User talk:Brocach

Brocach, I don't know you from Adam, but I'm prompted to reach out with a gesture of support. I see from ANI that your treatment there is a very typical example of an editor threatened with disciplinary action after making accurate, good-faith edits. My perception is that these disputes are invariably tilted towards accusers. Your detailed defense was dismissed as TL:DR; your record was examined for its adherence to contradictory, wikipedia policy impossible to satisfy; you're assigned bad motives and casual insults; any sharpness in your responses is interpreted as disruptive; and now that you've been mud-splattered you're one false move from a block or ban. It's a shameful way to treat a good volunteer. I want you to know I see the glaring unfairness here, and I encourage you to stay productive and engaged as an editor. all best --Lockley (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is very heartening. Thank you, Lockley. Brocach (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input at House of Prayer, Achill. RashersTierney (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it is like to be besieged by obsessives. Brocach (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Ireland Barnstar of National Merit
		For your stellar work in maintaining the accuracy and integrity of GAA & Ireland related articles. Finnegas (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GRMMA! Brocach (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve a pint for your comment here. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NI county ledes have been argued over in the past and an agreement in the form of a stop-gap measure was implemented that has remained stable for around 3 years with no trouble despite the fact NI county ledes give more mention to the 32 counties than the RoI counties do (which is none). You would be wise to seek a consensus for any changes to their format or maybe even wiser to just stop pushing your agenda. Your extra addition in regards to their local government status is also redundant seeing as "is one of six counties that form Northern Ireland" - wikilinks to an article that makes it clear in its own lede! Mabuska ^(talk) 23:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with Brocach and think it's reasonable to state in the lead that the county is no longer used for governmental administrative purposes. That seems quite relevant. The 32 traditional counties of Ireland (if that even means anything anymore) is slightly vaguer in my mind. Canterbury Tail talk 12:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wonders never cease... but having just spent a few days working on GAA programmes, I can assure you that in some quarters Ireland is still a country where the 32 counties mean something. Brocach (talk)

They're called "fantastists". —

^ॐ 16:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

A new word for me. We live and learn. Brocach (talk)

Maybe it could be mentioned outside of the first paragraph of the lede seeing as the intros have been stable for around 3 years and should remain as they are. Sourced and better detailing of their current usage would be required however. Yet doing this for all Irish counties would be quite repetative, no? Hence why maybe it should be left to the actual counties of pages. Mention of the traditional 32 counties is relevant in terms of historical and non-governmental context: ie the GAA and Orange Order. I note however that Brocachs changes once again don't seem to make it across the border?! Mabuska ^(talk) 16:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started with the six because the same text could readily be applied there; in the rest of the island many counties retain administrative functions so more nuanced wording is needed. Having been stable for three years (not sure that this is so in every case) is not in itself a reason to stop improving a lede, and I am still mystified as to why a factual, neutrally-worded edit counts in Mabuska's eyes as "pushing an agenda"; perhaps he/she could explain? Brocach (talk)

More nuanced? Hardly. Your rearranging of the lede was what that was in regards to. Also note how in my previous comment I suggested putting the former stuff in a subsequent paragraph. Thats called coming around to seeing how to include your addition that would keep the intro, aka the 1st paragraph stable. A more indepth explaining on the past and current usage can then be added to a "History" section to beef the articles up a bit. That would do more to improve the article and should really sort the issue out. That means I'm saying go ahead and stick the former stuff back into the ledes but in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. I'll add historical stuff to the article body later. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastists. They live in a fantasty world. (No, it was a typo. Still, my point remains – yer a Nordie, get over it.) Agree with Mabuska that NI is the primary topic here; they're counties of Northern Ireland specifically and Ireland more generally. —

^ॐ 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

They are/were also counties within the UK... Mabuska ^(talk) 20:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's (whew) done :-). Happy St. Patrick's Day and all the best, Miniapolis 13:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Far from perfect but had a go. Ádh mór. Brocach (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what is your problem with

El problema no es el mío. Es de los que no entienden las políticas de Wikipedia en cuanto a biografía: no es un foro para (auto)promoción sino un lugar donde se hallan datos objetivos y verificables sobre indivíduos. Brocach (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esto no es autopromoción, en español se puede esto y más. Los datos son objetivos y verificables, pero ni siquiera dejas que termine de editar.--Werther mx (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

