User talk:One Night In Hackney/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The message board post was a news release made by a company official announcing my hiring. What better reference could there be? As for the other reference, it was the website of the promotion that the championship belonged to. Are you even reading what is written or just making arbitrary decisions? How many more references do you want before you leave me alone? Is there anything specific that you want a reference for? Have you ever read a wrestlers wikipedia before? Why are you picking on me out of all the wrestlers on wikipedia?

Contents 1 Mister Saint Laurent 2 Bandit Country 3 Re: Breakfast to Breakfast 4 Martin Hurston 5 Robert Cottage 6 personal attack evidence 7 What exactly is the issue? 8 Don't ridicule my edits 9 afd and other notes 10 Thanks 11 User:Jeff Sanford 12 ASCII comic 13 Sources for Nerd Boy 14 please contribute 15 RE: Music in professional wrestling 16 aha 17 thanks 18 Tommy Dreamer 19 Help 20 No Remorse Corps 21 Thank you 22 Ivor Bell 23 M62 coach and Omagh bombing 24 Jay Lee 25 WP:3RR 26 GFDL 27 Signature 28 The Hurler 29 RfC 30 Sub page 31 Xtreme Wrestling page protect request 32 Aha! 33 RfC 34 Category 35 AfD 36 IRA notability 37 Category change/redirect 38 Category query 39 Dessie O'Hare 40 Guide to referencing 40.1 Good references 40.2 Simple referencing 40.3 Test it out 40.4 Information to include 40.5 Citation templates 40.6 Same ref used twice or more 40.7 Example 40.8 Next step 41 G8 42 Sorry about that 43 Ivor Bell 44 Conflicting sources 45 Add to the gallery 46 Mary McGlinchey 47 Chronology of Continuity IRA actions 48 Snowbot 49 User:DJ BatWave 50 Wrestling Articles 51 User:JB196 52 WikiProject 53 Help needed 54 My thoughts exactly 55 Martin McGartland 56 Chronology of Continuity IRA actions 57 Speedy deletion of Sharday 58 Patrick Kelly

[edit] Mister Saint Laurent

The references you removed were both reliable and independent. Your actions seem to be the cause of a personal vendetta. What can I do to resolve the issue?

[edit] Bandit Country

My version is the 1999 one. Published in London by Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 034071736X.

regards, Jdorney 11:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Breakfast to Breakfast

It's okay. It was one of my earlier works and it doesn't seem encyclopedic. - Qasamaan 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Hurston

Changed back to 46 in accordance with BBC reference, 46 is correct. And why are you sure that the BBC number is correct while the AP number is not? If there's a discrepancy, we should list both numbers. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Cottage

I don't think it's appropriate yet to add details from the trial to the BNP page. At most, we have two guys who were members of the BNP doing things that would not have been approved of by the BNP, and that's only if they are actually found guilty. (At time of writing, I assume the case is still going on.) Assuming they are guilty, they will probably deserve no more than a sentence or two as an example of the sort of person the BNP attracts, given that they met in its ranks.

I will also post this on User talk:Philip Cross.

As for Rachel Hudson, I would like to say that words fail me, but they don't. I'm afraid that Lucy-marie has a history of edits that make no sense: we had a long row over her globally altering every occurence of 'persons' to 'people' in the Person article on the grounds that there is no such word as persons. I prsume she had never, in all the murder articles she edits, come across the oft-used phrase "by person or persons unknown"! Emeraude 16:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't think your question will be answered!! But keep an eye on the BNP article, because anything could happen. Actually, in some ways I'd quite welcome a complaint being made because the outcome is a foregone conclusion! She did complain about me to another user, and got put down. As to Cottage, a separate article may be an idea; depends on the outcome of the trial. (And technically, if I've read it right, he was in possession of chemicals, not made-up explosives. Perhaps he should have pleaded not guilty if that's the case.) Emeraude 16:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was forced to make a comment on the G8 talk page. You're absolutely right about people who should "stay away from subjects they clearly lack knowledge of" (which is why I never edit pages on scientific topics) but that's a general Wikipedia problem unfortunately. OK, so I have a degree in political science, almost finished a book on the history of the NF and the far right, did write a thesis a few years later on the NF and the 1974 general elections (original research, I know) and have kept abreast of developments in the extreme right ever since. Unfortunately, I don't feel the need to harp on about my experience/qualification/knowledge/research skills etc. Perhaps I should, but as a former teacher it never seems right to say "because I know better than you and you know next to nothing" - perhaps I should sometimes. Emeraude 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal attack evidence

i clearly state that it is an opinion of mine and that is all i say "which is what it feels like to me" this makes it an opinion not an attack.--Lucy-marie 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly is the issue?

