User talk:Eamonnca1

Hello Eamonnca1! sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. And remember, no question is "stupid"; if you have anything, absolutely anything that you'd like to know, feel free to drop on by and leave my a message! :D Happy Editing! Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help My Talk Page New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Hi, Thanks for your comment on the Easter talk page. I'm inclined to agree with you that the article gives undue weight to the Christian festival, which is why I have proposed page moves to rectify this. See Talk:Easter#Proposed_major_change_-_remove_Christian_POV for a link to the discussion page. Many thanks, --Rebroad 10:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I assume this eamonnca1 is you ? If you where to state on youtube that you tube eamonnca1 is you , we could add this link too the CYC page (Gnevin 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That's me, but I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. --Eamonnca1 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's a little late here , i assume you made these video or know the copyright holder, for the to allowed to be used on wiki you need to state somewhere on your youtube site that you release these videos for use on wiki (Gnevin 21:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Done --Eamonnca1 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I renamed the Boston GAA article from Northest Board to Northeastern USA GAA. It's is a bit more transparent from outside the GAA community. Gnevin said that i should tell you that. --Gael-wh 13:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC) (moved from user page Gnevin 13:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi i recall some time back that Washington was going to split from the

Should i add them to the template as a Metropolitan or Regional division ? Gnevin (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok box updated,would you know enough about these boards to start a stub on them maybe Regional division of Northern American GAA Gnevin (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you are receiving this message because your as listed as a member of

Basically was just asking you have a look at this discussion

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gaelic_Games#Notability and reply if you if wish Gnevin (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have nominated Achievements of the GAA, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achievements of the GAA. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per

Thanks Mooretwin (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are only disputing the issue about the parish unit, would you mind please restoring the rest of the text? There are a total of seven changes that the three of you have made, and it would simplify the dispute resolution process if we were able to concentrate only on the parish unit question (which is the only one of the changes that has thus far been discussed).

Thank you. Mooretwin (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is disappointing that you have elected not to restore the rest of the text. I am now assuming that you support all the other unsourced changes, even though you have only brought one of them to dispute resolution. I shall, therefore, have to extend the remit of the dispute. Mooretwin (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You 'assume' a little too much. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you communicated with me, I wouldn't need to assume? Mooretwin (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you take it up with the people who made those edits, you wouldn't need to communicate with me about them? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your view about the edits made by those people? Mooretwin (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have, by the way, proposed a compromise. Mooretwin (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I changed the phrase back there, but i'm happy to revert myself if you have a link showing that people in Ireland use the term "hockey" to refer to field hockey, as there's also a part about ice hockey in that article and it can seem somewhat confusing without external referencing. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the

Yes --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that available on the net anywhere so we can add to the article to explain the strange name of the NACB Gnevin (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a note here about the founding of the CCB, but it doesn't specifically mention the NACB: http://canada.gaa.ie/countyboardandhistory.html --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a ref it doesn't spell out that it's the NACB because it also had clubs in Canada but gives some context Gnevin (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eamonnca1. I've never did a GA review and I'm not sure that I'm up to the task but I did have a look at the Lurgan article and thought the I would let you know my thoughts and you can decide what if anything to do with them :)

1. Not sure I like the positioning of the reference in the Townlands section. They seems to be left out on their own.

2. Have you considered putting Clubs, Living and Deceased into easier to read bullet points?

3. Not sure what the Broadstone Castle and Barony, Ayrshire in the Also see is about.

4. Very small one but there is an inconsistency with your references (^[12]) in that some have no space after the full stop or comma and some have.

5. You have two ambiguous links @ Stormont and Dissident Republican.

6. Craigavon Golf Ski Centre is a dead link

7. The link "A man who stood up for truth" (info) [guardian.co.uk] does a redirect from www.observer.guardian.co.uk to www.guardian.co.uk

