User talk:Gnevin/archive 4

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Tyroneandkerryflags.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 23:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the {{Navboxes}} template you created. Can you add a default title to it? Like the one I suggested at the pump? "Quick links to related articles" Unless you can think of one better. Alaney2k (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Another disruptive page move.

Just because it was not discussed does not give you the right to perform the changes unilaterally. Leave the page be until you get consensus (one person is not a consensus, despite lack of discussion).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says it all , moving the page. suggest you and admin follow policy . instead try to bully me Gnevin (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one agreed with you either. You've had three separate administrators undo your changes. Leave the article as it is, or you may face a block.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there was no objection because there was no one else who saw the comment. Obviously, people disagree with the changes, which is why four separate users have opposed your changes and undone them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is approaching the

If you revert the page one more time, we will seek a block (I am an administrator as well, but because I am involved, I will not perform the block).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To Gnevin: this matter has reached the 3RR limit. Overwriting National sport by a redirect to a stub is not the way to do it, anyway. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why am i blocked for suggesting a move , building a Wikipedia:Consensus and moving the page and the admin decides s/he doesnt like the move so ignores policy ? Gnevin (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnevin, no reply is not consensus, as several have already explained to you. You had no support and met with considerable opposition. Edit warring is not productive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not build a consensus, Gnevin. You suggested it, and no one responded. When you performed the actions, someone disagreed after discovering it, requested that it be undone, which it was done by an administrator. You have since been repeatedly making the changes. A consensus is a general agreement. No one responding is not a general agreement. You have had five different users respond to your changes such that they disagreed with them. This means you did not have consensus. If I had not been as involved as I had, you would have been blocked for more than 12 hours. Please use this time to read over Wikipedia:Consensus, instead of blindly citing it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection is Wikipedia:Consensus and is has been since i joined wiki if no one objects it's considered no objection surprise , surprise .I gave a week for objections no one did, I followed policy the deletion admin didn't Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting uncontroversial moves . The person who objected should of gone to wp requested move instead of ingoring policy and having an admin ignore policy, going to admin is not following policy its ingoring consensus ,if they had a problem with the move wp request move is availible to them not crying to a soft touch admin who decide Wikipedia:Consensus doesnt apply Gnevin (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested moves only applies when you not good friends with an admin , is it? I followed policy ! the admin did not !Gnevin (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Pay close attention: when you suggested teh move, no one responded. Silence usually indicates consent, so you were ok to move. It might have been better if you'd posted on Requested moves, in order to get more feedback, but no big deal. The problem came when you moved, and there was a LOT of opposition. At that point it was clear you did not have consensus, you did not have support, in fact you were against consensus in your desired move. Do you see where that happened? 5 ppl saying No, Gnevin saying Yes, guess who is going against consensus? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(

a/c) 22:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

But discussion was had, no one objected so i formed the consensuses. no discussion means an objection to approval would be needed to move a page which Wikipedia:Requested moves does not state Gnevin (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming really clear that you do not understand consensus. You cannot "form consensus" all by yourself. Consensus means everyone agrees, more or less. We're a little loose with the terminology here on wikipedia, but if there are five people opposing you, and you are all alone in your view, they have consensus, you do not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no one ever objects no consensus will ever be formed ? yes? Gnevin (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, if no one objects, no one objects... it isn't consensus unless people discuss and agree. In practice, what happens when no one objects is we say it "usually implies consent" so you can take it that consensus is at least usually not against you if you get no objection - but in this case it seems clear that no one noticed your post suggesting the move, because once you moved the article there was a lot of response, and it was all against the move. Once the first person objected to the move, you should have discussed it with them - not edit warred. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a/c) 23:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

But it's ok for an admin to use thier powers to delete a page to move a page [5] instead of going to Wikipedia:Requested moves ? Gnevin (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. An administrator is chosen because they understand when they can and cannot do such things. There is some room for disagreement, but generally speaking this is not controversial. An editor requested an admin move the page back to the original location because they disagreed with your move, which had no discussion, and certainly did not have a consensus of editors. The admin moved the page back, effectively restoring the last known consensus. Do you understand what I'm saying, or do I need to clarify anything? 23:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And why didn't the admin point the user to [Wikipedia:Requested moves]] and follow policy and keep everyone happy? Gnevin (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because your move was the one which was controversial. You were the one who should have been pointed to WP:RM, and you were - but you ignored that and edit warred. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange no one objected when i followed policy so i would of assumed the admin overturning a discussed change was was controversial but apparently the admin's are above the law ,go to know, why should i point to WP:RM when is discussed on the talk page as per . There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry. This page may be seen as a place to advertise move debates that would benefit from wider community input, or for users to request assistance from administrators in moving pages. , yes a copy and paste from the policy page. i guess that doesn't apply for some reason? Gnevin (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) There was no discussion. You refer to "a discussed change" but there was no discussion at all. No one noticed your post. No one replied, either for or against the move. When you moved the page, people noticed and objected. This made it clear the move was contested, and you should have placed it on requested moves, per policy. The admin was following policy. You were not. You edit warred and moved against consensus, against multiple admins trying to discuss with you, breaking 3RR, and you persist in accusing the admin who reverted your unsupported move of "ignoring" or "going against" policy; of being "above the law", none of which is true and all of which is rude and accusatory. The admin who reverted your move did not go against any policy. You have broken at least four. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

people noticed and objected. This made it clear the move was contested, and you should have placed it on requested moves, per policy. so go to wp:rm