Wat exactly is the underlying issue? Do you know? I just jump in and see some angry conversation! (which rarley does naybody good). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't ridicule my edits

You clearly do not like my edits but please do not ridicule them by going to another editor and saying you will find this funny. If you have a problem with something i have done explain yourself reather than laughing at me behind my back. Inserting brackets is never a goos start and the other thing inserted were not entirly necessary to the article as they created less clarity.--Lucy-marie 09:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can't see how utterly gramatically incorrect your version is despite it being pointed out, then feel free to carry on regardless. One Night In Hackney 12:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what youi think you cant go around ridiculuing edits of other users. I also detest you attitude towards me. You seem to hold me in contempt of trying to add quality to articles and as for the Clarke thing no one said aything about the removal of the section more than on a one off occasion before you re-added it. So you made the controversial edit not me and plaese see WP:BOLD for editing.--Lucy-marie 12:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

{{SpellCheck}} One Night In Hackney 14:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] afd and other notes

First off, i have put that afd on my watch list. When it comes time to close, i will be sure to take into account the use of possible sock! Thanks for bringing that to administrative attention. Second of all, I am still working my way through the diffs related to the BNP. I have made a few comments, trying to sort it all out. I would like to thank you for the detailed summary of what is going on, it was/is very helpful as i am working my way through it. Thanks again all around. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I wouldn't even call them possible socks the IP editor made all the comments and added a sig saying "Seisal". I've got some comments about some of the BNP diffs, but I'll wait until you've finished before replying. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for pointing out my error. I have apologised to Reywas92 and struck through the talk page entry. Can't change the History page though unfortunately, so I can continue to look like a prat (I can live with that) but poor Reywas92 stays mistakenly maligned on there because of my carelessness. Emeraude 13:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jeff Sanford

Sorry I didnt Know..--Cometstyles 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ASCII comic

The article on ASCII comic, which you have expressed concern to me regarding, is up for WP:AFD. I am not sure if you have feelings on this but you may be interested in participating in this afd, located here. Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Nerd Boy

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerd Boy (2nd nomination) you expressed the opinion that the subject had no reliable sources and was unverifiable. This content has since been re-created at ASCII comic (AfD discussion) by Grue, who, after some encouragement, has now pointed to a source and asserted that the article "is verifiable through the primary source (official website)". Please visit the discussion to see whether these address your concerns of a month ago. Uncle G 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was aware of the current Afd, as I actually had a had in the current chain of events [1]. It seemed to me to be an attempt to circumvent the deletion process and should have gone through deletion review rather than be recreated in a different article. One Night In Hackney 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please contribute

Please contribute to the revised debate on the EU in the info box. Also by reading the discussions I am unaware how you can come to that conclusion.--Lucy-marie 21:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Music in professional wrestling

My edit to the "Music in professional wrestling" article, number 1, was incredibly minor, and number 2, is supported by Wikipedia's own information. The Charlie Haas article states:

Theme music

Haas debuted new theme music in May 2006, a song performed by Eric & The Hostiles entitled Pay The Price. It was formerly used as the song for The Great American Bash 2005 pay-per-view, but WWE composer Jim Johnston changed the drum beat for Haas's theme. Additionally, it was offered as a bonus track on the WWE Wreckless Intent album as an iTunes exclusive download, to those who purchased the full album via that outlet's music store.

I apologize for the inconvenience and the violation of protocol.

