![]() | This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
I thought the Kingdom of Ireland was a sovereign state, up until the 1800 Act of Union took effect January 1, 1801? GoodDay ( talk) 23:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why you undid my edits. I was trying to separate his personal life (retirement etc) from his career stuff, in particular so I could bring out his Governorship of Queensland as a separate section in preparation for expanding upon it. Kerry ( talk) 04:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire.... Errrr, not sure if the description of the 10-shilling coin as a commemorative coin is right. I don't have the sources to hand, but as far as I know, it was planned as a replacement for the 10 shilling note; 2 million were minted, but as the coin proved so unpopular, most weren't issued and were melted down for the silver content. (I seem to remember that only about 200,000 made it into circulation) I have a history of Irish coinage somewhere in the house if I can find it. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 19:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed a vote going on here [1] that may be of interest. (Another here [2]). Brocach ( talk) 21:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I assume you are following the discussions at AN/I but in case you have lost it in the detail, I have asked all parties to desist, immediately, from any renaming or recategorising of articles linked to the GAA. This applies even to correcting an article that has been amended to the 'wrong' version. The AN/I thread has grown to astonishing length with very little interest from anyone except those already engaged in the dispute. Nevertheless I will block anyone who makes further changes to these categories before a true consensus is reached, ideally at WT:GAA but frankly any venue will do! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Veritas odium parit Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire. Regarding the GAA Cfd, I did not think of my heading being interpreted that way, so thank you for pointing it out and I will keep it in mind in future. It was not my intention to appear presiding or direct a closer or anything, but I did want to sum up the current state of argument and bow out (Not that the Jan 17 discussion in itself was confusing or off track, but taken together with the Jan 3 discussion and several side discussions...). I would prefer contended Cfds to take a more collaborative approach than the prevalent (and hard to resist) 'us vs them' attitude that dominates too many discussions there. As a result, I make an effort to consider both sides and try to distance the issues/arguments from the personalities, and try to find a way to encourage others to do the same, but I am not always good at expressing myself. -- Qetuth ( talk) 23:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
So far, the questions look okay, but where is my question 4 (Brocachs question 2, part 2) gone? The Banner talk 12:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as we are able to amicably discuss this matter now, and as the GAA discussion has now closed, with Proprosal 6 stated as "no-consensus", I think we may be able to sort it out quickly enough with little trouble.
Whilst I think we should continue and conclude the discussion at IMoS as it is an IMoS manner, I would like to respond to your last comment in the GAA discussion:
Proposal 3 is: '"X Gaelic footballers", not "X GAA Gaelic footballers"'. If that were adopted, there would be no need to make Derry an exception. As regards List of Derry GAA clubs, would it not be simpler just to take that link out of the "See also's" altogether? I really don't see what it adds. If the link is to remain, it cannot have "#Derry GAA" in it without changing the section heading in the List to "Derry GAA", which would leave it out of synch with the other section headings. For that reason, I prefer BrownHairedGirl's proposal (the one I've just cited). Scolaire (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The link is useful as it directs readers to an article that lists other GAA clubs in Ireland, and in the case of that hash, it takes them directly to the Derry GAA club section in what is quite a long article. Maybe it could be removed altogether, however it does serve a somewhat useful purpose - yet the start of each article does have a "Table of contents". Hence why when Brocach made the additions I never reverted it, but amended it.
The link can also have "#Derry GAA" without need for the section heading in the list to be changed. A simple pipe is what I suggested beforehand in the discussion somewhere: List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry GAA. Works easy peasy with no need for section-headings needing to be changed.
