There appears to be major progress on the lists of countries issue which is great. I was wondering if you have some time, could help try and resolve the Countries of the United Kingdom now. I know i disagreed when i first joined on the use of the term, but after seeing the evidence there is no better term to describe it. It was over 6 months since the poll was started on the merger of Subs / Countries of the UK and the changes proposed would be far better than the current version. I think if it was attempted, an agreement could be reached on this issue which would lead to preventing major disputes in the future. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Exceptional newcomer2 (no border).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
'Zulu nation' as you probably know, is actually a recognised term (and used in the Zulu article a lot)- I thought of making a short intro on it, but didn't have the time. The other alternative is to point 'Zulu nation' to Zulu - it shouln't go to the hip hip group, though. We certainly needed the link (with the small-cap n, the large cap N previously went to the group). I'm busy now, so I'll leave it up to you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Danny is about to announce the winners of the Core Contest, which I think you'll find has been concluded to everyone's satisfaction, including yours. :) Please be so good as to add your new awards to the user pages of the winners. Thanks, Matt! If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me. Proteins (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where to insert it now the discussion has matured, but I loved your rant/objections/gripe/points (not sure how to describe it!), and support you all the way. You bring to light exactly my sentiments and I support you. I'd love to action your proposal, but feel that any work I do to "Irish" articles merely draws me into eon-long nonsensical debates, which take me away from doing what I love best - writing articles.
I'd also like to state that I think you are writing good messages and making good points on the debate. I'm loathe to get any further involved, myself, but I am glad I made the point that re-ignited the "Ireland as disambiguation page" point, tieing it in more firmly with what I understand is wikipedia policy on this issue in the hope that arguments based on motivations, fears, etc would not be so dominant (though it sadly seems to have failed on this matter.) DDStretch (talk)13:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just really came to me that ROI was never my own own personal argument, despite the support I've put into changing it. It's clearly not the most ideal name for the country (it only covers 50 years - 48 to 98 I think) but then Ireland is a republic. I'm often split on it - depending I'm sure on the proposal at hand. If we make this Ireland edit, ROI is always another debate. I've always believed in the edit table (where it really matters on Wikipedia), and I must say I'm chuffed with the all the support for the idea - I honestly thought it was going to be seen as a tad too cynical.
I would add actually that this change can be made, and all other proposals and ideas are still valid options for the future. It needn't be a certified 'decision' and the taskforce need go nowhere. It is basically just a sensible move to make.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Matt. Having thought I was banned from your talk-page, I was peeved. Also, I didn't know your archiving of my previous comments here, was an attempt to appease me (my blunder). I hearby apologies; truce? GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what he was trying to do now, so I've changed my reply. He was still talking nonsense though - he just tried to do it in a 'smart ass' way.
A lot of people seem to be opposing because they want Ireland to be the actual state article! Waggers had a massive rush of blood putting the RM up - he didn't introduce the argument at all, so no wonder people are saying they are confused about it. They see the information-filled Ireland article and think "What's wrong with that? It sums the state up well!" It's interesting data though, if nothing else. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The state article can't be called Ireland, as many will fear it's Irish Nationalist promotion. Indeed, I would oppose the RoI article being re-named Ireland. Nope, Irelandmust be the disambig page. A tough road ahead is inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No - and it won't affect the poll now, alas. If we do it afterwards, and get some more consensus over disambiguation in general, we could always re-propose a variant of this at some point, perhaps at IMOS Talk (seeing as it covers so many Irish articles), with all the neccessary links to it at Ireland, NI, UK, the Wproject and ROI etc. Some people will always grumble with this issue, but so what. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised. Angus is usually spot on, although he's clearly mistaken in this instance. Perhaps it's a momentary lapse on his part?? I wouldn't like to go as far as to say it's "deceptive" but its certainly very odd from where I'm standing.
I'm still stunned by the opposition to the proposal. To me its an obvious way to please both of the usual camps that dominate this issue.... the plot thickens. I really must voice my support actually... may tomorrow. --Jza84 | Talk 02:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I voiced my strong support. One guy said "Strong Oppose - I don't think I even need a reason. It's a country. There is no need for this ridiculous move". That's pure ignorance.
I'd be much more inclined to support Wikipeire's cause if we had consensus to have an article called Ireland (state). I'm kinda wondering where he is right now, although on the otherhand I'm pleased he's not on my radar.
The irony is that some people are saying 'oppose' because they what looks like a state article, and think "what's wrong with that?". So if we removed all the foking stuff (per my rant) first - those voters would probably have got the picture! I've not long ago added more detail to the intro - I should have done that earlier really. Waggers made a mistake in refering to the taskforce really, as people go there and just see the same old crap flying around they've been running from for years. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I may offer an opinion: I think all the discussion that is being engaged in on that page is distracting. It is somewhat confusing at the best of times, and what is/was needed was a concise and and clear statement of what the situation was and what is being proposed to resolve it, and nothing else. Engaging each dissenter on their particular point, and getting dragged into meta-debate, is confusing the issue for some people. I'm not entirely sure what can be done about it now, though. Rockpocket02:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a bit of a losing battle, and in the absense of an explanatory intro that wasn't a set of links, certain culprits started to mislead people on important issues, as they do. I addressed one in particular, but when they keep up their nonsense it's hard to back out, even when you suspect it's part of their plan! The RM broke out of the taskforce with impatience from a few extremely fed-up people, basically, and was rushed too. I'm a bit cheesed off in one way (as I knew exactly what would happen with it, but couldn't stop it) but I'm philosophical too. Amongst it all, progress is definitely being made, and I'm simply not going to let anyone call this RM definitive! It's actually quite interesting what some poeple are saying. It's a lot of new faces too. I'm kind of using it as a debate now (or a place to ask questions, anyway), as it is very unlikely it will pass at this point.--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good plan. I think a similar proposal can, ultimately, be successful. But it has to be managed better and it needs active support from a number of different stakeholders. Nothing motivates neutral !voters than two influential people from very different perspectives putting a joint proposal forward. Think about it. The good news is that there is ongoing discussion, it is relatively civil, and while it is going on the edit warring had decreased dramatically. Keep on it, but keep cool. Rockpocket03:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A place to find consensus was what I set up the taskforce for - nothing has ever been changed on votes alone in this matter. This is the first time the TF has been left, but I think we can all see now that we will have to struggle on with it. There is one thing that can be done regardless of anything though - this. If the RM wasn't behind so much (18-12 now) I would instigate it ASAP - as it would have helped it no end (ie Ireland not looking so much like the official state article). No point rushing now though, we may as well see the poll out. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my comment was rather transparent, and that the meaning would be quite obvious, but it seems that I was wrong. Clearly I'll have to accept that it was a mistake. I apologise for the waste of Matt's time looking for non-existent links. For myself, I take it to be self-evident that Ireland should emulate China and Korea. I have edited quite a few articles on Irish topics, and even more that mentioned it in passing, and hardly any of these concerned the Republic of Ireland, the Free State, Northern Ireland, the Kingdom of Ireland, or even the Lordship of Ireland. Just Ireland, "second largest island of the group separating the North Sea from the Atlantic Ocean". Angus McLellan(Talk)23:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean a radical change to the current Ireland/Republic of Ireland structure (whether we admit the current Ireland article is island-only, or isaland/state, or not). People are currently linking (and fighting) all over the place, so something has to change. All this would be so much easier if people simply said what they wanted to see! I've proposed 'hatnote' alternatives myself - though a disam page would solve the problem of the massive amount of 'Ireland' links out there. Currently, the island Ireland article is against policy - so it will change via some route (see support in taskforce). If it is not changed in this poll (unlikely now), it will be actually edited into line, and the hatnotes will be improved. You cannot have two state articles - the madness here has to stop.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to repeat the arguments here, but if China and Korea can live happily ever after, Ireland should be able to do likewise. Yes, there are thousands of links to Ireland, there's every [[Ireland|Irish]] person who died before 1918 for a start, but what's wrong with that? Who, apart from nitpickers and those with political axes to grind, really cares if random hurlers or Gaelic footballers are [[Ireland|Irish]] or [[Republic of Ireland|Irish]]? Any editor who is deeply offended can always fix it. Or grow a thicker skin. And the tiny minority who can't live with the thought that there might be something wrong out there [xkcd.com] can always sign up for AWB or write themselves a bot, although it had better be a damn clever one or it would get blocked in short order. Anyone who could write a bot that good would be wasting their time working on this. Angus McLellan(Talk)00:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note the dismissive tone here regarding those of us concerned with this breach of WP:COMMONNAME. China and Korea are not anglophone countries, so I'd not cite their treatment on EN:Wikipedia as a precedent for anything. I seem to recall Angus that you were party to a move of hundreds of articles in the "years in Ireland" series without any consensus whatsoever, on the basis that you and a couple of others decided that it was better - or am I mistaken? I also seem to recall that the "official" Wiki line was that "merging" didn't require any discussion or consensus. So, maybe we should merge the RoI article into the Ireland article - no discussion required so long as content isn't lost. Will you support that? Sarah777 (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, given that the article "Ireland" isn't about the rock, and that defenders of the status quo don't think it should be only about rock, we must regard the RoI article (or extensive sections thereof) as WP:FORK. Clipping the fork down to its non-forked elements requires no discussion; nor does merging the forked content in the RoI article into the "Ireland" article. I suggest we get to work on this asap. Sarah777 (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the disam page doesn't work, the next best thing for all the thousands of links out there, is to have Ireland as the state/country article, make ROI a simple redirect to it, and fill up Ireland (island) (offering the redirect island of Ireland for prose). This all can be done on the edit table, although I would suggest stating intent at the taskforce first, and perhaps using the order of:
1) Removing "This is the article about the island" from Ireland.
2) fleshing-out the Ireland article (transfering anything it doesn't have from ROI, and removing NI stuff).
3) Filling-up Ireland (island) with the geographical stuff from Ireland,
I've put it to people at the taskforce here, as although it doesn't strictly need discussion (and we can certainly start it if we need to), there is nothing like extra support, and the final redirect of ROI is more dramatic (though it would ultimately be the unavoidable result, I feel). --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Happily ever after", Angus? You cannot suggest there has been a 'happy' situation with Ireland (especially the last 6 months)? When I compiled these tables I looked at plenty of more 'minor' Ireland articles - IMO they are in a mess because of this, and the endless surrounding arguments simply put people off editing in the entire area.
China begins "This article is about Chinese civilization.", not "China is the article for the island.." as Ireland does. China is a massively complicated area too. I don't wish to be rude, but I actually quite object to Ireland being compared to it - China, Ireland simply is not. (did I even just say that?!). The China article is clearly a giant disambiguation page for a giant subject! This issue regarding Ireland should be simple to sort out, but has too often been made complicated by all kinds of distracting politics. The way I see it, these are all the realistic choices:- --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Variations for change to the Ireland article (inc no-change), including possible changes to the state article.
Ireland disambiguation page options:
Republic of Ireland variants:
1a. An Ireland disam page, offering:
State/country article: The current "Republic of Ireland", an official disambiguator.
Geographical/island article: "Ireland (island)".
1b. An Ireland disam page, offering:
State/country article: The current "Republic of Ireland", an official disambiguator.
Geographical/island article: "Island of Ireland".
Ireland (state) variants:
2a. An Ireland disam page, offering:
State/country article: "Ireland (state)", which uses its official name.
Geographical/island article: "Ireland (island)".
2b. An Ireland disam page, offering:
State/country article: "Ireland (state)", which uses its official name.
Geographical/island article: "Island of Ireland".
Ireland hatnoted article options:
Ireland being the state/country:
3a. An Ireland state/country article, clearly hatnoting:
Geographical/island article: "Ireland (island)".
3b. An Ireland state/country article, clearly hatnoting:
Geographical/island article: "Island of Ireland".
Ireland being the island:
4a. An Ireland geographical/island article, clearly hatnoting:
State/country article: The current "Republic of Ireland", an official disambiguator.
4b. An Ireland geographical/island article, clearly hatnoting:
State/country article: "Ireland (state)", which uses its official name.
Oppose-vote options:
5a.No change. For the status quo.
5b.Unpecified change. Please explain the prefered change.
5c.Protest vote. Please briefly explain.
Important qualifiers
The optional-use Redirect page "island of Ireland" is integral to all options, to aid good prose when refering to the geographical article.
For options where pipe-linking the Irish state is an issue (including option 3a - No change), this can be adressed if the option is decided upon (possible examples [Republic of Ireland|Ireland], or [Ireland (state)|Ireland]).
People must have a preference here, possibly even an ordered preference. This should really be polled at IMOS Talk, and all places involved should be notified - it probably should be 10 days at least, if not longer. People needn't be overly concerned with the mechanics of 'moving' etc.
Whatever happens, either the current Ireland article will be losing it's imposed 'state' identity via the edit table (per policy), or the ROI will become a redirect to a proper 'Ireland' state article (per policy) - and a new Ireland (island) will be created. We cannot sustain having the two any longer (per policy).--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've said before, though I can't find it now, that a thorough edit of the two Ireland articles would be a far more worthwhile project than a continuing war on article names. That being so, I would tend to favour option 4a or 4b - as you know, I'm open to discussion on the name of the state article. My reservations would be to do with the precise meaning of "geographical/island article" - whether this would equate to your famous "lump of rock". Comparison of Ireland to Great Britain may be misleading; there is no all-island (as opposed to all-UK) sporting organisation that I can think of, compared to the Irish Rugby Football Union or Irish Amateur Boxing Association, nor are there any famous all-island-of-Britain bands compared to Thin Lizzy, for instance, with members from Belfast and Dublin.
