User talk:Evertype/Archive 7

WS stuff

I'd like to thank you for building the extensive article review page. I knew it was a good idea, but I was so scared of starting it, and I was enthralled to see that you took up the task. Also, there's some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Writing_systems#Regarding_scope_and_assessments about how reviews should be sorted and managed. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You

But you've spent a large amount of your life dedicated to Writing systems. Don't you think that people such as Ben Franklin, Sam Pollard, and yourself deserve to be included in the scope of the project? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben Franklin didn't invent a writing system. He dabbled with orthography reform for English. Is it necessary to invite more attention to the article about me at this time? I'd advise tagging Sequoyah and similar articles and deciding on "importance" criteria first. And then getting those shipshape. Just a thought. Leave the tag if you wish. -- Evertype·✆ 22:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you notability lies in your knowledge of the written word in all shapes and forms, which I guess conforms to the project. It only takes about a minute and a half to rate an article and add a tag. Plus, the tag would probably attract positive attention, since those who are interested in the topic are cleaning up the article. I'll go ahead and tag other articles like Sequoyah, though. The reason I tagged yours was because I was visting your userpage and I ended up at your biography. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian hryvnia unicode sign

Hi, I've found that you have contributed to Unicode a sign for Ukrainian currency. I would like to say thanks ! But also - can you clarify why it looks like S reversed ? Ends of letter are figured - not simple as in NBU design (btw, I was unable to find this mysterious NBU instruction 89 from 01.03.2004 at official laws archive). --TAG 01:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you are asking. Lower-case Cyrillic г, in italic and in handwriting, typically has a reversed-s shape; depending on the font, you may see it here: г. That handwritten shape formed the basis for the HRYVNIA SIGN. -- Evertype·✆ 01:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was not clear Image:Hryvnia_symbol.png is this correct picture ? It looks different from pictures cited in PDF proposal and NBU website image --TAG 01:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Yes, the image is the correct one. It is a matter of font design. The "generic" symbol in a Times-like font is a reversed S with two strokes. -- Evertype·✆ 10:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Cló Gàidhlig?

Do you know if Gaelic script was ever used for writing Scottish Gaelic? An editor has added the templates {{Scottish Gaelic linguistics}} and {{Manx linguistics}} to Gaelic script, and I removed the latter because I know Manx was never written in it, but I don't know whether to remove the former as well. —Angr 07:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not traditionally, though often today bad fonts like American Uncial are used "decoratively". -- Evertype·✆ 09:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll be justified in removing Gaelic script and {{Scottish Gaelic linguistics}} from each other? —Angr 09:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, though you could ask the editor about it. -- Evertype·✆ 09:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Moon type

"A4 and Letter are not that different in size that there would be 200 more on A4 than on Letter." ... but that's not what had been written. I'm not sure whether someone is missing something but it seems that the Moon type glyph has just shrunk. Originally the text had been 900 characters per 10 in × 12 in page. To obtain the 700 charcaters per A4 page figure I just compared the areas of each sheet. 900 / (10 in × 12 in) ≈ 725 / (210 mm × 297 mm) then round to the nearest hundred. Note how US letter (8½ in × 11 in) hadn't been mentioned. What had been stated was that there would be 200 fewer on A4 than on 10 in × 12 in. Yes, letter would be about the same as A4: 900 / (10 in × 12 in) = 701¼ / (8½ in × 11 in). I'll go and edit the page. Jimp 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty lame, I think. How is the calculation made? with what margins? what point size? -- Evertype·✆ 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good questions ... I have no idea what margins, point size, etc. the original calculation used, all I did was to do a rough conversion to A4 based on relative paper sizes. Perhaps we should tag it with a {{fact}}. Jimp 01:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how tagging it with that will achieve anything. -- Evertype·✆ 10:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It might, at least, notify the reader that the calculation is unsourced ... or should we just remove the sentence altogether? Jimp 01:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. Shall we move this discussion to Talk:Moon type? Jimp 04:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Translating names into Irish

The issue over the translation of Irish personal names has cropped up again. It really needs to be sorted out once and for all. If you have a chance, I'd appreciate it greatly if you could take a look at RfC: Verifiability and reliability of sources used to produce Irish-language versions of subjects' names.

