Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:27, 2 December 2008

Archives

Archive 1: Sep. 2005 - Mar. 2007 Archive 2: Apr. 2007 - Dec. 2007 Archive 3: Jan. 2008 - Aug. 2008

Peer review

Hi. Thank you for your comments at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Slovenian presidential election, 2007/archive1. I have some questions there, could you give me a piece of advice? Thanks in advance. --Tone 22:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm about ready for bed now. I'll try to get back to it tomorrow :-) Scolaire (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I will nominate it for a FA now, my experiences show that this is the most effective way to make the final improvements to the article. Greetings. --Tone 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving, deleting - same difference if it has the same effect.

The section on international references was conveniently removed from the discussion to be parked up some back alley while I was away. The result is that the archive that puported to show the discussion as having reached a break point was a false one because of this deliberate piece of gamesmanship, because the citations it was giving were too inconvenient. So I reinstated the true record. --Red King (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland dab Task Force

Hi Scolaire, are you still interested in helping to move this task force along. I think the recent lull on the task force might turn out to be a good thing as it. Also, what do you think of asking a mediator to join in also, to help with the sticky bits? --HighKing (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume you meant to say Ireland dab task force - I haven't been involved in the BI one at all. In principle, I want to stay involved; in practice, I've been much busier in real life in the last month so I've far less time to devote to it. I hope to post a statement shortly. I'm afraid that I don't agree with you when you say that the lull was a good thing. I felt when the proposed deletion was on it was the best chance to get everybody together from across the spectrum and get them to make a clear statement of their positions. At that stage a mediator or "independent assessor" might have been able to develop a framework for tackling the issues. At this point in time there is no point in approaching a mediator because there is nothing to mediate - everybody has gone home.

What I had in mind when I was talking to Matt Lewis was something along the lines of WP:RFC/U or ArbCom, where you have "Statement by User:Scolaire", "Statement by User:HighKing" etc. Ideally the statements would be standalone - they wouldn't include an answer to, or a rebuttal of, somebody else's statement, although they might rebut an argument that was made in a previous discussion on ROI or IMOS. Any response to the statement would be confined to the talk page, and of course an editor would be free to choose not to enter any discussion on their statement. Once the arguments were clearly stated (and not forked off into increasingly emotional/personal spats) either the participants themselves or an "independent assessor" might be able to see where there was ground for consensus or room for compromise. What do you think? Scolaire (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire, I understand the format and it is probably worth a shot. Works for Arbcom... Downside is probably that we will still get extreme views but hopefully a neutral 3rd party or mediator or independant assessor will be able to figure out if there is grounds or not. This might be a good format for RoI where it seems there is a bigger split. Would you also participate in the BI discussions? --HighKing (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It works for Arbcom, because they can enforce it, we can't. Now this may need to go to Arbcom on this, and they are starting to pay attention to all sites with any connection to Ireland (see recent draconian sentences handed down). If you look back on the history I think we were making progress with a set of principles but then we lurched into a full blown policy (using some controversial words) before the principles were agreed. I would prefer to go back there (and have some drafted). Happy to discuss. --Snowded TALK 11:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see both of you engaging. One thing I want to say, though: I would like to see an end to phrases like "extreme views" and "controversial words". As far as I'm concerned, consensus is about accomodating the extremes and dealing with controversy. The wider the range of views being expressed, the better the chance of dialogue leading to consensus. If you're well within your comfort zone, as this task force was at the start, you're probably going nowhere. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We are dealing with extreme views and controversial words from both sides on this one, its one of the reasons I think we need to move away from the subject itself to agree the principles under which the dispute will be resolved. Then those principles can be referenced in the subsequent conversations. I also think that interludes of "state your opinion once" as we go through that would help. --Snowded TALK 21:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you didn't take me up wrong there - I didn't mean that I thought you were calling the "other side" extremists, only that I think we need to move away altogether from the idea of "extremism" (on both sides) and begin to think in terms of "diversity of opinion" instead. I think that "state your opinion once" is a great idea, in fact rather than just have interludes it might be worth having that as a guiding principle from the start. As to agreeing principles in general, I kind of feel that if everybody stated their opinion once, it might be easier to design a framework around that. If you or I tried to lay down principles at the start, we might leave ourselves open to accusations of trying to corrall the discussions or slant the argument our way, and the arguments on principles might stop us ever getting to the issues themselves. That's just my own view, of course. Scolaire (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Its OK! I interpreted it the way you did. I think we need to take it away from Ireland (the island) for a bit and talk about general rules for geography references, then agree geographical (not political terms) for this issue and then take some real cases. Actually I think the Shannon and Loch Neigh have worked out well and may give some hope. --Snowded TALK 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you've nicely illustrated my point there. You see, my entire focus and my only interest is in what you call "Ireland (the island)". I have no interest whatsoever in the British Isles issue per se, but I am uncomfortable with what I see as the undertone that this task force is about "getting Ireland out of the way" before getting back to the serious matter of the British Isles. Now, how are you and I going to agree on "principles" if our two views of the task force are as far apart as I think they are? Scolaire (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Now you are misinterpreting there, the two issues for me are intertwined with many of the same editors. The issue of the correct name for Ireland (the state) intruded on the British Isles question and vice versa. The question is which to resolve first and how. My formal position is that British Isles is a valid but increasingly archaic term that is being over applied, but should not be removed and that ROI is the wrong term to disambiguate the state of Ireland. We know that there are people who insist on ROI and will not countenance any other form of disambiguation and people who object to any disambiguation; there are people who impose BI wherever they can including some very obscure areas, there are people who want the term abolished. Its a mess of extremes and finding a compromise difficult but both issues have to be tackled. --Snowded TALK 11:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, when I talked of an undertone I meant in the discussion generally, and not you specifically. I think when I post my statement you will understand better where I'm coming from. I don't think that, for myself at least, I can divorce the question of structure from the question of my own stance on the issue, and there's really no point in trying to explain my stance here while I'm trying to draft a statement for the task force itself. Once I have stated my case you might see why I think that the kind of structure you're talking about won't work well for me. Scolaire (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This looks like good progress. On the question of which task force, my opinion would be to work on British Isles first (since Matt has already put together a lot of guidelines and it appears to be very progressed), but I'm open to working on the RoI one first. Or maybe it is possible to work on both in parrallel, but we'd need to avoid a dependency being contructed between them.

