This user may have left Wikipedia. Tfz has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Ice eggs, also known as ice balls, are a rare phenomenon caused by a process in which small pieces of sea ice in open water are rolled over by wind and currents in freezing conditions and grow into spheroid pieces of ice. They sometimes collect into heaps of balls on beaches where they pack together in striking patterns. The gentle churn of water, blown by a suitably stiff breeze, makes concentric layers of ice form on a seed particle that then grows into the floating ball as it rolls through the freezing currents. This formation of ice eggs was photographed in 2014 on Stroomi Beach in Tallinn, Estonia. The temperature was around −20 to −15 °C (−4 to 5 °F), and the diameter of each ball around 5 to 10 centimetres (2 to 4 in).
I have been editing WP intermittently for over four years. Most of my edits are grammar based ones, and I don't usually log in, as normally, I'm just an avid reader. Tfz
Do you really oppose moving Ireland's island content to Ireland (island) and moving Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland? Why? Your "oppose" vote said "it won't work", which is perplexing. -- Evertype·✆11:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relative distance "mainland" Great Britain is an irrelevance, as the "nearness" depends on the extremities, which in this case means St Kilda (and thus GB). This is going beyond GF, past POV and now into trolling and vandalism. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I understand the point you are making with the change to the British Isles article, but you are only going to end up in an edit war. No-one disputes the reference. But. What makes your reference *better* than other references? What about weight/volume of other references - why should a single reference "trump" 100 other references? And there'll probably be lots of other arguments against your edit that other editors will make. This is an area I am ... familiar .. with, having been in the wars myself. There is a task force set up to discuss usage of the term - WP:BISLES, and I fully expect there to be a lot of activity on this task force as soon as the arbitrators finish with the "Ireland" issue. So it's probably best to chillax a little until then. This topic is on a lot of people's list and ain't going anywhere. --HighKing (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "British and Irish Lions" name did not come into being until 2001. The instances of "and Irish" that i have removed were premature and thus left the team misnamed. Rory Underwood, for example, may have represented the "British Lions" but he did not play for a side called the "British and Irish Lions". It's not exactly a major issue i know but accuracy is accuracy. siarach (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shrugs* Fair enough but if that's the case you should change the opening section of the article which states that the name wasn't changed until 2001 as that is obviously misleading. siarach (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Setting pics at 150px will make them MUCH smaller for those, like me, who have preferences set at 300px. Thatis why it is recommended that pics are not normally set that small. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the browser (for once), you set a size in "files" under "my preferences" on your user tab (top right - as you have an account). Anyway, I've set the lead one to 300px, which is the smallest forced size generally recommended. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please DO NOT remove my comments on an article talk page. My comments were valid, and were posing a valid question, which you don't seem to want to answer. I take exception to being labelled a troll. LevenBoy (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please not change the time indicator on the CBC article, p.m. is an official accepted version of the time indicator, and in Canada it is the official way of indicating it. It is the version CBC uses, and the official version for the country of the article. In addition p.m. is the version suggested for use on the manual of style. I know it doesn't seem like correct English to have the letters lower case, but it's just the way things have gone over the evolution of the English language. Canterbury Tailtalk11:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tfz, you may or may not be aware that some time ago during 2007 and 2008 User:HighKing embarked on a campaign to remove British Isles from Wikipedia. This caused enormous ill felling and his actions spilled over into many other Irish and British articles. Eventually a major battle between User:TharkunColl and User:HighKing resulted in an agreement that the term "British Isles" would neither be added to, nor removed from, any articles without consensus - i.e. agreement on the Talk page. Things have been relatively quiet since that time, but I now see that you have removed British Isles, or renamed an article to effectively remove it, without first obtaining agreement. Your actions may well be valid, but you must get consensus first if we are to avoid conflict again. LemonMonday Talk 12:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purple is a much more 'serious' a colour, and "test it" your peril. Joking aside, probably because I like to hit the target, if possible:) Tfz01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article name was changed today I wouldn't bat an eyelid. I do understand why you think it should change and as I said, I am sympathetic to your view. I was only giving you the realities of what has gone on before at the talk page, where there is no consensus for change and