To avoid getting in an edit war, which could easily end in you being brought before Arbcom even though you felt you were the innocent party, I'd like to suggest you start a user sub-page, where you could work on the Ireland article at your leisure, making sure that the changes you make are encyclopaedic, and not even unconsciously pointy. When you have something you believe you can sell, you could invite task force members and/or others to read it and comment. Just a thought... Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE your choice of 4a and 4b, Ireland (state) (3a and 3b) is probably more realistic than your favoured Ireland (just the island) when it comes to support. I think the argument that we would force titles like Education in Ireland (state) is just plain silly - who ever forces use of brackets in such titles? Regarding Thin Lizzy and Irish Rugby - how many of these examples realistically exist? Surely it's best for all those many thousands of Ireland-as-country/state links out there, if Ireland is the country/state - they immediately become correct. Or we have a disam page like the RM, where the reader can choose. Evertype just made a good point on the RM, that with us having Ireland as island-only, it wouldn't be long before people try and fork political/cultural information back into it (often innocently, after the initial inroads have been made..). It's clearly lead over time to what we have now. Why should we have to 'monitor' for that happening again all the time? When it comes to adding Northern Ireland - I've never been happy about people clicking on an 'Ireland' that clearly means "Irish nation" in the text, and getting information on Northern Ireland.
Focusing on all that, I have to the say "Ireland as island" is at the bottom of the options I would myself accept. I could live with it as a final compromise, but there are simply better options. I'm feeling more and more committed to the outcome as time goes on (rather that just trying to get something to happen), as I really feel we need to find something that isn't going to flare up again in the future: Ireland as island has too much potential for that too happen, IMO.
It’s a good idea for me to use my user space (or Sarah’s or whoever’s), and I probably will if we decide on an edits-only route. It’s too important to ‘experiment’ with on the main pages, that’s for sure. What will pass these changes is a 'Policy vs state-forking' victory, so we can’t dilute that by making ill-conceived edits. I'm still supporting the RM for a disambiguation page over at Ireland, at the moment.
On a side note, I call Ireland a 'lump of rock' (dramatic I know) just to remind people that countries/nations/states are about people. There is danger in getting too attached to land, and more Irish live outside of Ireland than within it, by quite a sizable 'times' degree, I'm certain of that! The Irish I personally know and love are cultural beings, not people obsessive about deliniating their 'home' territory.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the people of Northern Ireland are people too, and they live on the island of Ireland, and many of them play rugby and some of them listen to Thin Lizzy. I've never been sentimental about the dirt I walk on - I'm a people person too. Bear in mind this is not meant as a dismissal of your view. Think of it as a pointer to where disagreements might arise when you're doing your edits. Scolaire (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Matt, I noted the definition of Country, per List of countries disamb page (A country is a geographical territory, both in the sense of nation (a cultural entity) and state (a political entity).), to List of countries and outlying territories by total area and added Wales (it's the 154th biggest country in the world - by area. Though probably 156th once England & Scotland are added). It was reverted. I assume from that that the editors on those pages weren't even aware of the List of countries disamb page, let alone agreed to it. Any thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right - that article (I've not seen it before) isn't in line. Despite its title, it says in the first line it's a list of "sovereign states", but then lists Abkhazia, with a ref. Another case of opening up exceptions for some and not for others, alas. As it is only about 'area', using nations could be awkward, countries is better. When I have time I'll pitch it to them that they need the concons - tell me if you want support if you debate it before I do. As it has a perfect Notes section, and lists Abkhazia too, they don't really have a choice but to enter the UK countries, with the note, constituent country of the United Kingdom. I do get embarrassed when people question the word "constituent" in these debates though - I feel it lets the side down. 'Constuent' is the obvious disambiguator for these situations, at it's better than using country of the United Kingdom in these cases.
The article could begin "This is a list of the countries of the world sorted by total area. The list ranks sovereign states, as well as self-governing dependent territories, with some exceptions. "some exceptions" could link to a 'Notes' section underneath the list, that states that Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the UK constituent countries are allowed. It's their rod - and will probably give them grief in the future. Best is that they lose the ex-Georgian states, and we list the UK concons in the notes section by the UK entry (per notability). Then they can change 'country' in the article title to 'sovereign states'. I supported Abkhazia, and South Ossetia - but sovereignty is sovereignty, and we can’t be biased or sentimental about it. In a sense, Russia recognises them more as a concon or territory, anyway. Lots of places have limited recognition too. Looking at the list, it only has ABK and SO.-Matt Lewis (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Matt. I'm not going to have the chance to bring it to talk until Sunday (I'm at the Millennium tomorrow for the Australia game), as I'd like to keep an eye on the reaction. We'll see how it goes. I would much prefer to have the UK countries listed, but as a next best option I would accept the article's name change. Having a list of countries without some countries on it is ridiculous. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world I'd like to see the constituent countries listed in country lists too (as notable exceptions to sovereigncy, if need be), but it usually poses problems, alas. The name change is best for all concerned. Things like 'Area' could be a part of column in List of nations (which could be N/A, if necessary). Enjoy the game - I'm in no hurry to go back to the lists at this minute. Eventually I'd like to see a 'Countries of the world' standardisation for infoboxes/templates/lists, with a Sovereign state/nation/tribe structure, and a 'Lists of Countries' disam page at the top of all lists. No-one can get 'thrown out' of the entire list structure then, which is part of the problem for too many cases. The term 'Countries' has to cover them all, as 'nations' is taken - but that should appease all but the resenters anyway. In terms of the awkward cases, there are people who promote, and people who resent - but most people don't really care.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that, that one is esily dealt with - it a just a list of tables, each with their own rules. We just have to add a new criteria or critieria with table. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want something to do while taking a break, now Ireland's gone pear-shaped, the Lists are still here. (Really sorry to see that, BTW). Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, my main problem is that a small but persistant group of nationalist Irish POV-pushers have taken over a raft of Ireland/Northern Ireland-related articles to impose their self-determined consensus by turning up for some bloc voting any time there is an opportunity to push something they want to twist. They are the ones making a fuss about Republic of Ireland and they should be totally ignored at every opportunity.
