User talk:Renamed user 1000000008

Essex discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description

A project for the county of Essex, England

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Chris 05:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Maybe you could try Category:Wikipedians from Essex and also place notices e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject England. Simply south (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ganga commonname

Please study the reason behind wp:Commonname, Ganga is an exception to the rule, and this exception is not based on facts. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Brawn GP

Sorry but I'm fed up with drive by editors making unexplained changes. With no edit summary I can't find the consensus, can I?

f1 teams names

I'm happy to defend and discuss my recent changes to Renault F1. talk over here? Tubefurnace (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Jacques Villeneuve

Yeah, you're probably right. I don't particularly agree with the logic that because we don't refer to Anglo-Canadians (Britanno-Canadians?) we don't refer to French-Canadians. (Google kind of backs me up on this).

However, I do agree that it's nationality (not ethnicity) that's the most relevant thing right up front in the lead. As you can see, I had doubts as soon as I made the edit. Thanks for the note. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Irish nationalist editing

Clearly attempts to resolve the problem through discussion with the user have failed, and at least three separate users have reverted his changes. Is it time for ANI, do you think, or is there an intermediate venue? (I mean, RfC or EA/R, in theory, but this is taking place across a number of articles.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, your compromise on Shackleton and his 'nationality' makes sense. Hope that's an end of it and no-one feels a need to invent any more new nationalities. --Flexdream (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Medieval english army

because it does not create an article named, medieval warfare does not explain much, this article discusses a generalized, but not a lot of English. Greetings--190.234.209.127 (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Withdrawn – {{uw-npov2}}

• Based on the discussion on my talk page, it is apparent that this user was inadvertently restoring vandalism while trying to make a constructive edit, which was my reason for reverting and warning. As it is now clear it was a good faith edit, I am removing the warning. Monty₈₄₅ 19:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Red Bull constructor names

Hi Jon. My understanding is that the constructor name displayed above the infobox should match the way it's written throughout the rest of the encyclopedia (e.g. in the "Constructor" column of race results tables), which is not necessarily the same as how it appears on the official FIA entry list. But I must confess I couldn't find that written down anywhere. So feel free to start a discussion at WT:F1 if you like. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Renault and Lotus

Lotus Renault, the former Renault works team, is usually called Renault and the page about it here is named accordingly. Team Lotus, which was Lotus Racing last year, is usually called Lotus. Lotus Renault can refer to both teams. If you want to redirect that one again, please discuss it first. Google shouldn't count above Wikipedia consensus, should it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.46.170 (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What Wikipedia consensus? Read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and honestly tell me you think a significant number of people wanting Tony Fernandes's team are going to be searching for "Lotus Renault". No one calls the new Team Lotus Lotus Renault. And even if a few stragglers did, there's still a hatnote at the Lotus Renault GP page, so everyone's a winner. JonChapple^Talk 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Lotus Renault so we can establish a consensus. I invite to you to express your views there. DH85868993 (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

County Londonderry

Could you explain how the sentence that states that County Londonderry or County Derry is named after Londonderry or Derry adds anything to the article? Mo ainm~Talk 22:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you restored it back to the way I did originally. Mo ainm~Talk 12:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: McLaren

Hi Jon. Yes, the convention is to link to the article as a whole, rather than a subsection. This is consistent with the convention for other companies which have been both constructors and engine suppliers (Renault, Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, etc). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Cher Lloyd

Your opinion on the redirect would be appreciated at Talk:Cher Lloyd. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ulster place names

I don't understand why you've added Scots place names with a cite that is an Ulster Scots document without translation. I notice you also have placed it ahead of the Irish name even where that name clearly predates the English one. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 11:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Ulster Scots names fit into the UK template since it links Scots Language and the names you cite are not Scots. Maybe the template needs updating but that's beyond my wiki skills. The cite doesn't really work because all it does is use the Ulster Scots name – you have to compare two documents to deduce anything. I'm not saying that the USc names are invalid but given the neologistic nature of some of the spellings, a better source would be nice. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Debut

If "either is correct. There's no need to make pointless changes", why did you change it in the first place? [1] You're edit-warring with the other guy, and neither of you are looking good at the moment. If either form is correct, it should have been left as it was originally written. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that – disagreements over style are sometimes difficult, particularly when neither party is wrong, but avoiding edit-wars is the most important thing, I guess. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