However as stated in my last comments at the GAA discussion, this is for non-GAA articles, and was trying to clarify BHG's points on GAA being used for non-GAA context articles. In that case the County Londonderry GAA club articles containing that link will stay the same as they are now. Mabuska (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It depends on article context and criterion as to whether it is a substantial part of the article. In the case of Joe Brolly it would seem to be. In some article where the GAA stuff contributes to only a small amount of the article, disambiguation would/may be necessary. Mabuska (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed much of the content of Criticism of Wikipedia in a series of edits here, including some content that was supported by citations. Did you discuss the article with the other editors before you decided to blank several of the article's sections? I'm slightly alarmed by the amount of content that was removed from this article in a single series of edits. Jarble ( talk) 20:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello
I made a bold edit here, which you reverted; so I've
opened a discussion on the matter (
here) if you wish to comment. Regards,
Moonraker12 (
talk)
16:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I have found myself in a bit of an awkward situation. The case is User talk:The Banner/Archives/2013/March#Ireland Reaching Out. As you can see, I know the other editor in real life what makes the disagreement rather awkward. Any advice how to get out of this without offending the other editor? Was I wrong with the removals ( [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) The Banner talk 19:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Limerick Pogrom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Scolaire. I thought I'd tell you that I just had to gut the Tom Clarke (Irish republican) article because it had become almost a word for word transcript of Clarke's part of the Seachtar na Cásca TV series. So I reverted to the last version before the copyright violation. It wasn't written terribly well anyway, but we did lose some good stuff that had been done since then. I wondered if you wanted to help try to get it in better shape. I think the last of the extreme partisans with poor writing skills has retired (you probably know who I mean), so making small edits shouldn't be epic battle anymore. I'll take a poke at it here and there, but already had to scrap a bunch of my rewrites I did before I gave up and did a whole scale reversion. Thought I'd let you know anyway, since you've shown interest in the past and have proved to be a good editor. Thanks. - R. fiend ( talk) 14:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
My apologies about the modified proposal, I was not aware it was in breach of protocol, I never really filed a RfC before. ÓCorcráin ( talk) 23:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I made a report here if you have the other IDs to hand would you add them? ---- Snowded TALK 15:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Could some admin warn a person to just stay away from my talk page. Thank you. Dmcq ( talk) 22:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Can You Help Actor Jack O'connell is half irish and he himself said that but some people changed it to english and then locked it please can you change his nationality to irish-british please, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.192.63 ( talk) 21:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
In your edit of William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber you say "no obvious need to specify North Tipperary"
I do agree - but neither do I see any obvious need to remove the extra information. What is your motivation for this? Doug ( at Wiki) 23:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Purely out of curiosity, what is the hypothetical motive behind removing county in favor of north/south? Im always interested in these sort of controversies, since I ordered a "black and tan" at a (real) Irish bar once and almost got the crap kicked out of me! Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Could I remind you of WP:NPA. I raised the RfC on establishment because there was a dispute. It is a standard method of getting a decision when it isn't straightforward. I do not appreciate snide comments about me getting my way and sticking in the business for thirty days. Dmcq ( talk) 14:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the page refs. I attempted to thank you as well via the "thank" link on the page history. What did that do? Just one of the new notification thingies? Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You didn't sign your !vote.
I believe you have misread #5 and meant to !vote no (based on your reason following). The question is some what confusing, but has a "is it false that" in there, so that "yes to all" makes sense. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
To here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment#New_Edits
Taking you up on your earlier offer of assistance. SonofSetanta ( talk) 15:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Ulster Defence Regiment now submitted for A Class Review after a very enjoyable two week editing period. No bullies in sight. I did manage to fall out with an over zealous copyright enforcer but it hasn't marred my experience. I invite your scrutiny of the article as it stands, particularly with reference to NPOV - did I get it right? SonofSetanta ( talk) 10:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
St John's Eve may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Michael Gambon". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I am curious, the info box states that the party was founded in 1905 but 'created' in 1970 as a result of the split with the stickies. But it seems to me that certain editors are denying that Sinn Féin, despite the splits is the same party from 1905.
