User talk:Scolaire/Archive 13

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I wanted to do what you've done on the ANI but unfortunately I'm not veteran enough to edit that board.

In addition to all of your points, I'd also like to add that by making these remarks,

• "[T]here are endless examples of xenophobia in Junts per Cat and ERC leaders"
• "[T]here are plenty of sources describing nationalist parties in Catalonia as Supremacist parties"
• asserting that the Spanish-speaking population Cs mostly caters to are the "segment of society which faces more political harassment and ethnic stygma (sic) in Catalonia"

by association (or, rather, by choice of elected representatives) he explicitly levels an accusation of racism against a 2-million-strong landmass of peaceful voters whose center of gravity actually veers towards the left. Just try to imagine a similar accusation, say, against other instances of civic, mostly progressive nationalism, e.g. SNP in Scotland. Not to mention the fact that the "ethnic stigma" bit is ridiculous.

And that by asserting

• "[S]hall we write about every pro-terrorist/xenophobic statements made by CUP or ERC members in their respective articles?"

he wades through slander territory and gets dangerously close to libel.

Not to mention other ad-hominem, e.g. "[T]here are enough crazed pro-independence editors on eng-lang wikipedia these days. (again sic)". CodeInconnu (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

As in the above section, my ANI case relates to his actions on the Catalan independence movement talk page, not to his political position. And as in the above section, it does not mean I am taking your side in the war between you. I think one of of you is as bad as the other. I wish both of you would go away and leave serious editors to get on with the work of improving the encyclopaedia. Please don't post on my talk page again. Scolaire (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. At the SPI ye said something that made me curious. You said I had the "typical Apollo argumentive style". I have heard people say that before. What exactly is my "argumentive style"? Fair spot anyway.213.183.41.51 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping nobody would ask me that ;-) All I can say is that as soon as I read this I thought, "I wonder..." Scolaire (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire,

That section really exploded. I actually reverted the edit of another user who now seems on a mass edit change to the page. His edits had removed significant portions of Collins' biography with no explanation or defense.

I hadn't actually seen your name and reference correction, sorry it got caught up in that other editor's issues. I agree with your correction to the spelling and much more reliable source. To be fair to some other editors, Collins himself spelled it several different ways as Gaelic was just coming back into vogue. Regardless, I didn't mean to revert your edit specifically, thanks for pointing out that it was changed.

Squatch347 (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for getting in touch. What editor did you think you were reverting, though? Can you give me some diffs of him removing content? Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

A one time editor: 2001:ee0:4141:41f7:44ab:5ce7:fce8:b95f. He made the change just before yours, so by undoing his, I undid yours as well. He removed some descriptions of Collins as a politician, etc.

I was under the impression that Ceoil was also that editor given the similarity of the change to one Ceoil made, though that seems unlikely given further review. I did post a more detailed discussion of Ceoil's edits on the page. Most are fine and minor changes, but he removes some paragraphs and sections with no real explanation or defense.

Since I have you for a moment, can I ask about your latest edit on that page? Why remove the section about the intelligence files referring to his family as "brainy"?

Squatch347 (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah! That explains a lot! 2001:ee0:4141:41f7:44ab:5ce7:fce8:b95f fixed the spelling, without changing the refs; Hrodvarsson reverted him; by coincidence, I corrected the spelling again, changing the ref and removing the whole "his middle name was not James" ref and hidden comment, which probably gave the appearance of content removal; and then you reverted me, thinking it was still the 2001:ee0:4141:41f7:44ab:5ce7:fce8:b95f edit. I love it when a mystery is finally resolved.

