User talk:RashersTierney/Archive 7

Wilson assassination

Hi, noticed your edit on the ICW page.

Agree with your edit and it certainly wasn't O'Connor who ordered it, but recently I read Peter Hart's article on the affair in The IRA at War, which claims the assassins were acting alone and that Collins did not order the killing. On the other hand, Michael Hopkinson and a few others argue that on balance he probably was behind it.

Might be worth an article of its own. Thoughts?

Jdorney (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A detailed article on the assassination of Wilson is certainly possible as a stand alone. I don't have much time at the moment (in the middle of house move, books in boxes), and have already committed to help in sorting out copyvio issues on Irish Poor Laws (all volunteers welcome) as soon as time allows. But with you in principle. RashersTierney (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Hello, RashersTierney. You have new messages at Bailo26's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Connaught Rangers - Irish regiment?

Please consider joining the discussion at talk:Connaught Rangers. --Red King (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

spellin' correktion polisy

We vandals never use edit summaries. Now the question: when citing a source where there is a typo in the headline/title of the article, do we fix it in the citation, or copy it as written?Colemcginnis (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Care to be a little less oblique? RashersTierney (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Check out "returns" in this headline. Colemcginnis (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not aware that we have a guideline as such. I'd just (sic) it. RashersTierney (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Connolly: I promise to get better at summaries; I understand that what is obvious to me may not be to others. While I'm here: I hate the egg shell walk for terms that "might" seem negative to someone. I try to avoid editing any controversial topics, because I loathe the angry exchanges, but even the dead can be a factious issue. This is we say "discharged himself" rather than the clearer "deserted." It is hard to be bold (or succinct). I don't consider the word "lied" a negative one if you look at the entire situation. Colemcginnis (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the efforts you're making. On the question of using 'lied' or 'falsified', I went with the latter as that was the term used in the source. It might seem pedantic, but it's possible the recruiting staff were aware of his youth and so were complicit. 'Lied' implies that they were deceived (who knows at this remove) , which may be the reason the source author chose the less strident term. That's just speculation on my part, but I think we're better sticking as close as possible to the source terminology. RashersTierney (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Aontaím Colemcginnis (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Redking7

Well, since he admits to being a banned user coming back as an IP (not to mention the potentially misleading name he had which caused people to shout at me occasionally), then convention says that he should be ignored and his edits reverted. As to the Partition of Ireland article, I had to admit that he was right and I was wrong, so I don't think the normal 'revert whatever a banned user does without a moment's thought' should apply in this case only.

Nevertheless, I believe that you have to report the IP number as being that of a self-confessed banned user so that, if it is not a shared IP, it should be blocked. He cannot be permitted to evade the block before his 'sentence' has expired. --Red King (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

He is an 'odd sock'. Its not the first time he's 'fessed up' as an IP. You want to add it to the list or shall I? RashersTierney (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Rangeblocked by User talk:Tnxman307. RashersTierney (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys - (i) there is no expiry on my "sentence" - it's permanent; (ii) my "sentence" is also farcical (see my talk page - inter alia, I was banned permanently by an Administrator who was himself stripped of his position as an Administrator just days later...but its politics here not rules or procedures and this is not a professional outfit (as regards content) - people don't bother with "details" like that; (iii) i probably am not suited to interacting with people who are comfortable editing articles on legislation (for example) which legislation they have not even bothered to ever read (I am thinking, as an example, here of Red King who is comfortable with so doing e.g. on the partition of ireland article etc). Rashers - I think once that we interaced a great deal on one article - I think it was the Dail Courts. Do you think our interactions there (or more particularly, mine with you, were of a kind that were somehow requiring a ban etc...?). Any way - I guess you two are quite happy that banning me and my IP range etc is fully appropriate and above board. Yours etc. Redking7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.198.253 (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Through-the-looking-glass message

I'm not very literary so I'm not sure how to describe the message I just got from USER:RashersTierney, but it was weird. I opened Wikipedia and a message popped up that was 1) Aimed at my IP address (which changes often 'cause it's wireless), 2) acknowledges that the message was sent without knowing who the recipient was due to IP address issue, 3) looked like a form letter and 4) was about a reversion to the OPEC page that occurred seven months back. The possibility that I did or did not make any revisions is apparently not relevant.