List of United States Senators born outside of the United States

Per MOSFLAG we don't use Subnational flags and also the use of the Union Flag for Ireland is confusing an example used by MOSFLAG is that of Oscar Wilde were it states that we shouldn't use either the Flag of Ireland or the Union Flag. Mo ainm~Talk 15:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If we don't use sub-national flags, why is the page in question covered in them? JonChapple^Talk 15:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree they shouldn't be this is a problem I have with the use of flags and why we should enforce MOSFLAG like you did on the Éamon de Valera article. Mo ainm~Talk 15:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. If that's the case you shouldn't have just removed the Ulster Banners, though. What should we do with this page? Change all instances to the Union Flag? Or do away with them altogether? JonChapple^Talk 15:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favour of removing all the flags altogether, as the flags on this article add nothing and probably confuse the reader more. Mo ainm~Talk 15:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a tough one, because I'd say they're clearly quite useful in states that have gained independence or otherwise changed administration. For example, on James Couzens's entry, we'd end up with two identical columns just saying "Canada". JonChapple^Talk 15:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a difference because for one I don't recognise the flag so if I click on it to find out what it is it just brings me to the same page that is wikilinked beside it which is Canada. And looking at other flags used, with Nova Scotia the flag links to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as does Saint Croix. Another reason I have is that for Ireland we have the use of 3 different flags. So for me it is a very confusing article. Mo ainm~Talk 16:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, well I'm not too fussed either way. Maybe we should get rid of the "current country" field altogether? It doesn't seem entirely relevant. JonChapple^Talk 16:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree not to sure what that field is trying to say. Mo ainm~Talk 16:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Having trouble with the formatting of the table when I have a bit more time I will try sort it out. Mo ainm~Talk 17:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, nice one Mo. JonChapple^Talk 17:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be a very good idea to raise the idea of removing the whole column on the articles talk page where interested editors could have their say on it rather than having it discussed out of the way on a users talk page. Personally i think it makes sense to have the column, however i agree the flags can be confusing, for not only does Ireland use three flags, but the use of two different Union Flags in the "old country" column. Then again why are we using Scottish, English, and Welsh flags in the current country column when should they not be Union Flags too just for cohesion with the old country list and seeing as the UK is the sovereign state they belong to. Its a total flag mess. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Irish people

The hatnote at this article clearly states This article is about the Irish as an ethnic group and nation. Seems pretty unambiguous. RashersTierney (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mairead Maguire

Hi, can you find a source where Mairead Maguire self identifies as Northern Irish ? If not I think it is better to just say where she is from. It's easy to find sources that describe her as Irish (e.g. BBC, Haaretz etc etc). Anyone can replace your source with those using the same argument as you, "it's a reliable source". Living people get to define their own identity so it would be better if we had an interview or something like that where she describes herself as Northern Irish, Irish, British or whatever. Sean.hoyland – talk 16:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

flag for Northern Ireland

It does make sense to provide a flag for Northern Ireland, and as it has no specific "de facto" flag (purely depends on point of view whether the UB is or not) for itself anymore unlike England, Scotland, and Wales, then the "de jure" flag makes sense, i.e. the Union Flag. We could always just lump in the flag of the NI assembly in lol. However MOS:IE makes it clear no flag unless one is used for that situation. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately until NI has a new flag of its own (or the Ulster Banner is re-instated, which is trés unlikely), the Union Flag is the best bet. It's currently the only flag of the country/province/"North of Ireland". JonChapple^Talk 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiousity what happened the comments above mine? Makes it look like i just started this as a whole new discussion when it was a continuation of one.

It's all too easy to use the excuse that because the NI Government no longer exists then the flag no longer has any officialiaty, however when did the Scottish, Welsh, and English flags have any officiality in law? And if we go by common use, i'd say the Ulster Banner is used more often than not to represent Northern Ireland regardless of opinions – especially as nationalists use the tricolour to represent all-Ireland rather than NI specifically. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What, the ones about de Valera and the UDA? I was just a bit sick of looking at Domer48 telling me off for "edit-warring".

As for the flag, I completely agree. The Ulster Banner is undoubtedly the de facto flag of NI, hence UEFA, the Commonwealth Games, the PGA Tour, etc., all using it. But this is Wikipedia, so, of course, it's not that simple. We can't even call people "Northern Irish" (i.e. from Northern Ireland), for heaven's sake, for fear of "labelling them". JonChapple^Talk 11:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the POV propaganda warfare part of Wikipedia lol Mabuska ^(talk) 10:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Haha. You're telling me. What do you think to what's going on at Corporals killings? JonChapple^Talk 11:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason as to why the two press sources can't be expliclty stated, and a they are wikilinked too, the reader is all too able to find out what The Independant is. Its a very poor arguement against it. Be careful though, you can be accussed of canvassing. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know about that particular guideline, thanks for the heads up. As much as I'd like to assume good faith, the sentence is clearly being presented in a way that makes it look like the news sources are partisan and that the men weren't tortured, owing to the fact that they're British sources. JonChapple^Talk 16:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I confused you into replying to the discussion on the talk page, by the way! JonChapple^Talk 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i got confused into the wrong debate lol. Your comment is what i was going to try to say in my last comment, but couldn't figure out why it seemed wrong for me to word it. I think your assumption is correct. There is no policy against stating the two sources the way you did. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Oh well, maybe you'll spark the other one back to life! It hasn't been reverted again yet, so it might stick (until tomorrow at least) :) JonChapple^Talk 21:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

1990s

I'm curious. I have a feeling that some, if not most all, of the Scots names have been made-up by the authors of the sources cited. This current Ulstèr-Scotch malarkey seems to have started in the 1990s. If references for those names can be found before the 1990s it would indicate that Scots-speakers might have actually used them, either in speech or writing. My friend Google can't find any references other than those provided in the articles. 92.11.52.106 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure they may have been, because the Ulster-Scots language has traditionally been something passed down from word-of-mouth and, as it says in the article, the literary tradition was for a time almost extinct. It also mentions in the Ulster Scots dialects article that since the 1990s there have been attempts to create new orthographies. Whether any of us like it or not, though, Ullans is given a parity of esteem with Irish under the GFA, so we've got to try and reflect that on here. We can't just leave out Scots names because we don't agree with we don't think they're "authentic" enough. JonChapple^Talk 08:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely Wikipedis has to reflect real facts, not made-up placenames that came about as a result of the GFA? Since when has Wikipedia been subject to the GFA? Even if the language was passed down by word of mouth it would not be unusual for someone somewhere, at some time, to have noted what Scots-speakers called places. The sources you provide are extremely dubious, and that should be pointed out in the article. 93.158.79.70 (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

How are NI/UK government sources "dubious"? The only sources that could be more reliable would be sources from an Ulster-Scots Academy, but they're not built that yet. JonChapple^Talk 08:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And which article? Your grievances are already addressed at Ulster Scots dialects (a little too much so, in my opinion). JonChapple^Talk 08:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you make an account if you want to discuss this? Your IP-hopping's starting to confuse me! JonChapple^Talk 08:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP's arguement can be easily put back at them – what about the Irish translations of place names that are fairly recent? Accorind got IMOS we have to include the Irish version of placenames in the infobox, however many of the modern versions used are provided by Logainm which creates Irish versions of place names. Surely many of these placenames (especially the Irish versions of places based on English such as Newbuildings etc.) are neologisms that are thus also highly dubious then?

Wikipedia works on sources, the above sources i believe meet reliability and verifiability so that is a weak arguement against them. If anything the IP has to prove that the sources are dubious. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hispania/HRT

I don't dispute the fact that the team referred to themselves as Hispania Racing; however the vast majority of evidence (including the FIA's official entry list) suggests that they were entered as HRT F1 Team: [2] [3] [4]. As far as I can see, only this website has them entered under the name Hispania Racing. That is why I altered the table on the 2011 page. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

By jove, you're right. I'll self-revert. JonChapple^Talk 09:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Joe Calzaghe

Howdy. I don't know how you, Mabuska and others managed to get British in the infobox without alot of complaints, but it certainly is good to see. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

None of us did. Snowded did. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Wasn't me! JonChapple^Talk 10:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoah, I may need smelling salts. GoodDay (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

..unless you cover it with another ..