1905: Sinn Féin founded
1923: Sinn Féín Split - Cumann na nGaedheal founded
1926: Sinn Féin Split - Fianna Fáil founded
1930: Sinn Féin Split - Republican Congress Founded
1970: Sinn Féin Split - The Workers' Party (aka Official Sinn Féin & Sinn Féin, the Workers' Party) founded
1986: Sinn Féin Split - Republican Sinn Féin founded
Why is 1970 out of all these dates used? ÓCorcráin ( talk) 10:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I have only by pure chance noticed your comment here whilst looking for a link to the user comparison tool. Thank you for you comment, it meant a lot. Some editors are unwilling to man up and apologise properly especially when there is absolutely no evidence at all to back up the slightest insinuation amongst other slights they did. Mabuska (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Scolaire. I broadly agree with you that section headings are not there to "make a point", but I should have thought we could agree that a heading reading "Recognition", when there was no recognition from anywhere, is misleading. The purpose of the headings is to summarize the sections of the page, and in this case I prefer "Lack of recognition" simply as an accurate summary. If you do not like that, what would you suggest? Perhaps "Aim of recognition" or "International perception"? Moonraker ( talk) 09:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Scolaire, I've reverted your change to this article.
The "stable version" was the one prior to Mownberry's insertion of the claim that "Fhórsaí Cosanta" is an Irish-language name for the Defence Forces. The article has not made that claim since it was first created in 2004. Óglaigh na hÉireann was given as the only Irish-language name for the Defence Forces from then until Mownberry's change.
The Defence Act, 1954 is explicit. As is the Defence Forces own English-Irish dictionary. Ó Cearúili is also explicit in stating the Defence Forces are styled Óglaigh na hÉireann as opposed ot Fhórsaí Cosanta in Irish.
Fhórsaí cosanta is the Irish for defence forces, so confusion can naturally arise. I've walked through these references now on the talk page. -- Tóraí ( talk) 21:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Noting your edit at Easter Rising, I don't think that it is overlinking to link the mention of UK to the article of the actual state it was then, UK of GB and I, as readers may confuse it with UK of GB and NI. Though if that is overlinking, then surely "Irish republicans" and "World War I" qualify as overlinking on the basis of being obvious. Mabuska (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Tánaiste may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
I thought the Kingdom of Ireland was a sovereign state, up until the 1800 Act of Union took effect January 1, 1801? GoodDay ( talk) 23:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why you undid my edits. I was trying to separate his personal life (retirement etc) from his career stuff, in particular so I could bring out his Governorship of Queensland as a separate section in preparation for expanding upon it. Kerry ( talk) 04:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire.... Errrr, not sure if the description of the 10-shilling coin as a commemorative coin is right. I don't have the sources to hand, but as far as I know, it was planned as a replacement for the 10 shilling note; 2 million were minted, but as the coin proved so unpopular, most weren't issued and were melted down for the silver content. (I seem to remember that only about 200,000 made it into circulation) I have a history of Irish coinage somewhere in the house if I can find it. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 19:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed a vote going on here [1] that may be of interest. (Another here [2]). Brocach ( talk) 21:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I assume you are following the discussions at AN/I but in case you have lost it in the detail, I have asked all parties to desist, immediately, from any renaming or recategorising of articles linked to the GAA. This applies even to correcting an article that has been amended to the 'wrong' version. The AN/I thread has grown to astonishing length with very little interest from anyone except those already engaged in the dispute. Nevertheless I will block anyone who makes further changes to these categories before a true consensus is reached, ideally at WT:GAA but frankly any venue will do! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Veritas odium parit Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire. Regarding the GAA Cfd, I did not think of my heading being interpreted that way, so thank you for pointing it out and I will keep it in mind in future. It was not my intention to appear presiding or direct a closer or anything, but I did want to sum up the current state of argument and bow out (Not that the Jan 17 discussion in itself was confusing or off track, but taken together with the Jan 3 discussion and several side discussions...). I would prefer contended Cfds to take a more collaborative approach than the prevalent (and hard to resist) 'us vs them' attitude that dominates too many discussions there. As a result, I make an effort to consider both sides and try to distance the issues/arguments from the personalities, and try to find a way to encourage others to do the same, but I am not always good at expressing myself. -- Qetuth ( talk) 23:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
So far, the questions look okay, but where is my question 4 (Brocachs question 2, part 2) gone? The Banner talk 12:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as we are able to amicably discuss this matter now, and as the GAA discussion has now closed, with Proprosal 6 stated as "no-consensus", I think we may be able to sort it out quickly enough with little trouble.