Only on the Internet could a message be sent to no-one, from no-one, for no apparent purpose. Did you send this message, or was it an automated form letter? And why did you send it? Thanks, Cole Petersburg (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cole Petersburg. The OPEC article is on my watch list, and I have occasionally made edits there, principally reverting 'nonconstructive contributions'. When this happens I will usually follow up with a message to the IP concerned. As IP addresses are frequently re-assigned and often shared by other editors, it is always possible that an editor at a shared IP address will receive a message that was intended for another user. This is evidently the case here. By signing in to your unique account you avoid any messages that are not intended for you. Hope you see clearly now, without any 'mirror distortion' :- ) Best. RashersTierney (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice, it's all easier than expected.86.42.202.122 (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Its a continuous learning process. Hope you enjoy editing here. Consider creating an account for the benefits outlined. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I got your message about citing sources

I edited the part earlier that said Guinness Extra Stout is 6% in the US and Canada. I looked through the citing page and didn't see how to cite from an e-mail source. I e-mailed their official website and they said it was 6%. Here is the content of the e-mail if it helps:

Dear Mr. Jeff,

Thank you for taking time to contact Guinness & Co. We appreciate hearing from our consumers because your feedback is important. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

In regards to your question, Guinness Draught (lower alcohol content, calories) has 4% alcohol content. Guinness Extra Stout (hoppier taste, higher alcohol content, calories) contains 6% alcohol.

In regards to your concern about the source of the Guinness Draught, whether in a can, bottle or poured in the pub, all Guinness Draught served or sold in North America is brewed in Dublin, Ireland. It is the exact same liquid served all over Ireland- it simply traveled a little further.

Guinness Extra Stout, a separate label, is produced in Canada for distribution in the United States.

Once again, thank you for contacting Guinness & Co.

Sincerely,

Jill A.

Guinness Consumer Representative

Cheers!

Drinking Responsibly is Brilliant!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjgator (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your e-mail leaves us with a bit of a referencing dilemma. I did a bit of a search to see if I could locate a reference to resolve the issue. This Washington Post article (Greg Kitsock, October 4, 2010) Beer: Guinness's trick and treat states "FES measures 7.5 percent alcohol by volume, considerably more than either Guinness Draft (4.1 percent) or Guinness Extra Stout (5 percent)." The Guinness official site is worse than useless, with fancy 'flash' graphics, but no ref to the alcohol content of this beer in the States (at least that I could find). With their PR/advertising budget, you'd think they could do better. So it seems we're left with an apparently reliable source stating 5%. RashersTierney (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Vignette (road tax)

Hello Rashers Unfortunately the article 'Vignette (road tax)' is plagued by an anonymous user on changing IPs who reverts all edits, whatever they are, including your contribution. The IPs suggest the merry prankster may be in Vietnam. I'll request semi-protection of the article in the hope that this little game may become less stimulating for them. Best wishes Guffydrawers (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The same anon user is disruptively using the same evasive technique across a range of related articles; see Itinerant as just one example. RashersTierney (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Same eejit was at work with Flag of the United Nations and doubtless a few other articles. Same pattern every time, fresh IP in 115.7x.x.x range, just reverting edits on seemingly random articles. What a fun-filled life they must lead! Guffydrawers (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that already. There are about another 10 articles (so far) that I think have this jokers prints all over them. I'll work on an SPI. RashersTierney (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

quick technical question

On the Sean Connery page, you just reverted t(w)o vandalised edits at once. I was at that very moment looking at how to revert both at the same time and couldn't work it out. Could you tell me how?SPACKlick (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia:Twinkle, which incorporates a type of rollback feature. RashersTierney (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi and Happy New Year!