Oh I do like the sex pistols . Anyway Jon there is a question I will ask . As this is the place to do it . You claim the Ulster Banner the de facto flag of NI , where is the proof of such ? I do enjoy a good read but as far as I am aware it stopped being the flag in 1972 , and was replaced with the Union Flag , maybe I am mistaken . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.218.248 (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It stopped being the de jure flag in 1972. JonChapple^Talk 16:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes by law (as de jur means) but do you not acknowledge other de facto flags in respect of NI ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.218.248 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge plenty of others are used, of course, but on an international level when the need arises to represent NI it's the Banner that's used. It's the closest the province has to a government-sanctioned national flag and should be used as such; just as FIFA, PGA Tour, the Commonwealth Games, etc., do. JonChapple^Talk 16:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes NI ,being a province of the UK ,represented at international sports has used different flags in the past aswell being a F1 fan you would remember one example that springs to mind . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.206.39 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some race officials once mistakenly flew a tricolour for Eddie Irvine, who later asked for a special shamrock flag to be flown when he was on the podium (which FOM wouldn't). JonChapple^Talk 17:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I remember Irvine was not happy as he didnt relate to the tri-colour , even while residing in Dublin , it was a stupid act by the FOM . Jordan Racing may have raced under the Irish flag but thier other podium finishers had the correct flags flown . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.206.39 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"My helmet's orange because I'm a Protestant from Northern Ireland, and it's got green on it because I don't want to get shot by the IRA." :) JonChapple^Talk 18:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Often misqouted , here is the full paragraph :D "The orange is because I'm a protestant from Northern Ireland, King Billy and all that shit. Really though, I was just looking for a bright colour, and obviously Senna had the yellow, so orange made sense. It's more a case of the story fitting the colour than the colour fitting the story, if you see what I mean. And the green stripes are for Ireland. Same pattern as Senna's helmet, see."http://www.andrewmueller.net/display.lasso?id=68

Great Britain and Ireland

Hello, Jonchapple. I realise there's one obvious problem with either "two states on the two islands" or "two states on Great Britain and Ireland", to whit: only one of the states – the U.K. – is in fact on both islands. The ROI is on the island of Ireland only. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Very true. Maybe just use "two sovereign states" or something similar, without specifically referring to the islands? JonC^Talk 20:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense to me. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. JonC^Talk 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

County Donegal

"Please go to talk page and state reasons for using a non-officail language . IF YOU CAN PROVE THIS IS AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE PLEASE DO (http://www.gov.ie/)" Do not use languages that are not officail state languages , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IMOS#Place_names "For articles on places on the island of Ireland, show the modern name in English, Irish and, if appropriate, Scots in the infobox if the article has one." If appropriate , considering that its NOT an official language of the State , its NOT appropriate , if you can prove the Ulster Scots is an officail language include it , but only Irish and English are so stop using it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.46.142 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on talk:County Donegal. JonC^Talk 09:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah got it . Still does NOT provide in accordance with citations that its an official language in that state . So leave it out as not approtiate . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.46.142 (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please continue this over there. JonC^Talk 09:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

JonC – thanks for your support in this matter, appreciated. Denisarona (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No probs. JonC^Talk 09:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.46.142 (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed

Hi Jon, I began a discussion on Talk:2000 Tandragee killings as to whether or not its title should be changed. Your input there would be appreciated. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

R.E.M.

I just wanted to note that you're right, in American English collective nouns are almost always singular in construction. Therefore the phrase "R.E.M. is my favorite band..." would be used by an American over "R.E.M. are..." and so on.

I found it interesting to see that the page began as "R.E.M. were..." only to see it changed a few moments later (I expected as much) to "R.E.M. was..." and saw your edit note. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, I think I knew that anyway but just had a momentary lapse of concentration. I suppose it all depends upon whether you're treating REM (or any band) as a single entity or a collection of people – in England, it's almost always the latter. The same usually goes for sports teams too. "REM was..." sounds very odd indeed; to this Englishman's ears, at least. JonC^Talk 20:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I first noticed this on the Depeche Mode page a while ago where an edit war of over the grammar broke out. I found it odd at first that an editor was insisting on using the plural for Depeche Mode until I did a little research. I find the logic on both ends to be interesting. I have no idea when that logic diverged. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution – Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Bacon

Hi, out of respect as I see you are an experienced editor I will refrain from templating you. Could you please stop edit-warring? WP:3RR is not an entitlement. Instead, I wish you would discuss in talk towards a solution. Thanks, --John (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi John. Have been trying to discuss on the user (User:Ceoil) in question's talk to work towards a solution, but they're unco-operative, hostile and have promised to keep blindly reverting with no edit summary any changes I make to the page. Hopefully it's all sorted now, though. JonC^Talk 06:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But I saw you do that yourself here, with your comment. Please, this is not how we do business here. --John (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How am I supposed to proceed when I've been told discussion is out of the question and that any changes I do make will be reverted without question? Perhaps I went in a little bit strong, but I civil with Ceoil and received nothing but accusations of POV and personal attacks in return. JonC^Talk 08:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Pars pro toto