I'm curious as to how structure and statement need to be entwined - I'll wait for the statement to understand why this is so. In general though, I believe identifying what we can all agree on (call them principles) and then discussing and identifying what we can't get a consensus on easily, is a good structured approach. --HighKing (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland

Having read over [http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Flag_of_Ireland_2 the discussion] on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland on the recent move and the concerns expressed, I have begun a move request on the flag. Your comments would be welcome here.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll in selecting five proposals before an RFC in which it will be against the current main page. You're input would be appreciated. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Free Derry

Hi Scolaire! I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that I completed the GA review of Free Derry several days ago. There are just a few things that I'd like to see changed in the article before I promote it to GA status, so if you could drop by and take and look, it would be great. Also, if you're no longer interested in taking this article to GA status, could you let me know? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dana. I've had a busy week in real life so so I hadn't had a chance to check up on the Free Derry situation. I'll get on it soon as I can, at the latest this weekend. Scolaire (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you still working on this article? There has been very little done on the GA review comments, especially the most important ones about referencing and coverage. Let me know if you're still interested. If I don't hear from you within a couple of days I'm going to have to fail the article, as almost two weeks have passed since I reviewed it. Dana boomer (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. When I nominated the article first I had loads of time on my hands, which I intended to use to bring it up to GA standard. Unfortunately it took a full month to be reviewed, and by then I was up to my eyeballs in other stuff. I know just what needs to be done to address your concerns, and as soon as I have the time (hopefully this weekend but maybe not, depending on how things go) I'll sit down and do it. Please give me a little more time. And thanks for your continued interest. Scolaire (talk) 09:10, 8 November 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) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I feel you deserve this award in recognition of your particular sense of balance, fairness and logic, given particularly divisive situations. You remain objective despite your personal point of view. Setanta747 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scoláire. I don't know how you feel about these 'awards', but I have been meaning to let you know that you are appreciated, even though we might disagree with one another (and we seem to be disagreeing with each other currently!). While I've known of you as an editor for some years now, I've noted some of your comments recently and I find you to usually be clear headed and civil (though I'm disappointed that you view my latest proposal as merely "mischief"!) I hope you appreciate this gesture as it is intended. Thanks. --Setanta747 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

TBH, I thought I didn't believe in the things, but I find I'm quite chuffed to get one, especially from someone of whom I've just said that their proposal has "an element of mischief". Thank you very much indeed, Setanta. Scolaire (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Kearney

Thanks for adding the history cats - I meant to look at doing this after I created it, but it slipped my mind. I'm on a break, but am checking my talk fairly regularly (for things like this!). I'm pretty busy, but I bought a lot of history books over the last few months (Britain, BI, B&I and some Ireland and some multiculturalism), and am at least getting some sporadic reading done. I should be getting some time for Misplaced Pages fairly soon, though not for a week at least.