[edit] aha

i though i reconised the edits of 192.204.106.2 from somewhere --- Paulley 00:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

I will leave the block as it stands. If another admin wants to unblock, based on the request, that is her or his prerogative. I feel pretty comfortable standing by this one, particularly based on the history you sent me. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Dreamer

My apologies. I totally missed your request to protect the page in your previous report to AIV. I've blocked the latest IP and another admin has protected the page. Sorry for the extra frustration on your part, and thanks for watching the page! Kuru ^talk 01:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

what do you need help with?

Ok, here is what you need to do. create the category category:Laureus World Sports Awards winners. Just add the descritption and create the category. At the bottom of the page, add the category Category:Laureus World Sports Awards (of course without the leading colon). This will then list your new cateogry as a subcategory. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, it is fixed. Second off, here is what happened.{{MedalEuropeanChampionships}}, a template included in that edit, had been vandalized here. Being it is a template and it was transcluded, the vandalism showed up on that page. I have reverted that vandalism. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Remorse Corps

Why I'm not violating Wikipedia rules I'm fixing things that you said was wrong with the article add sources improving the article giving me right to remove the template if you read your templates--Cowboy From Hell 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)DJ BatWave

yes I do because I am a Wikipedia user albeit I have limited rights I do have that right,thanks.--Cowboy From Hell 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)DJ BatWave

[2] that one does, Thanks.--Cowboy From Hell 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)DJ BatWave

Why did you do that--Cowboy From Hell 18:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)DJ BatWave

Do what? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

He tried changing the Afd template back to the prod (which he previously removed) so I reverted it, and he's on a 24 hour vacation now anyway. One Night In Hackney 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you, will do --Phoblacht 16:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivor Bell

Why do you think mentioning the 1986 Libya bombing is relevant to Bell? He had left the IRA in 1985 before the attack took place? See Talk:Ivor Bell Astrotrain 23:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M62 coach and Omagh bombing

According to the UN, unless the express intention of an attack was to target civilians then it is not a terrorist attack. To state it was is POV even if it is sourced. See the Talk:Attacks on the London Underground for the UN definition of terrorism. "On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." regards--Vintagekits 19:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's one definition which you've chosen to suit your argument - the Wikipedia definiton states "Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals. One Night In Hackney 19:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Even taking your definition the target of these attacks were not civilians - yes, civilians were killed but that is due to other complex issues including botched handling of warnings. At the end of the day stating that they are acts of terrorism in POV imo.--Vintagekits 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"imo" - In My Opinion - that's the problem. It isn't my definition, it's the current sourced definition of terrorism according to Wikipedia. One Night In Hackney 20:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Lee

Nice story. I've gone to a couple of other pages to make links: British National Party election results and Bexleyheath and Crayford (UK Parliament constituency). It may be worth a mention on the BNP page itself, though I'm not certain. How would you justify it? On the grounds that ASLEF has been upheld in their decision to expel a member of a racist party? But it's already well-established in the article that the BNP is racist anyway. Emeraude 20:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just made a few changes to the article. Added links to the European Court of Human Rights' press release and the full judgement. As a result of reading them, I've altered the last paragraph to make it clear that ASLEF took the UK to court in that ASLEF's rights were infringed, and the court upheld that. Lee wasn't a party to the case, of course, but the judgement does mean that ASLEF was entitled to expel him in the circumstances. Hope that's clear, but my brain's fuzzy from reading the legal argument. Emeraude 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably scope for an article on ASLEF v. United Kingdom. It seems there's a sub-category already for European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom. I'll work on it tomorrow maybe, but law's not my strongest point. (Perhaps I'll be able to persuade my son - he's studying law). Emeraude 00:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ASLEF v. United Kingdom created. Linked from ASLEF's article, which could do with more detail. Also, Jay Lee is mentioned in Solidarity – The Union for British Workers with reference to the ASLEF case - needs a bit of a rewrite now probably since it portrays him as a winner. Emeraude 14:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

