem to have stopped posting his rants all over the place. If he starts again, he can always be reported again. Scolaire (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ACAS

I would value it if you could add a ====Comment==== at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale#Question 5: Minimum article quality when created at scale. I've been thinking about our conversation last month about whether stub creation should be banned wholesale (not just for mass creation, but for everyone). I think this question is close enough that I shouldn't propose another question directly about that, and I do still want to know why articles with <10 sentences are bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I have done so now. Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi

If you don't mind, may I pick your brain regarding mark up language on a Wikipedia users page. What does a sole lower case 'r' indicate in relation to an edit detailed on a users contribution list refer to?

Thanks

Mogh Mogh Roith (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mogh. I looked at your contributions. When I hovered over the "r" it said "This edit needs review". The edit was also highlighted in yellow. This is some algorithm that searches for I don't know what, and on the basis of that marks it as potentially problematic. Since you know it wasn't problematic, you can just ignore it. Scolaire (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Thanks Scolaire. Mogh Roith (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgment

Just wanted to acknowledge your level headed and fair input to a number of discussions that we have been involved in over the past few months. I appreciate the fair treatment and sound guidance you've given me. Thanks Cashew.wheel (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary lead image

Given your interest in the earlier RfC, you might be interested in Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus#RfC on primary image for article - Runoff. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Martyr (politics)

The article Martyr (politics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is fully covered by the main "martyr" article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Irish

Hi @Scolaire.

I saw your comment on the redirect discussion for Black Irish.

As you have previously dealt with the old page for Black Irish (relating to white Irish with dark complexions), I though you might in interested in having a look at Black Irish (folklore). It's a new enough article and has already proven contentious.

Thanks for your time Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited to restore chronological order, but beyond that I don't care to contribute. I don't remember how I got involved back in 2013, but the topic actually doesn't interest me at all. I said at Talk:Black Irish back then that unless an encyclopaedia article can say unambiguously what it is about, it cannot serve a useful purpose. From the discussion, it seems that people still can't agree what it is about. Scolaire (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I blame you for wanting to stay out of it, it's a bit of a mess alright. Thanks for having a look anyway. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for FC Steaua București

An article that you have been involved in editing—FC Steaua București—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Derbiul Bucureștiului

See Derbiul Bucureștiului...hope looks good after few details fixed. You became topic expert/native speaker with quality wiki knowledge honestly. 93.138.225.202 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I might have a look tomorrow. Scolaire (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience in dealing with a difficult situation

I very much appreciated the collegial approach you attempted. I honestly think the user tends to conflate other users' actions with their motivations. While you and I know avoiding this habit is a Wikipedia social norm, such conflation is way more common in vernacular these days than many would think, or you and I would like. They seem honestly regretful. Thanks for your work on European sporting stuff. I would not have the patience you nice folks exhibit daily. If I may be helpful, please call on me. BusterD (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. Not everybody is as appreciative of my approach ;-) Scolaire (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steaua again

I am seriously worried about the edits of Cezxmer. All his recent edits have a summery "Changing redirect link to the correct one" when he changes a redirect to FCSB into a redirect to Steaua București. And this edit set my alarm bells of. What is going on here? The Banner talk 20:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly straightforward, I'm afraid. The user believes, as did our departed friend, that FCSB are not entitled to the name or the records of the old Steaua; therefore he is changing all FCSB links to CSA Steaua (in many cases linking to the omni-sport club instead of the football club). That includes instances (like the Mo Salah edit) where the team was called Steaua but the courts have retroactively ruled that they were not entitled to call themselves that. This is not vandalism; it is good faith editing, even if we disagree with the edits. Only you and Onel5969 have reverted, as far as I can see, and there is no talk page discussion on any of those pages, so he is not editing against consensus. Nor is he edit-warring. There isn't even enough activity to take it to DRN. The best course I can think of is to open a discussion at WT:FOOTY and see if we can get a consensus there. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have pointed him at the prior discussion at the records dispute article and more or less begged him to take part in the discussion there. The Banner talk 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but I very much doubt he'll take any notice. Scolaire (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say: you have to try something. The Banner talk 14:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#FCSB v CSA Steaua București (yet again). --Scolaire (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Martyr (politics) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Martyr (politics) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martyr (politics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL

Hello.

I think you need to read WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. The list article you referred to is linked in the navbox, and so should transclude the template, but the article you reverted isn't, and so it shouldn't transclude the template. Being linked to from another article in the navbox doesn't cut it.

A rule of thumb is that only articles that are linked from a navbox should transclude it.

The purpose of navboxes is to provide convenient links to articles that have something more specific in common than just "Law of the United Kingdom", which is a huge topic. Routinely slapping vaguely relevant navboxes onto articles that merely are in the ballpark (so to speak) isn't meaningful. Why provide links to every list article of any era from every other article?

The solution is obviously to create navboxes for articles covering legislation from the same era, the same geographical entity, or the same judicial sub-topic – if you feel it's needed. So if you want to create sub-templates for articles within the same era, subtopic, etc, that's where links to the individual articles go, and those are the templates that should be trancluded.

E.g., if you want to create a navbox template for the articles in the list article, Defence of the Realm Act 1914, that would be the correct template to transclude from those articles.

Will you self-revert?

Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did read WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, but thanks for the clarification. I will self-revert. Scolaire (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Steaua again, now with players

Hello @Scolaire, i have a problem with user Cezxmer, especially with the dispute between CSA and FCSB. I have a problem with him because he is reverting my edits especially on the players who played for Steaua before 2017, like Florin Nita, Gheorghe Hagi, because he says that team was CSA. Please help me with this problem. I am very worried because he will destroy anything which is connected to this subject. After all i want to thank you for what you did on FCSB page, regarding this situation DNT (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]