8. Same with the link "Lurgan station" (info) [railscot.co.uk]

9. Forgot to say that none of the images in the article have an alt text.

Hope this helps and good luck. Bjmullan (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I've gone through and fixed a few of these. For 1 I'm not entirely sure what to do about those refs, I'm gonna leave them there for now. 2 - WP:UKCITIES actually prefers prose over bullet lists. 3 - Removed. 4 - Any idea whether wiki prefers to space or to leave it out? 5 - Stormont link fixed, dissident repub link is fine. 6 - Fixed. 7 - That link works fine for me. 8 - Link works fine for me. 9 - Thanks, I'll look into that. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regards 7 & 8 the links ok but the initial webpage is redirected. So the best things to do is go to the links and then paste these into the ref's. Just checked a FA and no space before the ref. Bjmullan (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leading question, no? Since Mooretwin doesn't seem to have crossed your path since you left him a message, I think the answer would be that you don't need to go anywhere or do anything. If you have a similar problem in the future, you can leave me a message. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at

BRD, can't really be called hounding. The trouble with "taking it further" is that, if you can't show obvious disruption, it may be you that ends up being branded as disruptive. I would take Angus's advice, and let it go. Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

PS "Association football" is considered a reasonable compromise on Wikipedia. See Association football in the Republic of Ireland and the move discussion on its talk page. Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eamonnca1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment.
Message added 15:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No one seem to be looking at the assessment page, including me. Sorry for delay. ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry if I goof this up by trying to create a new section, but can you link John Cushnie's obituary to the Lurgan page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiesgone (talk • contribs) 12:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just noticed that you left a message on my talk page asking me to look at something way back in March which I never replied to. Bit late now I suppose but I thought I'd drop you a line to say sorry for the complete lack of response. :)

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I understood that you're an (American) Irishman (I wish I can visit the beautiful Ireland some time soon!), so you can understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country, music and language! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eamonn, I would appreciate if you are going to reference material on the Linfield FC site, than you follow the 'NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW' policy of Wikipedia. Your existing articles do not reflect Wikipedias NPOV policy, such proof is your willingness to post linked statements, however refuse to print the rest of the article that contains the 'but' or the 'however' part that clarifies the current state of events. Your edits reflect Linfield from a completely Republican/Nationalist Irish point of view, and paints Linfield as a sectarian football club. You however fail to mention we are one of the few with true cross-community initiatives at Youth level, and the first team itself is a completely mixed set up. For example, maybe some history on the GAA section needs added to reflect its policy too? Take for example the Fermanagh County who up to a point had 1 protestant playing in the entire county, who was forced out and later begged to return. However I do not expect you to post this as it seems impossible for you to reflect facts from a neutral POV.

To end this matter, if you cannot keep your editing to a NPOV, then it will continue to be removed or undone. Maybe as such a thorough researcher you can find some facts on Linfield FC regarding the beautiful game of soccer. 21:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourkidpauluk (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the feedback. I think you'll find that the GAA page already has a comprehensive criticism section. Please continue this discussion on the talk pages concerned. Please create new section titles when starting a fresh discussion on talk pages. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linfield FC has upwards of 10,000 fans in NI alone, I cannot be responsible for anyone else who may find your edits offensive.

Possibly you can make some GAA edits to reflect its 'Mono-cultural' history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourkidpauluk (talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. The GAA page already has a comprehensive criticism section. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate what makes "St Patty's Day" an "error"? Fact is that it is a common enough name for the day in the US, and so is a perfectly acceptable alternative "nickname". It is not up to you to decide that, actually, all these people are in fact wrong. Please revert your change and I will provide cites to back up its use. Personally, I don't much like the term either, but neither you nor I are entitled to decide it's incorrect and shouldn't be there.

I also reverted your addition of "mostly" as I do not believe you can support this claim. Do you have cites that demonstrate that the majority of those who celebrate St Patrick's Day are Irish? Do they out-number the non-Irish? If you can not support this, then it is best to leave it undefined.