You just left a message on lucy maries page about her violating the WP:3RR rule. Is this regarding {{G8}}? If so, i counted she has only 3 reversions. One more would put her in violation. Similarly, one more reversion by you would also do such! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any soruces proving the EU as being part of the G8, the article on G8 does not include them in the entry as being one of the countries. I am tempted to agree with Lucy Maries version based on facts. Stuff that is added that cannot be factually backed up can be removed by anybody anytime. Please provide me a source explaning that the EU is officially part of the G8. Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We are here to solve a dispute about content, not point fingers at other editors. Comments such as "Or more accurately to protect the page on your preferred version, like you have done before" whether true or not add NO value to converstaions or the dispute resolution process. Remeber, keep it about content and avoid pointing fingers. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, let me remind you, we are here to solve a dispute, not point fingers and call names. Other editors actions may not be the most appropriate but pointing it out on the talk page of the article is fairly innapropriate. Please try to refrain from this behavior as it is very counterproductive and adds NO value to the conversation and dispute at hand. Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL

If you're the sole author, then no problem at all with cut and paste, as the attribution is correct, i.e. all contributions shown to correct author, you. It gets a bit pernickety if someone else has made some minor alteration in the middle, as they should strictly speaking be given attribution for their part. Doing a "move" will transfer article, talk page and contributions history in one go. I think this will leave a cross name space redirect which is normally frowned on and should be proposed for speedy deletion. I'm not very familiar with the technical details of cross name space moves, so I advise you get help elsewhere, if you find it doesn't work like I think it does. Tyrenius 03:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Why are you signing your name with "IRA" after it and linked to your talk page? Astrotrain 17:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:SIG, it's a perfectly within guidelines signature. One Night In Hackney_IRA 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but why "IRA"- do you think that this is appropiate? Astrotrain 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes thank you. One Night In Hackney_IRA 17:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that adding the name of a terrorist organisation after your signature is a good idea? Astrotrain 20:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted, and will be ignored. Thanks. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You wish to refer to [3] on the admin notice board. Astrotrain 21:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply going to ask you nicely to remove that from your signature. There really is no reason for it and it is creating needless controversy.--Isotope23 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should he move it??--Vintagekits 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One night, this is just a friendly reccomendation, for the good of wikipedia. Is having it there that important? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As a gesture of good faith, I shall remove it while discussion is ongoing. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for removing it while this is being discussed. If what you are saying is the case (and I've not combed through edit histories here to sort this out), then I'd suggest making an WP:AN/I report or a user WP:RFC with diffs. There are a number of policies that would cover what you are contending (WP:STALK for example). Report it rather than trying to tweak his nose so to speak with your signature.--Isotope23 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just about to log for a bit so I'll try and take a look at it later this evening.--Isotope23 21:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for removing it while it is discussed. I also have limited access for the rest of the night but will analyze it tommorow as well! Thanks again. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hurler

Sorry, I forgot the subject's name, I think John Kelly. Yeah, you're right, probably not a speedy. When I initially tagged it it said something like "John Kelly is a hurler for Dublin" and it had an infobox with stuff I couldn't grasp the importance of. I still don't think notability is clearly asserted, but I see your point. Cheers my friend, --Tractorkingsfan 07:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Probably a "Ready, Fire, Aim" on my part. Take it easy. --Tractorkingsfan 07:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Thanks. I will add an outside view comment within the next 48 hours. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks also. You need another signature under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" to validate it. This must be someone who has tried and failed to resolve it. You can have more than one signatory, but there must be at least two. Tyrenius 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If he made a mistake, he can correct it, and just note what he's doing in the edit summary. It's not the first mistake on the RfC and I'm sure it won't be the last. Tyrenius 03:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub page

Copied from User talk:Astrotrain:

RfC

Now the RfC is up, do you have any objection to deleting the user subpage? It seems redundant now. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Tyrenius 02:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it per the expressed wish of the only two authors, Astrotrain on his talk page and you on mine. Any problems, get back to me. Tyrenius 03:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xtreme Wrestling page protect request

The request is denied, because the linkspammer was blocked. For future reference, if a single IP is disrupting an account, WP:AIV is more appropriate. Anyway, good catch on the linkspammer. Best regards, RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh God, fine. You're right all along :) . RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Done (or shortly will be.) RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was sorting out a coordinated multi-account attack on CNET, GameSpot, and GameFAQs. (Check the page histories for the gory details!) RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There, now it's done. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aha!