I removed the "brainy" sentence because it had a "citation needed" tag, and also because I didn't think it was awfully relevant. Even the Albert Einstein article doesn't have a sentence stating that somebody once said he or his family was "brainy". I'm also wary of the sentences cited with "Coogan, T.P., Michael Collins", because they don't have a page number, so they are unverifiable, and also because Tim Pat is not an academic historian, so his biographies shouldn't be taken as gospel. Scolaire (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah excellent, that does make a lot of sense now. Certainly was a confusing little bit of editing. This page gets a lot of burst activity after laying quiet for so long. Hard to argue with the non-h spelling when we have the signature example picture on the page. ;-)

Understood on the deletion, the reference to his family being brainy as written in British intelligence files I thought was an interesting insight into both the level of British intelligence collection at the time and as a good foreshadowing of his importance and success later. The page reference is 106 in Coogan's work, and I think he has an primary source citation in it for that section as well. Agree with not taking him as gospel, though I think in this case it might be worth inclusion given the original citation. I see you've responded on the talk page so I'll engage there. Thanks again.

Squatch347 (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the specimen signature in the infobox. Well spotted! Scolaire (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Deserved apology to you here [1] I was taking heat from all sides at the time, the timing was bad. We hadn't interacted before, I jumped to conclusions, and was grossly mistaken. I actually agree with *everything* you have said on the talk this afternoon. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted. An thanks also for removing the unfair comment against BrownHairedGirl. Her analysis was spot on and her actions were appropriate, and it's criminal the way she was savaged by other editors on three different pages. Scolaire (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Scolaire. I'm just pleased that you and @Ceoil have been able to get over this bump in the road, and return to collaboration.

Best wishes to both of you --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

		The Civility Barnstar
		I don't know what you think of these things, but I wanted to thank you for your civility at Talk:Michael Collins. Thanks! Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thirded Squatch347 (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I don't hoard barnstars, but I'll leave this one for a while because it makes me feel good :-) Scolaire (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't a new subsection better? Many other Wikipedia projects have that (French, Italian, Catalan, even German Wikipedia). --Nov3rd17 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC) BTW, thank you for the talk move.

I didn't do it for fun. But I didn't loose it either, and I hope the same applies for you.

With sub-articles I meant the following: One can create pages like X:A, X:B,... I thought that these were sub-pages but were wrong, subpages would be X/A and they are impossible in the article namespace (i.e. they would have no connection to X) --Nov3rd17 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Scolaire. Long time. I know you don't like to engage into new consuming talk page discussions and that your time is limited, but maybe you could be interested in this entry:

I'm afraid you've caught me at a time when I'm trying to take a Wikibreak, having recently been involved in three large rows (not including Carles Puigdemont) and a sockpuppet investigation. If I were to try to rewrite that article, I would do what I usually do: look it up on Google Books. Here are some results if you feel like having a go: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. There are multiple results within each book. Good luck. Scolaire (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at two users, User:Sokopoko and User:James blythe. Any familiarities to you? Canterbury Tail talk 18:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Yes, I was just looking at James blythe. His earlier (2017) contributions were at Ned Cronin, which was later edited by 80.111.164.98, who was blocked for a week after an SPI, and Ernest Blythe, which was later edited by 118.97.147.26, who was blocked as a proxy. His first edit this month was this, one day after these edits by someone called Luke Dillon the Dynamiter. Currently engaged in an edit-war with Bastun, and having a conversation at User talk:Bastun very reminiscent of conversations that other socks have had there. I would go straight to SPI if I were you. Scolaire (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The article on the Institut Nova Història is much better now thanks to your meticulous and wise editing. Regards, Maragm (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt it needed to be whipped into shape, and my father always said, "if you want a job done properly, do it yourself." Scolaire (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

On 24 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Events of 6 October, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that former Spanish prime minister Manuel Azaña was arrested after the events of 6 October in Barcelona in 1934, despite having taken no part in them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Events of 6 October. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Events of 6 October), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

There was a single failed attempt to log in to my account a month ago. I got an alert and followed it to the MediaWiki help page. I didn't change my password because it is a strong password, I can remember it easily and nobody else could possibly know it. But there is still a grey "1" against my alerts, which changes to a red "2" when there is only one new alert. This is confusing and distracting. Can somebody tell me how to get rid of it, please? Scolaire (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2018 UTC)