First of all Happy New Year, I wish you and your family all the best for 2011 and that the minorized and endangered languages will be able to survive and grow as long as possible and also that the Irish Chapter will rise soon. I don't know if it might interest you but I wanted to tell you that the Catalan Viquipèdia will be celebrating its 10th birthday soon (http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:10_anys_de_la_Viquip%C3%A8dia) and that we are working on it and plan to have some sessions directed towards getting some wikipedias out of the incubator and if this project or the anniversary interests you, you can offer us some advice or even participate in it (you will be welcome in Barcelona if you wish to come, just let me know): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Teamwork_of_projects_in_languages_with_singular_status. Again, my best wishes for 2011. Take real care, Claudi/Capsot (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And the best to you too for the New Year Claudi. The Irish chapter seems to be on the 'back burner' at the moment. Thank you for the kind invitation to attend the Barcelona meet-up. I do usually visit the city once or twice per year, and if it is otherwise convenient I'll try to make a trip coincide. (Wonder if there is a St. Patrick's Day parade down La Rambla on the 17th of March? Just kidding about parade, but I'm sure the Irish ex-pats will have some celebrations organised :- ) Take care. RashersTierney (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

From Howard Zimmerman

It does seem that I must have erred in not adding my signature.

BUT the important thing is that the Charles Casey listed as a chemistry member of the National Acad. of Sciences, does not match the Charles Casey linked to that list. This kind of error has occurred in other cases as well.

128.104.69.138 (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no list of people with this name on the project, so no error Only one 'Charles Casey' has an article on Wikipedia, therefore no ambiguity on Wikipedia. No doubt there are many people historically with this name, but there is clearly no need to add such provisos, as you did, to Talk Pages, particularly using large bold capitals. If you think Charles Casey (scientist) (or indeed Charles P. Casey see this short bio. from NAS) meets the criteria for an article, feel free to start it. RashersTierney (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

United Ireland

Howdy,

I'm the IP^^ who made the edit to United Ireland that you reverted. Indeed it's not supported by the ref. So, do you think I'm better off a) finding a ref, b) moving that ref to the old bit (if ya get me), c) taking it to talk page or d) leaving it. I'm happy with any of these options to be honest :) Cheers, 86.178.52.148 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

^^Well, I'm not an IP. But that's my work IP address and although I haven't checked I'm pretty sure all the edits it's made are by me (althought it is a shared IP). 86.178.52.148 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A referenced follow up sentence such as 'It is also supported by most non-Irish Britons' or whatever wording most accurately reflects your reliable source would probably be simplest. Could I also suggest you consider registering an account, for the benefits outlined. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers mate, I've reused some references already in the article, please take a look and let me know what you think. As for an account... I may well get one. First I have a manual of style proposal to get through where I reckon it's best to stay in IPs so I can be found... after that, well probably :)

Thanks again! 86.178.52.148 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your ref 'doop2' will be ineffective for most readers as pre-registration with 'British Social Attitudes Information System' is required. RashersTierney (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Polska Roma

I started it with a short translation from Polish Wiki. Let me round up some books... Volunteer Marek  01:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No rush. As I said, very happy to help out as best I can. Speak soon. RashersTierney (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mława pogrom and Polska Roma

Do you know if this incident involved Polska Roma or was it other group of Roma? I've looked for info and tried to decide whether or not to include it in the article but have not been able to find specifics in this regard. Volunteer Marek  05:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard that specific assertion made before, but that is not to say it isn't possible. Google searches have been fruitless. To be honest, I don't know how the Roma of Mława self-identify, or if it is seen as a 'mixed' community. Certainly I've seen no claim that this aspect of identity was a factor in the events. BTW, well done on your efforts. RashersTierney (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Irish International Exhibition (1907)