A pretty poor article, unfortunately (lots of POV), and misses entirely the point that the jury was unable to reach a verdict; hence the whole thing is totally inconclusive. I'm surprised no one hasn't yet said it should be deleted, which in its present form is probably justifiable. If the case is going to be retried, it's really back to square one - i.e, we have to wait for an outcome. If it's not, this article needs a major rewrite and anything added to BNP needs to be very carefully worded. Unfortunately, the only thing I know about the outcome of the trial was a brief report on Teletext that there was no verdict. Nothing in the papers I read at all. I'll trawl around and see if I can a report somewhere. Local papers from Lancashire/Manchester probably the best source. Emeraude 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC) The page was started on 12 October last year but with a dumb title like "Talbot Street bomb-making haul" I'm not surprised it's only just turned up!!.

OK. Google search (UK only) for "Robert Cottage": Nothing up to date until the 43rd return which gives me this: "After deliberating for two days, the jury in the case of Robert Cottage and David Jackson failed to reach a verdict and was discharged by the judge Mr Justice Beatson. An application for a retrial will be made by the Crown Prosecution Service before a judge in Manchester next Wednesday (28 February 2007). Both men will remain in custody until that time." And that's from the Lancashire Police!!!! ([4]) 60th result from the Lancashire Telegraph confirms this. ([5])

Private Eye has had coverage of the £5 Cromie story over a few issues, including I think the current one. Emeraude 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

You are probably aware that the RfC on Astrotrain needs to be certified still by at least a second user by 22:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC), or it will be cancelled. Tyrenius 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fine for you to move it to certified section, but I've done it anyway (first time I've done that action!). Tyrenius 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Normal categories are described at WP:Category. You want to create a stub category and as the discussion pointed out, these should be proposed, not unilaterally created. See WP:Stub#Additional_information. I think the reason for this is that it can end up in a complicated mess that takes a long time to sort out again. Tyrenius 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

PS as it's a wiki, you can of course move to change the consensus of this procedure through debate with other relevant editors. Tyrenius 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you would want to somehow. Just that I saw mention of Wiki being a wiki in the talk re. creating this stub category... Tyrenius 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FFederal_Commonwealth_Society Tyrenius 00:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRA notability

Hi, you were the last person to comment on this issue at the WP:IR talk page, and you seem to be a good faith editor, so I wanted to bring up with you the question of what makes an IRA member notable, and perhaps get a more general discussion on this going somewhere. I have noticed that there are nearly a hundred pages on PIRA members alone, and quite a number of them are partially or totally lacking in claims of notability, whilst others make dubious-sounding claims which are unsourced. I can see numerous instances where IRA members are notable, such as members of the army council, dead hunger strikers and some exceptionally prolific activists (there are also a few who qualify under seperate criteria, for example a couple of writers and some politicians), however I think there are quite a number of articles with quite suspect notability. This problem would be more easily dealt with if some clear criteria for inclusion were laid out, perhaps by the members of WP:IR. This criteria would base itself on WP:BIO but could perhaps give some specific stipulations and insight into the situation at hand here.

An example of what I am talking about is Thomas McMahon. His one notable action (according to this article) was the killing of Mountbatten. Does this alone confer notability? If so would the same be true if the person he killed was not famous? Another question is over such articles as Kevin Coen. Does simply being killed in the troubles confer notability? If so, would this also be true of any British soldier, RUC officer, UDA member or civilian killed? (My personal opinion is probably not without a clear and specific reason in each case). As this is a very, very contentious issue, its important that articles are given firm notability claims and ae well sourced if they are to survive, some contain no claims: Emily Brogan, whilst others are badly sourced undermining their claims of notability (e.g. as it stands, Martin Lynch would probably be better merged with Gerry Adams' page). This is something that I think needs to be addressed if we want to avoid another series of Afd disputes with several of these pages.--Jackyd101 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, on a completely unrelated note, I recently created this article: Dunmurry train explosion and was wondering if you would mind looking it over to see if you think it conforms to WP:NPOV.--Jackyd101 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You should join Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism. They've already made a start on addressing these matters. Tyrenius 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your well thoughout and reasoned answer. Just to reassure you, I wasn't planning a major campaign of Afds against IRA articles myself, my hope is to avoid future conflict by nipping it in the bud as it were. I also certainly wasn't trying to imply that you yourself had created non-notable articles, I just wanted to hear your opinion on the subject in general as I was concerned that some of these articles did not seem to confer notability. I was also not suggesting all of those I especially mentioned potentially deserved it (particulaly McMahon), I was just trying to address some potential problems. The reason I raised it with you and not at WP:IR was that you seem to be willing to give more reasoned answers and are more ready to WP:AGF than a number of members there. You have given me food for thought, especially about the Stalker Inquiry. maybe I will join the Wikiproject:Irish Republicanism after all. Also thanks for looking over the train explosion piece, I appreciate that and will look at your suggestion. Many thanks.--Jackyd101 10:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category change/redirect