Whilst I think we should continue and conclude the discussion at IMoS as it is an IMoS manner, I would like to respond to your last comment in the GAA discussion:
Proposal 3 is: '"X Gaelic footballers", not "X GAA Gaelic footballers"'. If that were adopted, there would be no need to make Derry an exception. As regards List of Derry GAA clubs, would it not be simpler just to take that link out of the "See also's" altogether? I really don't see what it adds. If the link is to remain, it cannot have "#Derry GAA" in it without changing the section heading in the List to "Derry GAA", which would leave it out of synch with the other section headings. For that reason, I prefer BrownHairedGirl's proposal (the one I've just cited). Scolaire (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The link is useful as it directs readers to an article that lists other GAA clubs in Ireland, and in the case of that hash, it takes them directly to the Derry GAA club section in what is quite a long article. Maybe it could be removed altogether, however it does serve a somewhat useful purpose - yet the start of each article does have a "Table of contents". Hence why when Brocach made the additions I never reverted it, but amended it.
The link can also have "#Derry GAA" without need for the section heading in the list to be changed. A simple pipe is what I suggested beforehand in the discussion somewhere: List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry GAA. Works easy peasy with no need for section-headings needing to be changed.
However as stated in my last comments at the GAA discussion, this is for non-GAA articles, and was trying to clarify BHG's points on GAA being used for non-GAA context articles. In that case the County Londonderry GAA club articles containing that link will stay the same as they are now. Mabuska (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It depends on article context and criterion as to whether it is a substantial part of the article. In the case of Joe Brolly it would seem to be. In some article where the GAA stuff contributes to only a small amount of the article, disambiguation would/may be necessary. Mabuska (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed much of the content of Criticism of Wikipedia in a series of edits here, including some content that was supported by citations. Did you discuss the article with the other editors before you decided to blank several of the article's sections? I'm slightly alarmed by the amount of content that was removed from this article in a single series of edits. Jarble ( talk) 20:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello
I made a bold edit here, which you reverted; so I've
opened a discussion on the matter (
here) if you wish to comment. Regards,
Moonraker12 (
talk)
16:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I have found myself in a bit of an awkward situation. The case is User talk:The Banner/Archives/2013/March#Ireland Reaching Out. As you can see, I know the other editor in real life what makes the disagreement rather awkward. Any advice how to get out of this without offending the other editor? Was I wrong with the removals ( [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) The Banner talk 19:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Limerick Pogrom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Scolaire. I thought I'd tell you that I just had to gut the Tom Clarke (Irish republican) article because it had become almost a word for word transcript of Clarke's part of the Seachtar na Cásca TV series. So I reverted to the last version before the copyright violation. It wasn't written terribly well anyway, but we did lose some good stuff that had been done since then. I wondered if you wanted to help try to get it in better shape. I think the last of the extreme partisans with poor writing skills has retired (you probably know who I mean), so making small edits shouldn't be epic battle anymore. I'll take a poke at it here and there, but already had to scrap a bunch of my rewrites I did before I gave up and did a whole scale reversion. Thought I'd let you know anyway, since you've shown interest in the past and have proved to be a good editor. Thanks. - R. fiend ( talk) 14:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
My apologies about the modified proposal, I was not aware it was in breach of protocol, I never really filed a RfC before. ÓCorcráin ( talk) 23:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I made a report here if you have the other IDs to hand would you add them? ---- Snowded TALK 15:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Could some admin warn a person to just stay away from my talk page. Thank you. Dmcq ( talk) 22:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Can You Help Actor Jack O'connell is half irish and he himself said that but some people changed it to english and then locked it please can you change his nationality to irish-british please, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.192.63 ( talk) 21:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
In your edit of William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber you say "no obvious need to specify North Tipperary"
I do agree - but neither do I see any obvious need to remove the extra information. What is your motivation for this? Doug ( at Wiki) 23:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Purely out of curiosity, what is the hypothetical motive behind removing county in favor of north/south? Im always interested in these sort of controversies, since I ordered a "black and tan" at a (real) Irish bar once and almost got the crap kicked out of me! Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Could I remind you of WP:NPA. I raised the RfC on establishment because there was a dispute. It is a standard method of getting a decision when it isn't straightforward. I do not appreciate snide comments about me getting my way and sticking in the business for thirty days. Dmcq ( talk) 14:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the page refs. I attempted to thank you as well via the "thank" link on the page history. What did that do? Just one of the new notification thingies? Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You didn't sign your !vote.