Thanks for reviewing Irish International Exhibition (1907) so incredibly quickly (and I know you're right to remove the flags)Icarusgeek (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No prob. I noticed it when you linked to a page on my way-too-big watch list. Your article prompted me to pick up Commodity Culture and Social Class in Dublin 1850 - 1916 in the last hour, which has at least a couple of passing references to the 1907 expo. (and which I'll add to the piece when I get thawed out). RashersTierney (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool - look forward to seeing it (post thaw). Thanks again Icarusgeek (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is more in the book on this topic (including some amazing images) than I initially thought. I'll put a few notes together from it and add soon. RashersTierney (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - a very interesting person appears in your additions (similar attributes to many of the players in World'as Fairs). Thanks again Icarusgeek (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty more at this source, including a B&W photo of one of the promotional postcards, showing just how vast the Herbert Park fair was. Also some interesting sociological references to nearby 'Donnybrook Fair' and the 'British/Irish/International/Domestic' tension regarding the 1907 event organisation. I promise I'll get back to this. (as a side note, much impressed by the writers approach to social history.) RashersTierney (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Irish army

He's at it again. [1] [2] Jdorney (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I did notice your reverts back to agreed state. Both are on my watch list, though I confess the quiet changes slipped in beneath my radar. I'll keep a particular eye out. I don't think there were appropriate edit summaries, unsurprisingly. Hope this doesn't kick off into a new 'campaign'. RashersTierney (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Gypsy languages Readder (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Gypsy language is known only as Romany in ISO. But there are pages with new invented names for Romany which are not in ISO. These are false names.

 Romani speakers live in SE Europe (241,617), Colombia (79,000)[3] and Albania (60,000). 

These are false data. Why to invent languages to demonstrate the number of a population ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Readder (talk • contribs) 18:27, 10 February 2011

Just a few points. There are a number of alternative names and spellings for the languages in question. ISO 639 rom is not the be-all-and-end-all when compiling an encyclopaedia. Google scholar returns more than twice as many articles for Romani language as for Romany language. As is clear, the 7 constituent macro-languages are all spelled Romani. As to the figures above, I've no idea where you plucked them from and doubt very much they were an addition of mine (unless to restore ref'd stats). Your accusation of falsification is baseless. Also, please be aware of our policy on editing with multiple accounts, which includes concurrent editing from IPs after you have registered, and in future please sign your posts. RashersTierney (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I exchanged mails with Wikipedia administrators and finally we agreed next: only scientific data are agreed; reusing data from Google scholar is like an autocitation; this is not an scientific approach. We need a scientific platform and not propagandist platform.79.112.11.6 (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Next line content false affirmation: Vlax Romany (about 900,000 speakers)[2], Balkan Romany (700,000)[3], Carpathian Romany (500,000)[4] and Sinte Romany (300,000)[5]. Vlax is a recent invented name not included in ISO; it is only for propaganda. Balkan refers to same space and population Carpathian refers to same space and population All this data show confusion because count same population. All you have to do is counting by countries not by invented names. I am sure you know little about Central and Eastern Europe. You make confusion between territorial names and distribution; this is why these pages are not yet scientific platform.Readder (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Who are these Wikipedia administrators with whom you have come to a secret protocol? I, and I'm sure others on the project would really like to know. RashersTierney (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian Passports

Hi, RashersTierney! Just noticed that you've reverted my two atricle renamings:

• Passport (Russian Federation) back to Russian passport
• Passport (USSR) back to Soviet Union passport

Unfortunately you did not choose an opportunity to ask me about the reasons for my renaming — I'm online now, working upon the whole scope articles about passport systems of Russian Empire, USSR and Russian Federation. I know that you are not obliged to do that, however…

You wrote in your comments, that the versions you insist upon are "more consistent with other national passport articles". I shall not argue against this approach as a whole, but let me point at one obvious flaw — at least, in the name Russian passport. This name is applicable to the two historical epochs, two different types of passports. I mean the ones of Russian Empire and of Russian Federation. Both are called "Russian passports" in literature and in common parlance — however here, in Wikipedia this is a classical case for a disambig.