I was the one who changed it to "mostly Irish people and people of Irish descent". I think it's silly to say "Irish people, people of Irish descent, non-Irish celebrants". It's just a long-winded way of saying "everyone"! It's obvious that St Patrick's Day is most popular in Ireland and wherever there are big populations of Irish descendants. The obvious conclusion is thus that it's celebrated "mostly by Irish people and people of Irish descent". ~Asarlaí 11:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. Asarlaí did indeed add this, then Eamonnca1 reverted my removal of it. I shall continue this discussion on the talk page, where it's most suited. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Mooretwin's edit also replicates word for word what the source says, in violation of copyright. Please be aware that the article (well, nationalism and Troubles related parts of it) are under a one revert per 24 hours restriction, for future reference. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean the article doesn't remotely say what the text says? O Fenian seems to have the exact opposite view! Mooretwin (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned above about 1RR - you really need to self-revert. Mooretwin (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where else have I made this edit lately? Please refrain from

WP:WIKILAWYERING and giving me warnings. 1RR is not a license for you to edit with impunity. If you object to the edit, then to use your own turn of phrase "take it to talk". --Eamonnca1 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I would take serious cognisance of these warnings. The rules apply to everyone. You should read

WP:3RR

- and note the definition of a revert (my emphasis):

• Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.

Mooretwin (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm a 1RR warning from O Fenian to Mooretwin however just a friendly warning to Eamonnca1. Interesting... Mabuska ^(talk) 12:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Gaelic Athletic Association, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Please don't remove another editors comments without permission from said editor. You have no authority to do so. You could hardly call it uncivil anyways. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was uncivil and I had every right to remove it. Have a bit of manners and try to be a constructive editor for a change. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At most all you should have done is ask for me to strike it or remove it myself. But its not uncivil and is meant in a light-hearted way. No inflammatory language was used at all either.

Maybe you should have manners and ask what the intentions of it was before going and being uncivil in just removing another editors comment without asking any questions - especially the whole thing! Can you seriously say that pointing Mooretwin out to the guidelines on quoting sources is unconstructive? Or was their another reason for removing it?

And do you want a case of pot calling kettle black?

Is that not worse than what i said?? Mabuska ^(talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually. What I said about Mooretwin was absolutely correct. His editing is dishonest, and it's OK to say that. What you said about OFenian was incorrect. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its OK to say that? Wow now that is breeching

WP:POV. You imply he is a lier and then explicitly call him dishonest whilst defending your right to label another editor as such and then go and remove another editors comment for something far worse less than what you just said. Astounding. Ah well its there for the record. Let people judge us by our own actions. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. Let them. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eamonnca1 for taking out the trash! Bjmullan (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are Linking portadown fc to paramilitaries. This is not the case. The incident in the social club had nothing to do with the football club. In fact the social club has nothing to do with the football club. Portadown FC is there for both sides of the community. The paragraph you wrote is misleading and untruthfull. Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisl1924 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not untruthful. The information is all cited and the sources meet

WP:IDL. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks like the sectarianism bit written has twisted the source to imply something more that wasn't in the quote - like nowhere does the quote given state Portadown F.C. fans or half of what that first paragraph says. - Just realised that wasn't a quote but a seperate sentence - my bad.

Still the additions can be classified as

WP:RECENTISM. Is that not the exact same reason you gave for not allowing an example of sectarian abuse by GAA fans towards a Protestant player in the GAA article? There are many reliable sources for it. If you believe your additions to Portadown are justifiable then that addition to the GAA article is equally justifiable. Or is that a case of i don't like as well? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been told the incident had NOTHING to do with the club. The social club has NOTHING to do with PFC. At least get you facts right before posting them up on a public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisl1924 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being told something is different from being shown reliable 3rd party evidence. In regards to Wikipedia its the latter not the former that takes precedence. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Portadown fc and I can tell you that The incident did not happen in the club bar but a seperate social club that has nothing to do with the club. If you don't believe me a simple email or phone club to the club would confirm it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisl1924 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Also founhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/580924.stmd this link from the bbc that backs my claim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisl1924 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party source please.

WP:V is what counts around here, not private correspondence between editors. I will not be divulging my personal contact information to you. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

How this is any different from the incident of GAA fan sectarianism i don't know, but arguements should be a least consistent. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What incident of GAA fan sectarianism? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one you campaigned so hard to have deleted from the GAA article on grounds of recentism. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that. That was an anomaly in the GAA and was not representative of the whole history of the association, hence it was recentism. On the other hand, sectarian violence has been a feature of Northern Ireland soccer for decades. Hence it is not recentism to include it. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very selective in my opinion. The GAA statement wasn't impying that it was part of a pattern so how could it be recentism? The source used for the statement is also very contemporary to the time-period in question, so it may be inflating it as it was fairly recent at the time as in 2001 the LVF would of still had vocal fans.