Why are you reverting with the reason that I meant "Britain" doens't mean Great Britain (i.e. the island)? I've added in that "Britain" is sometimes used to mean "United Kingdom". "Britain" does mean "Great Britain" – it even says it in the Great Britain article. It is defined as such in the Collins English Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary. --HighKing (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Have self-reverted for now. My issue is that Britain isn't just a name for an island that's been applied to a larger state – it originally referred to Britanny ("Little Britain") and its inhabitants and later to a Roman province, so I'm not sure it's strictly appropriate here. The usage to mean Great Britain is much more modern. JonC^Talk 15:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand. There's probably lots of examples where "Britain" has a different meaning. But equally valid and true are examples where "Britain" (and even "Great Britain") are used to mean "United Kingdom". BTW, equally your addition of "Ireland" to Totum pro parte is not correct. It explains that In Geography, some placenames are commonly used to refer synonymously to a larger area than is strictly deemed correct but in this case, use of "Ireland" to refer to the state *is* correct. The name does not incorrectly refer to a larger area – it can be used to correctly refer to the smaller area also. Unlike "America" for the USA. --HighKing (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just re-read that part of Totum pro parte and realised it's the article that's wrong! Surely it should be "some placenames are commonly used to refer synonymously to a smaller area than is strictly deemed correct"? The United States is smaller than the Americas, Northern Ireland smaller than Ulster, Ireland (the Republic of) smaller than Ireland (the island)... JonC^Talk 16:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. It's used when a part is referred to by mentioning the whole. So people say "America" (the whole) when the mean USA (the part). In your case by adding "Ireland", you're incorrectly stating that people say "Ireland" when they mean the state and not the island. This is not an example of Totum pro parte because – it is correct. It is not an error. It is incorrect to infer that the island is the "whole", and that the "state" is the part. If someone says "I live in Ireland", this does not mean that the person is referring to the island to mean the state, since the name of the state is also "Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Britain is an official short form of the UK used by the British government, so if we're going down the official usage path it's also not incorrect to refer to the UK as "Britain". Do you have a problem with the re-worded sentence I added? JonC^Talk 17:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Britain an official short form? I don't think it is. Is there a ref for that anywhere? --HighKing (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's on the Terminology of the British Isles article, ref'd with the Guardian style guide. JonC^Talk 17:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, it says what it says in the Guardian style guide. But I don't think that it is right and I don't think there's anything official about it. In the Great Britain article, it says The term Britain, as opposed to Great Britain, has been used to mean the United Kingdom, for example in official government yearbooks between 1975 and 2001. Since 2002, however, the yearbooks have only used the term "United Kingdom" - that seems to indicate that it isn't official. Your reworded sentence is fine. I'd really prefer if you addresssed the Totum pro parte article - it's not even intended as a list, so including a example that isn't correct (and at the very least, unsupported and unreferenced) just strikes me unnecessary and perhaps could be interpreted as a little pointy. --HighKing (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yearbooks or no yearbooks, "Britain" is still used by HM Government on a pretty regular basis: this website, for example, only launched a few months ago, with a mandate for "celebrating, inspiring and accelerating enterprise in the UK". I meant the Ireland sentence on the Totum pro parte article when I was talking about "my reworded sentence" – that's a yes, then! I don't honestly see how it's much different to the "Ulster" example next to it, other than in the sense of official government usage – is that what you're pushing for here? The powers that be in Northern Ireland used "Ulster" for NI in an official capacity right up until the whole ugly business of the late 60s; would you have accepted Ulster being stripped out if we were writing this encyclopaedia 40 years ago? Just trying to understand where you're coming from. Best, JonC^Talk 21:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To correctly be considered "Pars pro toto", using the name of the larger entity must be strictly "incorrect" when referring to the smaller entity, hence using "Ulster" instead of "Northern Ireland". By including the "Ireland" example, what you're actually saying is that it is strictly incorrect to use "Ireland" to refer to the state, when in actual fact it is not incorrect at all. On that basis, you could equally include "Ireland" in the "Totum pro parte" article as an example of using "Ireland" to refer to the island, which would be an equally incorrect example. The example of "Great Britain/Britain" instead of UK is a good example of this (although there's a case that "Britain" isn't a particularly good example, depending on which dictionary definition you rely on). --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You haven't really addressed my point here. Why is Ulster any more incorrect than "Ireland"? Because it's no longer a name with any official currency? JonC^Talk 05:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Just looked back at this and think I understand what you're saying a bit more now, but I still disagree. Ireland the island/civilisation is the origin of the name and has had that meaning since time immemorial; Ireland the state has existed for 90-odd years, so it's clear the state is named after the island. Equally, if "Britain" is used by officially by the UK and its government, by your reasoning we could include (Great) Britain on the Totum pro parte page as an example of its usage to mean the UK is also applied to the island. That, of course, would be wrong as it meant the island first – it's the same with Ireland. JonC^Talk 08:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of BISE ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 10:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Jon, do you mind if this discussion gets moved to the Article Talk page?