I can seen the Ireland taskforce has started up again - I haven't read through it as I'm trying to be relatively 'stress-free' right now (typical about Kearney!!!) - but good luck. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. You were missed. --HighKing (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The latest Ireland proposals

What do you think of my comment here? I'll be supporting the Evertype Island (state)/(island) poposal if people decide to run with it, but I'll also support you putting forward your recent suggestion, and us collectively re-polling both of them alongside the status quo (with no multiple voting allowed over the 3 polls, and the winning poll needing the usual 2/3 of the combined total). You guys will have to get behind something though, because there is a bandwagon going with the Evertype proposal, and I can see it easily picking up speed, esp with new voters. The status quo (ie the 'against' votes) alone, won't stand a chance against it. If things continue to be messy on the opposing side, I favour moving it through (as do many now, I think).--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was pleased with your comments; I think they're very fair. In general, though, I feel I have failed with the task force. I've consistently tried to initiate a proper debate on the names, and I've just been met with poll after poll, each of them just alternate proposals involving two permutations of the same page moves. I made my own proposal only because I was being accused of not having anything to offer, but I hoped at least it would stimulate a bit of discussion. And what did it stimulate? Another poll! The point I keep trying to make is that this "consensus" that is supposed to be arising is pure illusion. Not one person has changed their mind since the start of the current discussion. All that has happened is that the ROI faction has not got involved with the task force, with a couple of exceptions. If this "new consensus" is translated into page moves without notifying the community first, there will be war! Scolaire (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I can probably resist the temptation myself to push it through without the wider community getting involved (just about!). But I can't speak for others of course - with the admin involved I expect it will be done properly. Personally, I think the poll(s) (when we have settled on them) should be re-polled in another neutral place. The taskforce was always just to discuss and determine - never to make law itself.

I don't think you've failed in creating discussion - you got more going than I did. I think, unfortunately, your problem was seeing that these polls are always going to happen with something that so has many 'directions' to it. You probably would have been better always insisting they were 'straw polls', and getting your Ireland 'hatnotes' proposal in earlier - it might have had some success earlier on. Ironically, it was very similar to my opening proposal, but keeping Ireland as the island.

I think that now, much of the 'other side' genuinely sees itself as having discussed to the max, and there is a feeling of wanting to close it now. If it is going to the wider community, you need to sort out whether you are going to present something yourself (ie be part of how it is presented). IMO, you guys for years have been the more organised 'side' - but the table seems to have radically turned there. When arbcom has accepted a new consensus for Ireland of course, dissent will be difficult - especially if there are no ambiguities, and pipelinks to play with etc. Any changes we make will clearly have to be solidified by arbcom, IMO, so any future changes must be requested at through arbcom. The whole thing has adversely effected actual articles (jumbling them, getting them locked, clogging their talks, turning people away, generally frustrating progression), so I think that is fair enough.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Scolaire. I've changed my opinon on Ireland, Republic of Ireland & related articles. I no longer have any. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think I'm closer to GoodDay than to anybody else at this point. The thing about the polls is that they have the effect of minimising discussion, while allowing people to kid themselves that they're making progress. If you look at my proposal again, you'll see I suggested it only be accepted in principle, so that we could get down to talking about how it would be implemented in other articles - that's where the real crunch is going to come. But I've really come to believe that the majority of people are afraid of genuine dialogue, and that's why they keep trying to railroad through their proposals via these polls. I'm pretty sure I'm going to quit the task force at this point. It at least has the benefit of keeping the endless circular arguments off the other talk pages, but it no longer has anything to offer me. BTW you say "with the admin involved I expect it will be done properly." I'm not sure who you're referring to there, but the couple of "outsiders" that I've seen have become more intransigent and less tolerant of opposing POVs than any of the old-stagers. Scolaire (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I just left those articles (United Kingdom, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Republic of Ireland & Ireland & their related articles); 'cause I was viewed as a trouble-maker. I prefer RoI, Ireland & Ireland disampig moved to Ireland (state), Ireland (island) & Ireland. But I withdrew my supports, as I felt I wasn't helping matters. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of railroading in the past from the other side, though, (to say the least!), and a refusal to properly discuss from some people too. I think you are feeling negative now partly because you don't actually have that much back up in debate - you mainly have people who have said their piece, and simply place their vote. Ultimately, polls happen when directions are multifarious (and positions need to be found), and also when positions are entrenched - both are the case here.