This is the second RfC I've submitted in as many days, as a result of two very frustrating encounters with one particular editor. The other was over the validity of using the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as a reference on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Damac (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments on the RfC: Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia? Despite the overwhelming consensus that there is nothing wrong with this source or in using it on Wikipedia (indeed editors expressed their astonishment that such an issue became an RfC), the two editors, whose behaviour caused me to issue with the RfC, continue to issue questions on its use,[1] accessibility,[2] or question my motives in bringing the RfC.[3] (The RfC was the only route I saw of including information from the 2004 OCNB).

I have tried to deal with these two editors rationally, but no matter what I seem to say to them, they return with more queries and comments. Can anything be done in this case? Can someone please try explaining the situation to them at the RfC.--Damac (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

novel Meiji-era kana

Hi, Don't know if this is notable enough to include in Unicode (or perhaps it's already planned?), but it looks like there were once kana for yi, ye, and wu, presumably for didactic purposes: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2008_February_26#Stroke_Order. They give a couple on-line refs at the bottom of Katakana#Table of katakana. —kwami (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It was brought up on the Unicode list last December between the 3rd and 5th. It should be available in the archives. Bendono (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Slavic Scripts ArbCom

Hello Michael. Apropos of nothing in particular, I noticed there is an ArbCom starting on the use of diacritics in Slavic scripts (!) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&curid=438960&diff=205988963&oldid=205984034#South_Slavic_Diacritics Just thought I'd mention it on your talk page in case you were interested in participating. Of course, it could be just a load of old balkans...--feline1 (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cornish language: sorting

Hello Mr Everson. I appreciate a lot your work about Cornish, minority languages and Unicode. I've proposed a new global sorting in the Cornish language article in order to make it more accessible, but without modifying any content as I am not a specialist of this language. Please don't hesitate to enhance this sorting.--Nil Blau (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't "propose" a "sorting". You implemented massive changes to the article without discussion. It is not clear what you have done nor why. -- Evertype·✆ 22:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right: after my last message in your talk page, I made further changes. Why I did this is quite simple: I'm a linguist specialized in Occitan language planning and I try to understand the current Cornish standardization process. But I'm not involved in any Cornish activity: I only tried to make the article more accessible. If you disagree with my changes, revert them all, I won't take it personally.--Nil Blau (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could'nt believe you were so moody...--Nil Blau (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand this comment. -- Evertype·✆ 09:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing important. Look: I share your vision concerning the development of Cornish (I read your online productions) and I thought you would have appreciated my changes in the article. Your response was a little harsh and disappointing.--Nil Blau (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to "propose" a re-arrangement of the article you should have done so. You didn't. You simply re-arranged it, in many incremental edits. I haven't had time to study it to compare it with the original. Maybe what you did was good. I was only pointing out that you didn't "propose" the changes. -- Evertype·✆ 08:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Woleai

Hi Evertype,
there's a question for you over at Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Leet

Please add Category:Mixed alphabet to Leet, because Leet is protected from anonymous editing, and please make category page itself for pageless Category:Mixed alphabet, that already contains five items, because it is protected from anonymous creating. 91.94.96.245 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? -- Evertype·✆ 22:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

To avoid red link in category and because Leet mixes letters and digits treated as alternate letters, as Greeklish does with Omega as 3/w and Theta as 8/q. If Greeklish is mixed script, then Leet too is mixed script, because digits in these contexts are used to sounds, but not to numbers. 91.94.234.202 (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

But the category is not useful. Why should I create it because an anonymous editor me to? -- Evertype·✆ 09:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

To easily distinguish consistently and non consistently developed scripts. I see that now at least Greeklish and Leet as non-national, but slang orthographies are excluded from this category. But if you insist on not creating this category, I give up. I already deleted this category from Arvanitic alphabet, Coptic alphabet and Faux Cyrillic, because I see that you don't want create this category at all. 91.94.234.202 (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

image loss on Commons

Hi, due to a software problem the following image which you uploaded was lost on Wikimedia Commons:

• Image:Phaistos glyph 21.png
• Image:Phaistos glyph 22.png
• Image:Phaistos glyph 24.png

I reset those to a previous version. If you still have your files on your hard disk or if you can recover it from other sources please upload it again. If this image was transferred from a local Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons it can be even recovered by an admin on the local Wikipedia.