So far, let me insist upon reverting back the first change I mentioned:

• Russian passport → Passport (Russian Federation)

allowing me to use "Russian passport" later on to create a disambig page — as soon, as I write Passport (Russian Empire). I hope for your understanding that my renames were not the result of momentary desire :))), and that the reasons for having Passport (Russian Federation) had their grounds. Regards, Cherurbino (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not revert these changes. This is not a unique naming situation. See for example British passport and British Indian passport - German passport and East German passport. Your approach to article naming is entirely inconsistent with other passport article names. If you need further clarification, please seek it either here or at the relevant article talk pages. RashersTierney (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply (and for the template that I'll surely borrow:))!

Well, how about:

1. Passport of the Russian Federation or Russian Federation Passport (a new name; it shall fit in the standard)
2. Passport (Russian Federation) — you may delete it upon renaming; I agree it doesn't fit
3. Russian passport — please leave it as redirect until I'll make a disambig on it? Cherurbino (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Since a number of article are involved, and there is a precedent, I've moved this to a centralised location, Talk:Passport#Naming Russian passport articles, where the views of other interested editors are more likely to be forthcoming. RashersTierney (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi, RashersTierney! I answered there. But I doubt that Talk:Passport is the best place to move our discussion. Isn't it better to move it to the Talk:Russian Passport? I'm not sure that everybody in the worls is aware of all details of the history of Russia from Ivan the Terrible to Putin. I'm afraid of unnecessary flood, while near the Russian Passport page we may expect the appearance of discutants who are more competent in details of Russian→Soviet→Russian history. Cherurbino (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't have a dedicated Passport project where a more systematic and coordinated approach to these articles could be taken. However, a very extensive centralised discussion took place at Talk:Passport some time ago which had a dramatic impact on hundreds of national passport articles, but has resulted in a more uniform structure. Certainly there is a strong Russia link in this case, and I would have no objection to a neutrally worded notice being left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia inviting comment at Talk:Passport. RashersTierney (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this advice; I'll certainly follow it as soon as I finish with some other relevant articles. It may take several days before I may return to the planned page about the Passports of the Russian Empire. And (see my 'separate' question below) some other documents related to the passport system are also pending :))). Thanks again, Cherurbino (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Employment Record Book

Dear RashersTierney, hi again! Since you are online now — may I ask you one question which is not related to passports (see above)? I need your help not only as a native speaker of English but also as a representative of English/European culture in a broad sence.

The problem is a choice of the most appropriate translation of the name of one document. I intentionally don't give you its Russian name to avoid induction effect . The known variants from Google books are:

• Labor Booklet
• Work Record
• Job Record
• Labor or Employment Book
• Work Book (or workbook) — seems to be the most ambiguous considering Excel

Actually, the document looks like a pocket notebook with a semi-hard cover (or a thick passport). On its first page the name of the owner is written; next go 20-30 lined pages for the "work records". The latter are dated entries for acceptance for work at the specified position, further promotions/demotions and dismissals. All this matters for the future calculation of pension. The last 8-10 lined pages are reserved for the records of rewards.

Which of the above names is the best in your opinion? Or any other? Thanks in advance Cherurbino (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I know the type of document you are referring to from my time in Central/Eastern Europe, where this system was common. I'd probably go with 'Employment Record Book'. Depending on how familiar your target audience is with the concept, you may have to add an explanatory footnote.

Scratch that. I was thinking more in terms of 'off-Wiki' translation. If you are considering translating an existing article from a different language Wikipedia, you might get some pointers at Wikipedia:Translation regarding an appropriate title or at least find some useful links. Hope this helps. RashersTierney (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! "It's great". The last words are quoted, for they are not mine. Just finished a phone talk to one of my friends in Canada, whom I asked the same question. He confirmed that your version is the best. Now is the time to reveal the "secret word", that is ru:Трудовая книжка.