Hi Scolaire, I think the problem is that notification you received regarding failed login attempt was not marked read by you and that's why it's greyed but not disappeared. To disappear it open the notification and scroll to that login failed attempt notification and click on a blue circle in the top right corner. If this solve your problem please reply back and if doesn't activate the help template again. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that worked. Thank you. I was completely unaware of the blue circle. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please repair your closure at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related_articles#Irish translations of names for topics. Your flippant "discourage the indiscriminate addition of {{lang-ga}} templates to articles" doesn't summarize the discussion accurately and is very misleading. The conclusion was to not indiscriminately add Irish-language versions of terms and names, and only add them when they're likely to be encountered by users of English Wikipedia. That has nothing at all to do with lang templates. If the Irish version appears, it definitely should be templated so that the language metadata is correct.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There was nothing flippant in my summary, SMcCandlish. The background to the discussion was that somebody was editing a lot of articles to add an Irish version of the title in the form of a {{lang-ga}} template and a citation to an Irish dictionary site (example here). Though there was disagreement on what precisely the MOS should say, there was a clear consensus that dumping the template into articles indiscriminately was to be discouraged, and that's what my summary said. I take your point that technically it is the addition of Irish that is the problem, and not the use of the template to do it, and I will amend my summary accordingly, but there was no need for you to attack me in that way, especially three months after the fact, when you had taken no part in the discussion! Try to remain civil and to assume good faith. Scolaire (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand that, after researching the background. Not everyone will (on either point). The issue is that use of the template isn't the problem, over-inclusion of non-English is the problem, but the close's wording misleadingly indicates the former. You're addressing the symptom not the disease, in a way that could interfere with other medicine.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, give it a rest! There was no disease, no medicine, just an honest summary that was capable of being misread. I've changed it now. There was no need to fling accusations at me; you could have made your point politely, and asked me to change it politely. Scolaire (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the tweak. I'm not sure what you mean by "accusations"; disagreement is an accusation? I did politely request, and you didn't seem to get the rationale offered. I used a fairly cliché medical analogy which was pretty clear (and intended to be humorous), but you appear to think I literally meant something about diseases. Near as I can tell, you seem to have been angered by the word "flippant". I meant it in the common sense of "lacking in seriousness, not showing due regard"; I see some dictionaries also offer a definition relating to disrespectfulness or shallowness, which wasn't my intended implication. Apologies if that was the one inferred.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Scolaire (you mention in your profile, no fada, so I'll go with that, with trepidation, no insult intended). I think you could be the right person to look at a citation for me (when you have a chance). It is citation No 15 on the Éire page. I'll try and paste the whole specific relevant section (no sure style/format wise, what to include on this to help and when it borders on "over helpful/stupid re links etc at this second I'm struggling to copy it so I hope mentioning above is OK from an etiquette perspective). So initially I felt the source was really a journalist stating an opinion and tried to edit/remove it on that basis. It was reinserted so I reconsidered it. So if the journalist was suggesting the use of Eire and not Éire was falling out of usage obscure etc that makes sense. So I word searched the document to check for usage of Éire (none) Eire two only, the page quoted and one about Saor Éire The Saor Eire result on the lack of correct spelling usage in the citation and as a result I now believe more surely the citation and quote are much weaker and much more likely to be a statement of opinion where it is actually being suggested that "Éire" is obscure and falling out of use. I do understand there may have been financial considerations at the time of printing fonts/type sets etc but I do personally think it is worth a look from a Scoláire 😉 I hope you don't mind me asking, I couldn't decide between you or Bastun and I thought better of asking you both. I can see that this might have been discussed before (is there a way for me to check that?) sorry if I appear to be some guy who likes having old arguments or lives to drag over the coals. I hope to impress people with time that this is the near unbridled enthusiasm of a noob. With the best of intentions and hoping to become a worth while contributor. All help greatly appreciated and please feel very free to refer me elsewhere if you think I'm barking up the wrong tree.Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Eimhin. I gather you are referring to your edits to the

wikilink

on a talk page, to save the recipient from having to go hunting.