As for the policy, WP:NAME states: "Use the most easily recognisable name". For the island, that is Ireland. It also says "Be precise when necessary". For the country, precision is calling it Republic of Ireland, because precision is necessary to differentiate it from the island. WP:NCDAB also says "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta), that should be used." Here we have an equally clear term (Republic of), so that should be used. пﮟოьεԻ5723:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You completely ignored my 'two state articles' policy question, but reading your completely wild first paragraph again, I think I better leave you in peace! (you are an admin after all). --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Una Smith has still got her Support on the taksforce page, and you counted one more oppose that me, but it is highly unlikely to make a difference now if it needs to get 2/3, unfortunately. People think Ireland is comparable to China. Frightening isn't it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what country should he take the history lessons? You'll find the perspective thingy kicking in and distorting the facts. Very problematic when we want a single POV on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at your own history in Wales and Scotland, and don't invent one for Ireland - it really doesn't need you, but you are like a moth to flame. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that just totting up the words "oppose" and "support" is a sufficient analysis. Some of the votes are about other things, or show a lack of understanding about what the issues are. -- Evertype·✆09:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I've been dishing it back a bit in this particular Ireland poll (it fast turned into more of a debate). I may even have said the first classifiably 'impolite' comment to him - I hope not. The problem is that I remember him from an old battle on the "country" status of Wales, which I've always been upset about, but recently I've only really dealt with him on this Ireland poll. He has real prejudices with nationality, and I've not held back from bringing it up. We may both get warned - I know I did swear at one point. MickMcNee is particular difficult to deal with, as his comments are particularly hard to follow (I often suspect he's obfuscating), so I sympathise with you for having had a run in with him - especially if it's over your nationality. Anyway, I'm off to bed now, but I'll look at it tomorrow. Whatever happens, happens - I've already placed my vote, and made plenty of contributions, so I should have had the sense to back off and leave it when I saw him coming.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Matt. IMHO the RMs at Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation) aren't going as I'd hoped. We (the pro-movers) aren't getting a consensus & also emotions on both sides are heating up. We should start considering when to close these RMs (see further comments at Waggers). GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seem them go 10 days - as long as number57 doesn't close it I don't care. But then I support a number of approaches - one of them will work, as the status quo simply can't go on. I'm more disappointed that the Irish were allowed to vote for that squeaky Irish kid, and thus remove the amazing Spanish hotdog. I don't think that was very fair at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the assumption these RMs are heading for defeat (no consensus for move). It may be best, to wait 1-year before attempting it again. In the meantime (of course), the Ireland Taskforce would go on. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are still being frustratingly ambiguous, mr mischief! 1 year??? There is nothing like planning ahead! I'll I get out my razor blade now. I don't even plan to be in this place in a year! If this disam page Move donesn't happen now (and itsn't part of another package soon - as clearly many voters are either confused, or are afraid of ROI being changed, or want one Ireland article.) - then we can move on one of the "edits-only" idea. I assume you are accepting a possible proposal at ROI, if someone should want to change it to change it to Ireland (state). IMOS is the place to poll these multi-article things anyway, in my opinion. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to see an RM opened at Republic of Ireland, as I believe it should be moved to Ireland (state) or Ireland (country). My guess is, that might not happen, with the 2 current RMs heading for defeat. Remember, about a year ago I was an anti-mover. I have (I believe) some idea as to why we continue to lack a consensus. There's a belief (on the anti-move side), that the status quo is working (I disagree) & some of them are convinced that the pro-movers are mostly Irish Nationalist. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the 'Edits-only' routes at IDTF? ROI could just end up as a redirect to an Ireland that puts the island stuff into Ireland (island), and keeps its 'state/country' identity (but without NI). No poll or RM would ever have to happen - it would involve some 'tough' editing though, which I wonder sometimes if you don't have a phobia of! Sometimes, GD, you just got to make the edit.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an empty threat. If does end up in arbcom, so be it, but I didn't find that comment too clever at all. Nobody needs a warn anyone about anything - we all have a right to edit. This is simply about policy as far as I'm concerned, and the countless admin and editors who run a mile from Ireland might do well to be more confronted with it. And Ireland should be welcoming people, not confusing, shunning, warning or intimidating them anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know they say in adverts that past performance is no guide to future performance, but it's the best one we've got. Based on the past performance of the editors likely to be involved and the outcome of similar cases, I conclude that there would be unhappy editors, because they got banned or blocked, or unhappy admins, because they are doing the banning or blocking, or unhappy arbitrators, because they have to hear a case which could have easily been avoided. Any or all of these might cry themselves to sleep over this. There's no threat here, it's simply my guess at the outcome. Angus McLellan(Talk)02:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No pain, no gain. What was easily avoided was to not allow a compromise solution from happening, which can't be attacked by people like me waving Policy! The truth is there are too many angles. It looks like there are two opposing sides, but there are many. The status quo does have a large vocal support in itself, I would agree - but those people are ulimately a small minority on Wikpedia. Only policy can sort this out, and if that takes it to Arbcom, so be it. When it's finally done, it is roses from then on, and no one will long look back as they will simply have no need to (as nothing will be broken). --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll probably laugh at me for this :) but... Your main objection to the status quo seemed (seems?) to be ROI having two articles (one at ROI and one at Ireland). Scanning the Ireland page I think everything is fine (ie applies to the island of Irland) until I get past the subheading "Transport". I ask you: What is your objection to moving the relevant content over to the respective ROI and NI pages? Surely you wouldn't wish to move "History of Ireland" to the ROI article? (Would you??). PS: Regarding the squeeky Irish kid. ROI aren't allowed to vote in the x factor this year... Best, --Cameron*11:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holy smokers, I just noticed. Republic of Ireland has been moved to Ireland (state). I hope these moves stick, but I suspect a coming storm. GoodDay (talk)