the majority of editors believe because it is the most common term then it should stay as it is. My view? If there were consensus to change it I would be more than happy with that, but that's not going to happen in the near future I'm afraid. Jack forbes (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I'm not advocating for change of title. The article has a 'stuffy self-proclaiming style' about it, and over-long IMO. A more upbeat, looser article would be much more educational than one where every reference is fought over. ''Tfz'' (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with that. I hardly recall an edit there thats not been challenged. Not an article I would want to spend too much time on, my brains fried enough as it is. :) Jack forbes (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I'm taking a few days away from it, but will look in from time to time. I have some other editing to do on a couple of more articles. Deleted no, but redirect to Battle of the British Isles, might be better title, all that's needed is a switch around from talk to article page, and vica versa. ''Tfz'' (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit-warring on this article. If you have a problem with the agreed text, please discuss on the Talk page. Please self-revert in the meantime. Mooretwin (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mooretwin is edit warring at the above page (as usual). I don't wish to get caught up in an edit war with him so I was hoping you help out by posting on the talk page and reverting his disruptive behaviour? Thanks.MITH21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the magic of a cookie I was able to retrieve my password, which I scrambled last evening being quite upset with events. It's impossible for me to stay with the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration, that the simple proposals on the Ireland article are to go to a community vote, when there is almost a consensus amongst the reasonable editors there. Unfortunately a few vociferous editors are holding "sway", and moderators and admins fail to notice. Moderate editors who are prepared to reach compromise are not heeded, editors who want to draw lines on granite are. Tfz10:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, twice, and indicative. It was a moment of realisation. Tfz 12:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC) PS. I see another editor talking about Divas. I am genuinely off the page, and won't comment on it much after this, if at all, 'power' is the last thing on my mind. I just can't be part of a shambles that cannot be reversed. Tfz12:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would ignore those comments one look at BW user page and any fool could see that they weren't an Irish nationalist so take the comments as the are foolish. BigDuncTalk13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what makes you oppose an STV poll which would have the merit of allowing everyone to express a ranked set of preferences. Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll lays out all the options clearly. You claim that there is "almost a consensus amongst the reasonable editors" — where is that clearly laid out, as Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's is? Since it isn't laid out clearly anywhere, "almost consensus" is vague. -- Evertype·✆14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe in intelligence of crowds to working out simple solutions to complex issues, then STV is for you. I don't believe that to be the case, and believe interested intelligent editors are infinitely more able to make an acceptable outcome. Also, the vote is irreversible, which I don't object to, for that is the nature of voting, and only a community vote can reverse a community vote. All great law was devised by great minds, not by crowd action, this case needs a leader to distill the consensus that is there. Masden is trying that, I hope he gets support. Tfz14:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I've shaken the dust of me from that place; I’ve to much self respect to help perpetuate the myth that it's anything other than a POV speakers corner. Bartering on the name of an internationally recognised Nation based on nothing but bias. --Domer48'fenian'19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you, I couldn't look at myself in the mirror again if I had stayed with the 'collaboration page'. Although I have tremendous respect for many of the editors who have came in and out of that page, still there remains a noisy handful who couldn't care less but to troll their pov. The page has become cheap and tawdry, and is unworthy to be discussing the important matter at hand. Tfz19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, thanks for that on the talk carnival, I’m glad you understood what I’m trying to do. Up against two admin’s out to scupper my every effort, who edit war and then block the page, unblock to put their snide remarks back in and lock it again, how can you compete with that? Along with the other abuse, so much for a genuine effort. All gone off now to come up with another excuse to prevent this discussion being resolved. It’s as if they want to perpetuate this issue, to keep the edit count up on the project. I’ve made a genuine effort here, and it’s brought down by the same crew. --Domer48'fenian'22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just have to assume good faith, but some are very tetchy there. There is no hope for the collaboration page, too much trolling and posturing tolerated. Also too many generalised false claims which leads to disputes. Your idea about deleting 'false claims' is a very good one. Masden should try work with that. I have a lot of respect for the moderator, but he is up against it, I fear. Tfz22:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it'll make you all feel better? my proposals at the British Isles Taskforce tends to get no consensus. Basically, we've all been in similiar situations. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can 'twenty angry men' reach consensus, it was difficult for twelve! It's possible to do alright. Tfz22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer that all the Arbitrators get together & decide the whole Ireland naming dispute via 'majority vote' among themselves. However, they won't as they prefer to let the community to work it out. I suppose I see the Arbitrators point, as such a move by them would create a potentially dangerous precedent. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the dilemma that some editors have about using Ireland (state) and using Ireland (country), and both have their drawbacks. Some people don't like state as it's too much like a state as in USA, and others object to country because 32 counties are the country, and hope it will probably be reunited in next 30 years or so. I have come up with a more neutral article name, Ireland (sovereign country), in that it describes the sovereign part of the country of Ireland. Maybe it's worth putting it on the shelf for some future examination if the process ever goes near that type of solution, if ever. Tfz22:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding me of WP:BLP, it is in the event unnecessary as such edits made by me are verifiable and attributed to quotes and written statements from the individual concerned. Have a nice day! --De Unionist (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you undid my edit to your page, so I'll answer here. Many died fighting, and not just in Irish regiments, and they are foreign armies now. Really, I don't think you know the details in full, for you to insist on your edits. Anyway, I don't want an edit war with you, and will look on it again later on. Tfz15:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are foreign armies now is irrelevant and your phrasing removes the fact that those Irish fought specifically on the Allied side. Whether some of them fought outside the Irish regiments does not change the fact that the Irish regiments existed or that the Irish National War Memorial Gardens were created to honor those who served and died in them. Freedom fighter is a POV statement, as that article shows. Insurgent is a neutral word, that neither endorses the actions of those people, nor condemns them, as a word like terrorist would. This neutral point of view is core guideline of Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really I don't know why you are edit-warring and wiki-lawyering over this article. It's totally debatable whether Freedom fighter is used or not, for the gardens remember all who died, and all who were murdered in the name of Irish freedom, men women and children, and the unborn too. Tfz15:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tfz. I have archived the poll you initiated at Talk:Republic of Ireland. Talk pages are for discussion of its associated article, and is not an appropriate venue for a vote of confidence on other processes. If you think there is a problem with the collaboration process you should discuss it on its own talk page or else you can bring it to the attention of the moderator(s) on their talk pages. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, you can always contact the Arbs on their page or even by mailing list. Finally, you are also welcome to create a poll in your user space User:Tfz/Poll and create a link to it in the relevant venues. Thanks. Rockpocket17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your frustration, the collaboration page has turned into a sprawling monstrosity. I agree that it is unlikely that any protest you make will make much of a difference, such is the disparate POVs pushing the discussion this way and that. Rockpocket18:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing's perfect, I might just get rid of it, don't like the colour, and leave the text. I do "feel" semi-retired, strange feeling of freedom. Tfz17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, done that, this time is different, but will still be around. Learned some lessons from some unlikely quarters. Tfz18:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you get too fed up Tfz, stroll along to WikiBlitz, the club GoodDay and I created on my talk page. It's where the in-crowd should hang out. Alas, few do.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are getting the wikipedia blues. Try taking a week or two away from the place then come back as semi-retired. You may find that going to semi-retired immediately doesn't work as you tend to edit as much as before. It really is quite refreshing to stay completely away from the place for a short time. Jack forbes (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input Jack, and would hate to lose complete touch with the place. My work is on computers, and it's so easy to flick in from time to time. I'm going to concentrate more into the future on content editing, and less on 'naming issues'. It's nice to see you about, and that you 'can take it or leave it'. Tfz12:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't always that way, Tfz. Early on I tended to get very uptight about disagreements on wiki, which is why I took a few months out a while ago. On returning I realised although always very interesting it wasn't something that should take over ones life, as I believe it does to many editors on this project. Jack forbes (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it takes commitment to get some issues dealt with fairly, commitment that takes time and effort. I think most 'good editors' wear out in a couple of years, and then take a more relaxed back seat. Tfz13:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor endorsed my summation here [2]. The "is", or "is not" ambiguous proposition has caused argument in the past, "can be" is the next logical conclusion. I'm not going to edit war, as I fell out with the process last week when some of the editors tried and failed to get other editors blocked from the discussion. Tfz15:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that word means what you think it means. But try reading the discussion on the Talk page, which explains the situation quite fairly and clearly. -- Evertype·✆11:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think that word means what you think it means", that's somewhat arrogant of you, I know exactly what the word means. Tfz11:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was a quote from the film The Princess Bride, where one character uses the word "Inconceivable!" in ways which are not appropriate to the usual meaning of the word. In the case of "ineffable", its typical use is not the one to which you put it, which is more for things like "God's ineffable wisdom". But try reading the discussion on the Talk page, which explains the situation quite fairly and clearly. -- Evertype·✆11:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My usage of "ineffable" was a one sentenced word for my 'unwritable thoughts' on the matter, and there was a slight pun intended too, as in "effingly unspeakable"! Let's not get hung up on a quick repoiste. Tfz11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. But try reading the discussion on the Talk page, which explains the situation quite fairly and clearly. -- Evertype·✆12:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were right about "between" but "among" is problematic. Could you propose edits on the Talk page? We're very close to closure (I hope) and its best to try to make changes as transparent as possible. (Even Scolaire posted a notice of a full stop.) -- Evertype·✆11:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire has also asked you to make suggestions on the Talk page, and not to "edit willy-nilly" as he put it. -- Evertype·✆11:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Counties complicates the statement, so I removed, some will object no doubt. RoI should not be included as an option, as not wp:ver. Could end up with a lot of work for nothing. Tfz12:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scoláire reverted you and I agree with him. RoI is included as an option because we have consensus to include it. There is a possibility you will not get what you want. There is a possibility others will not get what they want. That's the chance we have to take. The Earth will continue to circle the Sun either way. -- Evertype·✆12:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scoláire is wrong. Why do we need to complicate the issue with counties/shires. What has it got to do with the issue, the counties are a red herring. I'm surprised with Scoláire. Tfz12:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This poll is going to be community-wide. You know there are people out there who can't distinguish between "England" and "the United Kingdom". We are trying to be concise and correct (and there are 32 counties as you know), so "what has it got to do with it" isn't a sufficient reason to take the edits you proposed. "Shires" by the way, is the red herring. -- Evertype·✆12:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is little respect at Wikipedia for content editors, trolling accounts and special purpose accounts rule the day. Most of the content editors have departed, and the encyclopedia is clearly not improving. Why take it too seriously when the people at the top quite plainly don't. Tfz23:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see now, it wasn't a proposal by Domer. But, rather just an exampler. PS: Thanks for not deleting my postings here. It shows class & patients on your part. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, thought you had lost your neutrals and had joined the other side. What a phantasm, that's when hell freezes over, eh? lol!! Tfz15:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost some touch with it, as wasn't feeling too good some days ago. Checkups, xrays, and all of that, but on the mend. Was told not to be working too much on the computer, as things sedentary are not "good for the health". I must now have my 5 mile walk shortly.) Tfz21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cur-tail", yeah that's what if seems like if my memory serves me correctly, lol. The other end with me, lung congestion from cigars and computer work, got the all clear, but now has me down for an echo. You never seen anyone quit cigs so quickly, lol. Tfz23:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Glad you liked the quote, work away and use it. Its from 1899 so copyright is not an issue. I might use it myself under the Froude quote on my user page, it seems to fit nicely with it. --Domer48'fenian'07:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have it here[3] for future reference, it's nice to come across such clarity regarding that particular issue, and timeless too. Tfz12:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the little clan that jumped all over your statement tried the same with every action Domer made don't let them drive you away or censor your statement it is what they want. BigDunc11:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, I favour Ireland(state), but I think you may be pleasantly surprised by the amount of endorsements you get for your statement. You really should reinstate it. I also think most people have no problem if someone endorses their own statement. Jack forbes (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, BigDunc, because we really want an outcome to this process where someone can then say the poll wasn't fair/they were discriminated against... There was nothing wrong with Tfz's statement, and it's been put back - the only reason he removed it is because he got in a snit when questioned on endorsing his own statement, not because anyone "jumped over his statement". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!11:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last evening, I could imagine a few friendly voices whispering in my ear, "I told you so", and then I thought to myself, "what next?", the image of Ireland might have to come down too, and "where would it all end?". At last look, Sarah had signed so I'm now more reluctant to countermand Evertype's morning revert. So I'll let it pass, and any complaints from the 'little clan' can descend into the abysmal abyss where they belong. And Bastun, I told you not to be trolling on my page, my pet name for you is Mr Invective, when you get some 'house training' you will be more than welcome. Tfz15:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jack, I'm so tired with RL stuff, every time I try reading that page it's like being hit by a high speed intercontinental train, as there always a new issue to sort out. Forgive me for not knowing, but I thought it was this weekend sometime. Will have a closer look at 'that page' if it's not too risky. Tfz23:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was supposed to start last night. I've asked Masem (this morning) to lock the ballot paper and I've volunteered to send out notices. -- Evertype·✆08:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was created for pov-fork purposes, and the article should be deleted, that's why I said that at the time. But now that it continues to remain on Wikipedia, the situation has changed. And Mooretwin, why are you forever making silly sectarian politically peevish edits that just give the rest of us a pain in the butt. Wikipedia is trying to move away from that sort of stuff, you guys are making it difficult. Tfz16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked you to retract the accusation, but you haven't done so. I've asked an admin. for advice to see if there is any way of having the allegation removed. Mooretwin (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You came here looking for trouble earlier on today. I rarely ever bother with any of your edits, only on a couple of occasions when you were trying to change Ireland into "Republic of Ireland", and another bit of similar nonsense. Hey, just keep off my page. Tfz21:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are now officially addicted to wikipedia. I am thinking of starting an advice page for those editors who get sweaty palms and the shakes when too long away from their addiction. You will of course be welcome to sign up free of charge. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some days I am a bit addicted, and this is my rest day, so I'm on WP a bit more often today. Contradiction? lol. I wanted to add this to the 'iota' bit, but didn't want to break the curfew again. "Some men see things as they are and say, why. I dream things that never were and say, why not. -- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)". Now for that garden work;). Tfz18:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what he said. Here is what he specifically said:
It is generally considered acceptable to remove personal attacks, though there are some who disagree with that. If when you remove a personal attack you are reverted, then do not remove it again. Instead seek an outside party to investigate, preferably on some sort of public noticeboard.
Chillum did not say to remove anything. He said that it is acceptable to remove personal attacks, but that if you are reverted you should not remove it again. I reverted Sarah, so she should not have removed it again, if she had been following Chillum's advice. She should have sought an outside party to investigate, not removed it again. john k (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked Masem's advice, and you should have left it at that. Anyway, I am trying to avoid another incident, not trying to score any points. If you want to put it back in, then I won't remove it again. It is an 'ad hominem' which ever way it is looked at. Tfz15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy how you are unwilling to ever admit error. You were wrong about Chillum's advice. Sarah clearly acted against that advice. I'm not going to add it again, but I think that the idea of removing personal attacks is problematic to begin with. It is one thing to remove threats, or racist comments, or just pure nastiness with no relevance to any arguments. Srnec was making an argument, and was basically attacking Sarah's arguments, not Sarah herself. It perhaps verged on a personal attack, but removal in such cases seems like a really terrible idea to me. Srnec's comment was not any worse than most of what Sarah says - as for instance, accusing me of wiki-stalking her (which she later apologized for), accusing virtually everyone of being insulting, accusing people of "British POV" for favoring RoI, and so forth. For her to be accusing other people of personal attacks is strikingly problematic. The talk page is a record of a discussion. If some people go overboard with personal