User talk:Spleodrach/Archive/Archive 007

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Spleodrach. 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.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prisons in Ireland. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Bamyers99 (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I have told you before that your editing is constantly disruptive and is being done without consensus. This is my second warning to you. I am giving you my last warning . GaryFG8125 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The cheek of it. :) This is Paul (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I know! Snappy (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree fully with GaryFG8125. Why hasn't this title been allocated to the pages relevant. Ireland's politicians are the only ones without this information. I will work to add this in the near future.

The sock agrees with the master. Quack quack! Snappy (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2016

I am new editor to Wikipedia. I have no connection to any editors!

We'll see what a sock puppet investigation reveals. I find it very hard to believe that a brand new editor would first edit on such an obscure topic at the same time as GaryFG8125. Snappy (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your absolutely obsessed! How come Ireland is the only country that hasn't this title?

You've logged into other account, I see! As for obsession, try looking in the mirror. Snappy (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see my two proposals to create categories for English, Scottish & Irish politicians by century Discussion of 8 January 2016. Hugo999 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ballyfermot 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * Greg Kelly ([[Sinn Féin]])]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Snappy reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Paul Murphy (Irish politician). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm ♠ 21:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for moving some of the content I added to the introduction into sections below. It does improve the balance of the article between the introduction and following sections, while retaining the references I added.

I would say brief references to the documentary that made Cahill a notable/newsworthy person and her current political office might still belong in the introduction. I'd be inclined to move references to those up and move some of the detail of the prosecutions down to maintain that balance. I'd also re-sequence some of the material now within the allegations section so that flows better in terms of chronology (2010-2015) and subjects (allegations, case, documentary, review). Wikopedian (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. I moved the your additions into the other sections because they made the lead too long. Snappy (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

...at least I think he is anyway. Check out 86.41.1.227 (talk · contribs), editing via mobile and making similar changes to politician articles. This is Paul (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. It would help me to know why you deleted the external links sections from Raymond Groarke and from Michael Moriarty (judge). Thanks.

BTW: the new link you have inserted concerning Moriarty J is out of place. MarkHarper1 (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Moriarty - that D. O'Brien website is password protected, so its pointless having it. Groarke - the Irish Courts Service is a general link, not specific to him. Also, please stop removing Mary Irvine as the spouse of Moriarty, its in the reference. Snappy (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. References can be out of date. MarkHarper1 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Snappy. You reverted my addition of "(Carroll O'Daly)" with the question "Was he known by that name?" Well, although not obvious the names Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh and Carroll O'Daly (and their pronunciation) are the same, but the spelling "Carroll O'Daly" was fairly standard during most of his life-time and is used in some reliable sources. As it happens, it's also useful because most people outside Ireland wouldn't know how to pronounce the Gaelic spelling of "Cearbhall" and might even have a little trouble with "Ó Dálaigh".

1. Survey of Current Affairs (1974), p. 471: "lRlSH REPUBLlC: NEW PRESlDENT It was announced on 29 November that Mr Carroll O'Daly was to be the fifth President of the Republic of Ireland. The inauguration is scheduled to take place on 20 December."
2. Western Europe 2003 (2002, ISBN 1857431529), p. 330: "Childers died while in office; he was succeeded by Carroll O'Daly, an all-party nomination."

Moonraker (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

University College Dublin Students' Union has been nominated for deletion - it needs support - can you assist? 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 12:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Snappy. Thank you for your contribution on MC. Was he a religious man. I was surprised about the omission of his spiritual life. Gratefully, Mark Joseph Gallagher Jr. Lancaster California [email protected] 661-524-4956 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.58.127 (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent behaviour in the Ireland project falls far short of the requirement for civility. The comments were rude to one editor and unambiguously insulting in my case. Whatever history that may have passed between us, that does not give you the right to go galumphing around the place with impunity. I would appreciate it if your would acknowledge (1) that your recent behaviour was uncivil, (2) that you regret the hurt caused and (3) that you promise not to engage in such behaviour in the future. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