Also just an informal notice, your reverts over at Portadown F.C. can be seen as a form of slow-edit war, especially with O Fenian constantly chipping in by reverting over an over - 7 times in 3 days to be precise, excluding reverts by other editors. Talk page argueing would be better. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Selective"? What does that mean? Does it mean that I'm applying a different standard to two completely different situations? What's so unreasonable about that? In any case I've cited a source that states pretty clearly that the terraces of Northern Ireland soccer clubs have proven to be a venue where people openly exhibit their support for their favourite loyalist terror groups, and this is hardly a recent phenomenon. Sure the LVF is more of a recent grouping, but the underlying point is sound, that there has been a strain of vocal support for loyalist terror groups expressed through support for Northern Ireland soccer clubs for decades. And your accusation of edit warring would be a bit more convincing if the opposing IP editors had not been blocked and if the request for page protection had not been accepted. Removal of sourced material without explanation can be considered vandalism, so if anyone should take it to the talk page it should be the deletion merchants. What's stopping them from taking it to talk? They're not even willing to sign in or explain their edits in the edit summary, to say nothing of discuss it on talk. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh aye so there is two IPs at play. As one is already wanred and blocked, i'll warn the other one. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ProblemsNorthern Ireland football grounds are described as "useful sites for public displays of political affiliations", and internal divisions between groups involved in political violence in the mid 1990s affected Portadown FC whose supporters voiced vocal support for the Loyalist Volunteer Force which was based in the area.[3]

There is no link with PFC to ANY political or paramilitary organisation, there is also no evidence to support the authors claim. For the reference point [3] there is no mention of Portadown F.C....Sectarian tensions have long been a cause of conflict at football matches in Northern Ireland,[1] and crowd trouble marred games throughout the twentieth century.[2] In 1949, Belfast Celtic withdrew from the Irish League after years of sectarian crowd problems culminated in a Boxing Day match against Linfield at Windsor Park which ended in a pitch invasion and riot in which Belfast Celtic's protestant centre forward, Jimmy Jones, suffered a broken leg.[2]

Since 1968, the sport has failed to include the Catholic community with Catholic clubs being either forced out of existence or or transferring their allegiance to the FAI.[3] Hooliganism and sectarianism have remained problems throughout the Troubles and up to the present day. Northern Ireland football grounds have been described as "useful sites of public displays of political affiliation", and internal divisions between groups involved in political violence in the mid 1990s was reflected in the supporters of various clubs.[4] Incidents of violence include trouble after Linfield's 2-1 defeat at the hands of Cliftonville in November 2008 in which Linfield fans threw missiles at Cliftonville supporters after Linfield player Conor Hagan was struck by a rocket fired from the crowd,[5] and disturbances between Linfield and Glentoran fans at the 2008 Boxing Day match between the two clubs. [6]

In addition to problems in domestic football, the Northern Ireland international team has also suffered from sectarian problems. In 2002 Celtic player Neil Lennon announced that he would no longer play for Northern Ireland because he was the target of sectarian abuse, received a death threat,[1] and death threats appeared on the walls of loyalist areas including in his home town of Lurgan, Co Armagh.[7] and all these subsquent reference points [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7], there again no mention of Portadown Football Club.

In 1999 the club's bar was the scene of a violent incident in which members from the Loyalist Volunteer Force, some of whom were out on Christmas parole, were attacked by members of the rival Ulster Volunteer Force,[4]

Incorrect information, the said incident did not take place in the clubs bar, and the club has no control whatsoever of anything that goes on in any other bar.The persons involved did not even attend the match taking place that day, so therefore should not even be regarded as supporters.

beginning a violent feud that resulted in multiple deaths.[4][5]

Again the fued had no connection whatsoever to do with Portadown F.C., non of the deaths were on PFC premises and involved nobody connected with PFC.

In 2007 there was an incident at The Oval when rival Portadown and Glentoran fans clashed in the streets outside the ground and missiles were thrown and cars damaged. The club management condemned the incident.[6]

There have been many incidents, as with every club, where fans clash, NONE of which were because of any paramilitary involvement or support. As the said incident happened OUTSIDE a football ground how can that be attributed to PFC, and the Club management, as indicated, CONDEMNED the said incident, proving that such remarks should not be made to be associated with the Club.

