|
User talk:Setanta747/Archive1This page is an archived record of discussion. Please do not add to or change its contents. Provisional Irish Republican ArmyI changed your edit in relation to the fact that the Provos killed more people then any other group. I did this because it was not it did not seem to belong in the first paragraph. The numbers of people killed by the Provos in the troubles is given in full in a section where it belongs. SCVirus 05:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC) hi, re your latest edit on the Provisional IRA page, I have no problem with it factually and I don't have alternative figures, but could I ask you to please cite your source on the page? We have to be very precise in this article so that people can't just come along and write whatever they want to suit their own point of view (not implying that you are doing this btw). Thanks, Jdorney 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC) I've forgotten what it was I added. I'm gonna look into it now. I'm still getting to grips with Wikipedia editing etc, so I hope this reply is readable to you. I'm going to leave a short note on your own talk page to let you know I've made a reply here, and you can let me know if that was necessary or not. :) --Mal 23:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Hi, its re the loyalist killings and at what point they began to outnumber the IRA's killings. A pretty gruesome topic. We have a problem with certain people, I thinl you can see who, just writing whatever they want on this page. So I'd just like if you could cite the source you've used for this info. Cheers ps. You can reply to messages either on your own talk page or on the person who sent its page. Its a good idea toput something on their page because then they are alerted to the fact that you have replied. Jdorney 00:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks Dorney - I figured out which addition it was because my other edits had just been spelling and link corrections. I added a source (the CAIN website), though I don't know whether the way in which I added it conforms to Wiki style. And yes - many pages I have added info on have been reverted with no explaination, time after time. I'm actually worried that I will be in breach of the 3 revert rule because I usually revert them back when there is no valid reason or challenge. Obviously there are cases which I consider, if valid and reasonable explainations are offered. For example, regarding the 'Constituent Countries' article in which the user 'Mais oui!' has reverted my information several times. Finally he came out with an explaination and I re-worded my additional info to reflect his concern. I'm not sure that will be good enough for him though! PS. Thanks for your help. --Mal 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC) The best thing to do in most situations is, if your changes are controversial, to leave a note explaining them on the talk page of the article, then you can reach a consensus instead of getting into a revert war. The only revert war I've gotten into here is very recently on the PIRA page with a user who keeps writing garbage and won't listen to reason. In normal cases, people are fairly reasonable however and you can come to a compromise. Oh yeah, and the citation of the source is fine. Jdorney 00:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Bloody FridayNo 22 bombs all in Belfast city centre. The details are on the Bloody Friday page. See also The Provisional IRA p231-232 or Secret History ofthe IRA page 116-118. Re being direct retaliation for Bloody Sunday, I don't think this stands up. It happened six months later and in a different city and was part of a concerted commercial bombing campaign - one of 1300 bombing attacks by the Provos in 1972. It happend just after the end of the IRA's 1972 ceasfire and talks with the British government and according to Moloney and Mallie/Bishop, was intended o show that the IRA were determined to continue their campaign until British withdrawal. I understand the the name "Bloody Friday" was intended to be a sort of unionist eqivelant to Bloody Sunday, this is the explanatin Ed Moloney gives, but I'm not positive about this. Jdorney 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Jdorney 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the name was applied solely by Unionists. It was named 'Bloody Friday', like many events and procedures, by the media. --Mal 06:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Why did you Change the User NI template?Well? What was so wrong with the old version? I thought it was pretty funny. Rowlan 14:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Keith. Yeah - the Template:User NIR one? The other one being the Template:User NI one? One has the flag of NI and denotes that a user comes from Northern Ireland - its geographical. The other (the NIR one) denotes that the user's ethnicity and ancestry is Northern Irish. I'm trying to create some consistancy between the userboxes. People can add other boxes from more personalised templates. --Mal 17:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
England User TemplateWhy have you changed this template? You've made it so it doesn't look like any of the others (particularly with flag width). See my user page for examples: Scjessey 17:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Your change didn't work properly. I've restored the original template. Your version is now the alternate, and the original remains. -- Scjessey 18:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Userboxes must follow these guidelines. Many of the examples given here are non-standard. Notice the width of the icons in examples. Also, it seems a bit weird to be editing a userbox that you aren't going to use. -- Scjessey 18:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Setanta747&action=edit§ion=4 Please leave the original template alone. Your new version should be the "alternate", since it is non-standard in layout. -- Scjessey 18:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC) In accordance with the userbox project which is ongoing, I had decided to standardise the names and the layout of all the main UK-related boxes. Is it not simple to change your user page?
I guess England will remain as the odd-one-out for the time being.. perhaps until such time as the Userboxes project deems it necessary to overrule your decision to constantly revert this particular name.
As I already said to you: the userboxes do not conform to any particular standard for layout. The couple of examples on that page do conform to the standards you suggest however.
Don't even think about itYour suggestion about recreating political party userboxes is most unwise. Don't even think about it. This is your only warning. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Re : Vandal alertHi Sentanta747, Surprised as you may be, but anonymous IP addresses are able to receive messages while they are editing. The message will appear when the IP's next edit is made, immediately after you have added something to their talkpage. For example, in this case it would be User talk:199.216.95.253. Of course, there will be issues of shared users in IP on occasionally, but that'll be a whole separate issue altogether. For vandalism, AIV is considered somewhat a last resort. If the vandalism is not frequently repeated, a warning usually does fine. There's four levels of warning for simple vandalism, Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace is a whole good lot of list. {{test4}} template is the last level of warning, in which then you ask for a block at AIV. Hope that helps. Any questions, feel free to ask me on my talkpage. Happy editing! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
BangorHi from one Bangor person to another Bangor person. I know that Bangor, Northern Ireland was founded in 555 AD and it comes from Gaelic meaning "The pointed hills" (although I've heard also that it might mean "Valley of the angels" or "Angels' Choir" or something). Can you tell me about Bangor, Wales - is the name an Anglicisation? Do you know the original Welsh if it is? Cheers. --Mal 09:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like the two places were founded in the same period. I've always known the NI one to have been the original and founded in 555, though the Wiki entry for it states it could have been 559. Bangor in NI is twinned with Bregenz in Austria though. I checked up on Bangor in an atlas in a library many years ago, and I found that there were something like 13 towns named Bangor across the USA and Canada. The one in Maine is probably most famous, seeing as Stephen King is from there. There is a Bangor in the Republic of Ireland too I think. I'm sure most of the Bangors across the world come from the original, the Welsh or NI ones.. but I always thought it was interesting that two towns of the same name were founded in different parts of these Isles at roughly the same time. --Mal 09:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC) template{{Female media bio}} is now where it should have been in the first place. -- RHaworth 13:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
IP 217.65.149.50I did not make the block, and being a fairly new admin, I tend to tred very lightly on this stuff. That said, longer blocks for school IPs is a fairly complicated situation. I've seen a couple of lively debates raging on the admin notice board over them. On one side, longer blocks here tend to have lots of collateral damage, blocking those students that want to be useful editors. On the other side, some admins say that schools that are the source of major, frequent vandalism should be blocked until the school takes action to control the vandals. I don't yet have a really strong position on the issue, so I was mostly just reporting the actions of another admin. The IP was blocked, so there was no longer a reason for the alert. After the block expires, if the vandalism resumes, feel free to put the IP right back up on alert. - TexasAndroid 15:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Warning explanation requestPlease don't edit other's user pages. Messages for other users may be placed on their "talk" pages, accessible by clicking the "discussion" tab on their user pages. What is "experimenting with Wikipedia" that you believe Boothy did? What was the test edit that was reverted or removed? — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that warning policy is intended towards those who are vandalizing or testing how Wikipedia works, not for those making edits you disagree with. Using such a vandalism template may be inflammatory. I understand that Boothy removed text that you wrote, but sure you can't have considered it "experimenting with Wikipedia", which is why I asked you what he'd done that you considered experimenting. To me it appears that Boothy did leave explanations in his edit summaries, though since you declined to actually demonstrate the edits in question, I cannot be sure I did not miss something. The "test" to which I refer is in your message: "Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed." Since Boothy was obviously not testing his editing ablility, the use of such a template is inappropriate. Feel free to leave messages for or otherwise warn users who are engaging in actions with which you disagree, but be sure that the text matches the message you wish to send. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
NI footy clubs editsFirst off i would hope you disregard the comments made by Karmafist (talk • contribs), in that his comments are nothing less then a personal attack aginst me, in which he shows that he rather vilate WP:NPA, WP:AFG, WP:CIVIL, as well as WP:DICK, and maybe WP:POINT, to make a comment about my behaviour, but thats left for antother time. As for the posting on the wrong page, thats no problem, i have done it many times my self, and i do appolgise for any information i mistankley removed from the articles, as that was not my intention, i might have edide the wrong verson or it could have got lost in editing at the same time. As for the cats, i removed the Category:Northern Irish football clubs category, due to the fact that {{IFA league}} it should automaticaly include the category in the articles in which it is used, so their is no need to dual list, but looking at the cat their seems to be a listing problem, i'll have to look into it. As for Category:Sport in Northern Ireland, in the heirarchy for categories, Category:Northern Irish football clubs is a sub to Category:Sport in Northern Ireland by way of Category:Football in Northern Ireland. It is perfed that articles are listed in the most exclusive, might not be the word i am looking for, category based upon it subject, which would be the Category:Northern Irish football clubs. WP:CG is a good place to look on category guidelines. Feel free to ask anything else. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC) I figured out what the auto cat problem is, you have been adding the category [[:Category:Northern Irish football clubs], their is a cat alerady set up for the clubs though, and this is the cat that is used in the template, Category:Northern Ireland football clubs. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The Crowd (disambiguation) is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crowd (disambiguation). NickelShoe 05:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC) AssassingI removed the proposed delete tag from Assassing, added the content to the main Fugazi page, and made the page a redirect. The problem is not notability as such, but that the article did not assert the notability of the song, nor was there any reason to put the content in a separate article. You should only consider content forking when the main article gets too long. The Fugazi article is short enough that it could be expanded with analysis of key songs without getting so long that it needed to be split. When writing an article about a specific song, you will want to be able to demonstrate why the song is considered notable (by the rest of the world) by referring to critical reviews, sales figures, etc. And you will need to demonstrate why the article needs its own page rather than being part of the main album or band page. I have seen a lot of song articles get merged back into the main article for this reason. In cases where a song title is notable but you really don't have much to add, you can easily create a redirect page with the song title but put the analysis/comments in the main article, since that will be the result of most AfD reviews anyway. (Marillion without Fish is just "ill" :) Thatcher131 04:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The IP hasn't vandalized for a while, so there's probably no reason to block. Wikipedia admins rarely indef block IP addresses, as they can change hands, and a short block when an IP is vandalising a lot is usually enough to take care of the problem. If this IP were posted on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism right now, it would probably just be removed with no action because it's unlikely that anyone would even try to use it before the block expires. -- Vary | Talk 05:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Protected tagHey there, please don't just plop a protected tag into an article. You probably don't realize this, but just placing the tag in the article doesn't actually protect it -- only an administrator can do that; it requires a special button to be pushed. However, it gives that appearance, when in fact it's not true. The template is only intended to tell people, once the actual protection is done, that it's been protected. If there's a problem on a page and you think it needs to be protected, you should request an administrator review the page at requests for protection. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Category CSD
RE: RoIHi there ... no problem. While the results of the poll are self-evident (and personally disagreeable), I find it troublesome that some editors (and not necessarily you) blustered their opposition ad nauseum and contrary to the polling instructions. The poll was modelled on a similar one at Talk:Georgia, where oppose votes didn't take place and simple, single assertions were sufficient. In fact, I think the inability or failure of some Wikipedians to follow said instructions might necessitate a reopening of this issue at some point. In any event, I'll summarise the results of the vote shortly ... and this will exclude all negative votes made. Let me know if you've any questions and thanks again for your input. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Category:Northern Irish Formula One drivers was deleted in accordance with the decision at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 9#Northern Irish. Please do not re-create it under that name. The problem is not with having a category for Formula One drivers from Northern Ireland, but rather with the adjective "Northern Irish", which consensus holds should not be used. Angr/talk 19:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Marillion - POV, reversion, citatationsHello. First of all, please don't use revert to rollback rationalised edits wholesale. If you disagree with certain things, change them, explain why in the edit summary, and take it to the talk page if necessary. Rolling back my entire edits is plain rude and very bad form. Note that my only interest in these matters is as the closing administrator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crowd (disambiguation). I'm concerned that you are adding your own point of view to Wikipedia. You seem to consider it a tragedy that Marillion didn't reach number one, thanks to those nasty people releasing a charity record. I've attempted to tone down those edits. My addition of the {{fact}} tag is not a slight on the article you have created in any way. I've even added it to my own edits on occasion. All it does it tell you and other editors that words have been attributed to someone else without attribution. Why should an encyclopedia reader take your word for it?! Instead of reverting me, click on the citation link, and you'll find out how to cite a reference. Once it's done, remove the tag, and everybody's happy. --kingboyk 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Re Sindo etcFair enough, if it was widely reported then that can also be included. My only point here is that the papers will, after any event of this nature, print all kinds of lurid speculation, much of it untrue. There's not much point in repeating every single reported incident in our article here, people looking at it in a year's time might wonder how much of it is true and how much is sensationalism. Jdorney 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Well, no one has to agree on everything all the time! Lets face it, no one on the island of Ireland is ever entirely neutral on NI politics, no matter how unbiased they are trying to be. My policy is that the facts are neutral, whether we like them or not. More importantly, we do not have the right to use wikipedia to forward our own opinions, only to state facts as honestly s we can establish them. Actually, I never intended to start editing articles relating to NI because of the controversy of even the smallest edits, I just seem to have been drawn into it. The point I'm making about the riot article is that I was there and some of the coverage is somewhat far fetched. This is not a defence of the rioters but more a disrespect towards the Sunday Independent as a newspaper. If a pregant woman was punched, clearly that should be in the article, my query is with the source of the rumour. However, I'm happy for the article to say that it has been reported that this is the case and if it was reported in proper newspapers incl the Belfast telegraph, then I would have less problem with it. Jdorney 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC) "Northern Irish" or "of Northern Ireland"?Hi Keith. I was wondering if you had any opinion on this. I have noticed that the vast majority of, for example, sports categories for UK regions all seem to follow the collective demonym pattern... English.. Welsh.. Scottish etc. We folk from Northern Ireland... that is - the Northern Irish - seem to be treated with exception for some unknown reason. A person from Canada suggested that "Northern Ireland" was a less "controversial" usage (presumably he'd prefer the term "Northern Irelander"!). A person from New Zealand suggested that people on IRC do not particularly like the "non-standard" term "Northern Irish". Personally, I can't see that either of these two suggestions ring true and I can't understand why these suggestions have been made. As you probably know, I'm Northern Irish born and bred. I've never known the term "Northern Irish" to be controversial. Several polls taken throughout the last couple of decades (usually by the Tele) suggest that "Northern Irish" is a favoured cross-community national description. It rivals both "Irish" and "British", though I can't remember if it is more popular than either or than both. Anyway, I've given you my thoughts on the matter. As someone from Northern Ireland(!), and a Northern Irish Wikipedian, I wonder if you'd take a look at the notice board and give your vote if you feel strongly one way or the other. My sole reason for renaming the particular category (and hopefully the others) is standarisation and correct usage. In all honesty, I think that more people who are actually from Northern Ireland should voice their opinions, instead of leaving 'concensus' in the hands of people NOT from here, who don't necessarily understand.. or worse - those who think they understand. Anyway, if you're interested, or have the time, please look at both the Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board and the UK Wikipedians' notice board. Cheers. --Mal 12:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I consider my identities on the exact same lines as you, and would include "Ulsterman", though not out of political expediency. Your point, as well as mine, is that there is nothing contentious about the use of the label "Northern Irish" specifically because it is the "middle ground", as you say. I should point out that the categories I created that had the adjective "Northern Irish" have, I think, now been deleted. What I propose is to create another vote on ALL of the categories, and to hopefully attract Northern Irish wikipedians to vote on the matter, regardless of their political ideology. To start this, I have made an admin aware that I might