I believe you have misread #5 and meant to !vote no (based on your reason following). The question is some what confusing, but has a "is it false that" in there, so that "yes to all" makes sense. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
To here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment#New_Edits
Taking you up on your earlier offer of assistance. SonofSetanta ( talk) 15:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Ulster Defence Regiment now submitted for A Class Review after a very enjoyable two week editing period. No bullies in sight. I did manage to fall out with an over zealous copyright enforcer but it hasn't marred my experience. I invite your scrutiny of the article as it stands, particularly with reference to NPOV - did I get it right? SonofSetanta ( talk) 10:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
St John's Eve may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Michael Gambon". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I am curious, the info box states that the party was founded in 1905 but 'created' in 1970 as a result of the split with the stickies. But it seems to me that certain editors are denying that Sinn Féin, despite the splits is the same party from 1905.
1905: Sinn Féin founded
1923: Sinn Féín Split - Cumann na nGaedheal founded
1926: Sinn Féin Split - Fianna Fáil founded
1930: Sinn Féin Split - Republican Congress Founded
1970: Sinn Féin Split - The Workers' Party (aka Official Sinn Féin & Sinn Féin, the Workers' Party) founded
1986: Sinn Féin Split - Republican Sinn Féin founded
Why is 1970 out of all these dates used? ÓCorcráin ( talk) 10:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I have only by pure chance noticed your comment here whilst looking for a link to the user comparison tool. Thank you for you comment, it meant a lot. Some editors are unwilling to man up and apologise properly especially when there is absolutely no evidence at all to back up the slightest insinuation amongst other slights they did. Mabuska (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Scolaire. I broadly agree with you that section headings are not there to "make a point", but I should have thought we could agree that a heading reading "Recognition", when there was no recognition from anywhere, is misleading. The purpose of the headings is to summarize the sections of the page, and in this case I prefer "Lack of recognition" simply as an accurate summary. If you do not like that, what would you suggest? Perhaps "Aim of recognition" or "International perception"? Moonraker ( talk) 09:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Scolaire, I've reverted your change to this article.
The "stable version" was the one prior to Mownberry's insertion of the claim that "Fhórsaí Cosanta" is an Irish-language name for the Defence Forces. The article has not made that claim since it was first created in 2004. Óglaigh na hÉireann was given as the only Irish-language name for the Defence Forces from then until Mownberry's change.
The Defence Act, 1954 is explicit. As is the Defence Forces own English-Irish dictionary. Ó Cearúili is also explicit in stating the Defence Forces are styled Óglaigh na hÉireann as opposed ot Fhórsaí Cosanta in Irish.
Fhórsaí cosanta is the Irish for defence forces, so confusion can naturally arise. I've walked through these references now on the talk page. -- Tóraí ( talk) 21:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Noting your edit at Easter Rising, I don't think that it is overlinking to link the mention of UK to the article of the actual state it was then, UK of GB and I, as readers may confuse it with UK of GB and NI. Though if that is overlinking, then surely "Irish republicans" and "World War I" qualify as overlinking on the basis of being obvious. Mabuska (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Tánaiste may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)