User talk:RashersTierney

This user may have left Wikipedia. RashersTierney has not edited Wikipedia since 20 May 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome to my talk page!

Note: If you post a message here, I'll reply here for continuity. If I posted a message on your talk page I will have put it on my watchlist, so you can reply there.

This is RashersTierney's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

So I said "Your trying to remove it." did I [1]? I think not! Go and find someone else to harass. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's this? One last edit before 'retirement'? RashersTierney (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That registered only as a comment, you might want to state "Delete" or "Oppose"... Brocach (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really only intended it as a comment that might provoke further clarification. I'm interested, but want to see where we are going. RashersTierney (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the information to the talk page but forgot to make an edit summary stating the same thing. If you want to add something about the dangers of Irish moonshine, then you should keep it separate from the classic myth of methanol being produced in meaningful amounts by yeast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.235.253.150 (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at Talk:Poitín#Impossible claim. RashersTierney (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland is known as 'the Ould Sod!' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorccán Duignan (talk • contribs) 22:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but Lorccán Duignan is certainly also known as Eve Flynn, which is sock puppetry, and a B-I-G no-no on Wikipedia. RashersTierney (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Brocach (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pity. Socking is a mugs game. RashersTierney (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If (as one of the user pages claimed), a teenager, plenty of time to learn the ropes. Brocach (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright rather than the dark side, hopefully. RashersTierney (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being so rude? I was just setting up my friend's account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorccán Duignan (talk • contribs) 21:07, 27 February 2013‎

A sockpuppetry case has been filed against you. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lorccán Duignan and refer to our guide to responding to cases. RashersTierney (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Far from being rude, I indicated that this instance of using multiple accounts may have been down to an ignorance of policy regarding sock puppetry. The Clerk on the SPI appears ready to give you (both) another chance. Hope you take it. RashersTierney (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, since I just received a rather rude message from this bollix. Brocach (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say. Their edits will be closely watched to ensure they comply with policy. I think that will be of more interest than their barnstar count. RashersTierney (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to this, the discussion wasn't an RfC, just an informal discussion, so it doesn't have to be closed by a sysop or uninvolved closer. I think the best person to close it is you, because it was you who opened it, and also because you maintained neutrality over the question of whether to keep the nicknames that were already there. Just add {{discussion top}} at the top, and {{discussion bottom}} at the bottom. You should also add a pipe to "discussion top", along the lines of "The result was Remove sobriquet field" Scolaire (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RashersTierney (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Scolaire (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you look at the edits being made by 92.7.31.106 to the above article. I don't want to get involved in an edit war and I think you know more about the subject than I do. I've left a message on the user's talk page. Thanks in advance. Denisarona (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please stop harassing me and making false claims against me. I don't know what prompted you to make such accusations, but it's extremely bothersome when you stalk everything I do. LatinWolf (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use your 2 week 'break' to learn the ropes about editing constructively. RashersTierney (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! The thread is An Bord Pleanála. ----Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello.

I'm Cameron11598 a volunteer at DRN I have opened the case for discussion feel free to join in if you are interested in participating --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rashers,

I found that the AAIU offices now are at 2nd Floor, Leeson Lane, Dublin 2, Ireland Maps. Would you mind photographing this building?

Also do you know how to change the Gaelic description at File:No. 44 Kildare St. Dublin 06-2011.jpg to say that it formerly had the head office of the AAIU (it still has the head office of the parent department).

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it with me. RashersTierney (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome :) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image at [2] RashersTierney (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will 'confer' on translation and sort it out. RashersTierney (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. RashersTierney (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add anything. I removed incorrect information and an uncredible source . 03:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinhaYugaya (talk • contribs)

Xinhua News Agency is the official news agency of China. It has the same status as Associate Press, Reuters, and any other news agencies.

The way that you roll back is biased. Firstly, lots of links in that article is from Japanese sources in Japanese. How can you tell they are neutral? How can you tell Xinhua is not neutral? What Xinhua did was just to report a FACT. The spokesman said something and it's faithfully reported. You cannot deny the fact that Hong Lei raised objection just because what he said contradicts what you think. Secondly, if you prevents China's opinions from being shown in a neutral way, this violates Wiki's spirit. The point should be balanced. Now everything is from Japanese sources and Japanese views. Would you please let me know any of your concerns or opinions? Thanks.

The bottom line is: what I added is just a FACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerRat (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded generally at Talk:2010 Senkaku boat collision incident#Xinhua News headline. Lets try to keep content discussion at one place. RashersTierney (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SarahStierch (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The non-UN member unrecognized state Pridnestrovie is named with politicians from Moldova and Romania disrespectfully with a Holocaust name as Transnistria (it is a contemptuously term.

November 29, 2000 in accordance with the recommendations of the UN by former President PMR - Smirnov issued a decree № 591 "On the transliteration and place names", according to which the name of the Transnistria in the Latin alphabet was established as Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica (Pridnestrovie).

PRB, a financial representative of the TMR on the international scene has caused a stir. Its programmers have invented the three names of the republic: Trans-Dniester Moldavian Republic (TMR), Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublica (PMR), Moldova (Transdniestria). The coloring of the PRB and the Foreign Ministry website PMR added illiterate contraction of the words "street" and "city", ie «Ul» instead of «str», and «g» instead of «town».