Just like with your input at the

Ireland Collaboration page, I think you are over-thinking everything. The title of the section is Spelling Eire rather than Éire. That should tell you straight off that it is "Eire" and not "Éire" that's being talked about. The paragraph in question says that the Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act 1938 stated that British legislation could henceforth refer to the Irish Free State as "Eire", but that it was repealed in 1981. I don't know what age you are, but I am old enough to remember when both British politicians and British media regularly referred to "the Eire government", "the Eire Prime Minister" etc. That has long since gone out of fashion. The fact was remarked on

by John Wilson in his book Understanding Journalism, p. 269, and that's why he is cited in the article.

I'm going to have to revert this edit. First of all, Wilson did not say anything about it being a spelling error, and second, the question of spelling and the fada have already been addressed in the section.

I don't mind you coming to me with this, but in general it is better to open a section on the article talk page where the article's other editors can see it. No harm in leaving a note on my talk page to let me know that there is discussion going on there. But I hope you will consider this particular matter closed.

And you don't have to keep apologising for being a noob, but at the same time you will have to accept that when established editors (including anons) revert you or disagree with you, and give solid reasons, it's probably not a good idea to keep pushing it. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and so by extension Saor Eire at that time (his only other Éire/Eire) usage was a term used then as well? I understand the location for questions advice, thanks.Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Egad Scolaire, perhaps I have it! so this is saying Irish language usage spoken/written is becoming less common and thus the use of Éire?Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC); edited15:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I really got it now "consider the matter closed" closed indeed 😊 and you really have been super helpful, it has been an amazing experience. You probably wouldn't believe me but I have been a life long lurker (well 3 forum posts in 20 plus years) I guess I needed to find a worth while place. ; edited15:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I think what you guys do is super important. I will relax now for a good long time research more about how Wikipedia works. It was a super steep learning curve I have learned so much. A really awesome (in all senses) experience. Thanks.Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Scolaire, Previously you made the sensible decision to remove nationality and citizenship in an info box in order to avoid a dispute. We agreed that such information is not needed in the info box were a more nuanced description is given in the lede in line with standard encyclopaedia style, especially where people get confused between nationality and citizenship, which are two different things. In the Beaufort article I fixed it a while back. Somebody had described him as having Irish nationality which didn't exist until the 20th century and British citizenship which didn't exist until 1983. It was wrong on both counts so I removed it. Somebody has reverted back again. I will fix it again. It should become a general policy to remove these terms in an info box where a dispute arises. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it should become policy, but as far as I'm aware it is not. The article in question was stable in relation to these questions going back to 2011. You were the one who came along and created the conflict and dispute, and without citing any sources. It was a

Fob.schools (talk

) 14:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Irish nationality which didn't exist until the 20th century?? Centuryofconfusion You seem more than a little confused between citizenship and nationality yourself. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 14:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Centuryofconfusion: as you say, I removed nationality from the infobox of the Cecil Frances Alexander article in order to avoid a protracted dispute. I did think that the field was not necessary, but I never said or suggested that someone should go on a campaign to remove it from all infoboxes. I didn't agree, don't agree and will never agree that it is wrong or "unfair" to call Irish people Irish. You are not just confused about Irish nationality; you are plain wrong. Scolaire (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Scolaire, At no stage did I go around changing all the info boxes. I changed the one on the Beaufort article because I happened to be reading it and the error came to my attention. I take it you intend to ignore this reference https://www.petersommer.com/blog/archaeology-history/beaufort-bodrum which describes him as

Anglo-Irish which is what he was? Why do you want to play down his Englishness in the lede? Centuryofconfusion (talk

) 18:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You said It should become a general policy to remove these terms in an info box where a dispute arises. I took that to mean that someone should go on a campaign to remove it from all infoboxes, especially since the dispute "arose", in this instance, from you changing an infobox that was stable for seven years. And yes, I intend to ignore everything you say at Talk:Francis Beaufort, since it's not my problem. All I did was to revert to the last stable version while the rest of you discuss it. Please don't bother to respond again; I will delete any further posts on this thread. Scolaire (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

this RFC is currently host to what I feel is going to be the WP community shooting itself in the foot. Naomi Osaka has dual Japanese and American citizenship (and was raised and lives in America.) Currently It seems there is an effort to remove that from the lede and merely describe her as Japanese only because she represents Japan in tennis. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I already knew about it, but thanks for the message. For the record, I think her Haitian ancestry is far more important than her American citizenship. Scolaire (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought the use of the logo in a revolutionary context was interesting.

but I'm not well informed about the history of the organisation. I just happened to be in Belfast. Do you know what was behind it? Rathfelder (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sinn Féin considers itself to be a revolutionary party. I recognise Fidel Castro, Bobby Sands, James Connolly and Nelson Mandela from the poster. I don't know if the logo you're referring to is the SF logo or the Starry Plough, but Sinn Féin would see itself just as much as the heirs of Connolly. I see the poster here in the Peter Moloney Collection of murals, dated 19 August 2006, so It doesn't seem to be that recent and it doesn't seem to be that significant. Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think "Charting Singles" is an appropriate criteria for listing song covers. Especially when most countries around the world do not have such music charts. Angry bee (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume you're talking about

Other cover versions section

, which alone has 50 versions! Not only is the reader swamped by a mass of indiscriminate detail, but the significant covers are lost in the sea of "yeah, he did it too" versions.

Bottom line: if somebody's cover of "L'amour est bleu" became famous in a country that does not have music charts, and there is a reliable source to show it was famous (not just that it was sung), then by all means it can be added. Scolaire (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You removed my entry for a third opinion on 07:46, 25 April 2019. I added the Rfc for that article, but no one has participated. I went to

@

dispute resolution

before RfC. In principle, once an RfC is started, you can have any number of participants. On this occasion, however, only you and one other person have participated. I think a good idea in this case would be to close the RfC, i.e.

• Remove the {{rfc|hist|pol|soc|rfcid=597CC60}} tag
• Add {{closed rfc top|result= '''Closed for lack of participation'''}} or some such summary underneath the section heading
• Add {{closed rfc bottom}} at the bottom

Then follow the steps at

Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. This may get a better response than the RfC (it couldn't get a worse one), but if it didn't, then I'm afraid you would have to accept that there is not a consensus for a merge. I have my own opinion, but I'll wait to see what you do before expressing it on the talk page. Best wishes, Scolaire (talk

) 19:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

In light of recent events, it seems best for me to retire from Wikipedia. Over the coming months I will make an effort to finish articles which are still red links (if only as short stubs others can expand), expand some, add sources, and other issues, but otherwise wind down. My sincerest apologies. Fergananim (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel the need to take such drastic action, Fergananim. I believe that everything you did was in good faith, and much of what you did was good and did improve Wikipedia. In the end, though, maybe you just didn't "get" Wikipedia and how it works. I hope you can find some other outlet for what is obviously your passion. Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Nyttend (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I can only assume that I have been blocked for reverting Sennen goroshi's edits at Naomi Osaka. My reverts numbered FOUR in total over a FOUR-WEEK period: one on 29 May, one on 2 June and two on 15 June – with clear edit summaries – here and here. During the entire period I discussed the content on the talk page, and my two reverts were because he was reverting to his edit when the consensus on the talk page was against it. I will mention that there was one other editor involved in the discussion who also reverted Sennen goroshi's edit on a number of occasions. (And by the way, have a look at Sennen goroshi's idea of consensus here.) There seems to have been a glib assumption that Sennen goroshi was disruptive so "the other fellow" must be just as bad. I have edited Wikipedia for 14 years with a clean block record; to slap me with a one week block on the basis of two reverts is disgraceful. What is the point of a three-revert rule if an admin is going to block someone on a whim for two reverts, without any prior warning or even communication?? Nevertheless, I resolve to unwatch Naomi Osaka, never again to interact with Sennen goroshi, and to keep myself to a personal 1RR rule in future. That ought to be sufficient for an unblock. Scolaire (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Yes, that more than suffices. Will consult with the blocking admin first, but otherwise, I am, indeed, inclined to grant this request. El_C 07:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's the problem. You've been here a long time; you knew edit warring was happening, but rather than stepping back and waiting for it to resolve itself on the talk page, you continued to participate in the edit war. What did you misunderstand about our community's policy in this regard? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: I didn't see it as me edit-warring. As you say, I've been here a long time. Countless times over countless discussions I have seen somebody constantly restoring an edit in the course of a discussion and somebody else – often the same person – reverting to the status quo pending resolution, and in all that time I never saw the reverting editor even criticised for edit-warring, let alone slapped with a one-week block without any prior warning (unless, of course, he broke 3RR or did a dozen reverts in less than a week). All right, I used the word "edit-warring" myself, but that was to persuade him not to continue what he was doing; I was not threatening him with a block, and I think that his block is equally harsh.

But since you tell me that my interpretation of policy was wrong, and that four reverts in four weeks is disruptive, I will accept that and undertake not to do it again. Scolaire (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't even have to look at your analysis of your edits. I think I'll let someone else handle this; it wasn't about four reverts in four weeks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: If it wasn't about four reverts in four weeks, what was it about? I have been blocked for edit-warring, but nobody has told me what the edit-warring consisted of, so how can I explain myself, acknowledge my wrong, or even know what to do in the future. In regard to the four edits, I have explained why I did what I did. I have acknowledged that it went against policy. I have said that I will not do it again. Obviously I mean by that that I am not going to revert anybody on any article. I apologise if my tone was less than respectful, but it was never my intention to provoke. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Can somebody please tell me why they think I am going to launch straight into another edit war if I am unblocked, I who never was blocked in 14 years? Scolaire (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(watching) I'm not usually one to just jump in when I haven't even checked out the background to a block, but Scolaire... seriously? Honestly, there's something wrong in Wikipedia world when editors of his integrity and experience have punitive measures taken against them, and I don't see that there could be a context where this could be understood to be anything other than a wrong call being made (and I emphasise the 'wrong call' aspect given that the enforcing admin is an extremely honourable, high calibre sysop). Could this be revisited, please? Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

AN/I? I thought the whole point of an unblock request was that it would be quickly addressed, but it's over 36 hours now and all I've got is one admin asking if I could see what I had done wrong (I answered yes). At this point it looks as if they're going to ignore it for a week and then mark it not done because the block has expired. Scolaire (talk

) 07:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Scholaire. I've submitted a request for a review as, if it isn't about the Naomi Osaka article, the rationale must be explained. The block identifies the reason clearly. If there are other issues at stake, how can you even submit a request to unblock? I don't know what's going on, but the block as stands has me perplexed. I hope this is a good faith misunderstanding, but the unfortunate thing is that the enaction of a block remains in the log even if it was an error. Hope it's resolved quickly! Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Iryna, thank you again for your prompt action. As of now, an admin has accepted my request but I remain blocked, waiting for Nyttend to approve it. I am aware that it is a permanent stain on my record, but most editors get at least one in their careers, regardless whether they think they deserved it or not. As you may guess, Wikipedia is not my favourite place at the moment. Scolaire (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Unblock

 Done. El_C 13:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record

@

• What is this, a new standard for EW blocks? A 14-year editor with a clean block log, who was involved in a talk page discussion, gets a week-long block for a slow edit war, for the first offense, without even a warning? The golden standard in these situations has always been to protect the page first, and block the editors as the last resort. While, in fairness, you also blocked User:Sennen goroshi, if we'd apply such unreasonable standards we would have no editors left.
  No such user (talk
  ) 11:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: I am just stating here for you and for the benefit of future readers that what Nyttend said in that AN/I thread shows that it was indeed "about four reverts in four weeks". For you to use innuendo to paint me as a persistent edit-warrior, when everybody who knows me knows that that is the opposite of the truth, is despicable. Scolaire (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire, thanks for your help on the Osaka page. I don't see why you got blocked, but I'm glad to see it was overturned. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for making it a Good Article. I'm sworn off Naomi Osaka and tennis in general, so we probably won't interact much again. Scolaire (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Sportsfan, I got blocked for restoring the same content that you restored here, for the same stated reasons. Apparently the new rule is that if you do that more than once or twice you are guilty of edit-warring and get blocked for a week without warning. So tread carefully. Scolaire (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