¿Cuál según tú no es dato confiable? Lo estoy traduciendo del español http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andres_Roemer Por favor déjame trabajar... --Werther mx (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

El mero hecho que parece así en otro idioma no justifica la (re)creación acá de un artículo que no toma en cuenta ni el estilo normal de Wikipedia ni las políticas expresadas en

philantropist, intellectual."? En cualquier otro artículo biográfico encuentres una o dos palabras. Brocach (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Pues yo no tengo la culpa que el PhD. Andres Roemer tenga mil actividades y ocupaciones, ¿eso a ti qué? El problema es que no vives en México y no has visto todo lo que hace, mejor infórmate: http://www.cndh.org.mx/sites/all/fuentes/documentos/transparencia/19/andresroemer.pdf Y ¿dónde quedó la hermandad entre wikipedias? ¿eso te vale? --Werther mx (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a period of calm, Laurel Lodged has gone on the offensive creating Category:Sportspeople from South Dublin (county) and Category:Sportspeople from Fingal. I think its important that we secure a consensus on Wikiproject Ireland that Irish categories use the traditional 32 counties, to prevent this from happening again. Finnegas (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear oh dear. More Wikipedia:Canvassing. What are we to do? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "we" could refrain from tendentious edits. Brocach (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The topic under review here is now the subject of a central discussion here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for withdrawing your vote to centeralise the discussion @ WikiProject Ireland. Finnegas (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you guys considered entering the synchronised swimming team for the next Olympics? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought about synchronised drowning? Brocach (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note to let you know that 86.168.0.62 is back & editing. Regards Denisarona (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my best with the articles that User:MFIreland continues to work on, but contributions by you, User:Guliolopez, User:Rivertorch and others have been very helpful. MFIreland clearly knows a bit about his topics; he could make a useful contribution if he understood how this venture works, and it is a pity that he hasn't the common sense to come clean, apologise, seek removal of the block and resume editing while abiding by the rules. As an unqualified psychologist I have him down as an Irish Army reservist frustrated by non-promotion and trouser-related disappointments. Brocach (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know you are frustrated (the guy really pee-ed me off last year when this first started), but I just want to make 2 points:

1. You asked in an edit "why bother engaging with a sock?". I engage because it would be
   hypocritical
   to demand that other users (whoever they are) engage in CON and avoid editwars when I am not following that line myself.
2. In the above (and this edit) you seem to have taken the position to revert the guy no matter what. You acknowledge that some of his edits have merit. I saw this edit and decided it was one those "good edit"s. You saw it and reverted because it was a "bad editor". If the guy is ever going to come back from the dark-side, then we have to acknowledge the good.

I am far from suggesting some kind of Zen/Jedi approach to DDE, but we need to be careful about

friendly fire. Guliolopez (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

His edits are likely to be routinely reverted while the block remains. His behaviour is so consistently unreasonable that I haven't, and won't always, take the time to sort out the wheat from the chaff. However I have made some further edits at that page. Brocach (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's back at it, deleting improvements and reinstating unsourced or otherwise inferior versions. I will revert at will and encourage you and others to do likewise, this man does not listen. Brocach (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't elaborated at the SPI because it seemed this editor was finally beginning to engage. I'm pretty sure there is at least one registered account and another IP that could be added (without delving very deeply). I have always thought they could be a valuable asset to the project, but editors, no matter how certain of their 'correctness', should explain their position when asked and be otherwise prepared to engage constructively. That, surely, is not a big ask. It isn't my wish to 'close them down'. I would be the first to support the lifting of MFIreland's block if they asked, and were to edit using only that account. RashersTierney (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a good cop/bad cop approach would yield some results. But I tend to the view that a blocked, sockpuppeting editor should expect anything they edit to be reverted. Those of you who think that yet another chance should be given, despite the repetition of the offending behaviour again and again, can try that approach. I will certainly revert on sight any edits by him that remove improving material, or that are completely explained. Brocach (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I saw where you undid some sockpuppetry on 3rd Infantry Battalion (Ireland) where the sockpuppet changed the unit from 3rd to 3 Bn, however I believe that in the Irish DF he/she is correct. Adding suffixes to unit names is incorrect, it may be widely ignored/forgotten about but there is some merit in using the correct names.Bakaattack (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked both at official sources and at media coverage, it seems to me that the ordinals (3rd, 56th etc.) are frequently used, even in military sources, but that strictly speaking the numeral (3, 56) is the official form. I think the articles could go with the ordinal at first mention, and thereafter abbreviate; see 56th Reserve Infantry Battalion (Ireland), given after first mention as 56 Bn. Brocach (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work for creating such a well sourced article on the latest political "party" so quickly.Although I can't see this motley crew sticking round for too long, soon I suspect we will be changing the present to past tense!