Best regards, -- Ukko.de (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

cmap article

I just created a stub on cmaps relying on the cited Microsoft article. Please expand the stub, because I am not really into this kind of technical stuff. Maybe a general article on font tables would be fine too? Regards, — Tirk·fl ^“…” 12:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusation

I would be grateful if you would retract the accusation you made here. These kinds of comments are unproductive. If you have a genuine concern about sockpuppetry, please open a case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Thanks. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. -- Evertype·✆ 17:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking

If someone is complaining about something stupid, just ignore them. -Branddobbe (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland page moves

I luv the page moves. However, I'm expecting a huge backlash over it. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm expecting to make good edits and improve the articles. I don't see a backlash succeeding. I think the admin made the right choice on the basis of having reviewed the many arguments. He could hardly have avoided seeing them! -- Evertype·✆ 18:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Except he didn't make the choice "on the basis of having reviewed the many arguments". (That comment was since removed from his page.)

The decision was first made in error, and then justified in revision contrary to consensus. A poor day for Wikipedia. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There'll be no backlash, it's just people giving their opinions. The problem with Ireland (state) as I see? What history can it include? From 1920?-on, only! Many problems like that will arise. And there is an Irish nation, which the "Ireland" article did very nicely with, that'll gone now too IMO. Anyway, I'm keeping this brief, and the next few weeks will tell, I guess. PurpleA (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the old "Ireland" served as an obvious primary article. That primary article has now been effectively removed and a geography-only article Ireland (island) does not sufficiently replace it. This is why we base things on consensus, not the whim of a closing admin. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible poll on Ireland hatnotes

Did you catch my comment in Ireland (island) - it's a couple of sections up. I suggested some options for polling, If you add more we could give it a go. Some people (like the admin jza84 for example) will be really particular about the hatnote, and will revert to their idea - we might be forced into polling for consensus. I need to find out what people feel about NI in (state) too - I'm not certain myself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess a poll will polarize.... Heh. At present, at any rate, the hatnotes on the 2 articles are harmonized. I think at this stage trying to get consensus on what "country" is might be a mistake. Let's see what jza84 has to say about the hatnotes now. -- Evertype·✆ 11:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is I've reverted your version myself - because it just says "state". People then insist it is post 1992 only, and not earlier. Some people are still insisting on that, even with the awkwardness of a Ireland (island) name. I prefer 'sovereign state' (per the intro poll I just set up at Ireland), but people some people might need convincing. I think the hatnote is too fussy now, anyway - the longer it is, the easier it is to ignore. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Which people are insisting that? I take your point, but who's doing the complaining? -- Evertype·✆ 12:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends what precisely Matt is claiming people are insisting. I'd never contend that nothing or nobody pre-1922 belongs linked to or on Ireland (state), but *I* will complain if he insists that all historical links from the word "Ireland" are attributable to the state alone. What words are in the hatnote don't matter on this issue. And his statement here that the "awkardness of a Ireland (island) name" has something to do with this is an interesting comment. I pressume his goal was to make it awkward so that he can impose his view that the state is the only real Ireland. Nuclare (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that would be his goal. It is certainly not my goal. The idea of "'Real' Ireland" is just silly. -- Evertype·✆ 13:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's Matt's words on the matter (from the Ireland (island) talk page): "You say I believe the state alone is the 'real' Ireland - of course I do!" Nuclare (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You mystify me Nulare, you really do. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word 'mystify' but a similar feeling is mutual. Nuclare (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Island-of-Ireland7.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Island-of-Ireland7.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Island-of-Ireland8.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Island-of-Ireland8.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Island-of-Ireland9.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Island-of-Ireland9.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:United Kingdom labelled map13.png

Thanks for uploading Image:United Kingdom labelled map13.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland hatnote with sovereign state

The hatnote with "sovereign state" is the one I think is best (as I said on Talk:Ireland (island)), so I made the change - someone reverted the "county and state" option (I think I tried that first). Lets see what happens to this. I'd recommend that poll if it fails, but you never know, it might stick.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I took your point about "country and state" but if people want to revert that I can live with "sovereign state". Ahhh compromise. -- Evertype·✆ 14:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt

Hi there. Yes his blocking would prevent him from making a statement for that, to the best of my knowledge. If you need his input then I'll unblock him, but if he continues his personal attacks then he runs the risk of being blocked again. Canterbury Tail talk 19:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that (by saying "if he continues") you've confused high emotions and frustration with the kind of personality who is really a personal attacker. Seems to me too that you haven't been all that neutral here. I'm filing that and will hope for his input, but so far he has resigned, which is the worst result of all. -- Evertype·✆

He has been blocked solely on the strength of his personal attacks against other users (myself being only one of them), not for his edits. The project does not condone personal attacks of any nature, not matter the strengths of an editor. Canterbury Tail talk 19:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Involved party

I know you're busy right now so take your time, but what are the criteria for being considered an Involved Party?

Please sign your post, RashersTierney. What I did was go to the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force page and took what I thought to be a fair sampling of vocal participants from either side. I did not count them and did not try to stack the deck. Is that satisfactory? -- Evertype·✆ 19:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No longer involved party

Hiya Evertype. I hope Arbcom takes this case, I'll be watching. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd've nominated you but you said you were no longer involved. -- Evertype·✆ 20:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed one of the involved parties has 'resigned (again)' from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The invitation is still open to that person to respond to the request. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey :)

Thanks for the defense on Sarah's page. This is why I'm 99 percent sure that ArbCom cannot and should not take this case: (from WP:RfArb's top section of text)

• The committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed, and makes rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"). Please do not ask the committee to make these kinds of decisions, as they will not do so.

Hope you understand (and the one reject already on hand backs this reading up). Thanks again. SirFozzie (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position, but this dispute is community-wide, and not redressable in the way that one or two rogue editors would be. I think that the dispute on article titles here is a different thing from "content decisions". I stand by my request that someone from outside this dispute arbitrate. When negotiations fail, the hope lies in arbitration. -- Evertype·✆ 13:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ireland

Is your decision final? I have suggested that this is not content-related. And, in fairness, after so many months and months and indeed years of this problem, could you not wait a few days and look at the comments of all of the interested parties before making such a decision? It took some effort to put forward a request, and it's disheartening to have it denied before the involved parties have all had a chance to say something. Or are the Ireland articles just, well, screwed? Thanks for your consideration. -- Evertype·✆ 22:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to want the Committee to say "this is what the article should be called", and ultimately that is something we cannot do. From the very beginning the Committee has not answered content questions, and that is something that is not going to change. However, as I said, if there are behavioural issues involved in the content dispute - that is, if people are disrupting efforts to achieve and implement a consensus - then that is something we may well be able to address. You seem to imply in your statement that that is what is happening ("though reversed today..."). Are there such issues? If so, what are they, and what efforts, if any, have been made to deal with them? --bainer (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, in a sense we do, because we as a community cannot find enough good faith on all sides to come to real consensus. Older editors may find ways forward, but it gets whipped up into frenzy every time efforts are made. Now, this isn't new. This has been going on for FOUR YEARS. Yes, "people" are disrupting efforts, but the solution here in this instance is not to try to censure 5 or 10 or 20 individuals who are doing the disruption. It's to recognize that the community, divided as it is, needs outside arbitration because there's no settling it otherwise—due to lack of good faith. (One may wish to Assume Good Faith but be realistic when it is not there.) These articles are High Profile on the Wikipedia, getting many many hits per month. The status quo damages the Wikipedia and certainly does no good for these articles. So, yes, we're asking for a ruling on the appropriate names for these articles, based on a whole set of arguments pro and con, because we as a community of editors interested in this topic CANNOT come to consensus. Thanks for your consideration. I respect whatever view you end up having. After all, you're an arbitrator. -- Evertype·✆ 01:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case

I think you may have overlooked that Waggers is also an administrator. Thanks for posting the arbitration request: I think Arbcom should be taking this on, as I tried to show in my statement. However, I can see that there are all sorts of ways in which individuals can deny that, which would be a great pity. If they want evidence of conduct problems, then citing almost the entire discussions may be in order, including the continual attribution of motives to others to disparage and denigrate their opinions, and the quiet bizarre way in which people self-report their commitment to consensus, when I see little evidence of them making any concessions that really get at the heart of the matter at all! Oh well...  DDStretch  (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(errr... so am I, actually.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

Your wish is my command. -- Evertype·✆ 13:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

thoughts on Irish naming

I added some thoughts on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. (I almost added them to the /Evidence page itself, but feared they'd be out of place there. I wonder if anyone'll notice them on the discussion page at all?) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If I were you I would put them on the Evidence page. For my part I would not have noticed them on the discussion page. Were you supporting Scenario C? -- Evertype·✆ 07:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

See also my comments here -- Evertype·✆ 08:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Evertype. Just been reading on Arbcom and one part in your evidence really surprised me:

• Scenario B (To be superficial about it, this scenario tends to be favoured by people north of the border, Unionists or Loyalists or not) —
• Ireland - an article chiefly about the island and the nation of people who live on it" etc