I never translate articles from Russian. Even when I am is the author (as in Feasts of the Lord Jesus Christ; in ru-wiki I earned a golden barnstar for it), or the "refurbisher" (like in the Baltic states which I just started to enrich using sources I've collected at ru:Прибалтика) — each time I start to write again. Translating is twice more laborious than writing on a clean sheet on my own behalf. As for the Employment Record Book (let me make a red link to start an article later just from here) — it's easy for me. I have lots of sources like laws, regulations etc. which require only quoting and commenting. Thank you again, — Cherurbino (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help out. Best of luck with the new article. RashersTierney (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi, RashersTierney! Just renamed the topic to facilitate the search in your TOC.

As you may see, I write Employment Record Book (ERB) as s series of topics related to the ERB's of different countries. In each country ERB has its local name, like German: Arbeitsbuch, Slovene: Delovna knjižica etc.  Question: Does it make sense (or, what's a local policy in en-wiki around this issue) to create, at least in latin "Arbeitsbuch", "Delovna knjižica" etc. as redirects to the relevant sections Employment Record Book in this syntax:

• #REDIRECT [Employment Record Book|Germany] etc.

which may facilitate the users' search? Thank you, Cherurbino (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As policy and style manuals are always open to interpretation, I'm reluctant to give a definitive edict on the subject. Here are some links you should find useful: Wikipedia:Redirect, Help:Redirect, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

On other national documents of this general type, there is also the 'Carta de munca' in Romania and the 'Libretto di lavoro' in Italy. RashersTierney (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for another pair of bunches of useful links (rules + national ERB's). As for redirects, I shall not hurry with any of them until a technical necessity shall arise.

I'm awfully afraid to show myself too obsessive with my questions… anyway I shall not be offended if you leave the following paragraph unanswered…

The next linguistic hassock which I stumbled here was the "Ministry of War". Sounds as if it came from under the pen of George Orwell (cf. his "Ministry of Truth"). First, war is "occasional result" while the ministry is a "continuously existing" body, dealing with military men and objects. Second, "…of war" is a special sort of adjective (preposition+nun). But, especially when in original language "military" is expressed by a non-prepositional, single-word adjective, then there should be no alternative to the "Military Ministry"… How do you think? — Regards, Cherurbino (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to unify or harmonise historic and foreign language terminology is a mine-field. See War Department (which to contemporary ears sounds anachronistic, but still valid in context) as an example of where such a term as a title is perfectly correct. RashersTierney (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the professional clarification! I'm ashamed to having hurried with Ministry of War of the Russian Empire, so I think I shall revert it back.Cherurbino (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Collins anecdotes

Yes, enough anecdotes already is exactly what I was thinking. If it can be sourced, that is another issue, but a drive-by edit by an anon., and not greatly written, either, is more than I can countenance. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Woland1234

I see that you left a message on this user's talk page regarding use of an edit summary. If you look at previous messages, you will see that this has been a continuing problem for some time. In fact, looking back through his edit history, it seems he never uses edit summaries, never engages in discussion on talk pages, and never responds to messages on his own talk page. Other editors have threatened taking this matter to AN/I, but it seems this has not yet happened. It might be high time that it did. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't understand why edit summaries aren't mandatory before a post in article space is sent, or at least the default should be a prompt asking You have not left an edit summary. Do you wish to send this post anyway?. No doubt its been debated before. Uncommunicative editors can be very frustrating. Just my 2d on the general subject. RashersTierney (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an option, in your "preferences," that allows you to be alerted when you have forgotten to add an edit summary. But, yes, it should be mandatory. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue of 'edit summary reminder' currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Force edit summary usage for new users until they're autoconfirmed RashersTierney (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And another discussion on edit summaries. RashersTierney (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Referencing at Raidió Teilifís Éireann

Yes RashersTierney you are quite right. I think I've fixed it since now. I later figured out changing the DG in the bottom which was why I deleted my earlier comments. Thanks for your help on improving the article. Much appreciatedScathain (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for David Kenny

An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Kenny. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. v/r - TP 21:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)