I'm not planning to make a big deal about it - I'm simply fully supporting it with edits.. We all need to get behind the admin, now someone has made the initial move! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased with the administrator's actions. I fear for the consequences too (he might end up, having his adm duties suspended). GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that can be sorted after the protection at Ireland is removed (or now, even). I didn't know how to move it back, and we can't have the disam page Ireland misleading people. Maybe someone who knows how can do a proper 'Move' can sort it out. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's another permutation for sure, but I think people know now that it won't last forever now - there is simply no longer any need for it. It was only originally brought in because the island was chosen as Ireland. There are many who will stall things to the bitter end (its an easy life just opposing things, and pride is at stake) - why go through all that? We may as well move on what we have now. I never had a specific gripe with ROI, but now we have the disam page, and Ireland (state) is a sensibly symmetrical option to Ireland (island), ROI is just a name for 1948-1998 and a football team. People have slowly for some time been admitting that 'Ireland' was the main stage too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are some dangerous issues in allowing small cliques to decide things in remote wikipages without seeking local consensus, Matt. Right now anyone can look at that, see it was a clusterfuck and herefore disregard any claim of consensus put against any future move. Done properly I do think Ireland (State) has a good chance, but I do think we should give the community the chance to express that view rather than being paternalistic. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has always been various options going back and fore, and simply leaving this 'move' to be reverted, is sending out all the wrong signals regarding the support for it. I see it as a clear policy move made by an admin who saw people succesfully stonewall every move from an un-policy situation. Wikpedia is not a democracy, and poll-playing must be protected against. The change is here now, and we simply must edit according to it. It was my personal number 2, not number 1 - but so what? It works. Whatever happen with ROI is up the advocators of the term. Why should I give them my energies? They've done nothing to help me (always the very opposite) - it's up to them to fight their own ground. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, a special thank you for your perseverence over the past months. I notice that a number of images of Ireland use the title "Republic of Ireland", some of which you uploaded. I've prepared alternatives that change the title to "Ireland (state)" instead - what do you think? --HighKing (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I used 'Ireland' on the last one, but I've decided to spend the time now doing some of the more obvious (and less arguable) editing. This took me (and everyone) by surprise, obviously. I don't mind 'Ireland (state)' - I'll change it when I get a chance. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland (state) has been reverted to Republic of Ireland by an admin who thinks that one hadn't been discussed sufficiently. -- Evertype·✆18:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland is actually protected pointing to Ireland (state) (jza84 is a genius). It will take an admin to change it, and the moves I've just made back to Ireland (state), simply support the current Ireland disam page. So it's up to the admin now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Ireland described as a "country" (not just a state)
I think better yet, we just use the {{otheruses}} tag. We don't need additional definitions as "Ireland (state)" is not ambiguous. It would also stop any future edit warring about minor detail. Furthermore, Northern Ireland isn't going to be confused with "Ireland", or certainly no more than those terms at United Kingdom (disambiguation) would with the UK. --Jza84 | Talk 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot better, as the chronology question isn't open. I agree that NI isn't really needed as a hatnote - but I'm ok either way on that.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are really looking very stupid, moving the science section from Ireland (island) to Ireland (state) when that section is an all-Ireland section containing some non-Ireland state data. Did you even read the section before moving it? Obviously not. Enjoy your victory celebrations for a premature and bad close. Don't bother to reply, I don't even want to hear your pathetic justifications. ww2censor (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said in the edit note that I removed the NI scientist - it should ALWAYS have been in the state article. I will put this to Civity if you are rude to me one single more time. I asked you in talk what your issues were AND YOU DIDN'T REPLY. You don't have a leg to stand on.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's always appears to be your way or no way. It also seems that you can hardly ever discuss without repeating your viewpoint if it disagrees with yours, or after the fact. Remember you don't own any articles but the way you edit even when other disagree, makes it look like YOUR articles. Indeed the addition of the science section to the Ireland (state) just proves my point because most of the prose refers to pre-1922 people and therefore does not even belong there but you are the very person who only wants things to do with the Irish state to be in Irish state article, so why can't you even enforce to your own views? Perhaps you have forgotten already. Don't threaten me Matt, because civility is not constantly barraging people who disagree with your views or feel your edits are wrong or inappropriate as this clearly is. ww2censor (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a threat, it an obligatory warning - behave like that again and I will file a report. You were totally out of order.
I have done nothing but offer compromises - but you demand no change. Nobody in the whole taskforce accepted more outcomes than I did! I stretched my mind as much as I could looking for ideas. I simply cannot agree with you desire for the status quo - therefore you keep saying I'm a 'my way or no way' man. It is cheap and it is wrong.
You always talk about the old 'Republic of Ireland' article as if it only covered 1922 to today (presumably because of its name)! That is entirely your own rule. 1) The name ROI existed from 1948-1998 (and now as an alternative name) - so in 1922 it didn't even exist. 2) It was supposed to be the main Irish nation article for all its history. 3) It was the official Ireland article that is featured in countless lists etc that need a flag and a country, whatever era. 4) It has now been changed to Ireland (state) and whether you like that or not, I have every right to edit to what currently exists.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ireland (island). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ww2censor (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you gave one of these to Hohenloh? (*has look - of course not*) The guy who keeps refusing to respond to me, or even acknowledge me, and is telling people I never discuss! If he lies out-right in his edit notes, I am simply entitled to get my edits back, in my mind. And he is wholesale reverting of all my work. After all the work I've done (none of it really 'controversial' as you know fully well - I've done the basic minimum), what am I supposed to do but bring it back? It is all appalling behaviour - you are just pushing it to the wire. But why? What is the point? To at least waste more of my time while you are wasting your own? Whatever happens to the Irish nation aricle, this one is never going to go back to the policy-exploding nightmare that it I am proving with almost each edit that it was. I would try and have a hand in its future if I were you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is just rubbish Matt. You reverted 3 times, so are were on the cusp of violating the 3RR rule, hence the warning, while Hohenloh had only reverted twice so there was no need to warn him and I reverted you once and then tried to enter discussion but as usual you did not agree. Reverting is not the answer, discussion is, but from previous experience imho you don't really discuss issues, you tell editors they are wrong and that things should be the way you want, or see, them. That's the major problem. I have yet to actually see any possible iota of compromise from you. you make it clear you are right and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong. Unfortunately that will get us nowhere fast, or even slowly. Perhaps the Arbcom will clear the air even if not to everyone's satisfaction. ww2censor (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that the map you constructed was edited earlier today by User:Roadnote who changed the colour to green and has now gone round editing all the captions. A bit of a sleight of hand there on his/her part, I think. I think it should go back to being yellow. Is it me or has there been a mini-spate of mucking around with UK articles since the big Ireland change? Hohenloh tried to do something earlier on British Isles that I reverted, and I vaguely have an idea there has been more. Now this. DDStretch (talk)17:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered if you were doubting your vision after what you saw (yellowy orangy yellow..)! Those two may be looking at my history, alas - both of those I initially (and quite politely) asked to clarify their position on their talk pages, re their ambiguous opposes on the Move page. Roadnote politely answered in fairness - Hohenloh has been studiously ignoring each of my attempts at dialogue. I wouldn't mind, but he tells me to "discuss first" in his edit notes, when I make sure I do (even to him too).