Just proceed with caution! Truth is, I don't know, as I don't have much to do with categories. You could try the talk page of WP:Category or ask User:Runcorn, who's an admin and deals a lot in these matters. Tyrenius 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category query

The best thing to do is to make a request for a rename on WP:CfD (which, confusingly, means categories for discussion, not deletion). If it is not clear what to do, please get back to me.--Runcorn 22:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dessie O'Hare

There seem to be three sources covering this. Only one says he was investigated, which doesn't seem to me to be sufficient to say this. That fact that he was mentioned by Ahern in Parliament (as I understand it) and that there were two sources covering this, including the BBC, certainly gives scope for it to be mentioned, but only if the denial is put clearly. The information in the latter might be worth including anyway: "He's been working with the Brothers of Charity in the west of Ireland, he's working with the handicapped, he's been to Lourdes." It's a judgement call. I would be inclined to include it myself, because it is part of his story and his life that rumour and suspicion is attached to him, but, as I've said, in this case it must be made clear that it is only rumour and suspicion, and nothing more. If someone contested its inclusion, then probably best to go along with that. Tyrenius 03:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your additional source makes me more inclined to include something about this incident, particularly as you can now include "O'Hare ... has, through a spokesman, denied reports that he was a suspect for Hyland's murder. His denials are supported by gardai". There's now 4 sources talking about this, which makes it even harder to leave out. However, you must use your own editorial judgement. Tyrenius 03:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Some excellent work referencing. Do pass on the template {{subst:refstart}} to others. Suggestions for improvements to make it more user friendly are welcome. It comes up on the page as below (delete it if it's cluttering the page). Tyrenius 03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't aware of it: it'll come in useful for me on occasion! I've checked out Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style_recommendations and it starts to become more complex with the possibility of also making ext links etc smaller, so I think it best to stick with what is still stated as the established bog standard method at the moment, since my template is intended to provide a simple starter guide. If reflist becomes the norm, then obviously it should be included instead, but I don't think that's happened yet. Correct me if I'm wrong there. If so, then WP:FOOT needs amending also. Tyrenius 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guide to referencing

Click on "show" to open contents.

Using references (citations)

I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. [edit] Good references A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use Reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is Original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research. [edit] Simple referencing The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section. This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code: ==Notes and references== <references/> The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap): <ref>             </ref> Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference. [edit] Test it out Copy the following text, open the edit box for this page, paste it at the bottom (inserting your own text) and save the page: ==Reference test== This is the text which you are going to reference.<ref> Substitute your own text in this space </ref> ==Notes and references== <references/> (End of text to copy and paste.) [edit] Information to include You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For a book it might look like this: <ref> Smith, Timothy: "A Guide to Planets", page 29. Solar Publishing, 2001 </ref> An online newspaper source would be: <ref> Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]]. Retrieved on [[2005-10-27]]. </ref> Note the square brackets around the URL. The format is [URL Title] with a space between the URL and the Title. If you do this the URL is hidden and the Title shows as the link. Use double apostrophes for the article title, and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Wikilinks (double square brackets which create an internal link to a wikipedia article) function inside the ref tags. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings. [edit] Citation templates You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference [edit] Same ref used twice or more The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code: <ref name=smith> DETAILS OF REF </ref> The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again: <ref name=smith/> You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. [edit] Example You can see refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is. [edit] Next step When you become familiar with the process, the next step is to have one section, "Footnotes", with links embedded in the text, and another, "References", which lists all of your references alphabetically with full details, e.g. for a book: Lincoln, Abraham; Grant, U. S.; & Davis, Jefferson (1861). Resolving Family Differences Peacefully (3rd ed.). Gettysburg: Printing Press. ISBN 0-12-345678-9. If you're ready to go into it further, these pages have detailed information: Wikipedia:Citing sources Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style Wikipedia:Citation templates Wikipedia:Footnotes I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know. Tyrenius 03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G8