In response - dealing with Ireland first in totum pro parte. First off, yes, the name of the island is the origin of the name of the state. No question. Whether it is a synecdoche has nothing to do with what was named "first" - in fact, language changes all the time and meanings change, so what might have been an example in the past may no longer be an example. But for it to be "totum pro parte" the term for the whole must be used to refer to a part of it. So the whole is the island, Ireland. The part of the island, the state, is also Ireland. How can you refer to "Ireland" the island to refer to "Ireland" the state and it's clear that the whole is only referring to the part? Is there an example where the island is referred to as meaning the state (and not just the state actually being referred to?) I understand what you are trying to say, but you are incorrect. On a practicaly note, I struggle to come up with a meaningful example. For example, if you say "Ireland uses the Euro", you can't say that is an example of referring to the island to actually mean the state, because "Ireland" is the actual name of the state, so that usage is correct and not an example of totum pro parte. It would make perfect sense if the name of the state was something different, like "Republic of Ireland" - but it's not.

In relation to you comments on Britain. I found this old page where it says On this site the term ‘Britain’ is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you accept that the island is called "Britain", this is an example "pars pro toto" (and not of totum pro parte as you said above) where a part (the island) is used to refer to the whole (the UK). If, on the other hand, the "meaning" of Britain has changed to refer to the UK, then it shouldn't be used as an example. In this case (and due to the find of the archived page), I'd probably leave out the "Britain" part because it isn't a good example - it's what I was alluding to above when I said "although there's a case that "Britain" isn't a particularly good example, depending on which dictionary definition you rely on". --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you are more likely to find an example where someone uses England when they actually mean UK. Fmph (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting Jon ... and can we move this to the Article Talk page. @Fmph - my point exactly. How can you create an example where someone uses "Ireland" when they actually mean "Ireland"... --HighKing (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. JonC^Talk 13:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jon. --HighKing (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No probs. I know what I'm trying to say but don't really have the time or energy (or perhaps mental faculty) to argue my case any more. I suppose it does come down to official, gov't-sanctioned usage in the end. You're probably right on this one. JonC^Talk 13:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Official government sanctioned usage? Oh that would open up a whole can of worms for some articles. Wouldn't be the first time the governments sanctioned usage was ignored... Mabuska ^(talk) 15:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, especially regarding both those articles. --HighKing (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Bit confused, HK. I was conceding that you were right owing to the fact the Irish state calls itself "Ireland" officially! JonC^Talk 17:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

um - don't think we're disagreeing.... So as controversial it this might be, the Derry article should be located at Londonderry, in my opinion, cos that's the official name. The Republic of Ireland article should be at "Ireland" - although it can't because the island article is located there. So it should be at a different title. Given the historical connotations and implications associated with "Republic of Ireland", an alternative title would be better. Not really pushed as to what alternative - something like "Ireland (republic)" would be fine by me. --HighKing (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm pro-status quo, but that's another chat for another page. JonC^Talk 18:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Belfast