Obviously you said this is a superficial approach but have you ever thought that having the Ireland (island) article in the main spot has pro-republican aspects? I see the current Ireland article as similar to Korea. The largest part of both these places' history is as one unified state/area — indeed the focus of the Korea article is its history. The only difference is that neither state is just called "Korea" now — this is the real difficulty with the Ireland article. For me, having the state article at Ireland would infer that reunification of the island in some form will never happen. I disagree that when people talk of "Ireland" they mean the state: I believe they are also referring to a place that existed before 1922. I would never agree to having the state article moved to Ireland as, by definition, it would brush aside 2000 years of true Irish history. Have you ever considered this aspect of the move? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, we aren't naming Ireland. We're naming some encycolopaedia articles. There's no winning this argument. What you say above is one interpretation. It is valid enough. Another interpretation is that the Six Counties are the Splitters... After all, Ireland had one government for centuries—whether governed from home or from abroad, it was governed as a whole. Government changed with independence, except for that part of Ireland that split off and stayed with the UK. So from that point of view, the ONLY place the state should be is at Ireland, because there is greater continuity there. Now the thing is, both arguments are valid enough. One can be emotive about it and like one argument more than the other, but there are merits to both views. Do I believe that the name of the article would imply that the reunification of the island in some form will never happen? No, absolutely I do not believe that Wikipedia article titles "imply" anything at all. In any case I do understand that you (and others) would never agree to have the state article moved to Ireland. And there are others who would never agree that the island article belongs there, because inevitably state material gets in there. That is why I hope that Ireland becomes the disambiguation page alongside Ireland (island) and Ireland (state). But honestly, saying that an article tile would "brush aside 2000 years of true Irish history" is pretty silly. In the first place, what's "true"? In the second place, people have been living on Ireland for 10,000 years. Having said that, if the Arbitration Committee rules that the state sits at Ireland I would agree to it. That's why I asked for Arbitration: because we need help since we cannot come to a solution on our own. -- Evertype·✆ 18:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I 100% agree with you there. I too will accept the ArbCom ruling, regardless of how it turns out. I think I'm fooling myself with the never — I think I'd rather have the state at Ireland than an article that resembles the disappointing Macedonia. Worse than that, however, would be the non-resolution of this issue! I'm sure we can all agree on that! PS I added history to the lead of the Ireland article to counter-balance the recent prespective.[4] Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Eoró

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Where is what visible on what page? - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 18:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom: involved parties

Hi. I've proposed on the ArbCom/Evidence talk page that the following, who have all contributed to the debate (and all or nearly all on IDTF) be added to the list of involved parties and duly notified:

• User:ww2censor
• User:Bastun
• User:Nuclare
• User:Gnevin
• User:RashersTierney
• User:Traditional unionist

Since it's your baby, you might want to do the adding. Scolaire (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"My baby"? Is that civil? Or snide? -- Evertype·✆ 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sincere. I only meant that it was you that opened the case and I didn't want to just go adding parties. Scolaire (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me an answer one way or the other, please? Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Name of the country of Ireland

I made a comment on the Republic of Ireland talk page yesterday about the naming dispute and noticed that you seemed to be involved in this issue for some time. I think I share a similar opinion as you. What I don't understand is why consensus is needed when something is so verifiable? The constitution names the country Ireland.

Article 4 - "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." [5]

It is the President of Ireland [6], at the UN it is Ireland [7], in the EU it is Ireland [8], even the British embassy in Dublin is the "British Embassy in Ireland" (try to find the word Republic of Ireland on that website) [9] So why then is there even a discussion about what name should the country go under?

Basically what people want to do is say even though the country of Ireland is not officially called the Republic of Ireland, we are going to call it that because either there is an island also called Ireland (and it would just be too confusing for people so we will just call the country of Ireland the wrong name) or else they have some bias and it makes them feel better if they somehow are able to separate the island of Ireland and the country of Ireland on wikipedia.