I feel impelled to edit Ireland I'm afraid - now we have it here to edit. I think leaving it as it is (ie waiting for something to happen) would give out the wrong message. I think it's going fairly ok, considering all the past. It was never going to change with a handshake, and plenty of effort is still ahead. (what to fork, how to pipe, consolidating the Irish state.. fixing cats etc - it can all be done, and it's only fair that I do my share... I just want to get going.) I suppose these side effects were always likely. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but "the red ones are harmful, I understand..." (with apologies to "The Pathetic Sharks" comic strip as was seen by me in Viz more years ago than I can accurately recall now - probably back in 1990, in fact. I think the phrase was an almost catchphrase of "Hammerhead" and played on concerns about hyperactivity in children of the effects of red food colouring.) DDStretch (talk)17:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I probably haven't either. I didn't have a particular favourite, but Jellyhead Robinson was a one-off I remember: "if only Jellyhead could reach her reward". Doctor Poo was another good one-off apparently (Tom Baker needing lots of dumps). It's amazing what you find on Wikipedia - no one person has a clue what is on it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
e/c It's better looking, but I worry about the Orange Order thing (ie it's a Unionist colour). People made a decision on yellow at Talk:Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. I agree it's a politcal map - but NI does have its 'areas'. I'm happy to cross bridges when we come to them, though. Maybe I shouldn't have labelled it a political map.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The decision on yellow was made while they were keeping Ireland (the state) grey though. I think the orange looks nice... would like to see if people give feedback. I can change the colour readily... i am happy with the font. -- Evertype·✆18:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit rich when you went over my earler version!! You can't use orange - read up on you politics please. Look up Orange Order. Blue and its variants is the sea and Scotland - and there is politics there too. We already have kaki-yellow and yelow! I don't get it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to discuss at Ireland, I think. Subdivision was replaced with Countries of the UK (in its contituent countries sense), and just happened to be where I opened the United Kingdom map discusion some months ago. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss at Subdivision, where I have taken some pains to upload a variety of images so people can see Northern Ireland colours in various contexts. I'll notify Countries about it. Thanks! -- Evertype·✆12:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated my case clearly and rationally a number of times now why orange and blue etc are not right. What is wrong with what we've got as colours? (ie kaki-yellow or yellow for NI). If it aint broke, don't fix it. I spent a lot of time on the original UK maps - not one single person has complained until you now. Why now? I find utterly perplexing, and I simply dont't have the time. We have masses to do and we are fussing over hatnotes reverts and map colours!!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ones we have don't look very good. The yellow is garish against Ireland's green, and the khaki yellow looks bad. It is hard to get more than one green to look good against another, and finally, the text on all of your maps needs to be replaced so the maps look better. -- Evertype·✆12:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also - why take the discussion away from Ireland Talk? Nobody knows about Subdivisions, and it was even up for merger at one point with UKcons. I just don't get it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because if we are to have a colour for Northern Ireland that looks well with both of these sets of maps (which I would like, recognizing that you don't think it's important) the discussion should take place in the context of the two sets of maps. DDStretch asked to see the UK Countries maps done with Ireland greyed. I did that over on Subdivisions. I guess it's not only me who would like to improve these maps. Please don't be upset with me for wanting to work on this. -- Evertype·✆12:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all means go ahead. This just isn't the time for me -- Ireland has a huge amount of work of hard ahead on it, and I mean to embark today. I'm happy with whatever you do, I can only point you to the Orange Order, remind you that the sea is blue and that Ireland is not in the UK (and so should be grey like France) - and wish you well! --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I was not proposing to have Ireland green on the map of the UK. The coloured versions over at Subdivisions Talk are there ONLY for the ease of comparison. There is no suggestion that Ireland should be anything but grey on those UK maps. The object is to be able to see the colours in context, so that we can have the same colour for Northern Ireland on both sets of maps. That's all. -- Evertype·✆14:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Danite123 (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Hi there, I’m researching an article about Wikipedia, and its editors. I wonder if you I could talk to you about Wikipedia, and how you use it, for a magazine about not-for-profit organisations. If you could spare some time and wouldn’t mind answering some questions by email or phone, please contact me on Bennett.d@hotmail.co.uk, or leave a message here or on my talk page.
Many thanks,[reply]
I was absent from WP for three days. When I left, the Republic of Ireland and Ireland articles were in tact, and a vote to move Ireland to Ireland (island) was failing. Now I return and I see Republic of Ireland has been changed to Ireland (state), and Ireland to Ireland (island). How has this happened? This is scandalous. Mooretwin (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An admin I've never seen before took everyone by surprise and made the move. Talk is at Talk:Ireland, and the Incident page. He also has a talk page. He refuses to budge on it, and has told everyone he isn't interested in the grief anymore. No admin has thus far reverted him, though he's had a mixed reaction from them. Ireland (now a disam) is locked for a few more days - it was locked for a week before he did it. I just started making edits. It wasn't my number 1 choice (but not by much), and it suits me fine. I admire his gumption, as policy comes before polling in my book. At least all the wayward 'Ireland's are no longer wrong to varying degrees (not right or wrong, which is fine).--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So do I - if they make a 'bot' change all Ireland links into Ireland (island), like they seem to be threatening, I'm out of here. I don't know how to tackle technical admin stuff like that, and I don't fight what I can't tackle.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is completely uncalled for. I request that you remove the edit and take this as a warning against personal attacks. Terms like "sod off" and telling other users to "go to hell" are not acceptable on this project. Another editor was trying to engage in a sensible discussion on a topic, and you have treated it as a personal attack against yourself and responded venomously. Comment on the articles, not the editors. Canterbury Tailtalk15:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That other editor was you - why not just say it? Why hide it - how silly.
This is an e/c anyway, I'm having a break until people like you can come to your senses (or get off you arses and read up on the situation)--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the other editor was me, I'm not hiding that. It is however not the first time you've been warned about personal attacks and incivility to other editors. I understand you're under a lot of stress at the moment, but it's no reason to make attacks on other users. As a result just accept it as a warning, and don't make such edits again. However if in the future you continue to make personal attacks against myself, or other editors, then you will be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. Canterbury Tailtalk17:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments on Ireland (state) talk (whatever it is called now) were frankly provocatively ignorant, esp from an admin. You and your biased political views (which I've come across before) makes you an abuser of Wikipedia in my eyes. Read you own comments and think. I'm resigning anyway, so do what the hell you want. The place is totally corrupt - you, waggers, tariq, Deacon of Psyillyname - how can anyone trust any of you? I mean that - think about it (if you can). None of you are trustworthy - it is an simple as that. Overhaul the stupid admin system and put in some proper rules in this place. It stinks.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean you can respond with attacks against them. Oh and please enlighten me as to these politically biased views, and what you're accusing me of this time? In case you hadn't noticed I was in support of this move, I think it's a good idea and wasn't against it. Are you truly resigning? If you wish I can block your account if that's what you want. I don't want to as you are a good editor. Canterbury Tailtalk17:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 WEEK WIKIBREAK - This is just anarchy for trolls and IPs and the moment