Hi Jonchapple, I'm sure you are already aware that Belfast is under 1RR troubles restriction. To be honest I agree with both the IP and RepublicanJacobite that your edit here does not have consensus so I suggest that you take it to the talkpage. Bjmullan (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops! No, I'd completely forgotten. Shite. There's no way to revert my edits without undoing everyone else's too, is there? JonC^Talk 17:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a tag to the talk page, lest other people also forget. JonC^Talk 17:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would just leave it for now as technically the IP reverts don't count. Bjmullan (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So how come it's under 1RR? Because it was the centre of a lot of the violence? To be honest I didn't forget – I didn't know it was covered. Are all major NI cities covered by the Troubles restrictions? JonC^Talk 17:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest virtually any NI related article could be considered part of the restriction. I think they say if in doubt consider that it is. I think you were just about to get into an edit war anyway so best playing by the book. Bjmullan (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What's your opinion, by the way? Are you in agreement with the IP and RJ? JonC^Talk 17:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes you don't have consensus for the change so go to the talkpage. You don't want to get into trouble after you have just received a barnstar :) BTW I don't think the barnstar is displaying on the userpage? Bjmullan (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I meant about the info itself, rather than my trying to include it. Is it not working for you? They're supposed to be in a drop-down box at the bottom with a "show" button – works on my computer but maybe not for other people...? JonC^Talk 17:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It was collapsed and I didn't initial see it :) As for the edit I don't know if adding a note that something comes 17th in any list is worth anything. In fact just checked the discussion and here is my comment. I noticed that others have now joined the reverting. BTW I see that we both share an interest in Ireland and motorsport! Bjmullan (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I knew I'd come across you somewhere else. Are you looking forward to Suzuka? To be honest I hope Vettel walks it, would rather the boy just gets the championship out of the way so we can concentrate on the racing again. It's been a cracking season on track, even if the title has been a walkover. JonC^Talk 18:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Been a great season. I'm an Alonso fan but my motorsport interest goes beyond F1 into WRC, IRC, Sportscars and cars in general and Porsche in particular. Bjmullan (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I used to follow the BTCC and WRC when I were a lad, but gradually lost interest. Tried to get into Indycar but it does nothing for me. I only got back into F1 last year... switched off during the (yawn) Schumacher years. JonC^Talk 18:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I support your edit, Jonchapple. Last time I checked, Belfast was within the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, GD. You would certainly be correct on that front. JonC^Talk 20:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC

I've raised an RfC for Talk:Kingsmill_massacre#Names_of_victims to get some outside opinions. --Flexdream (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice one. Think that's probably a good move. JonC^Talk 20:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be interested to see what comes in. --Flexdream (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The RfC responses from the genuinely impartial and uninvolved show what reasonable editors think. It's encouraging to know that there's some impartiality on Wikipedia. It might still prove necessary to take this further if there's still not a consensus. Regards and thanks for the advice. --Flexdream (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't mention it. It was your idea and it's proved very successful indeed. I think RfCs may be a good avenue for these sorts of disagreements for the future – as you say, once the usual suspects are taken out the equation the response is often very different. JonC^Talk 11:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Hope you're enjoying your motorsport. Despite the RfC we've not got a consensus, though Bjmullan seems to have noted the contributions no-one else seems to have moved. So the next step I think is mediation. It's not clear if you could currently edit the talk page but it's possible (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Block_Query). Do you want to ask about that, or I could? I think any mediation would be devalued if you, or anyone else, couldn't take part. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

115.113.187.130

115.113.187.130 appears to be an inexperienced editor, perhaps if you engaged the user in discussion directly rather than through edit summaries, it might yield better results to end his edit warring. Although I must admit I too am a little concerned over the use of an encyclopedia to cite another encyclopedia. Perhaps a better source can be found or more agreeable wording can be reached.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll leave a message on their talk, although I'm not sure how much good it'll do. JonC^Talk 14:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Kudos, nice editing on Kenneth Branagh! In regards to 115.113.187.130, at least you will be able to say you tried.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

UKIP

Valid point , but wanting english independence is not the same as a devolved england with same status as the other countries of the UK. Goldblooded (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, but that article covers autonomist movements too. It would be incorrect to have UKIP and the English Democrats in the Proposed state section above, as they don't want full independence like the England First Party, but they do want a parliament and autonomy for England so they're correct where they are. Best, JonC^Talk 11:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you sir for your message on my page :) Ive learnt my lesson now and ive been unblocked :) Goldblooded (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't mention it. Just try to stay out of trouble... ;) JonC^Talk 17:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Tarring and feathering in Northern Ireland

Hi Jon, remember our discussion about people having been tarred and feathered in Northern Ireland? Well, this punishment was meted out in 2007 to a drug dealer on the south Belfast estate of Taughmonagh.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeanne, just found the news report. One symphathises with the drug dealer... and it's not very often I say that. JonC^Talk 09:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Aren't the pictures horrific? In the case of the girls being tarred and feathered for having dated British soldiers, their heads were often shaved in addition to or in lieu of the tarring and feathering. How cruel. Arbitrary punishment meted out by a mob...shudder.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It still continues to a lesser and far less horrific extent for humiliating grooms-to-be before their wedding... though the tar is usually something more benign such as egg. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Shudder indeed. Mob justice can be terrifying, especially when it's for ethno-religious reasons... JonC^Talk 14:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Counties of Ireland

Hi Jonchapple, I noticed you undid this edit, though I do not quite understand your remark as to the non-free images, because these files are on the county pages already. Would you explain to me? Lotje ツ (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lotje, you're right, the images are being used on the county pages already, but under a non-free, fair use licence. The ones on the Counties of Ireland page are all free images, be it user-created or in the public domain. I don't quite understand the logic as to why non-free images can't be used on the Counties of Ireland article, but it appears they're not allowed. Best, JonC^Talk 14:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay Lotje ツ (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