More than 48 hours has elapsed since this note was posted. In that time, you have made many edits so its presence cannot have escaped your notice. It's fair to conclude that you do not wish to engage in this part of the mandated dispute resolution process. I will therefore take it to the next stage. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: I was attempting a joke about my user name. If I insulted you, then I apologise. I won't be making any such remarks in the future. Snappy (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

We'll leave it there so. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ceann Comhairle may have broken the syntax by modifying 6 "{}"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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cathaoirleach may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
• |rowspan=3|{{small|(6){{small|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Spleodrach. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The article United People has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

lacks notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BSOleader (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Irish general election, 2016, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia: Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding how Wikipedia can describe the political allegiances of Ruth Coppinger. 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 this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Ruth Coppinger".The discussion is about the topic Ruth Coppinger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --This is Paul (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dáil Éireann Members has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Spleodrach. I realise now that with that "Irish ... politician" in the sentence there is no need for the name of the country. But I would keep positions in national politics as a unit ("Taoiseach and Minister for Defence"), followed by ", and Leader of Fine Gael" (with the Oxford comma, as you rightly did. I also ask myself if there isn't a better way to word this to avoid repeting "Fine Gael" in one sensence "Irish Fine Gael politician who has served as Taoiseach, Minister for Defence, and Leader of Fine Gael since June 2017". I suggest dropping the first one. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with dropping the first Fine Gael. For example, Theresa May - "Theresa Mary May (born 1 October 1956) is a British politician serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since 2016." Spleodrach (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Spleodrach. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Spleodrach/Archive. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I think ministers should, inasmuch as we have the information, be listed in order of seniority. That way, it gives the reader slightly and subtly more information than a simple alphabetical listing. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by seniority then? Years in office or something else? The Taoiseach's website has this ordering [1], which seems to be in order of importance, e.g. Taoiseach, then Finance and Culture last. Spleodrach (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That's the ordering I mean. It lists the Constitutional offices first (Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Finance), then all other ministers by order of service as a minister, then service as a junior, then service as a TD, then service as a senator. That's why Ring, Doherty and Murphy come just after Zappone, and Madigan after those three. If you look back on the vote on a new government after the election of a Taoiseach, they're listed in this order. Up to yesterday, Culture came between Justice and Health, because that's where Humphreys herself ranked, see [2]. The page on the Taoiseach's site currently has Tánaiste in the wrong place in the list, but that's presumably a copyediting mistake they'll correct in time. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That's fine then, change them to seniority from alphabetical. Spleodrach (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Grand. It'll be a piecemeal project, when I have time. Just thought I should put you on notice as one of the more active editors in the areas. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Members of Seanad Éireann by term header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Presiding officers of Dáil Éireann, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Members of Dáil Éireann by session header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did you change that? He is a person of interest. Calemab (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Spleodrach/Archive. AfC submissions Random submission ~8 weeks 2,919 pending submissions (refresh) I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey. I know I'm being cheeky asking, as it's not something that I generally add to myself, but would you mind adding all of a constituency's TD's to succession boxes? It rarely makes sense, except in a by-election, to say X TD replaced Y TD, when the constituencies are multi-seat. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! I have no real life. I'll spend all of my time doing that! But seriously, I do intend to do that but it will be an ongoing project for 2018. Spleodrach (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

;-) Cheers, and regards Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown County Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Dunlop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you made big changes to the info box for "before" and "after". I'm not a fan of this template. I argued at length against it but BHG won the day. What was agreed was the bloated one that Ruth had. So unless you want to open that very acrimonious debate again, may I kindly suggest that you revert it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I made changes to correct it. Coppinger was elected in a by-election so there can only be one predecessor TD. I have added in the other TDs in the With section with their terms of office. If you think that I am incorrect, we can always ask your favourite admin, BHG, to give her view. Though I agree the template is very bloated and not very nice now. Spleodrach (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your edit re no evidence of Feargal being a member of Fianna Fail. The Irish Times interview says that "He chaired the college branch of Fianna Fáil while at UCD and joined the national executive when he left" but is silent after that. Would that imply he is Fianna Fail? thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It implies he was a member, but is he a member now? Spleodrach (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

yes, good point, I can't get any verification; and I suspect if he still was, it would have mentioned it in his recent interviews. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to add it back in then I've no objection, or maybe just mention it in the text that he was a member while at UCD. Spleodrach (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll mention it in UCD and that there is no confirmed activity since. thanks 16:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Well done, on the finance articles, very thorough job. Spleodrach (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Have some time off and wanted to fix/upgrade some articles that I think are central to finance in Ireland. Britishfinance (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Ireland has the title of Senior Counsel as its professional rank for lawyers.

There are categories for Senior Counsel in other countries as well as a category for Irish Queen's Counsel - which includes King's Counsel that was conferred in Ireland from 1901 to July 1924, when the title of Senior Counsel was introduced in the Irish Free State. - (101.98.104.241 (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC))

Yawn, tell me something I don't know. Spleodrach (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you have removed my edit about Mick Wallace’s antisemitic tweet. My information was factual. Wallace is going to have to explain himself, what he has done meets the internationally accepted definition of antisemitism by blaming all Jews for the actions of Israel. It is racist to ascribe to Jews generally the characteristics described in that article he linked. Why should the information not be available to the public? T Teresa12345678 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course, if anyone dares to criticize Israel, they are labelled anti-semitic by people like you. You provided no references, just your opinion. Spleodrach (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for removing one of the one of the I added to the entry on Máire_Geoghegan-Quinn. I'm a newbie so I didn't really think of that! Cheers! Bibliographies-BreakfastOfChampions (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As we're both in the process of periodic edits to the pages on amendments to the constitution, I thought I'd summarise the changes I'm making:

• avoiding the duplication in the opening of referring to the Amendment and a sentence or two later referring to it as having been effected by a particular Act. The Ninth Amendment is only a shorthand for the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1984, and it's better I think to have the more succinct opening, even if it departs from the general rule that the first sentence should include the page title in bold.
• removing the comma from pre-2005 Acts. For consistency, and although Wikipedia need not follow statute as a style guide, according to s.14(3) of the Interpretation Act 2005, the comma isn't necessary before citing the year.
• adding results tables, the most obvious useful addition, and you've been quite helpful with those too to date.
• Oireachtas debates: each amendment has to be introduced, and pass both houses. In a non-contentious one, such as the Ninth, I'd only include its introduction by such-and-such a minister, passes final stage in Dáil, passes final stage in Seanad. If there are votes at other stages, probably include them too. Committee Stage amendments, and here there's some judgment questions, if they are notable.
• using quote frame for the amendment text, so that it properly stands apart from the rest of the article.

I think that's about it. Just to avoid any conflicts! -Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm going to concentrate on adding infoboxes for the result, and adding the constituency details result. Spleodrach (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Grand, you seem to have a knack with the results tables! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

To avoid duplication with the information in the infobox, do you think there's a benefit to including only the constituency results table in the ==Results== section? The overall national results will be in the final row in any case. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't agree, I think there should be both, e.g. see United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Spleodrach (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to compliment you first on your work assing some of the results tables for amendments. I've tried to keep to the same style, with the addition of a Change for repeated referendums. Two points though. You've removed the Deviation column I'd added. Do you not think it provides useful context, to see at a glance how much constituencies deviated, whether a Donegal or a Dublin Bay South? Second, you've left out the Spoilt votes in the constituency results. I know what matters is the votes in favour and against. But given some polls, like 1937 or the abortion referendums in 1992, had quite high spoilt votes, do you not think the column is noteworthy? —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the columns in the table I based on the Brexit referendum. So trying to keep a standard across wikipedia. I think that adding extra columns like spoilt votes and deviation just add clutter, but no useful info. For me, the simpler the better. Change is useful for the same question. Spleodrach (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Whatever about Deviation, which I'll concede is an innovation on my part, Spoilt or Invalid votes are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia, say for Dutch European Constitution referendum, 2005 or French European Constitution referendum, 2005, so there's no standard across the project. I do think it's useful to note, given the referendums with reasonably high spoilt votes, such as those I referenced. In 1937, the spoilt votes outnumber the difference between Yes and No in some constituencies. Others that were held on the same date as elections had similarly high invalid votes, say Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland for example. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The spoilt votes are recorded in the overall totals in the national summary result. I think this is sufficient. I see no valid reason to break them down by constituency. Spleodrach (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine Gael does have them: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted myself. [9]. Spleodrach (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see my response on the article talk page, engage in discussion and stop edit warring to keep information that potentially violates WP:BLP guidelines. SWL36 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't engage with SPAs or Socks. Spleodrach (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Communication is required, Wikipedia:Edit warring. GMG^talk 15:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:DOSPAGWYA. Spleodrach (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Fachtna Murphy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Garda

Martin Callinan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Garda

Noel Conroy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Garda

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please leave this name, the party spokesman and members refer to it with this name.

No! Spleodrach (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Assist content for Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you.42.115.39.209 (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

No, thanks. Spleodrach (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Technically two more days, yes - but not enough councils left to nominate her (motions are already known). Thread here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bastun: unless one of the councils which voted not to nominate anyone has a re-vote. An outside shot but it could happen. Anyway, you cannot definitely say she hasn't enough nominations until noon on Wednesday, that would be a crystal ball! Also, 20 members of the oireachtas could still nominate here, a very long shot, but possible. Spleodrach (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	A barnstar for all those ce Dáil/Dáil Éireann edits you are currently doing! Smirkybec (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Spleodrach (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

McHugh will not become Minister for Education until his appointment to cabinet is approved by the Dáil on Tuesday. I've partially reversed Minister for Education and Skills, with a note at the top, which can probably be deleted on Tuesday. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Pedantry. Spleodrach (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I am shocked — shocked — to find that gambling is going on in Casablanca! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough! Spleodrach (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, About a month ago you edited the Áine Ní Chonaill page(infobox),referring to ICP as a "party". ICP is not a party . It is a single-issue organization. Having stood candidates on that issue does not make it a party. In Donegal, quite a few years back, a group/organization was set up to protest that because of an issue with TV deflectors, they were going to lose tv reception. They stood a candidate on the issue and he was elected! That did not make them a party. Off the top of my head I can't think of others such who stood (there may well have been, were there hospital candidates?)) but I can think of many threats to do so for all sorts of issues. For example, there was a "threat" which never came to fruition that a group who were angry at the delay in establishing the new Cork School of Music would stand a candidate! Again, it would not make them a party. Just as the Immigrant Council of Ireland and the multiplicity of other such immigration advocacy organisations are NGO's so is ICP an NGO on the other side of the debate.Aineireland (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I have changed it to organisation. Spleodrach (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spleodrach. I noticed the different turnout figures for Friday's election and referendum. I assumed they would be the same, so how does that work? Can voters say, "Just give me an election ballot" or "Just give me a referendum ballot," or do they simply take the two handed to them, used one, and toss the other one away? Thanks. — O'Dea (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there always seems to be discrepencies when there are two or more ballot papers, see 34th and 35th amendments which were held on the same day. I assume people get both but only put one in the ballot box. Spleodrach (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I always blindly assumed that anyone bothering to vote would do so for all questions to be decided on voting day. I've been wondering how much control polling station workers exercise by auditing ballots – how many ballots were given to a voter and how many went into the ballot box (I'm just thinking aloud rather than asking a question). If a voter accepts two ballot papers and returns only one to the ballot box, the unused blank ballot can walk out. It can then be given to another, who can submit his own two ballots, plus the received third one concealed inside a folded ballot paper. It's probably mostly an academic question, but it could be done if one voter has no interest in a question, while another one does. In that case, however, it would be safer for Voter A to vote as Voter B wants, if he has no interest himself. I have never paid enough attention to such mechanics in polling stations, being mainly occupied by marking my candidates correctly. — O'Dea (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Good questions, I don't know the answers myself. You would need to ask someone who has worked in a polling station. Maybe next May, when voting in the Local and European elections, you could ask the staff at your polling station! Spleodrach (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Spleodrach. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Seeing how your changes involve a massive number of articles, would you instead engage in talk before conducting further changes once evidence these are contested, as per WP:BRD? I acknowledge the usage varies in some elections, but it looks like this was due to poor addressing. However, if all of these are going to be standardized, then this should follow actual usage, which is not what you call "standard usage". Impru20^talk 21:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, most of the articles of EP elections in a number of countries you are having the infobox heading altered use the "European Parliament election in (country), year" formatting, so that one would be the standard heading. Since this involves a large number of elections articles, if further input is required, may I suggest a discussion take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums? Impru20^talk 21:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm seeing, the "European Parliament election in (country)" formatting is actually unanimous for recent elections (specially the articles on the 2014 and 2019 ones) in all countries, with only (some) of the oldest ones differing. Even some countries (such as Spain) have already been using such a formatting for years in all elections. If anything, I think that it should be those articles being different that should be changed to adhere to such formatting, instead of changing all articles to a different heading. Impru20^talk 22:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a special ground (such as for their general elections to not adhere exactly to the Demonym general election, YYYY formatting but using the country instead, which is a really singular among election articles in Wikipedia) but otherwise all recent or incoming elections (2014 and 2019) do use the European Parliament election in country, YYYY. One thing to be considered is that most of the articles using the Country European Parliament election, YYYY formatting were those for old elections (and not all old elections were named like this; headings used were very different at some cases); another one would be that it may be particularly difficult to keep all those articles consistent throughout the years, as particular editors may also try to introduce their changes unnoticed in one or two of these, so some of these mya not be actually "standard". Also, since these are actually part of a larger, transnational election (and not national elections by themselves), the use of the country (or demonym) first may be misleading, as the "European Parliament" is not a legislative body in any of these particular countries.

I think I have already standardized many of them, though I'll check it out later whether there may be others remaining. Impru20^talk 22:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Good evening good friend! From my time as an editor on Wikipedia, mainly focusing on obscure articles revolving around Ireland - you're name continually pops up! I was wondering, due to your energy in editing to Irish articles, would you be willing to join WikiProject Ireland, if you have not done so already. I believe you would make a fantastic contributor! CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 18:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm already a member under my old username (Snappy). I've updated it. Spleodrach (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Spleodrach. You were right to revert the category in the absence of the paragraph and reference I have now supplied. Would you like to revert the revert? Best wishes, --Po Mieczu (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You may go ahead. Spleodrach (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

There are countless articles stating that she is indeed joining with Peadar Toibin, I don't see why you continually remove the edit even when I provided enough sources, ones that are accurate.

• https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/councillor-quits-fianna-f%C3%A1il-to-join-peadar-t%C3%B3ib%C3%ADn-s-cause-1.3724143
• http://www.thejournal.ie/cavn-councillor-4381328-Dec2018/
• https://www.anglocelt.ie/news/roundup/articles/2018/12/07/4166277-oreilly-resigns-her-fianna-fil-membership/
• https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/fianna-fail-councillor-in-cavan-to-join-peadar-toibins-new-party-890685.html

Please add more descriptive edit summaries when you are reverting stuff as it is very confusing to understand why you would revert the edits in the first place. Eolais | Talk | Contribs 12:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

My attempt at humour went over your head. Anyway, no such party exists, and she may or may not join if in the future. It's sufficient to say in the article that she resigned from SF. Spleodrach (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Grand then so, didn't see the joke :shrug:. I guess we can settle on that then, have a great day :P Eolais | Talk | Contribs 20:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)