Thanks for being patient and working through the disagreements at G8! We all become better editors by working through such work. Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Its ok, remain calm! Dont get too worried about and and dont edit war too much. I will be involved with it. If he is stalking you, then getting emoiionally involved will only give him satisfaction. Remain cool, calm, and firm. If he edit wars, give him an appropriate warning, then you can bring it to me if you want. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about that

I see a huge amount of text deleted and assume it's blanketing. Then I reread the text and thought to myself "what?" Before I could revert my revert I saw you had already done so. Once again, sorry! --PoeticX 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivor Bell

ONiH, Can you please copy edit the latest version of the Ivor Bell article - you know what my grammer and speling is like!--Vintagekits 09:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Done the most obvious stuff. There's probably still more to be done, but I'm tired and not feeling particularly smart today. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting sources

I have actually run into this issue before. There are a couple of different methods to determine which information to use. I generally look for the more reliable one. This is generally a matter of judgement on your part though. I use some basic orders of hierarchy. Published books are generally at the top, then paper published magazines or newspapers, then online sources. If online sources conflict, i generally try to take the more reliable of the two. I.E. i would choose cnn or the inquirer (same goes for newspaper and magazine usage). The last thing I usually do is try to find a plethora of sources and determine which bit of information comes up the most. I use that one and generally site at least 2 of the sources. Did that help at all? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally would not. Are you using inline citations? Just make sure that right after the date, the source you got it from is cited (as opposed to the end of the sentence). I think it would provide a little unecessary confusion for the end reader. (However, that is my personal opinion and how I have done things in the past). It is truly up to ypu in this situation, as far as i know there is no hard and fast way to handle it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add to the gallery

If you get time and a summary for Vol. Lynagh and Vol. McKearney.--Vintagekits 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. It took me ages to figure out how to get all the images to appear in a line like that, still I've learnt something at least! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say Iam impressed it looks a lot better - the reason I left some of the redunant info in the biogs is to try and accommodate the pics! Anyway - dont learn too much as I will only come and ask you more stuff!!--Vintagekits 23:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Added Lynagh and McKearney pics. Don't think there's much point adding a summary of them as they have their own articles anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A one liner with a direct to the main article I think, no?--Vintagekits 23:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's all that's needed. The reason the others are in that article is because it was better than deleting them completely. Other than Loughall (and the other station attacks) there just wasn't enough information about them to justify their own articles, they basically all had the same article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary McGlinchey

Sorry about the mistake. I was certain she was originally Mary O'Neill. Live and learn. O'Donoghue 23:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get the name O'Neill from IO, which is believe is necessarily a biased source. I read it, I believe, in J. Bowyer Bell's opus on the Troubles. I think I should do a page on Bowyer Bell; he was a brilliant researcher who died too soon.