We aim to please. Brocach (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their cause might of been helped had they not sectarianised their message with their name. That's one way to alienate potential voters. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the unfortunate choice of name most likely cost them the votes of thousands of Papists who would otherwise have been won over by their constructive manifesto and charming, non-fascist leaders. Brocach (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have successfully nominated Protestant Coalition for DYK [1].Finnegas (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it appears my earlier prediction was correct.According to today's

Am bearing up as well as could be expected. Brocach (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brocach

you may be interested in Talk:Bodybuilding#Contests and associations. It's not a particular area of interest for me, and possibly not for you either, but I guess from some of your comments at Talk:Robby Robinson (bodybuilder) that you've done some research on the topic. The benefit of that research would be appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Andrewa, I know no more about this "sport" than I needed to find out in order to tidy up the RR piece. Nothing that I read about it inclined me to become any more of an expert. Brocach (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! Andrewa (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better provide sources for those Gaelic names otherwise they are viable for deletion for violating the IMoS in regards to the use of Gaelic names. Also your being quite pedantic about the birth places. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also it seems quite odd how rather than adding a {{cn}} tag to the birthplaces you go straight out and remove then despite the fact there are in some cases many unsourced things in those articles that you've ignored. Anti-Londonderry prejudice again Brocach? In fact you could simply just change the articles to state "from" instead. Why have you not? Mabuska ^(talk) 23:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original and authentic Irish-language versions of GAA players' names are the names with which they are officially registered as GAA players. It is not possible to violate IMoS by giving the names as Gaeilge of GAA players who by definition use the |Irish version of their name (if one exists): it is, in fact, a requirement of IMoS that the Irish name, even if less used, be in the first sentence. For people whose notability relates to their achievements as members of the GAA, separate sources could more credibly be demanded for the Anglicised versions of their names, so stop challenging the Irish names.

As for birthplaces: either a Derry GAA player was born in a hamlet, village, town or farm without maternity facilities, or they were born in one of the four maternity hospitals in which almost all Derry people still active in the GAA were born. I know where those four places are, being a Derryman, but I don't know in every case who was born where. If there is a source saying that someone was born in a particular place that's fine. I have no problem with people being listed as "from" X, and have never changed that, if they merely happened to be born in Y because that's where the maternity facility was, but were brought up in X. Brocach (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And for an editor with such an interest in Derry GAA articles, how come it took me to update the senior team managers list seeing as the present manager in it had stepped down last year! Mabuska ^(talk) 23:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Living now in Armagh and being more than a bit involved with Armagh GAA, I do not follow Derry affairs as closely as I would if I lived there, and although I try to keep myself up to date, I do not dash to Wikipedia to input every change that occurs in Derry. I rely on other Gaelic sports enthusiasts like yourself to do that. As you probably have noticed, I edit extensively on GAA matters across many counties. So long as we all work together in a collaborative and respectful way, we can improve this encyclopaedia together, and it doesn't matter who says what as long as the overall quality and reliability is maintained. I am deleting your latest post here since it doesn't meet those criteria. If you want to engage with me, stop using insulting and aggressive language. I'm ready to listen if you can remain civil. Brocach (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for your work on this article. I have nominated it for DYK [2] Feel free to add alternative hook Finnegas (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your reply: if you dropped your blatant anti-Londonderry prejudice from your editing, and formulated factual and logical reasons for most of your opinions, rather than endlessly repeating poorly thought out arguments that shows your lack of historical knowledge, as well drop your edit-warring nature that your now associated with, then maybe I could engage with you on a more mature way. Until that day... Mabuska ^(talk) 21:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also add in the poor edit summaries you leave which many a time are false or misleading. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to engage with me in a more mature way. Just be yourself. Brocach (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply