User talk:Tóraí/Archive/Archive 2

'Republic of Ireland'

You just beat me to that revert. Interesting that a good faith edit was prompted by the impression that because our article on Wikipedia is named Republic of Ireland, that must be the name of the state. Seems our Dab is creating genuine confusion. RashersTierney (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's partition that's creating the confusion ... but that's out of our hands for now ;-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea but if it was in our hands here in Wikipedia...what would we agree to call it? The mind boggles! RashersTierney (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering the state of the economy - in a couple of years it'll be "Aviva Island" - or maybe "O2land"... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I like. Maybe after re-unification there would have to be some sop the the unionist community. "Aviva Island in co-operation with Orange"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Conversation moved

I have moved the conversation you started about Domer48 to Wikipedia:ANI#Domer48_and_Rannph.C3.A1irt.C3.AD_anaithni. Have you ever edited Wikipedia with any other accounts? Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe. Welcome back, Mr. Youth. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Position statements

That was a bit spiteful, do you not think, not to say WP:POINT? Scolaire (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought it quite rational. -- Evertype·✆ 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It was spiteful. I apologise. I partially reverted it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You're a getleman, Rannpháirtí. Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah777

I don't understand why you self-reverted that actually. -- Evertype·✆ 14:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight it was spite that motivated me to undo Scoláire's edit. I agree with this reasoning. Yes, Sarah's statement does express a preference ("D"), but to say that it speaks "in favour of" A, B, C or E just because it says "anything but F" is a bit much. In a similar vein, I think that "in favour of option D; against option F" would be a suitable description also. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on Sarah's page to ask her. -- Evertype·✆ 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best solution of them all. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Lá Lúnasa

OK, 21:00 UTC is in two hours' time. What should we do? -- Evertype·✆ 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't around. I was hoping for a green light from Masem, but really we should get going. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nearly ready, though Scoláire has thrown up a surprise roadblock. I think it is a very good idea to let this run two weeks into September. That puts the end during the school period which ensures that people will be back from any summer holidays, short or long. -- Evertype·✆ 14:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Time-frame for the poll

Have you an opinion on the time the poll should run for? I ask this because it was apparently you who first asked for 42 days, but I really think that is excessive. Scolaire (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal

...seems to have had an underwhelming response. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the inaugural meeting, though. On one side of the table, [Username deleted], [Username deleted] and [Username deleted]. On the other side, [Username deleted], [Username deleted], and [Username deleted]... Order of business opens with a 5-hour debate on the name of the chapter... Second item on the agenda is the split... Of course, because I've no WP:RS, I should stop now... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. "Underwhelming" is certainly the word. In principle though, would you be in favour of exploring the idea at least? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well...

I'm not sure what the changes you're requesting mean, so I'm kind of loath to do them. Could you explain what the purpose of these changes is? john k (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

When you used the template you signed it and everything went OK. If your signature had a fancy font or something in it then a bug in the template would cased a problem (see this person's vote for an example).

The change would a.) fix this bug (see the same person's vote as it would appear following the update) and b.) update the instructions on how to use the voting template on the ballot page (they fix requires that a slight change to it's operation to account for fancy sigs). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hah

This comment relates to a deleted exchange.

I knew you'd do that. Truth hurts, doesn't it? Like I said: next time actually read what's written and listen when people explain to you how and exactly why you are wrong. Continuing to bang on when you have been explicitly told otherwise doesn't exactly inspire confidence that you have any idea whatsoever of what you're talking about.

And yeah, you'll wipe this too, I'm sure. Sad that you can't see the problems with your own behaviour, and infinitely depressing that you have any say in anything on this site when you dive in without knowing anything and ignoring what you are told. → ROUX ₪ 22:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Madame Evertype?

That was uncivil. The smiley on my Talk page does not alleviate it. For the first time I am considering removing myself from the Collaboration project. -- Evertype·✆ 17:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was uncivil. Worse things have been said between editors but on that occasion (as ever) you were acting with civility and faith and a smart-ass and uncalled-for remark like that out of me crossed a line. I struck it from the page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Photo request

Hi! Is Dublin Airport convenient to where you are? If so, would you mind photographing the headquarters of Aer Lingus and Ryanair? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't live near Dublin. Maybe a message at Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board would find you a Dub. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll see if I can find a Dubliner there. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

STV counting bot

More out of general interest than anything else I was just wondering why the tallies at User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/Poll on Ireland article names include counts after one of the options has met the quota of votes needed (>50% the total count) to ensure victory? Is it a function of the bot used or just to show additional information? Guest9999 (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Instant-runoff voting is arguable two things: a) a special subset of STV b) a multi-round election conducted using only one round of voting.

First about the "quota" in STV: The quota in STV is not used *only* to deem that a candidate has been elected. Votes in excess of the quota are redistributed among remaining candidates. This quota is not necessarily the "magic number" that logically guarantees election (the "Droop quota" is, the "Hare quota" is not). In instant-runoff voting, there is no "quota" because no votes will be distributed among remaining candidates (since there will only be one winning candidate). There is still the logical "magic number" that is equal to the number of votes in a "Droop quota" i.e. the candidate that gets 50%+1 is assured to win, that is also the number that the formula for a "Droop quota" would produce. Counting can stop there and it will not affect the outcome. In a real world election once that number has been reached the winning candidate would start celebrating, the TV stations would declare the winner, the losers would demand a recount and so forth. But ...

... since IRV is also seen as a substitute for multi-round elections, the proper end-point is the final round in a multi-round elections i.e. when all but two candidates have been eliminated and there are two candidates remaining to be voted on: one will be the winner, one will be the loser.

I used software (not my bot) to calculate the result. It stopped at that point. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the very thorough and informative explanation. Guest9999 (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that in the final round, the "loser" isn't necessarily the option that comes in second place. I noticed you did some additional tests using what looked like first-preference votes. OpenSTV has a "Condorcet's method" option which will produce the full 6x6 matrix of all preferences. I'm sure it would be enlightening. The option that comes in "second" is arguably that which defeats all other options bar the winner. I discovered this mode in OpenSTV a couple of weeks ago, after having spent the best part of 6 hours hacking together a spreadsheet to do the same in Calc. Oh well ... ;-) 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that option in OpenSTV either. I repeated the election 5 times, withdrawing every option but "F" and one other option - a 6x1 matric :) The only question I had in mind was, "Was the IRV winner a Condorcet candidate?" Rather than, "Is there a Condorcet candidate?" In the case of the full vote, the answer was "F". In the case of the WP:IECOLL subset "F" beat every other option except "D" (meaning "D" must have been the Condorcet candidate - see my caveat though on the ballot talk page).

I feel you pain too re: Calc :) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The last time I did a tally, the "second preferred" option (if there is such a thing) turned out to be D, but it was eliminated early one because F was doing so well (there having been 40 "F-D" votes out of 160 at the time). I was curious as to whether that was still the case, and whether D and E were still far ahead of A, B and C. Not quite curious enough to endure the pain of manually extracting all the votes again, though. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"...the pain of manually extracting all the votes..." Yup. Hence the bot :) I working developing the bot I made to do that to make a fairly accessible tool for scripting tasks like that (wherever the may occur) in future. Stay posted. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you extract the total number of votes for each of the options and put that up on your table page please? -- Evertype·✆ 17:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this what you mean? Sorry again for the "Madam Evertype" thing, that was out of line. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Careful. Total number of votes is not meaningful independent of the preference, since A-B-C-D-E-F and A-B-C-D-E are functionally identical, but the latter does not literally contain a vote for F. It might suggest which options most people had an opinion on, but since there were lots of five-preference votes, any such analysis needs to either drop all sixth preferences, or infer any sixth preferences not explicitly listed. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. "Careful"? The question is "What can you support?"; if people left things off the ballot it means that that was definitely not an option for them. D does best amongst IECOLL members here, which I think is both instructive and indicative. -- Evertype·✆ 12:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It reflects the divisions within the WP:IECOLL voters. Five WP:IECOLL voters voted for "everything except F". Likewise, two WP:IECOLL voters voted "only F". "F" won the preference vote in both WP:IECOLL members and the wider community. Among WP:IECOLL members, however, "D" would have won a straight vote against F (though that might simply be a reflection of the sample size).

I would not be comfortable going solely with the opinion of WP:IECOLL members (a self-selecting group of editors). Even if we had reached consensus, we would still have had to bring that consensus to the wider community for approval. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Your User Name

Please, how is it pronounced? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bielle (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand IPA symbols so here it is in "English": ryan-vair-jee an-aih-nij. "Comhrá" ("chat") in my sign is pronounced, co-raw. The dots over some of the consonants are the traditional equivalent to a "h" after a consonant in contemporary Irish. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. It would be ran-far-chee ann-ah-nij" in that orthography. -- Evertype·✆ 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tomato, tomato (never works in writing, does it?). Could you write it up in IPA for me? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[ˈɾˠan̪ˠfaːɾʲˌtʲiː əˈn̪ˠahnʲɪdʲ]. -- Evertype·✆ 12:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What was behind my comments at WT:NC

You were right to correct my tone there. I was wrong to mix my irritation with you into the discussion about naming conventions. I was feeling very offended when I posted, and I want to tell you why I felt that way. I don't claim to excuse my personal complaint in the wrong context; nor do I apologize for being irritated. I'm here to tell you, directly and honestly, what bothers me, rather than being snarky at you on a project talk page. I hope you can respect that.