Other encyclopedias, Britanica [10] Encarta [11]

Merriam Webster [12] --T*85 (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi, Michael. Your post, "Response by Matt Lewis", seems to be missing an important bit. It says: "This user has resigned from the WIkipedia because of this issue, and with respect to Scolaire, I mus."[13] I presume it was meant to read "I must...", so if nothing else I would need to know what the rest of it was, so as to know if I need to respond. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how important that bit was, but I reconstructed what I'd been thinking. (It would be nice if we could all be Spocklike abotu this, but logic doesn't yield a result.) -- Evertype·✆ 11:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean Matt Lewis rather than Mark?:) Titch Tucker (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It was late. -- Evertype·✆ 11:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My wife says that in the morning if I stagger in from the pub. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Also I know another Mark Lewis. -- Evertype·✆ 12:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just kidding Evertype. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And I was just being deadpan, Titch Tucker. -- Evertype·✆ 13:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to the pub, my humour is much better face to face. :( Titch Tucker (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to respond here, because I think it is important, but I'm not going to get into it (right now, anyway) on ArbCom. Matt Lewis is himself an example of how giving free rein to your passions damages Wikipedia. I know this sounds callous, but at this moment in time Matt is not a loss to Wikipedia. The chances of reaching a solution, whether on ArbCom or the task force or elsewhere, are infinitely greater without him. What's needed now more than anything else is to take the temperature right down, and allow peolple time to breathe and space to manoeuver. I have spoken as little as possible lately, and I hope I can continue to listen, and not jump in, and I think one or two other people would be well advised to take a step back as well. I do, of course, fervently hope that Matt will exorcise his demons and come back from retirement, as he did before, to contribute usefully again. Regards. Scolaire (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If Mooretwin's compromise passes, an RM at Republic of Ireland will be required. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Just reading on the proposal page — "Nope. It's not an acceptable "package deal" because the name of the "primary" topic is ambiguous and in fact the question as to whether the state or it island is "primary" is unresolved."

I think you got to the crux of the matter with that one. I agree that yes, the primary topic as it stands (Ireland) is ambiguous given the current naming of the Irish State and the historical "all"-Ireland. However, I would argue that when considering an article called Ireland we must incorporate the entirety of Irish history and culture, describing both states as pieces of the Ireland puzzle. I think a good quality article of this kind, with concise summaries of the various aspects of the whole of Ireland, from history and culture to geography and politics, would do the most justice to the topic.

The fact is the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland separated but "Ireland", the idea and geographical area, never did. It contains two entities that have a wealth of shared culture and history — this is the true essence of Ireland and pretending that one of these entities, without the other, represents this essence will only serve to undermine efforts to reconcile the division. I think Ireland is an emotional issue, making consensus difficult. However, there are other ways in which we can move on from the issues and start improving what we have here. What do you think? Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't got a problem with you moving it at all. I sent it to you personally as I felt you were most concerned about the ambiguity issue. Place it wherever you feel is most appropriate. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(from GD's page) The Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation) & Republic of Ireland articles have to be worked at, one article at a time. Starting with RoI (the most disputed) is best. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We've tried getting the Disambiguation page moved to Ireland & Ireland moved to Ireland (island) already; it didn't work. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

People complained about the process. We also tried to get ROI moved to Ireland (state) and that didn't work either. -- Evertype·✆ 17:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

After 4 yrs of requesting page movement for those 3 articles & not having gotten a consensus for those moves. The chances are pratically non-existant. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is much consensus on the moves. There were complaints about the process. The moves were reverted by Deacon because of process. Sorry, but we actually do need an "all-encompassing" solution, and since "Ireland" is irretrievably ambiguous, it can hardly end until we end up there. -- Evertype·✆ 19:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I know Republic of Ireland will never be moved to Ireland. That's a move, I'd oppose. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I find these polls a bit disconcerting to the editing experience. It'd be nice if Arbcom came up with some positive, popular results. The polling system lacks any real methodology, and editors who actually agree with each-other are polling differently because of various side-issues, which are also quite important. KFC -PurpleA (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree with you. -- Evertype·✆ 09:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I've casted a 'vote' 4 times within a month, on these topics. I'm about ready for the happpy house. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

I was trying to think of another compromise and came up with this solution which I put temporarily on my user page [14]. I was wondering what your opinion is of this, maybe it is stupid? Obviously the map should be changed to reflect that the name of the country is not the Republic. I don't know, this seems like the only way to illustrate to people the difference between the state and the island if people don't want to change the name to Ireland (island). I know that the current page has a note up the top indicting the same thing, but I am not sure many people pay attention to them, I know I don't most of the time.--T*85 (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that of we have both Ireland and Ireland (state) as primary articles then both will end up duplicating one another. Only Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) avoids this problem. My hope now is only that the Arbitration Committee will take this up. -- Evertype·✆ 09:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)