ask him how to go about this from a technical (wikipolicy) standpoint... but I think Northern Irish wikipedians should be made aware of a possible vote before it starts. You know, its strange, but I think some of the non-native Wikipedians seem to think "Northern Irish" is somehow contentious. I've never known anyone (except for perhaps one or two extremists from BOTH 'sides') to have been in any way offended by the term. Thanks for taking time to read what I've had to say etc. Its kind of a minor issue in the grand scale of things, but I consider my proposal to be logical, and to be driven by logic 100%. --Mal 18:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Jdorney 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Not at all JD - I welcome your input. The problem is that nobody has specifically cited it as being POV. But two comments from non-NI people suggested, incorrectly, that "Northern Irish" was incorrect usage of the adjective and implied that the usage thereof was "controversial". I think these are also the 'reasons' given as to why all the categories had been changed last September in the first place. As far as I remember, you're from the Republic aren't you JD? As an Irishman interested in and knowledgeable about NI politics and history, can you see anything particularly controversial about the term? Would it offend you personally? --Mal 19:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Nope, merely a statement of fact. If you were a particularly ideological nationalist you could argue that NI is just an "invented state" etc, but for my money its neutral term about a legally established entity. Jdorney 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Jdorney 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Yup - that's what I'm going for, in good faith. I'm just making a note that the categories might fall under {{Mcn2}} policy. --Mal 15:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Don't be alarmed!Your page in progress hasn't been zapped, I've moved it to User:Setanta747/Marillion discography (Fish era) (spelling mistake). --kingboyk 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed my speling mistake, and I'm still blissfully unaware of what it was! lol I'm happy with you moving the edit history around, and anything else that cleans up the whole thing. The name I'm not quite sure of yet. I had planned on creating the Fish era discography first, to see what kind of result the finished product would give. There are some fans of Marillion that might reject the Hogarth era, or consider the music to be different enough to be notable and therefore deserve separation of articles. I'm not particularly worried about either - I don't know much about the H era, but I don't necessarily reject it either. Maybe we could call it "Marillion discography" in my user space for the meantime, and then rename it if it looks like the thing might justify the need for two articles. What do you think? --Mal 22:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine on the surface. I'd planned on doing a major copyedit anyway - the thing is still WIP obviously, so as long as the main researched parts (chart positions etc) are there, everything's cool. When I've finished major editing sessions, I'll give you a shout and you can give me a hand or advice if you're up for it. Question for the meantime though: how do you put the infoboxes on the left hand side? --Mal 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Nice workon the Beatles classifications and the merge list. Isn't it funny how a bit of a clash can result in goodness? Tis often the way on Wikipedia, I might add. --kingboyk 01:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. Trust me to find something to grumble about! You didn't put the Beatles project templates onto the talk pages of the articles you visited! :P There's a list of jobs to do when assessing, you probably missed it. No sweat, I'll attend to it. --kingboyk 01:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
lol OK - regarding Jane Asher - I kinda did it automatically and then, as an afterthought, came to the same conclusion as yourself. And I'm now clear on the correct template too. Sorry bout that! Shall I let you change the rest then? I'll move on to other articles, bearing in mind the info you've just given me (maybe I should take the time to read everything the Beatles Wikiproject has to say! lol). By the way - {{TheBeatlesArticle}} adds a note on the talkpage that the article in question is part of the Beatles Project I assume? If that's the case, do all articles (such as Jane Asher) have to have them until they are dealt with, or what's the score on that? --Mal 03:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It adds the above. Put it on any page we're assessing that you haven't rejected as being "outside project scope". Easy enough to take it off again later :) --kingboyk 03:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
TommorowWhy do today what can be done tommorow? :-) It's been another crazy busy night, so I'll look at your NI question - and do the templating - tommorow. One thing I'll say now about the NI debate is that if the consensus is to keep "Northern Ireland" then you can always propose in another 'motion' that the other countries are changed to match. It's best that they're all the same. In a way I kindof prefer "Football clubs from England" to "English football clubs". What do you think? --kingboyk 04:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC) I prefer "English...", "French..." etc. But only just tbh (also, as most categories seem to be of that form, would it not be easier to change the minority rather than the majority?). My main point is of course that they are (should be) all the same, as you say: either "English..." or ".. from/in England". I might either go to sleep, play a game, or move over to the Marillion project which I've not touched now for a day or so! Good progress on The Beatles Wikiproject though. :) I'm not bothered if the NI Football clubs category proposal fails, because it was kind of testing the waters. But proposing a motion to rename a whole host of categories is the original 'technial' question I had been wanting to ask you. Like I have maintained though - I'm happy as long as there's consistancy. --Mal 04:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice Work (2)Hi Setanta, I just wanted to say nice work on the NI portal - it's a really good job, so keep it up! It's good to see some more Norn Irish people on here these days! Now if only we could get the Northern Ireland article up to the standard of the portal, and cut out a lot of the political crap and waffle that is there. Jonto 12:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hullo hereHow is UUC these days by the way? Are you based in the South Buildings mostly? I'm not going to mention "Geography"! Oh btw ... you can add yourself to the UUC category now. Ermm.. I added it - probably under ... Frig it... here... Wikipedia:Wikipedians by alma mater#University of Ulster, Coleraine lol --Mal 07:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
WildIrishManI see that you responded to a comment by an anon regarding this user on the Northern Ireland talk page. To be honest with you i would keep an eye on this user, i have ran across several of his edits. He has mad some changes to statistical information, that i believe is backed up by sources, but those are matters for debate, and so i can kinda let that go. But he has removed reference to the Catholic Church from several articles (which i find rather strange considering that the user says that he is "a devout Roman Catholic of Irish and English heritage" on his user page), remove of the Irish names from several articles, and the remove of other persons comments, specifically mine for some reason, from several pages. Most of his edits seemed to be centered on the Armagh region. He also blanked his talk page and told another user not to msg him. You might want to alter the users on your bard to just keep an eye on this guy, I'll put something on the Irish users board. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Danny MorrisonWell he has mellowed in recent years, especially in jail in the early 1990s, but I think that this would be more appropriate info for his bio article rather than the PIRA one. In 1990 or so, the RUC cuaght him interrogating and probably preparing to kill a police informer in west Belfast. Not exactly peace people stuff. Morrison is still writing off letters to various media outlets justifying the PIRA campaign. In the Irish Times last wedensday for instance. Btw, I'm planning to radically cut the weaponry and operations section since we now have seperate articles on this stuff and the article is over twice the recomended size. What do you think? Jdorney 10:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Good ArticlesHey there, wandered across you discussions about NI and good article status. If you believe its status a bit premature acording to the guide at Wikipedia:Good_articles, you can easily delist it, change the template and put a reason explaining what you think needs changed before it goes back on the list. Cheers SeanMack 04:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
3rd Opinion neededHave a look at Template talk:TheBeatlesArticle would you please mate? Cheers. --kingboyk 04:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC) PS: Your weird Portal"Northern Ireland was created out of the continuation of the Act of Union 1801 in which 26 counties of Ireland were separated from the United Kingdom, in 1921 following a rebellion 1916 and subsequent Treaty" doesn't make sense, to me at least. --kingboyk 06:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC) OK. You can't imho reasonably jump from 1972 to the present day without at least a mention of and link to the troubles. I'd also lose: "culminating in the recent Belfast Agreement Stylewise and interest wise, top notch! Good work! --kingboyk 06:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Fair enough - I think I jumped the gun on the nomination... or did I? Nominating it has actually given me some pointers I might not previously have had. That sentence does need serious re-wording! It reads like stream-of-consciousness! --Mal 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have a look at that in a few minutes Steve. Just been catching up with some stuff. --Mal 04:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Been looking at the portal again, and the history stuff reads a bit better now. I noticed though that you have a featured biography, and a featured article - which is also a biography! How about Giant's Causeway? Don't forget, you're gonna want to rotate your biographies every month or so, so don't use all your most famous people up in one go! ;) --kingboyk 05:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
HeyI know where you live |
||||||