I can't edit with people like MickMacNee running riot - it's just lawless. Some new/periphery admin need time awat from my comments to think too - they clearly have never really understood the problems surrouding Ireland (and they are not that easy to get hold of - as in as stupidly obvious as they think they are). They have the rudeness and sheer NGF to talk to people like they are "doh" not getting the "doh" obvious. What goes on in these people's heads? I'm tired of being adressed as a POV-pusher, or remedial in some way. It should be fucking obvious there has been a serious problem here, let alone the gory details. I'll be back in a week when the dust has settled, and I'll have at look what is around. If a bot has been set loose, I can't see myself being interested somehow --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. I have brought the protected-page edit-requests, live polls and urgent debate re the dispute over the page lock to the bottom of the Ireland page - you (a notoriously contentious editor) have continually moved them to the top so you can continue the totally unproductive MickMacNee show over the page Moves. How are we to sort out the Ireland disam page with you doing that? You have no "policy" at all - as I said to you there, admin have in the past advised my to bring the urgent stuff to the bottom - it is simply necessary when people like you are around. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't reply with personal attacks just because somebody disagrees with your sense of what is right and sensible. You continually want to make these disputes personal and paint them as one on one - continually and deliberately acting totally deaf when others have also pointed out reasonable objections as to why your actions are disruptive to other people. I am sure everybody by now realises that if something is not disruptive/constructive in your eyes, then it shouldn't be considered so in anybody's eyes. I did not move anything 'over the top', if you don't see that, you simply don't understand what basic talk page convention is at all. And by not leaving any explanatory notes at all when refactoring ongoing sections, you showed you don't even understand what refactoring is at all either. You moved entire sections into positions pre-dating other sections, you totally confused other editors, you made an open RFC appear older than it was. You have clearly not understood the supposed admin adivce you recieved, because it would not have taken that form. And then you edit warred beyond 3RR to impose this personal opinion of what was right against objections. That is the reality. You laughingly try to call this the Mick show, yet you expect anybody using that talk page to dance to your tune, and read the page how you and only you want it formatted. If you don't like the fact that these things are just unnacceptable period, then by all means please take another very long wikibreak. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are a notorious editor who has made the past couple of days a nightmare. You filed a report on me to get me in trouble, when all the disruption was on your side. I bet the proof has gone too with this new Move! What a fucking mess - what a total fucking mess. You tried to destroy a page that gets over 10,000 views a day - all I did was try and make it right, and you know it. Fuck you, and your anti-Welsh hatred too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear abuse of your powers Ben. You have no right to block anyone for a personal attack on you. That sort of behaviour is totally unacceptable. Lift the block at once and call for a neutral Admin, if you must be vindictive. Sarah777 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wales is a country..." That was my supported proposal. Just get your facts straight. And stop bringing such obvious previousy irrelevant disputes into current ones. The history log of the Ireland page still exists, here. MickMacNee (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to your continued attacks against other users, you have been blocked for a period of two weeks. Please use them to go away, cool off, and return afresh. I acknowledge that the last few days have been stressful for you, but that is never an excuse to make attacks as you have. Canterbury Tailtalk18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sent an e-mail to Matt about this blocking and asking how he was. He asked me to put this here: "To blocking admin: I accept that you've removed my reasons for resigning (the tone, content and language of which lead to the sizable block), but would you kindly replace the word RESIGN (which I did before being blocked). Cheers to all those I got on with, Matt"
Matt is still free to edit his own talk and User page. He is also free to return after his block, or before if he promises to cut down with letting his emotions (of what has been a stressful few days for him) get the better of him. If his involvement is needed for a discussion or arbitration then I shall also unblock him. Canterbury Tailtalk19:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to resign, Matt. Do as I've done, step away from the Irelands discussions. It won't be easy for you (considering the time you've put into it), but it can be done. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently gave you a Barnstar, so if you resign you'll make me feel like a jinx. I have been watching this from a distance (thankfully) and see no reason for you to do this. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're truly resigning? I commend you, for what you've tried to accomplish on those articles (Ireland taskforce). Gosh darn it, ya gave it your all. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you think I've done here Sarah? I've blocked a user for making personal attacks against other editors. Wikipedia cannot have its editors going around making abusive comments to others, it is simply not on. I would block anyone for making personal attacks against another editor, and I hope that if an admin made such comments they to would be blocked. So please tell me what I've done wrong here? Canterbury Tailtalk22:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to support Ben, to a degree - Matt was grossly uncivil/attacking and really should have known better after what happened the last time. But I do think that 2 weeks is excessive. In any case I join the chorus in the hope that Matt returns, his contribution to the project has been truly valuable and we need bold editors like him around to stop the project stagnating, as it has in certain quarters. waggers (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unblocking Matt in case he wishes to participate in any of the subsequent discussions. If he continues to make abusive comments and personal attacks though, he will be blocked again. Canterbury Tailtalk22:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute
Ben, I underestimated you. Very, very sincere thanks - you did the right thing. But if he attacks you, please, let someone else handle it. Sarah777 (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. I had no involvement in this entire Ireland page move discussion and fiasco. In fact, last time I got involved I was for a move, just not a move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland, but I do think with proper planning and discussion a move to Ireland (state) is a correct one, pending consensus of course. My only involvement was in pointing out to Matt that the article Republic of Ireland was about the modern state, and was not a general article of all Irish states and hence didn't need Northern Ireland in the hat disambiguation at the top. Canterbury Tailtalk23:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will say one thing though, if someone levels a personal attack against me I will give them a chance to recant it. If they continue to pursue with further personal attacks, after the warning, they're getting a block. And it's not just against me. If any member of the project does such personal attacks after a warning, they get a block, I don't care who they are. Some things have to be put down before they get out of hand, and some behaviour just will not be tolerated. As a rule I only block for personal attacks, repeated vandalism after continued warnings and very disruptive editing (which results in a temporary block and a request for them to go away and cool down before returning.) Matt was given a chance to remove his comment and given a warning. He continued, so I gave another warning. He continued, so then a block was issued. I've only lifted the block because of the exceptional circumstances of the last few days (and in fact I lifted a block from Matt previously as well.) However, if he should return once he has slept on it and calmed down, and continues to issue attacks on other editors then I will not hesitate to block him further. Canterbury Tailtalk23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just about to post something below you can read and follow/use/refer to/link to (whatever), if you want. Admin have my balls now, so couldn't stay if I wanted to - and to be honest, I don't. Take care (and don't be so hard on us Brits!), --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please decide to return to the project. As U2 sang - "Don't let the bastards grind you down". Without people like you, this place would go nowhere. --HighKing (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I give my views on the two Irelands in the paragraphs below, but I will begin with what I feel is most serious.
I've had a look back, and IMO, there is one thing in particular I that is pressing for Wikipedia's future here:
The admin User:Deacon of Pndapetzim must have his adminship fully questioned in the correct place. No one has a chance on Wikipedia when an admin acts (and wheel wars) like he has done – and I believe he has overstepped the line, and made a difficult but legal situation into a nightmare situation for everyone. I warned him of the mayhem that would be caused if Ireland was simply reverted into being a cultural all-island article, but he ignored me. This edit note (and selective deletion) is an example of the kind of intellectual demeaning by admin that lead to me losing my own temper. You cannot treat adults like children. It shows feelings of superiority in being an admin - which must not be condoned. Aside from his attitude, the way he reversed admin Tariqabjotu's Ireland Move, citing a very small hand-picked selection of admin who share his personal position on this - to his own personal wishes, was totally unacceptable. Where were all the other admin I saw who spoke up? For reasons I give after after I get the following paragraph off my chest, he completely shattered Wikipedia for me when he did that, and his reasoning for doing it showed it to be nothing other than an act of hypocrisy, as well as self interest. Arbitration are not there to be interested themselves (by their own admission) - they are only there to be there, and there is nowhere else now to to go. It has all been completely messed up now – so Arbcom has to be pulled in.