attacks, they, for the most part, make themselves look bad, not the person they are attacking. All but the most vile comments should remain in the discussion, for everyone's benefit. But I'll wait and see if Masem does anything. john k (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit errors, and make them, everyone makes errors all of the time. It's a bit like driving a car, thousands of corrections have to be made on an hourly basis to keep on the highway. It's the big ones that cause the big problems. "British POV" stands for "British point of view", and I do agree with Sarah on that score, in that UK editors are more likely to choose RoI, because generally when they are not using Eire, RoI is generally their other choice. The British quite blankly refused to use the name Ireland for years, and that's not a secret history. Wikipedia is aping the British on that. I broadly agree in not removing edits, but we cannot speak for other people when an ad hominem is made, nor is it always a good idea to turn a total blind eye. Tfz16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of looking at it later, but don't have the experience do do it easily. If you could do it, that might be better, as he'll probably accuse me of a vendetta. I would support such a move. But if not, I will look at it a bit later. Tfz15:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like these [6] are unhelpful - see WP:SOAPBOX. Comments like these [7] are effectively unwarranted personal attacks - see WP:NPA. I've been keeping this in reserve, but I have to tell you I'm willing to a request a topic ban for people who disrupt the discussion. Please do not make this necessary. Rd232talk20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully stand behind everything I said. This article has been under pressure this last two weeks to push secterian POV into the lede. Tfz20:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your first comment was soapboxing - don't do that. Your second comment was an attack on another editor - not clearly explained and evidenced criticism, just attack. Don't do that either. As for what happened in the last two weeks - I don't care. I've been there for 2 days, we're starting to make some progress, and I won't let any editors drag the discussion back to the unproductive place it was - which was everybody from different sides trying to push sectarian POV, not just one side. If you won't or can't contribute constructively to that, please stay away from that page. Rd232talk20:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't like the message, and I don't like it either, and it was not an attack on Mooretwin. It took two weeks for a pov laden sentence to be removed from the article, and now the discussion is about pushing the same sectarian data into the lead in a less conspicuous fashion. Obviously I am not agreeing to where the discussion is going. Tfz20:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This place is beginning to cheese me off big time, it's probably time to depart, I may come back occasionally to tie up some loose ends, or to correct some typos perhaps. Tfz01:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make any difference, M1 is shared by other countires but it was overwhelmingly kept where it was. It depends on each motorway. M2, there is no clear primary topic because Pakistan actually has more page views than the England one. You cant go around changing them all without a RM process in each. Some are justified to be moved, others are NOT. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else making changes is no excuse for you to do the same. STOP moving these articles, restore them to their correct locations and start a debate. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I could talk and write Scottish Gaelic I'm sure I'd understand the meaning. Unfortunately, I wasn't taught my native language in school. Must be the only country in the world that thinks our native language shouldn't be taught to the natives. I also find it hysterically funny that the Scots Language is considered a language on it's own. As I heard someone comment once, "I must be a genius at languages as I could understand most of what was being said without being taught". Jack forbes (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone should have the opportunity to learn their native tongue, and Scottish Gaelic is thousands of years old, as old as Latin they say, and maybe even older. Magic to see tScotland, Wales and Ireland hold onto some of that old world culture, at a time it was being disparaged by the pseudo-intelligentsia in the not to distant past. Tfz16:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note; there's a politician here in Italy who thinks that Italian regional dialects should be taught in the schools of each particular region. This is rich seeing as teachers had previously lamented that many children had difficulty speaking proper Italian due to the fact that they only heard dialect spoken in their homes! Where I live practically nobody speaks Italian, just Sicilian dialect.