When we were talking further up the page, I had suggested that a wholesale revert, while reasonably in line with BRD, might be less useful than a 0RR approach, and you mocked my suggestion as "wisdom about a boat sailing into the wind". I certainly took the tone to be sarcastic, because you clearly didn't mean the word "wisdom". I don't think anybody likes to be mocked.

I had been trying to suggest that the quickest and best way to get a discussion rolling without creating unnecessary friction would be to do so by working on one piece at a time, via editing and/or discussion. I still think that was good advice, I think events show this, and I think that even if you disagreed with it, being sarcastic was an entirely unhelpful reaction. It certainly hurt my feelings.

I'm also irritated with your allegation that these edits were made without discussion. When I added that list of "criteria" (by any name, the name is not what's important), I did so precisely as an active response to a direct invitation in an ongoing discussion on the talk page. That was indicated by my edit summary, "how's this?" - it was a line of dialogue, inviting further discussion and improvement. Is that the best way to indicate context to future viewers? - No. However, the edit was made as an integral part of a discussion. I'm irritated that you seem not to acknowledge this.

Now, I'm willing to discuss the naming conventions on that page, and I'll check myself, and remember not to make it personal over there. However, if I feel offended by your treatment of me, I'm going to let you know, calmly and without attacking, as I hope I've done here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Anybody willing to look at their own posts like you do above can't be all that bad.

My sarcastic comment about "tacking in the wind" was in reply to your suggestion that I should, "discuss [the changes] and not the issue of changes w/out consensus in the abstract." I was ticked off at that because that was how I understood you had been trying to steer the thread since the very beginning. (I posted the tabularised list of changes just so they could be discussed in concrete and found myself in a discussion that seemed to steered towards a philosophical conversation about policy, CCC and the meaning of the universe.)

I have tried to find where discussion of the changes took place - I'm getting mixed messages about that, to be honest - but I still can't see it. That's not to say they don't exist. My original premise about the changes was that, "I find it difficult to believe that all of them carry consensus." That's still how it looks to me. But let's keep discussion of the NC on that page.

Thank you for your explanation above. It's appreciated. I offended you with my remarks - and I'd like to take that back now. It's just, if I feel I'm being push, I'll push back. But peace, OK? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we understand each other, as far as not wishing to be frustrating, offensive, etc. I make mistakes, and I try to dust off and continue after each one, hopefully a bit wiser. I'm puzzled by something you say here: "I was ticked off at that because that was how I understood you had been trying to steer the thread since the very beginning."

This is something I've run into before. When I look at that thread, I see myself repeating that the abstract discussion is pointless, and that it would be better to go start a new thread and talk about specific changes. I don't see how that could be seen as "trying to steer the thread" towards the issue of "changes in the abstract". I tried to say in every post that I think the abstract discussion is pointless, and I said why I think it's pointless. That doesn't mean I was trying to invite further abstract discussion, about whether it is or is not pointless. Quite to the contrary, I was trying to make it stop, by saying "stop".

If you thought I was trying to steer towards more abstraction, I can see why you would find that annoying. How can I be clearer when I'm trying to say: "This is a bad conversation; I recommend dropping it and having a better one instead"?

I thought that even the tabularised list was too abstract, because it was about 14 edits at once. My suggestion has been and remains that single edits be discussed, singly. That's all I was trying to say that whole time. Still on the page now, I see that there remains discussion of how policy pages should be edited. How can I steer discussion away from that abstract topic, and towards specific discussion of specific naming conventions? Why must we talk about whether the right editing model is being followed? Why don't we just talk about whether or not field experience indicates consensus for this convention, that convention?

I don't know; am I making sense here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You're making perfect sense. I've looked over the exchange again. It's clear you wanted to end the thread. (I could tell that at the time.) What's not clear is that you did not want to talk about the "abstract" of policy. It looks (to me) like you wanted to talk about policy in the "abstract".

