→RfA: new section |
Spleodrach (talk | contribs) →RfA: re |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
I've addressed your comments on my RfA. Like I state, I was unaware of the previous compromise (and admittedly, should have checked) as for the Ireland politic stub template. Apologies. <font color="#ff0000"><span style="font-family:Calibri">[[User:Connormah|Connormah]] <small>([[User talk:Connormah|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Connormah|contribs]])</small></span></font> 15:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
I've addressed your comments on my RfA. Like I state, I was unaware of the previous compromise (and admittedly, should have checked) as for the Ireland politic stub template. Apologies. <font color="#ff0000"><span style="font-family:Calibri">[[User:Connormah|Connormah]] <small>([[User talk:Connormah|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Connormah|contribs]])</small></span></font> 15:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Thanks for your explanation. I've left a comment at the RfA. I've changed my stance to Neutral. Do I need to strikethrough the original oppose and/or physically move it to the Neutral section? [[User:Snappy|Snappy]] ([[User talk:Snappy#top|talk]]) 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Yep, that is the standard thing. If you like, I'll do it for you. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 10:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you wouldn't mind, Thanks. [[User:Snappy|Snappy]] ([[User talk:Snappy#top|talk]]) 10:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:50, 15 July 2010
This page has archives. Sections older than 18 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Future contributions to the page of Jim Higgins MEP
Could you kindly desist from removing relevant information form the page of Jim Higgins MEP for Ireland North West. Recent contributions on your behalf have removed large amounts of information not only relating to the public representative in question but also to the work he undertakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejackodonnell (talk • contribs) 09:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- No idea, what you're on about. Snappy (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
In that case I would be happy to talk further with you on the matter and explain in detail the problems your edits pose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejackodonnell (talk • contribs) 10:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Barony in lead.
The purpose of the inclusion of the barony is not to give a pretended legal validity to the barony, it is to assist the reader in identifying the location. This can often be very important for the smaller entities where townlands of the same name exist in the same county: only the barony can distinguish them. So they serve a useful purpose in the descending order of geographical hierarchy which you yourself commend. You'll note that in all cases where I use it, I give the triple explanation from barony to county to state, in decreasing degrees of specificity. This is particularly useful for those readers pursuing genealogical research from overseas. In many cases, the records from Ellis Island, for example, will include the barony. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering what your source was for this edit. Just curious to know if he's really still living. Canadian Paul 15:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The Oireachtas members database, which is usually quite accurate lists him as living. [1]. He is 94 y/o, which is not unusual. Do you have any evidence to suggest he is deceased? Snappy (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, not at all, I was just trying to figure out if "living" or "possibly living" was a better category, but I think that "living" is the better choice here. Canadian Paul 20:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- According to the Oireachtas historical debates, he was living in 1997 [2], since then I couldn't find anything. However, in my experience, in Ireland if a former member of parliament dies, there is usually a mention in the house of the death and condolences etc. There is nothing in the records which suggests (but does not prove) he is still alive. Snappy (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, not at all, I was just trying to figure out if "living" or "possibly living" was a better category, but I think that "living" is the better choice here. Canadian Paul 20:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Trevor Sargent TD, birth date
Hi there,
Please do not change Trevor Sargent's date of birth. The correct date is 26 July 1960. The Oirecahtas database has until now, shown the incorrect date but should now be correct.
Thanks for taking the time to keep the entry correct; you were not to know that your source was incorrect.
Regards,
Lorcan O'Toole PA to Trevor Sargent TD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorcanotoole (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- We use Oireachtas members db as a source on wikipedia because it is (usually) reliable, though not infallible. We do not take the word of some randomer claiming to be working for Trevor Sargent. I suggest you contact the odb administrators and supply them with proof so they can change it. If they change it, then the article can be modified. Snappy (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
RfA
I've addressed your comments on my RfA. Like I state, I was unaware of the previous compromise (and admittedly, should have checked) as for the Ireland politic stub template. Apologies. Connormah (talk | contribs) 15:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanation. I've left a comment at the RfA. I've changed my stance to Neutral. Do I need to strikethrough the original oppose and/or physically move it to the Neutral section? Snappy (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, that is the standard thing. If you like, I'll do it for you. Hobit (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you wouldn't mind, Thanks. Snappy (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, that is the standard thing. If you like, I'll do it for you. Hobit (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)