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:AlisonW, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jeni(talk)21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think PAs, even if veiled should be allowed to stay. If you put it back, then i hope AlisonW removes it. Tfz21:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is from a completely neutral Anglo-Irish admin. Please feel free to continue your "campaign" against British motorway articles. Where they are reasonale, I will support you. Where they aren't (i.e. M4) I will oppose you every time. And - let's be clear abour this - I will block you if you if you are disruptive, in exactly the way I would block disruptive editors on the other side. OK? Black Kite00:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by Anglo-Irish, it's a kind of misnomer nowadays. You mean half Irish I guess, or something like that. I think WP:BOLD is the best way to edit Wikipedia. Who knows that a page move is controversial until it is done, then a few editors scream controversial, and then get very abusive, which you seem to have missed. All these meta-controversies are important to the growth of Wikipedia, and usually they calm down in a couple of hours, so there is never any need to get excited at all. The project should be able to withstand differences of opinion, if it cannot, then it will not succeed, and maybe just become Anglo-American wikipedia and certainly not the Anglo-Irish Wikipedia, as there is too much animosity between certain English editors and Ireland, and I say that as ex-pat Londoner turned Irish. I'll edit as I see fit, and this last three days has been a complete revelation to me. Tfz02:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all very well saying "I'll edit as I see fit", but there's a fine line between being WP:BOLD and disruptive. Moving non-obvious M# pages verges towards that. For example, I see BHG has dabbed M18 motorway. Good move - minor British motorway, completely unclear primary target (and she fixed all the links). Doing it with articles like M4 motorway is just pointless though. BRD is a good guideline, but when it's obvious that your "B" is going to be "R"'d, why not do the obvious and start a requested move? Far less conflict will ensue. Oh yeah, "Anglo Irish" - I live in the UK, but one of my parents hails from Tullamore and the other has one parent from the six counties. So I like to think I can see both sides of the issue. Black Kite08:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You always seemed pretty fair to me, not that I've come across you often, half a dozen times perhaps. Quote, "...as I see fit" unquote, within the parameters of Wikipedia course, calling it as it is, and PAs are not my game, although humour/irony can sometimes be completely misinterpreted and we have to live with that, and it has happened me. I still cannot see stretches of tar macadam being primary targets, although "M1" is debatable, but not Champs Elysees, or Appian Way for instance. The M system is a mere coding system, and some countries had that before the UK took it on. Anyway, enough of that, it won't be sorted here. Tfz09:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in here, but doesn't Anglo-Irish mean those born in Ireland of an English, Protestant, often Ascendancy background, such as Wolfe Tone, Oscar Wilde, Yeats, etc.?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a misnomer nowadays but still used on and off. The Anglo-Irish Agreement I think was between Ireland and UK, but Anglo meaning English leaves out Wales and Scotland perhaps. The original Anglo-Irish were a mixture of Irish and English people, were members of Church of Ireland, and had the 'divine right to rule', using a very nasty law called the "Penal Law", in Ireland in eighteenth century. Wolfe Tone, Oscar Wilde, Yeats, all of whom were great Irish people would be from that mixed tradition, and Anglo-Irish didn't automatically bestow power much after Emancipation, and repeal of penal laws c 1829. It's a virtually irrelevant concept today and not used much. That's my take on it, and not all OR.) Tfz16:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of my mother's ancestors was a Townsend, who were an Anglo-Irish family; when I lived in Dublin, I worked with a girl whose family was descended from the Ascendancy. I am an Anglican, by dint of my mother, however my dad was the son of Irish Catholic immigrants. It's a bit tricky using the term as it could mean Irish people of English, Protestant backgrounds, or a mixture of British (or English) and Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's one of those terms that's best avoided as it can mean different things to different people, and some Irish people would find it uncomfortable, and even offensive, to be described by the term, as word 'Irish' is inclusive. Never use in polite company .)Tfz12:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that my posts on Domers talk page where by no means intended to be trolling. I hope you didn't get that impression. It was my little (bad) joke that seemed to be followed on by a couple of editors who seemed, how shall I put it, a little more serious. I have removed my posts hoping Domer didn't take it the wrong way. Anyway, thought I'd try and clear that up. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was more Malleus Fatuorum, as he accused me and others of all sorts of things a couple of weeks ago which I've forgotton, and the editor who opened the thread, as it just seemed superfluous. I should mmob perhaps.) Tfz14:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Jack, your did get the right impression above. If an editors comments are removed you assume they have been read. Tfz, thanks for the post, assume it was read. --Domer48'fenian'19:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent tag-teaming of the usual disruptive edits (by both sides), I'm leaving this message at various talkpages to point out that persistent edit-warring over British Isles/Islands/GB etc terminology past the original Bold/Revert may be met with blocks of increasing length. In other words, like the BI articles, any reversion of a reversion may be met with a block. Example (and not singling out any editor in particular) - [9]. Thanks,Black Kite20:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this.....
._05.jpg)