I would also say that it is difficult to discuss changes one-by-one when so many changes had taken place and when revisions of those changes were happening at the same time. It means that there are not only many "targets" but that they are moving targets. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.... :) It depends what you mean by "talk about". I'll make a claim about policy in the abstract to back up a suggestion. I guess that seems to invite reply; I'd quite prefer to do without the debate part, and hasten to the part where the suggestion is taken.

Gradually, I get better at this kind of thing, one hopes. Maybe I shouldn't back up my suggestions with reasons, but then why would anyone take the suggestions? They're generally good ones, I'm pretty sure.

As for moving targets, I agree. I think the best approach is to pick one that seems important, and focus on it. After we come to decision on that one, pick another. If one slips by, then it must not be such a glaring problem, or if it is, someone will notice, and say, "hey, why is this policy page wrong?" Then they'll fix it.

I think it helps to realize that very, very little harm to articles is done if the wording of that page is temporarily unstable, incorrect, self-contradictory. I still work in move requests, and changes to that page do not ripple to that page in the form of disturbances. This tempest is entirely contained in the teacup. People out there forming consensus aren't reading WP:NC, for the most part. They're ignoring it, per policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

All of Wikipedia is storm-in-a-teacup stuff. That's nothing new. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Braveheart

Not a fan personally, disapointed that Mel Gibson who claims to be a trad, alligned himself to Rosseaunism/Jacobin victim ideology, spouting lies against a great King Edward I (even claiming he was a "pagan"). Sadly Gibson seems to be one of those cringe-worthy "diaspora republican" types you find in Boston, New York and West-Central Scotland. Oh well, at least the Passion of Christ was good. In any case, onto the topic of hand, the term "____ Clan" is often used to refer to certain well established septs, particularly those in a position of sovereignty, from the High Middle Ages onwards; not only in academic works[1][2] but by the noble family itself,[3] that is the Lord Inchiquin to you and I. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A "clan" (or a "sept") was distinct from the dynastic family that may have ruled it. From Nicholls in Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages:

"...a clan may be defined as a unilineal (in the Irish case, patrilineal) descent group forming a definite corporate entity with political and legal functions. This latter part is an important one, for the functions of the clan in a clan-organised society lie entirely in the 'political-jural' and not in the 'socio-familial' sphere; that is to say they are concerned with the political and legal aspects of life and not with those of the family."

I'm open to be corrected (in fact I would love to be), but from what I can see those articles are concerned with the O'Brain, O'Neill, O'Donnell, etc. dynasties and not with the O'Brain, O'Neill, O'Donnell, etc. clans (or septs), or as the English called them "nations".

WRT Inchiquin, his clan is long-gone though his dynasty still remains. Although I'm sure it doesn't do his tourist trade any harm to say otherwise! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying to an extent, obviously due to communism and capitalism these septs no longer exist in an ordered societal fashion today, while the ruling element can still claim to exist as dynasties. But the specific septs and the dynasties still come from the same bood-line and derive from the same ancestor (all O'Briens descend from Brian Boru); when they were actually sovereigns the two things were one and the same. I don't think there needs to be two articles, one for the ruling segment of the historic septs and then one for the septs as a whole (since the pleb element itself isn't remarkable/notable). IMO they should just be kept together, under one, with the name "____ Clan". The only rough parallel I can think of is the Arabic clans and they seem to just have one article (ruling and general plebs together). - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be two articles either. That's why I favour the old naming method (e.g. O'Brien over O'Brien dynasty or O'Brien clan) as it captures dynasty, clan and modern surname all at one go. By trying to add extra precision, I think you are complicating something that can is actually quite simple.

WTR "the pleb element", one of the characteristics of a clan system is that the "pleb element" very quickly gets bred out by royals (cf. Nicholls again). Rule in a clan system is not by feudal progeniture. For example, I bear the surname of a Gaelic sept. I don't know for certain but chances are that I am not a direct descendant of the founder of that clan in a feudal sense. I doubt that I am "chief of the name" or anything close to it. But, none the less, I am a descendant of the clan founder one-way-or-the-other. If the clan system was still in place, I would be a royal. That is why making a distinction between the name, dynasty and clan (at least for a general encyclopedia) are artificial. They are different parts of the same thing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what I have a problem with: http://www.clanobrien.com/ and especially http://www.clanobrien.com/coat.htm . You can get to it from http://www.obrienclan.com/community/community.htm . Truly disgusting. Buy your Clan O'Brien Teddy Bear today! DinDraithou (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pokemon Generation 5

A tag has been placed on Pokemon Generation 5, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

there is a complete lack of referencing; questionable notability; original research; unconfirmed future subject; lack of proper styling (title should have an "é" in "Pokémon")

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DKqwerty (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)