User talk:Jnestorius/2011

A discussion is taking place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#13 Barony naming convention that will be of interest to you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ganfyd is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganfyd until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this should be linked to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganfyd (2nd_nomination) instead. —Soap— 12:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your suggestion. I changed the hook accordingly. Would you mind taking a look? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Facebook Error Dialog.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Irish honours system, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Republic of Ireland has no honours system, though the issue has been considered by successive governments since 1930? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jnestorius, you may wish to comment on this debate, since you contributed to a previous discussion, and I've quoted you extensively in this debate. Rdgs, Snappy (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eamonn Mansfield, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Eamonn Mansfield resigned from the Irish Free State Senate five days after he was elected? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you removed {{Aviation lists}} from the Blackburn Roc article. The Aviation lists template is included at the end of every aircraft article per WP:AIR's standards and consensus, so it's appropriate to have it there (and on other pages) despite the article not being in the navbox. Just wanted to let you know. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another wikiproject votes itself a dispensation from the MOS. Sigh. jnestorius^(talk) 05:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your recent edits that removed Elections in the Republic of Ireland from all general elections in Ireland from 1922 to 1937. While this is technically correct, you should read the inclusion criteria in the following categories.

Elections in Ireland

Elections in Ireland (UK) until 1921 are in this category.

Elections in Ireland (Irish Free State / Éire / Republic of Ireland) from 1922 to present are in the Elections in the Republic of Ireland category.

Elections in the Republic of Ireland

Elections in Ireland (Irish Free State / Éire / Republic of Ireland) from 1922 to present are in this category.

The reason this was done was to keep all elections since Irish independence in 1922 in the one category. Obviously, the Republic of Ireland did not exist until 1949, so rather than creating yet another category to cover the period from 1937 to 1949, it was decided to place them all in the Elections in the Republic of Ireland category. Also, as you know the modern state of Ireland sits at Republic of Ireland in en:wikipedia. It not a great solution but it workable I think. I have added the 1922-1937 elections back into the Elections in the Republic of Ireland category but I have not removed them from your newly created Elections in the Irish Free State category. If you have any ideas on improving the category tree then let us know. Also, you might want to contribute to this debate on the structure of the Government of Ireland category tree here Snappy (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I consider that an article is in a category if it is in a subcategory, so moving them down a level does not falsify the statement "Elections in Ireland (Irish Free State / Éire / Republic of Ireland) from 1922 to present are in the Elections in the Republic of Ireland category".
   • There is sometimes a benefit in having articles both together in a supercat and also distributed into a family of subcats, so that the supercat is a "one stop shop". In this case, with just one subcat, I don't really see the benefit.
2. The spur for creating the category was your removal of Category:Government in the Irish Free State from Irish Free State Seanad election, 1925, which meant it was not in any subcat of Category:Irish Free State
   • I don't think that was justified in any case; your edit summary "belongs under Politics not Government category; legislative not executive entity" is incorrect: a glance at the other articles in Category:Government in the Irish Free State shows it is clearly a subcat of Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland, into which I've just moved it, rather than a subcat of Category:Irish Government. Perhaps you were temporarily confused by the CFD discussion. I certainly find the similarly-named categories confusing.

jnestorius^(talk) 10:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:German Plot (Ireland) jnestorius^(talk) 08:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you took this photo. It should be licensed differently than the non-free one you now have on it. You can find out more about how to get a free license for it here: Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images. We hope (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just to let you know, an editor has listed Debs and grads for deletion discussion at WP:AFD. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debs and grads. --BelovedFreak 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Hugely interesting image. Well done and well spotted. Thank you. RA (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, jnestorius^(talk) 23:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

hi Jnestorius, I have reviewed your nomination of Elizaveta Polonskaya at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizaveta Polonskaya and there are some minor sourcing issues. Could you see my comments at the nomination page? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I am puzzled by something. On 27 August 2009, you did some moving and splitting of these two articles, with edit summaries referring to it being over a redirect because someone had made a move with no consensus. I find the relationship between the two articles less than clear, and I wonder whether one cause might not be that this edit to the latter article removed an entire paragraph on a major difference. Also I found that article via a redirect from British pronunciation, and I did not expect a comparative article contrasting it with American. But then I went to the talkpage to see if I could get any clues from the discussion there, and started noticing people saying that other people's queries would be better suited to . . . the talkpage I thought I was looking at. It turns out that the talkpage for Differences between General American and Received Pronunciation redirects to the talkpage for American and British English pronunciation differences, and I can't figure out where the talkpage is or was for Differences between General American and Received Pronunciation. Since your edits are the end of the trail in both cases, and you have an edit summary saying you split Differences between General American and Received Pronunciation out of American and British English pronunciation differences, I thought you the most logical person to ask . . . is there an earlier history hidden away somewhere? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No.

• There was a single page, at "American and British English pronunciation differences". User:Deacon of Pndapetzim moved it to "Differences between General American and Received Pronunciation". I moved it back to "American and British English pronunciation differences", then refactored the first section out to "Differences between General American and Received Pronunciation". The Talk page discussion is Talk:American and British English pronunciation differences#Move?.
• There has never been a separate talk page for the refactored page, until just now when I created one.
• The Talk page edit corresponding to the deletion of the paragraph on /r/ is this one. Apparently it was a WP:COPYVIO. The edit summary for the article edit should have mentioned the /r/ paragraph, though; and something non-COPYVIO should replace it.
• I have changed the redirect target for British pronunciation. It would not be correct to link it to Received Pronunciation.

jnestorius^(talk) 06:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a better redirect target, thanks. And I hope with its own talkpage, the discussion on the newer page will now be clearer :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizaveta Polonskaya, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that writer Elizaveta Polonskaya was the only female member of the Serapion Brothers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizaveta Polonskaya. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I first started inserting baronies into the towns articles, there were many objections. Editors said that it should appear in the body of the article so as not to distract from the lead. Others said that most people would not even know what a barony was and so it would need some context setting. Hence the need for the "Legal context" section. It's a couple of lines, no more, designed to put them in their context which might induce casual browsers to explore further if the concept is new to them. Baronies are sufficiently niche and remote from commonplace experience that such context setting is both desirable and necessary. To characterise this as a "boilerplate" is unfair. In some of the lengthier barony articles (e.g. Muskerry West), it is quite small by comparison with other sections. Furthermore, the precedent of the counties of Ireland and the long debate at the wikiproject reinforces the need for consistency in treatment for such entities. For one set of counties to have a template while others ignored it would have been quite wrong. Analogously, the same is true for barony articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit would be more interesting if you said which of the two were in favour, don't you think? -- Evertype·✆ 20:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Jnestorius/2011! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Railway End. Since you had some involvement with the Railway End redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Barony of Cork#Moved from User talk. jnestorius^(talk) 11:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jnestorius. When you change an existing title from a redirect into a disambiguation page, as you did recently with Bus terminal, it would be great if you would also help WP:FIXDABLINKS by checking all the existing Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Bus terminal" and fix those links to point to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you give some input on this issue, Talk:Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht#Former Ministers for Energy as I believe you have done some editing in this area before. Rgds, Snappy (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]