John Weir

Incredible as it sounds, John Weir is an Irish citizen as he holds an Irish passport. I have added a source to confirm this. I would have also imagined him to have taken up British citizenship after he'd joined the RUC.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw your edit. How very strange! Although, presumably, all the SF ministers in the NI Executive, or at least the ones elected to Westminster, still have British citizenship. McGuiness definitely does. JonC^Talk 08:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Uck sure, he's suppossedly a British spy, of course he'd keep his passport lol :-P Oh and thanks by the way! Though i'd have called it an unhealthy dose, and hopefully you don't mind i altered it slightly to state so lol. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, of course not. I was being facetious anyway... ;) JonC^Talk 16:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ireland

There is no 'wilful omission of the flag of Northern Ireland from the English Wikipedia', based on the fact there is no flag of Northern Ireland. Quindie 16:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quindie (talk • contribs)

Legally, there's also no flag of the United Kingdom. What's your point? JonC^Talk 16:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring with 89.100.150.198

If you continue your edit warring with 89.100.150.198 without taking it to the talkpage I will report BOTH of you. Bjmullan (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm done. He can do what he wants. JonC^Talk 06:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, I don't know where you've got this idea from that I somehow need to start a discussion to revert to the stable version of the page. If the IP starts a discussion, I'll get involved, but the onus is on the IP to make a case for their changes, not me to make a case for their removal. JonC^Talk 06:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My latest article

Jon, I think you might be interested in taking a look at my latest article: 1989 Jonesborough Ambush. It's a hot topic now and there are plenty of people in Ireland and Britain who are beginning to squirm as the Inquiry gathers up speed and Pandora's box inexorably creaks open letting out all the musty wee secrets.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Another job well done, Jeanne. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, by the sounds of things. JonC^Talk 20:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, I did![5] Eventually. This is what happens when I edit with no coffee on a small screen. :-/ KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edward Carson

Edward Carson also considered himself as an Irish man but also a unionist, not just British.Sheodred (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Is this in response to something? JonC^Talk 19:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if you deleted the part about him also being Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheodred (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

So Shoedred still edit-wars over it and Domer48 hides the edit with a blank edit. Nice touch. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't get involved in this any more as it probably falls within the remit of my topic ban, but looks like it's settled down now anyway. Although the removal of the word "British" at all for a man who was prepared to take up arms to prevent even limited devolution for Ireland is a touch bizarre. What's even more bizarre is that there are the usual nats/republicans trying to claim him as one of their own. Hah! JonC^Talk 14:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

James I

This is to let you know that I have moved your comment at Talk:James I of England: [6]. Obviously undo if incorrect. DrKiernan (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, only just noticed my mistake. I got an edit conflict with you when trying to strike it. JonC^Talk 14:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Violation of Topic Ban, Probation and 1RR

Your latest actions were reported here.--Domer48_'fenian' 11:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Is your life that empty that you've nothing better to do than continually try to get someone you don't like blocked on Wikipedia? May I suggest that you spend a bit more time trying to actually improve this place – y'know, make some edits – and a little less trawling through my contributions? It really is bizarre. JonC^Talk 19:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing the nationality of people born in Northern Ireland

Please see my (belated) response to your question at User talk:EdJohnston#AE case and Adam Carroll. Edits such as yours risk being interpreted as motivated by your own point of view on the history of conflict in Northern Ireland. It's true that there is no Troubles template at Talk:Adam Carroll, but adjusting his nationality is squarely in the zone that the WP:TROUBLES decision was intended to cover. You are currently topic banned from edits covered by WP:TROUBLES. If you will agree to stop making making edits regarding the nationality of people born in Northern Ireland, I suspect that the current AE complaint might be closed with no sanction. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I'll agree to that. Where should I state it? On the AE page? And for how long? Cheers. JonC^Talk 18:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

On the AE page. It should continue until your topic ban expires. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. To be clear: is this just covering making edits to articles? Can I still post on talk pages about figures from NI? Thanks, JonC^Talk 19:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The notice that KC left on your talk page should give the answer. Since she did not ban you from Troubles-related talk pages or the pages of NI figures, you are still allowed to leave comments on such pages. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Too late, then. Ho-hum. Thanks for trying, anyway. JonC^Talk 23:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for blatant violations of your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."