Can some one unblock me as i wish to discuss the issue raised here at wp:rm and village pump and will not move the page again with out approval ? Gnevin (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To contest your block, add the text {{unblock|your reason here}} as instructed in the block notice above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gnevin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can some one unblock me as i wish to discuss the issue raised here at wp:rm and village pump and will not move the page again with out approval ?

Decline reason:

A twelve hour block is very reasonable; the discussions you want to have, you can just as easily have tomorrow. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Re: FYI

I'm leaving a comment there. You should be aware that bringing up old issues in a forum where people are unfamiliar with your actions does not mean you an interpret guidelines however you like. This was clearly explained to you, by several different users, more so than was necessary. If you continue to deliberately misinterpret guidelines and policy, you may be blocked again.

a/c) 14:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Once again, you are deliberately missing the point we're trying to make. Notice that

a/c) 14:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, this is honestly the last time, before I bring someone else in to try and explain this to you, because I've already told you this at least once before.

Wrong. Admins are in no way more important than other editors. They also must respect consensus when it has been formed. However, silence does not necessarily imply a consensus, and it is within the right of any editor to revert you if they contest a change you have made, even if you proposed it previously and got no response. This just shows that no consensus exists and you need to discuss things in order to form one.

When no discussion occurs, no consensus has been formed. You can go ahead and make your change (that's why we have

WP:BOLD

) but if someone undoes your edit, you must stop then and discuss things before continuing. It's good to go to other forums for other opinions where appropriate, but when doing so you need to make sure you provide all the facts, not just the ones you want people to know.

I really hope you've got it this time, but if not, let me know and I'll ask someone else to try to help you out on your talk page.

a/c) 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

In this case, the administrator was acting on behalf of another regular editor, who requested they revert the move. It is probable the regular user could have done this themselves: see

a/c) 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Navboxes - Brian Cowen

Hi, can you stop putting the Navboxes template at the end of

talk) 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Your Navboxes template seems to reduce the size of the font in the Nav Template. Any idea why?

talk) 09:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for the third opinion you provided on the flagicon and state seal on Talk:Edelbrock. Aspects (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clean up on the GAA articles, I should probably make an effort to learn to use AWB Fasach Nua (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox GAA player

Hi Gnevin, sorry to bother you, but there seem to be "expression error" problems at

Tameamseo (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, it's just that when I go into

Template:Infobox GAA player

, the lines after 'Full name' have red writing giving error messages;

• Date of birth [[ Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"]] [[{{{byear}}}]]({{{byear}}}-Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"-{{{bday}}})
• Date of death [[ Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"]] [[{{{dyear}}}]] (aged Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{")
• Place of birth {{{placeofbirth}}} ,
• Height {{{feet}}} ft {{{inches}}} in (Expression error: Unexpected < operator m).

Does this not indicate a problem?

Tameamseo (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thanks, sorry for the confusion! :)

Tameamseo (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

RE:Suggestion for you to review

Thanks, I'll have a look and let you know what I think. BanRay 13:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of Gaelic games terminology

Thank you for your comment! DellusMaximus (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AWB/B#Duplicate images in image plugin

Hi, could you take a look at instructions here and check if they help? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stadiums/Stadia

See reply on my

This user has vandalised

In addition, I offered a reply of my own. (I should have made it a separate edit, to make it easier for you to undo my refactoring without undoing my reply, but hindsight is 20/20.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on your speed there! "predate" is still less correct though. This has been clear on Wiktionary since November, 2006 when the word first appeared there. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predate points to "antedate" as the proper word; not the other way around; just like http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predate and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/predate . I think

Predate is by far the most common usage

[6] [7]Gnevin (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is almost an order of magnitude between the two, but did you notice how "pre-date" also showed up under "predate"? What one does before a date is not appropriate. Neither are the act of taking prey like a predator or the act of writing a check, etc. with a deliberately early date as opposed to postdating. Can you produce such a count that clearly has evidence contrary to my own (e.g., by removing hyphenated versions and those without the intended meaning)? Would such a count still show a difference that is positive and large enough to go against official sources? :)--Thecurran (talk)

"Predate" without "Pre-date" [8]Gnevin (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now we are dealing with 17:2.1 but Predate-50 is a drug, and there are still articles on predation, as in predator and prey. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O998-antedate.html shows how "antedate" is the main term in the "© The Oxford Pocket Thesaurus of Current English 2008", not "predate". http://www.oed.com/services/public-libs.html contains a list of public libraries in the Republic of Ireland and the UK from which you might be able access OED online directly. Either way, when Merriam-Webster and OED combine, you have some of the top sources in transatlantic English. It is hard to weigh against both of them together but I am still open to a count that does not have inappropriate terms in at least the top ten. :)--Thecurran (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the top ten of your last entry still had tips on what to do before a date. :)--Thecurran (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be AFK for a long time now. I hope to see you soon. :)--Thecurran (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore previous edit - I just started using Twinkle and it did this - humblest apologies - Up the Rebels - My Jacket just dried out yesterday after Sunday !!

I would welcome your comments at Talk:Gaelic football#"Gah". --Kwekubo (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gnevin. You have new messages at Travellingcari's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

another one :) TravellingCari 17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE this edit: Because New York City is a city in New York state, that's why. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don't know if I'm doing this correctly - trying to send you a message - why did you edit my edit on armagh gaa? :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morryah (talk • contribs) 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC) thansk for replying - i see you got rid of the big 3 comment (which was pov by someone else)that i was trying to edit - so i'm happyMorryah (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering... do you have any relationship with the ICC in Canton? Just wondering... I try to get picture ASAP! --Vhoscythe^chatter-sign 21:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Wait, never mind, took a look at your user page. Must've gotten a little over excited. Anyway, is there anything specific you want for pics, fields, the main clubhouse, or... there is a major tournament coming here called the GAA with like all the team from the U.S coming... I'll see if I can get stuff from there. --Vhoscythe^chatter-sign 13:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a notification that the list is at AfD - it looks like you've been a significant contributor. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Looks like you beat me to it! :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a fan of your {{BirthDeathAge}} template, and am looking for something similar that I don't believe exists. Basically I'd like a template that calculate spans between years, either two fixed years or a certain year to present, like:

1975-1995 (20 years)

1971- (37 years)

or

1971-present (37 years)

I'm thinking that perhaps you can just adapt {{BirthDeathAge}}. And, if you feel like a challenge, what about a function that adds multiple spans of dates? ;) Like:

1970-1980, 1985-1990, 1995-1997 (17 years)

Hey, thanks in advance for even reading this! — TAnthony^Talk 23:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No, nothing very clever, I'm afraid, as I've only changed a handful of articles. I copied the articles into TextPad and used find and replace. Regards. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I see you are adding Navboxes to most Irish politicians but it is still not working porperly. Look at

According to the article, he's not a player, just a manager. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small edit to this page, after carefully checking several sources for the information, with the express intention of removing POV and uncited information, and inserting factual information that can be checked (give me 2 days and I'll see whether I can enlarge on the source information from the Irish Traditional Music Archive). Simply doing an "undo" is, IMHO, not sufficient to ensure that the correct information is presented in this article.Hohenloh (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your pissed off, but we simply have these now, so we can't just wholesale delete them, as I'm sure you know. I'll propose a strong 'leading disclaimer' to it, which HighKing I'm sure will use in some way. I don't want to amend it again myself, for various obvious reasons. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)It was bad timing on my part to have patchy net access, but thanks (between you and Matt) for keeping things on track and for not letting a simple set of questions spiral too much into a farce and get hijacked for a different purpose. --

Just because you never heard of this in reference to Kildare does not mean it is not true--my family come from Kildare. Once again you just decide to undo a contribution because you don't know anything about the matter in question.Hohenloh (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From:http://www.abbeyview-selfcatering-ireland.com/page.asp?cid=959 Flour was even used to stick wallpaper, and when the cotton flourbag was empty it was ripped and made into a sheet or some people even made items of underwear from them.

The Kildare Football Team were sometimes sarcastically called the “flour bags” I don’t know if they really ever used flour bags, but they still use white gear and are now more respectfully referred to as the “Lilly Whites”.Hohenloh (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what the references are supposed to refer to, as they may not be clear to everyone. I suggest you rephrase along the lines of Usage of the term Ireland by the Irish government, etc. Maybe its OTT, but maybe it avoids a needless discussion... --

Any chance you could expand the references you are adding so that they have a label and don't appear just as a number? Thanks. --

HighKing (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there, I have put forward an idea Here on the Republic of Ireland talk page. I would appreciate your views, positive or negative. Thanks. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your note on my talk page. Warning: It's half justification as well as half apology. :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the past contributors regarding their usage I'd like to notify you about

The discussion, to which you contributed, has been archived, with very much additional commentary,
at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi? (subsectioned and sub-subsectioned).
A related discussion is at
(Temporary link) Talk:Mathematics#Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership and
(Permanent link) Talk:Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership"). Another related discussion is at
(Temporary link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership and
(Permanent link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership").
-- Wavelength (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Probably is needed on a number of sportspersons articles out there.Londo06 09:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to look at {{PIru}}. Same idea, I suppose. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you have it watchlisted, but there is new activity at Template talk:BirthDeathAge. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]