I agree the Ireland/(state) and (island) solution is not a massive compromise, other than to not use 'Ireland' as the name of the state - which many people absolutely insisted upon when I first got involved, so you could perhaps take some heart from that. There is no real law regarding compromise. Consensus - ie a significant number advantage - is what always does it in the end, and so many people feel that some kind of change has to happen.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW Scolaire. My 'crystal ball' tells me (to my disappointment) there's gonna be a heck of a fight at Republic of Ireland & Ireland, when those articles are moved. There's alot of editors out there, who haven't been involved with the Taskforce & may get aroused by the page moves. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There will be a fight, but I'm not convinced they're going to be moved - the vote has gone from 13-5 back to 12-7; that's probably not enough for a consensus. Either way, my negativity is not due to the fact that "my side" may lose, it's because the "other side" had a clear chance to make a cast-iron case for itself and threw it away, and now it's back to the numbers game. I have no taste for the numbers game, so I'm going to do a GoodDay, say "good day" to them all and let them get on with their voting. Thank you both for continuing the dialogue. Scolaire (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately consensus is down to numbers of people - nobody could move in life if that wasn't the case. It sounds crude, but it's the 'end of the day' truth. I certainly don't support GoodDay's rather provocative view that there will be 'heck of a fight' after the move - in fact I find such negativity unproductive. And with arbcom involved there couldn't be one anyway (certainly in the sense of moving back articles). I'm not afraid of the people I've dealt with - I actual think they are largely without substance, and will ultimately have nothing left to say (most of them have had nothing to say anyway). If Ireland gets to be a disam page will it really be the end of the world? No - and both Ireland and Northern Ireland (certainly) will start to get better articles out of it, although it might take some time for actual article improvers to come back into the fold. I think that the general state of the island's article's are a sad indictment on all involved.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire, I certainly hope Matt is correct about me being pesemistic. If those articles get moved successfully (i.e. little squabbling); I'd be more then happy to 'eat crow'. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, I'll end on a positive note and say if the articles get moved it won't be the end of the world for me, and hopefully there won't be a fight. Scolaire (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, fellow self-exile. We've outlived our usefullness on those articles. Time to let the new generation handle the load. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no way to make a "cast iron case" here. The only way forward is a solution which makes everyone equally unhappy. I've said this three times! I like Ireland = the State, and I don't like Republic of Ireland for that. You like Ireland = the island, and don't like Ireland (island) for that. There's NO WAY to resolve the ambiguity and the differences of opinions by lawyering (wikilawyering or otherwise) and "proving" with a "cast iron" case. The case you made was valiant. It did not convince. Had I tried to make such a case, valiant and "cast iron" as I might try to make it, I doubt I'd have convinced you. The only way forward in negotiations like this (and in my Unicode work I have negotiated much more difficult issues with people from much more different cultures than ours) is to choose a solution that nobody is exactly happy with but which, at least does not offend. Did I want to try to make an "iron clad" case therefore? No. I wanted to get to "solution". That's the better negotiation tactic. Best regards, -- Evertype·✆ 23:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I accept we'll never see eye to eye but I think the 'filibuster' accusation was grossly unfair. Whatever. When I say I'm out of here I mean it. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire, please reconsider your decision to retire from the task force. It looks like your departure is going to be to the detriment of Misplaced Pages. Attempts to cut up the terms of reference and impose majority-decisions separately have already begun. Mooretwin (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I expect he just needs a break. He can can easily vote on the move, anyway (and still keep out of the TF if he wants too) - it's at Ireland talk. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why doesn't anybody aske me, to return? GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't, because I like being a fellow-exile :-) Scolaire (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't resist. I gave my 'votes' at Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation), but that's all. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we're semi-exiled, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help being a little bit smug. They were so sure they had their "consensus", and it's still at exactly 50:50! Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The more 'votes', the better. It adds legitimacy to the RMs, no matter what the results are. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute

I have filed this Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute and named you as one of the involved parties. I would appreciate it if you could make a 500-word-or-less statement there. -- Evertype·✆ 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)