I regret that I am leaving Wikipedia with the worse kind of people in my mind, in a place that is actually full of fantastic unacknowledged philanthropy. I won't go the way of saying what I (100%, in all good faith, IMHO, genuinely, without doubt etc, etc) honestly think this is comparable to - people call it a 'Godwin', a commonly-used term which belittles the technical purity of the very example - an early internet 'battle' won by some clever person, for sure. But you have to think beyond the cliche. The talk-page admin 'cop out' over any car crash, is normally to pretend this place is just a pastime, but WIkipedia is a little more important than that - no? And conspiracy theorising - don't point that one at me – it us such an ugly slur. Who needs those, when you give ‘’individuals’’ so much power? People group - they always do. The only 'conspiracy' could be within wondering why Wikipedia has to be structured in this way. It's a Sunday drive, and includes the world - but anything difficult like this? The structure simply breaks down. So do some people want a loose ship? A negative answer would have little to do with the Irelands anyway.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and equally bad is a wrong made after a right. Now how was Deacon right? The first move to Ireland disam/(state)/(island) was rational and sound 'policy-over-polling', the reversal (in the horrendous way it was done) was wrong in every possible way. Those who were interested in doing so, simply needed to re-debate it from where it was (perhaps prove it in a global poll?). But why should I do even more work towards facilitating that? I have given hundreds of hours of my life to this already. And where now were those originally opposing? A number of them were addressing new content. The carefully avoided truth is that a global poll (so hard to bring about – I know, as I’ve tried) would simply bring in changes. I gave my time editing the changes I saw before me, and my work has been cynically thrown down the drain. And look at the edit frenzy now! Too few admin actually give a shit when people's time is wasted. The reversal of tariqabjotus's move has vindicated every troll, SPA, contentious editor, sock-maker and IP-abuser watching, who in this Ireland problem, are the worker-minions of the wholly-debilitating 'dual Irish country' "solution".
Ireland isn't Palestine, it isn't the People's Republic of China, it's just a country commonly called 'Ireland' on an island which has two states on it (one with a sea divide) - called Ireland - and Wikipedia, despite the efforts of so many, hasn't been allowed to properly address and present that undeniable fact. The Irish country now has two time-sharing homes again - two mixed-up modern-day country articles, one of them subsuming part of a separate country altogether - simply because it shares the island. Silly non-policy arguments about where to put historical 'Ireland's aside, there has always been an Irish nation (covering all or most of Ireland), and Wikipedia should have one article to deal with that. Irish history has at times been dramatic, but is NOT MORE complicated than other European countries, most who have had changed borders and reversed control. There should be no room for this kind of bias on Wikipedia, whether romantic, nationalistic, or simply idly seen as “the best”. I spend a long time proving (even using tables) what the abuse to logic has done to Wikipedia - and my work was been sometimes met with ignorant contempt. I'm not having that from biased admin - I've had enough of it from biased editors.
It can be proved that the term 'Ireland' is used more to mean the contemporary or older-era nation, than it is to mean the geographical island. In the incidences where meaning is ambiguous, we naturally must assume first that the single-state 'state/country' option is meant - not the two-state (IE and UK) 'island' one. Ideal was Tariqabjat's Ireland disam page (per America, a 'catch all' for all those many complicated links. And also good is having the Irish nation as the Ireland article, and have Ireland (island) a standard landmass article, like Europe or Great Britain. The latter can be done without any Moves at all: ROI can become a Redirect, and the Redirect Ireland (island) furnished with the the island stuff. Britannica has Ireland as the Irish nation, with some detail on the island, and has a separate NI - but Wikipedia might be too inclusive for that.
I told Deacon I would re-present the proof of Ireland most often meaning contemporary or older-era nation on Wikipedia especially for him, but he isn't interested in being shown anything. Fighting admin is fighting a whip. The arrogance of Deacon and those like him is simply threatening. Nothing should have been down to any admin decisions at the stage things were in. The problem here is too endemic – the pushiest admins rule. The whole admin system needs an overhaul, really – they should be much more defined. Arbcom needs to prove its value here, as this has certainly gone beyond standard mediation now – Ireland has become a trolling paradise. It is possible that not every 'official' mediation route has been taken in the past - it could be said that the WP:IDTF Task Force was ultimately made instead - but every single request made for 'unofficial' neutral-admin help to mediate even particular stages, has been met with absolute stone silence. Too many crimes have been committed now not to get Arbcom involved.
I've patiently (I am in fact a patient man) repeated the same things so many many times now, and I won't be doing it again at Arbcom myself. Feel free to point to the above, if anyone wants to hear my view. I think I've covered most of my position, other than to add that the two Irish country articles problem has been a progressive one over time (the content shifting/forking and the muddled links) - so saying this is a 4 year fight against 'consensus' is simply not right - the mess itself has, IMO, got to breaking point.
Personally, Wikipedia has truly done my head in! Like for a good number involved, the Ireland articles were never originally my battle. My own take on the convoluted politics involved is this: I see the status quo of Ireland (the island) being made to cover the historical Ireland with modern stuff too, and the obviously modern country of Northern Ireland mostly invisibly assimilated is more Irish nationalist than NI British "Unionist" (for those who don’t know - NI is not ‘6 borrowed Irish counties’, it is a constituent country of the UK - see UKCOUNTRYREFS). In sections like Science (now sadly moved back to Ireland island) - every person mentioned in it is an implicit 'citizen of Ireland' the island, no matter which country he or she came from. The NI scientist it mentioned wasn't even covered in the main NI article - until I addressed it in that little window of sanity tariqabjotu gave us. How on earth can this version of Ireland be a NI British Unionist position? Do they really lay claim to the whole island (a myth based on anger over history, surely) – or is it really Irish nationalists laying claim to NI? Why aren't the supposedly ‘history minded’ focusing on history sub-articles, like everyone else on Wikipedia? The politics involved has been a minefield to break down, and many deceitful people clearly abound - hiding their positions, and using socks and IPs to make other views look bad I'm sure: some of more extreme WP:SPA's seem to me self-defeating caricatures. Wikipedia needs to avoid all the politics here, and simply insist on a Wikipedia's standard ‘one country each’ guideline, like tariqabjotu tried to make it do.
I can't see me being civil for long if I came back, and despite all the current 'processes' over Wikiepdia I was part of, I'm more than happy moving on. I expect I've given Wikipedia too much of my life anyway (a personal thing for each of us), and the rewards in terms of progress really are miniscule.
All the best to those who are genuinely into a fair encyclopedia (and thanks for the support),
PS. Look at this. Why do admin always say some variant of "I don't give a fucking shit!" (often those very words) afer they've done something self-interested and stupid. Well I'm saying to you admin on Wikipedia (especially Deacon of Pndapetzim): the feeling is mutual. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, I told ya (months ago), if ya could pull this Irelands thing off, it would be a great thing. However, I also told ya, that you'd run into frustrations & many out there would direct negative energy at you. I happen to agree with Deacon's reversions (after days reflection) as there' was no consensus for the (Nov 30) changes. I wish there had been, but there weren't. Now, get back to Wikipedia & do as I've done (remove oneself from those Ireland articles heated discussions). GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your incessantly unhelpful comments are something I certainly won't be missing. The dogma of AGF - it cannot be good for the soul! To say you had removed yourself from Ireland discussion! You posted everyone in sight your usual scare-mongering proclamations about consensus and arbcom. Policy must come before polling, and sense before never-attained consensus. I just wish to part with only my comments above, if I may have be allowed. My last word must be mine. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ireland (island). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ww2censor (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