On 23 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ernst Christoph Dressler, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ernst Christoph Dressler, an 18th-century operatic tenor, violinist, composer, and music theorist, composed a march on which Beethoven based his earliest published work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ernst Christoph Dressler. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ernst Christoph Dressler), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Irish scholar

Thank you for quality articles such as Ernst Christoph Dressler, Konrad Schmid, Events of 6 October, beginning with L'amour est bleu and Ireland unfree shall never be at peace in 2006, for moves to names known and in sources, - Peter, lifelong pacifist, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

I just created

Thank you for your kind words,

WikiProject Ireland on the talk page. Are you still intending to create the Dressler article on German Wikipedia? Scolaire (talk

) 11:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Dressler de, - let's see ... - Yesterday, I listened to great music here, so improving those 2 articles comes first. When you miss a project please feel free to just add it. I typically copy from somewhere similar, just not to miss a "translated" attribution, and then neglect the other items ;) - Sorry about the strange block. I wasn't yet blocked, but labeled anything from "treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground" to "most disruptive ... warrior", - so welcome to the club (which you joined by what you do) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Dressler de in full swing, - I just remembered in time that we need an import first ;) - Hopefully that will happen today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone just came through an article I created which I happened to be looking at. They changed a birth place from Ireland to United Kingdom and Ireland. While this is entirely correct since the birth was in 1918 it was the birth of a nationalist in a nationalist household. It started me wondering what exactly the rules for calling the country at the various times in its existence actually are... I know we will likely never get everyone to agree on nationality names... ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 13:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Antiqueight. The rule regarding place of birth is at

WP:OVERLINK, it should not be pipelinked. Scolaire (talk

) 16:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey - thanks, fast reply. In that case the editor has been overlinking and I shall go and undo several I have noticed. I was checking up since I was somewhat unexpectedly away longer than I'd ever intended and the poor watchlist was just full. So I was doing a quick survey of older articles to check nothing weird had slipped in. I can count on the community to look after everything but it is nice to check in. I hope I'm basically back for the rest of the year and shall be creating again. Thank for your input and the links which I will read now - I figured it was in MoS but failed to find it myself... ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 21:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I take great exception to you describing my edits as 'a mess'. In both instances they were intended to improve the referencing - which they did. It is interesting to note that the only real improvement you made to the latter of my two edits was in respect of one reference (out of 11 in total). Your first edit largely reverted to a version that had mainly incomplete references. An apology would not go amiss. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah! Yes, Derek, I had forgotten we had both edited Skid Row back in September. When I said "not for the first time", I was referring to this conversation from three years ago. Using reFill to add proper cite templates to basic refs is laudable; stripping the text from a ref to leave a bare url, before tagging it as a dead url, is disruptive. Two of us explained that to you in a civil manner back then, and you responded by telling us what an experienced editor you were and that we had better things to be doing than bothering you in your important work. Three years later, you have not modified your behaviour and you're still creating messes on multiple articles. If you find a dead link, you can (a) check it at the Wayback Machine and see if an archived version exists, or (b) tag it and leave it as it is. Stripping off the text that might help editors to find a working url, or at least indicate what was at that url, is, as I say, disruptive. It creates a mess, and I will not apologise for saying so. It was only on one citation that you did that in your most recent edits to Skid Row, but in your September edits it was more than one. In what you called my "first edit", I was primarily concerned with removing content added by a prolific vandal, but I was not in a mood to fix the mess you made with your edits, so I rolled back to the last stable version, undoing the good as well as the bad. When you learn to use the script in a way that improves an article without simultaneously harming it, I will stop reverting you and I will stop criticising you. Scolaire (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop in and say thanks for implementing my suggestion. I've had an account for a long time but only recently active (thanks Covid!), still learning the ropes. I appreciate your interactions and collaboration. Retswerb (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Retswerb. You know, sometimes you become so familiar with an article that it seems it must make perfect sense to everybody. That's why, when Mr gobrien said the point needed to be clarified my reaction was to pooh-pooh it (sorry Mr gobrien). Your calm contribution to the discussion clarified the issue and your simple solution solved it elegantly. So thank you. Scolaire (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Glad you're back, hope you're well. I was wondering if you could take a look at Charles Gavan_Duffy#An "Irish Mazzini" and see if you think it's acceptable writing? My feeling is that, despite repeated criticism from multiple editors including both of us, the unacceptable standard of writing is continuing. However it'd be best to get a second opinion first. Thanks. FDW777 (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I glanced at my watchlist; and when I did I saw a page move that I consider totally inappropriate. I will check back periodically to see how that goes, but otherwise, I am not back. Good luck in your Gavan Duffy discussion. Scolaire (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem, enjoy your break. FDW777 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the

Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)

06:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow! The Proclamation of the Irish Republic. I remember it like it was yesterday. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU. --Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire Im pretty new to creating articles and I wonder if you might take a look at Draft Patrick McGrath (Irish Republican) which I submitted .several months ago. I appreciate any help/advice you might offer. Thanks, Palisades1 (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

Draft:Patrick McGrath (Irish Republican)

" – it saves the person having to play detective.

I found significant coverage of McGrath in Destiny of the Soldiers (five results), Pawns in the Game (three results), Fianna Fáil, Partition and Northern Ireland (two results), Defending Ireland (two results), Seán MacBride: A Life, Britain, Ireland and the Second World War, and Ireland 1912–1985. Unfortunately, all except the last three are not facsimiles and therefore don't have page numbers. Also, many of them only say the same thing. But at least that is enough sources to prove notability. BrownHairedGirl, in her review, suggested looking up contemporary newspaper reports. You can get a one-month subscription to the Irish Newspaper Archives for €29. Alternatively, if you are in Dublin you can get a reader's ticket for the National Library or the Pearse Street Library and Archive, and access them there for nothing.

By the way, where did you get the information that he was 21 in 1916? And why did you not use that to give him a date of birth of about 1895?

Regards. Scolaire (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Just as a point of information. Where available, the "Look inside" option on the Amazon website (I mostly use the UK version, since that's where I'm currently resident so I have an account there) is often useful for figuring out page numbers, especially if you search for unusual words or phrases that appear on the relevant page on Google Books. FDW777 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. However, I've never been lucky with the "Look inside" option. I tried it on The Destiny of the Soldiers and it told me Paddy McGrath was in chapter 8, but not which page. Can you offer any advice to Palisades1? You're much more active than I am at the moment. Scolaire (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a foolproof method.

WP:CITEHOW does say when citing books to cite the page number or chapter, probably reflecting the increasing popularity of ebooks and the lack of page numbers on certain ebook platforms. FDW777 (talk

) 13:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that, I wasn't sure if it belonged in the article but thought it best to leave some information available if anyone else thought otherwise. As stated I couldn't find a reference that confirmed the reconvened Sinn Féin ard fheis pledged allegiance to the Provisional Army Council. Depending on what Mac Stíofáin actually said, I thought his speech had a touch of farce about it, since by pledging allegiance to the Provisional Army Council he was pledging allegiance to himself. I have finally managed to obtain a sensibly priced copy of his book which is currently on its way across the Atlantic, I might be able to find out what he actually said when it arrives. FDW777 (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that edit today, and then I saw your subsequent edit summary, and I thought it would be a good way to put the Provisional Army Council back in the paragraph, as I think it's important. I don't see anything farcical about an IRA man, wearing his Sinn Féin hat, pledging allegiance on behalf of his Sinn Féin supporters to his IRA faction. I have quoted contemporary newspaper reports on the article talk page. Let me know if the book illuminates things. Scolaire (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly, it did. FDW777 (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better. Scolaire (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

On 10 November 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Maureen Cleave, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Just thought I would let you know as you mentioned this in the talk page of the article -I have removed the sentence about the relationship between conor Clune and the archbishop. This was shown to be wrong in a TG4 programme tonight called Sagairt na Síochána. Also removed it from the archbishop's pageAineireland (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's a surprise! Thanks for letting me know, Áine. --Scolaire (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)