Yours, O'Donoghue 23:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology of Continuity IRA actions

I've had a look and can't find anything either - I would support removing the claims. Weggie 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snowbot

Sorry for the mess. The error affected only that page, it seems. Thanks for the report! Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:DJ BatWave

I have no intention of unblocking him. I suspect that he will be back though. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestling Articles

I threw one week semi-protects on Extreme Associates and Xtreme Pro Wrestling. Nick protected Rob Zicari. I hope that helps. :) IrishGuy ^talk 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:JB196

Got him. Thanks for the heads up. IrishGuy ^talk 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject

Re. your remarks here, it may be an idea to have a small template to put on articles which come under the project, but which were created before it and which the project has not yet had time to attend to, so that you don't get unfairly blamed for below par articles with the project tag on. Tyrenius 01:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just put Template:WP:IR into the search box, or click this URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WP:IR . Then you can edit it as usual, or create a new template just like creating a new article. It's also a good idea to check out other template pages to see how they've been created, and what sort of templates other wikiprojects have created. Presumably you're aware of Category:WikiProject Irish Republicanism articles. Tyrenius 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Version 1.0 Editorial Team" is, I believe, a project to collect core articles for a print or CD version, so it's OK to include it. All you'd have to do is start a new template page, paste in the code and change the name of the project wherever it occurred. You can always do a preview to see what it looks like. I wouldn't worry about getting it wrong. If the worst comes to the worst it can be speedy deleted at request of the sole author! However, one deficiency of the template is that it doesn't give any guidance as to how the rating should be assessed, so that's not very helpful, as opposed to the Biography template, for example. Tyrenius 02:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know. I've only done a few simple templates! Tyrenius 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

{{helpme}}

I've been busy created various categories for the Irish Republicanism WikiProject for article quality and importance. I borrowed some code from another template for {{WP:IR}} and after a few attempts almost everything is working fine. However Category:WikiProject Irish Republicanism articles has a redlinked category at the bottom - Category:WikiProject Irish Republicanism articles/Comments and the actual populated category is at Category:Irish Republicanism articles with comments. I've had a quick scan through the transcluded {{WP:IR}} template but can't tell which particular piece of code I'd change to direct the redlinked category to the existing one. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That category's there for a different reason; the template's linking to [[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments]] in an attempt to ask people to comment, but that's generating a redlinked category when placed on a Category page. It's because the Talk-namespace check should go around the commenting code but doesn't; however, I can't quite figure out how to change it so that it works. Hope that helps! --ais523 10:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, don't create the category; it shouldn't be there! (The 'pages with comments' category should be 'inside', not 'outside', the pages category.) I'll see if I can put a temporary workaround into the template pending a better solution, which should make the category disappear but won't fix the underlying problem. --ais523 11:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put a better fix in place now. Hope that helps! --ais523 09:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts exactly

Well said, and I feel exactly the same :). I find it frustrating when the nom doesn't do his or her homework (and it seems to happen a lot more than it really should)-K@ngie^meep! 10:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin McGartland

Fine. As you will see from my last edit summary, I am not going to dispute aesthetics. One man's poison...

However, I updated the categories via default sorting, which should be fine.O'Donoghue 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology of Continuity IRA actions

I think you need to have evidence of excessive interference first and then cite the main article etc. I notice, although there is an impressive list of refs, you're only giving titles and not full information on your refs (author, name of source, date, date retrieved etc) and recommend this to lend authority to the edits. Tyrenius 01:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I thought it wasn't up to your usual standards. Might be an idea to leave a note on the talk page to say what you're doing. There's a template you might find useful {{inuse}} - to put at the top of the article for some breathing space, while you are actively working on it. It has to be removed in between sessions. More info and variants on Template:Inuse/doc. Tyrenius 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Sharday

Please reconsider the nomination for speedy deletion of Sharday. I have added the reason why she should be kept to her talk page. Thanks. Epbr123 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Kelly

Just to make it clear - I didnt.--Vintagekits 10:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

GFDL question. As the original article was redirected and not deleted, the edit history is still intact, so there's no problem. If Vk completely rewrites the article without using the original phrasing (even if he uses some of the original information) then he could argue that the previous edit history is inapplicable to the new article, but he might not be too bothered about that. As I'm sure you know, an AfD article cannot be recreated, unless it is significantly different to the original, but it seems as though this is taking place — in which case it can be uploaded. Tyrenius 01:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. If multiple users work on the new article, it becomes trickier. It's possible to do a history merge (but don't ask me to do it) or else to copy and paste the edit history onto the talk page of the old article (when the new one is transferred) with an explanation as to what's happened, as well as noting this in the edit summary. Tyrenius 01:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)