Does all clubs have any incidents of fans mis behaviour highlighted on their Wikipedia site? and how large or small does an incident have to be, to be included?

The author obviously has an agenda to destroy the good name of Portadown F.C., by inaccuratley highlighting incidents of which Portadown Football Club has no control over outside the Clubs grounds and deliberatley ignores the actual great work being done by the club to work with EVERY section of the Community to ensure these type of incidents DO NOT take place at Shamrock Park, and in order to achieve the Domestic Licence and European Licence, the club has PROVED it is a SAFE and INCLUSIVE place for spectators from ALL sections of the community and follows the U.E.F.A. 10 point plan. For scource contact the Irish Football Association, U.E.F.A., the P.S.N.I. or any government or community agency, or maybe just speak to the Club itself?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisl1924 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not providing the AfD link for you. I'm a little stressed dealing with a big war ("your mother is a [expletive] dog" etc) on an Indian caste article at the moment. The lazy days of watching cricket have their attractions! - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interventions in the Irish cricket AfDs. Mooretwin (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No bother. AfDs can be a little harsh sometimes. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please refrain from editing on the Linfield Football Club page as it clear you do not take a neutral point of view Ifcp1 (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please take it to the appropriate talk page, and do try to follow the advice given in the

WP:ANI discussion. Thanks. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifcp1 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please refrain from accusing other editors of having an agenda per

WP:AGF. Please use more meaningful descriptors than "pro Irish" or "anti Northern Ireland" whatever they're supposed to mean. Please take any discussions about the Linfield article to the article's talk page. Thanks. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

(Personal attack removed). Ifcp1 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to make a reasonable comment, like this one for instance, it's a pity to spoil it with a snide edit summary. What have I ever done to you? Scolaire (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any snideness was unintentional, I was going for more of a humorous thing. Sorry about that. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 22:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, your signature does not link to your user page or your talk page. If this is intentional (or you don't care), ignore this message :-) --RA (

Good catch. I'd better fix that. Thanks. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 22:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do know the very exact count of employees in Cadence, since I am such an employee myself and have access to corporate accounting facilities. I guess I could provide you a proof of some sort. In this case we HAVE to break the rule for insider sources, because if we don′t, then the article will contain false information. We may NOT ignore facts for some bureaucratic (and pretty idiotic too) reason and thus have false information in the article. Wikipedia rules aren′t laws, there may be cases, such as this one, where rules fail to work for better. We must act upon the goal of maximum benefit to the project, which is absolute primary; it overrides any rules, if those turn out to work against the benefit. If you still feel that my source of data is unacceptable, then we will have to remove the employee count at all, because under no circumstances may Wikipedia contain false information; either we keep truth (around 5,300 employees, which I know better), or post no data at all. Truth or nothing. 213.131.238.28 (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it would be fine, but I'd prefer to find a verifiable source that we can cite. Please do not refer to wiki's guidelines as "idiotic", they are there for a reason. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 18:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Eamonnca1! Thank you for your edit[2], and while the edit is not incorrect, I'm interested in why you felt that

Hi. From the British Isles article: "The term British Isles is controversial in Ireland,[8][13] where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the word British with Ireland.[14] The Government of Ireland does not use the term[15] and its embassy in London discourages its use.[16] As a result, Britain and Ireland is becoming a preferred description,[14][17][18] and Atlantic Archipelago is increasingly favoured in academia,[19][20][21][22] although British Isles is still commonly employed.[17]" I'm not one for being easily offended, but even with me the term "British Isles" does sound grating. It's a bit of an imperialist hangover which is no longer politically correct. Thanks. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 20:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You look awfully familiar somehow :) Nice to see you on here! - Alison ^❤ 06:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my contributions . I answered a few questions you left about the place Gnevin (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have commented on the Criminal Assets Bureau page in the past. I wonder if you could cast your eye over it again and see what you think. I have done a significant amount of work of tidying it up but two Sections are giving me pause to think should they be there at all? A fresh pair of eyes on the page would be appreciated. Tolfraedic (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Eamonnca1. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eamonnca1. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]