User talk:Barryob

Click here to leave a message and I will reply to it on this page thanks The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style Maps of Republic of Ireland Constituencies Hi Barryob, well done on creating maps for the ROI Constituencies. It really makes a difference to see a map of the constituency, rather than just reading a description of its geography. Keep up the good work! Snappy56 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC) No problem have I been meaning to make the maps for a while now, the artilces just seem bare without one. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 20:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Well done on the maps. I'd like to point out a small error: you've mixed up Galway East and Galway West. Can this be rectified?--Damac 21:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Whoops, fix it now thanks. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Well done again on the maps but you appear to have forgotten about Cork South Central. It's the only ROI constituency without a map. Can you do the necesary? Thanks, Snappy56 20:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Image:StormontChamber.JPG I have tagged Image:StormontChamber.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Konstable 23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Please address my arguments at Talk:Union of Soviet Socialist Republics#Name instead of moving the article with no points listed on the talk page. In particular, please prove, citing sources, that "Soviet Union" is more common, than "USSR". And explain, why well-knownencyclopedias use "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", but Wikipedia should use "Soviet Union".Cmapm 23:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wappen Schottland.png) Thanks for uploading Image:Wappen Schottland.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Please stop edit warring You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --John 17:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Not sure what article this message relates to if (a) Template:Northern Ireland cities this is the correct name all links point here so there is no need to move it if (b) List of British flags there have been umpteen disussions on the talk page the Ulster Banner is a historical flag and should go in the relevant section thanks. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I don't care that you think you are right. Every edit warrior does. I am asking you, nicely, to stop edit warring. That is not how we do business here.--John 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC) This is your final warning for edit-warring. --John 23:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC) For what restoring the template back to its original location where all the links point to. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC) National Anthem of Scotland Could you please stop changing the National Anthem away from God Save the Queen. I have stated that: "The official National Anthem for Scotland is "God Save the Queen" as all countries under the rule of Westminster have this national anthem. This not only applies to Scotland but also Bermuda and other British Overseas Territories (BOTs) as well as Wales and Nothern Ireland. The only places this does not apply to are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and this is because they are not under the rule of Westminster and are not considered not to be BOTs but "Crown Dependents"." Although the Scotish hate to think so, it just is.--(Alxh 13:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC))-- Scotland An agreed consensus was reached (look at the talk page archives) Astrotrain 14:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC) I did and you are wrong the image is mentioned once and that was to state that it was fair use and may hamper any WP:FAC, that is unless you where reverting me without even checking what you where reverting. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 14:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Blocked You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring on Scotland. When you return remember not to repeatedly undo another user's edits. There are always better ways to improve the article. --John 15:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC) I did not return to repeatedly undo another user's edits I removed and image that had an invalid fair use tag and was cluttering the section that it was in leaving white space at the bottom of the article it was Astrotrain who reveted me citing a discussion on the talk page archive that does not exist. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Barryob (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Applogies I have never been blocked before so this is my first time filling one of these out, I removed an image from the Scotland article [2] as it had no fair use claim and created a white space at the bottom of the article, i was revert by Astrotrain (talk · contribs) who claimed that there was a consensus on the talk page for the inclusion of this image I searched all of the talk page archives and the image is only mentioned once in archive 5 stating that it was fair use and may hinder a WP:FAC for the Scotland article, i removed the again only for Astrotain to repeate his message i removed the image a third time and have now found myself blocked --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 16:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Decline reason: In essence, the 24 block is not going to be lifted. You said it yourself, you reverted three times. I'm not trying to be mean, rude, or a jerk or anything, but we do have 3RR for a reason. — Jmlk17 04:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Comment I think this block is unfair Astrotrain has been disruptive editing over a number of articles and Templates over the past few days, has has been blocked for editwarring about 6 times since February for this and making personal attacks on other editors yet he only recieved a 24hr block for his part in this.--padraig 17:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Welcome back.--padraig 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Party shortnames and colors Thanks for the reasoning for the Plaid Cymru colour change - if you could include something like that in the edit summary or on the talk page should you change any other colours, that'd be really useful. I've changed back the Scottish National Party's shortname - as I'd already noted on the talk page, these shortnames need to be as short as possible, and "Scottish National" is perfectly clear, and in the format used for all the other party shortnames. Warofdreams talk 22:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for getting back to me. Length is the most important factor; the shortname is used in a large number of tables, and some of them have very little space (see, for example, the list of UK by-elections, where adding "Party" makes the column take up two rows on many displays). The consensus so far has been not to use acronyms, but rather to spell out the words, to give readers unfamiliar with British politics some idea of the parties. This could change, but if so, it should be a general change for all party shortnames. Finally, there are plenty of other examples of parties whose names have been shortened in a similar manner - for example, "Green" or "Scottish Socialist". For some reason, the SNP's shortname has provoked a lot of discussion. Warofdreams talk 13:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC) While I'm not entirely convinced that "Scottish National" isn't an appropriate name, if you are still convinced that the party is a special case, and that despite the space issues, it is necessary to include "Party", I'll happily accept that. Warofdreams talk 02:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Irish articles assessments It seems that the assessment of Irish articles has fallen off the radar but recently Flowerpotman, Sarah777 and I have been doing a little work on this as well as actually classifying articles (actually Sarah has done the most work). Anyway, you are listed as a member of the WikiProject hence this post. The first thing that needs doing is to work on the WikiProject template. Actually there are two templates both of which get recorded by the assessment statistics bot that collects the ratings and creates the listings in the category Category:Ireland articles by quality. The two project templates are {{Irelandproj}} listed on the main project page and {{WikiProject Ireland}} listed on the assessment page—the first allows both quality and importance rating as well as nesting but no reviewer comments, while the second allows quality rating and comments but the importance does not seem to work and comments are not included. This needs to be fixed, so we use one that works fully—can you help? The next thing is to decide if we just let editors assess as they wish or to create some criteria or guidelines for rating the quality and importance of the Irish articles. Personally I am in favour of some guidelines—some will be easy to decide while others are a little more complex. What do you think? Some projects make lists of articles for assessment while other go after groups of articles by category. What should we do? A mixture of both by using a "To do list"? As of the last assessment statistics bot run on Sunday, August 20, only 1462 articles have been tagged, of which 1156 have been assessed for quality but 660 of these have no importance value. Besides these 1462 there must be hundreds more untagged articles that should be tagged when we get the template issue mentioned above fixed. We are not bad in our assessments but some projects have all their articles assessed while others are lacking more than we are. We can really use a few active editors to bring assessments to the fore. Please reply on the assessment talk page as to what you can do. Please help out. ww2censor 17:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)