06.04.2012 was repealed it Decree and in accordance with Art. 65 of the Constitution of Pridnestpovian Moldavian Republic new president Shevchuk signed a decree number 252, which recognized only the official name of the PMR in English - Pridnestpovian Moldavian Republic (Pridnestrovie)

http://profvesti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/gerbi1-1024x407.jpg --217.19.208.101 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is Google Translate gobbledegook! RashersTierney (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not, why are you defending Lee Rhiannon who is a Stalinist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.178.94 (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for intervention. I don't think the greatest problem with this person is an eventual sock-puppetry, but this uncivility. For example he addressed the following message to Iadrian yu: "Your suggesting it otherwise is a denial of the facts, a blatant lie and and a clear sign of animosity and ethnic hatered towards the autochton Hungarian population in Romania. You should feel ashamed of yourself." [3] Raysdiet (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't overly concern yourself with this editor, and certainly do not feel the need to 'rectify' their every edit. Let the SPI run its coarse, but please, please, do not edit war, whatever the perceived provocation. Use the TPs, take your time, build up consensus with editors of 'the other side'. RashersTierney (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-Mathnerd 101 19:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Delicious Won Ton noodles for you
		You have been awarded the best soup in the world for your kindness and patience in helping a new user get unblocked. Bishonen | talk 16:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Noodles? Yum, yum! Many thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My posts are not promotional, they are factual. No links are given to any commercial organisation, in any case the entire topic is that of a commercial organisation. My contribution to Waterford is no more promotional than the para above it. Detail like I added in Radio Nova is of interest to those interested in radio stations. Andyjlinton (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Andyjlinton.[reply]

You appear to have a conflict of interest wrt this commercial company and several of your edits have been repeatedly reverted by a number of editors for this reason. See also Edit Warring. You are on the point of being blocked for flagrant breech of our policies and would be well advised to read up on same before continuing to edit in this vein. RashersTierney (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have time to insert the references last night - all straightforward and uncontentious. Am doing so now. Parts of existing very badly written.

Hi Rashers, can you have a look at Talk:Brian Crowley#Illness and attendance? A strangely familiar IP is adding very point-y edits to Crowleys article, I and jnestorious have removed them. Snappy (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have been away for a few days, but will take a look. RashersTierney (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the article on Templemore, section on War of Independence, I have a concern about the reference to Sydney Herbert Beattie of the Northamptonshire Regiment. Beattie was my great-uncle and I had never before read that he was engaged to RIC Inspector Wilson's daughter. I have no idea of this is correct or not and there is no citation to this information in the article, which appears to have been edited by Risteard77. Can you help me to determine whether Risteard77 can source this information or whether it should be removed? I have no further information at this time as to the accuracy of this information, but I note that Beattie's military record shows his widow requested his medals from the British Army in 1923 [[4]]. If he was engaged at the time of his death, I'm not sure how Beattie could have had a widow. Thanks in advance for your help.Blicious (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have been less involved on Wikipedia of late, but will look into it when time permits. In the meantime, you might bring your concerns to the editor in question (though they appear not to be active recently) or better still, mention it at the article Talk Page. Will follow up a little later. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikimeet is proposed for Northern Ireland in the next few months. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Most take place on a Sunday afternoon in a suitable pub but other days and locations can also work. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Northern Ireland topics. Please add your suggestions for place and date to the discussion page here: Proposed Northern Ireland Wiki Meetup. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to attend a meetup anywhere on the island. Wont be around from end of August through most of September though. If it is to go ahead, could someone drop me a note? I'll be there if I can. @ Philafrenzy, also RA I believe, thanks for taking initiative on this. RashersTierney (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add this to the page please so we can demonstrate critical mass. Any suggestions for location? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good luck, and thanks again for your efforts. RashersTierney (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RashersTierney. We've started the ball rolling again with a new proposal for a Belfast Wikimeet in November. See here. Bazonka (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Have responded there, but due to not remembering password and not registering e-mail on that project, can't sign in. RashersTierney (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I remember you were involved in an earlier discussion about editing this contentious article? You may no longer be interested, but if you are, I would welcome some help. An editor recently cited a scholarly work which quite radically reinterprets the whole subject - Rebecca Probert's 'Marriage Law and Practice in the Long Eighteenth Century'. Basically Probert, a legal historian, argues that there is no clear evidence the practice ever happened for real in Britain. She suggests it was essentially a mistake arising from a false etymology. She cites evidence the word 'broomstick' was used in the 18th c. in a loose sense to mean 'invalid, phony, fake' in several contexts other than marriage (e.g. 'broomstick bail' for bail that was worthless) and theorises once the phrase 'broomstick wedding' gained currency as shorthand for 'fake marriage', people began to explain it by inventing the myth that this was really how gypsies/other marginal groups once celebrated a wedding. She thinks the usual folklore evidence cited is fairly dubious, relying on old people's vague memories of how things once used to be. Actual hard contemporary evidence is always lacking. I think this theory is worth considering because Probert is a serious and scholarly source, but that it is going to upset a lot of editors who genuinely believe there was such a practice, especially among Romani people, because Romani oral tradition supports it. What is your take? Probert deals mainly with broomstick weddings in Britain, she doesn't as far as I can tell deal with the practice in America, where there is at least one eyewitness account of it actually taking place among African-Americans. RLamb (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI I guess. I have warned him (for the umpteenth time), but you may recognise some patterns in judging Irishness, failure to grasp the "greyness" of the world, assuming your enemy cannot also be a friend, and that an enemy's enemy MUST be your friend. (And general myopia that two things cannot be true at the same time). Guliolopez (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RashersTierney, this is just a reminder about the meetup in Belfast on Saturday. I hope you'll still be able to make it. Can you please just confirm whether you'll be coming to the museum in the morning, the pub in the afternoon, or both parts? Hope to see you there, Bazonka (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. recent User TP note: "Gypsy" is not a simple difference in usage. It's a slur (Gypsy_(term)#Gypsy_and_Gipsy). I didn't change the usage in instances of the names of laws and policies; I changed it in the text original to the wiki page. It's a matter of courtesy to not use a slur where you don't have to, don't you think? 67.182.24.193 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit you changed 3 words. In the first 2 instances the words used were quotes. We do not change quotes because we do not approve of the terminology used. In the 3rd instance you unnecessarily changed a spelling from one variety of English to another and per WP:ENGVAR you were reverted. For your information, not all Gypsies consider the term pejorative. Also, per this edit, Romani is generally used as an adjective, so would usually be followed by a noun, such as 'people' 'culture' 'language' etc. I hope this clarifies the issue for you. RashersTierney (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reference to your template-note that you placed on my IP's talk page recently. The text of the template is as follows:

"Hello, I'm RashersTierney. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to List of sovereign states seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)"

Let me respond to you point-by-point.

• Wikipedia is indeed written by a variety of people who have a wide diversity of opinions. I am one of them.

• We do indeed try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view (more on that later).

• I'd like you to explain how, exactly, my edit to this particular article seemed "less than neutral". It seems to me that you have bitten before you barked. A better approach might have been to inquire about my edit, if you had a personal problem with it.

• I do think you have, with respect, made a mistake.

I will happily give you some time to explain your opinion before I re-add my edit to the article. I would like to respond to you edit comment and to explain (further - my explanation was already included in my own edit comment) my edit.

Your edit comment states: "Why single out this example - off topic and non-neutral." I'm not sure what you mean. I singled out this "example" because I was simply browsing for information, as many people do. If there are other "examples" in the article, then by all means improve them also.

It's been suggested my edit was "off topic" and "non-neutral". Firstly, the note was specifically about the naming of that specific state - so it was particularly on topic. As for my edit being "non-neutral" - bringing balance to the article was precisely the reason I made the edit in the first place. It is non-neutral to suggest that the only non-contentious way of referring to the state in whose parliament is in the south of the island is "Ireland". That is misleading. I can tell you that I find it contentious, personally. Referring to it as "Republic of Ireland" isn't particularly contentious (at least, not outside Wikipedia!). The government of that particular state have referred to it as such in both internal and external documents.

I cited a quote from a politician from that state, which explicitly highlights the political motivation (and therefore the contentious nature) regarding the name they chose for their nation. Even if you could consider "Republic of Ireland" to be contentious, then referring to that state by the name of the whole island is also contentious to a similar degree. It's also confusing, of course, and confusing by specific design (see the quote by the Irish politician to which I referred). There is another side to the story, even if that 'side' may be small in number, and not particularly vocal (on the Internet, etc).

This is all further confused, of course, by the contentious nature of the name that southern state in the eyes of some Republicans, who refuse to refer to it in any way other than "the twenty-six counties". This opinion comes from a logical place: "Ireland" is not accurate. It is also an aggressive claim: again, see that quote I cited.

As I said, I'm happy to give you some time to consider just how neutral the article was before my edit, versus that of my edit, which included an opposite point of view and not merely one POV. I am also happy to discuss any changes to the wording which would satisfy both our perspectives. I am assuming, of course, that your removal of my edit was because you have an actual opinion. I also write this in good faith, and with no malice (my formal writing tone notwithstanding), in the hopes that you accept that there are other opinions and viewpoints. --24.168.199.211 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit may or may not be appropriate at Names of the Irish state. It most certainly was disproportionate to the point of being inappropriate at List of sovereign states, which is why it was removed. RashersTierney (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rashers

I can not add our new logo to our wikipedia page for the Clonmel Junction Festival. The company manager has given me permission to edit and update our page as it has not been in a couple years. I am a marketing intern working with Clonmel Junction Festival, so editing and updating content responsibilities lie with me.

Is it possible you tell me how I can update the our logo image on the page.

(Clonmel junction (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Images aren't really my thing, but to get you started here's a bit of not-so-light reading - Wikipedia:Logos. There are several image-related 'how to' links on your Talk Page such as upload an image. If anyone watching this page is in a position to help out, please feel free. If your still not making progress having swatted up as suggested, get back to me. RashersTierney (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not using my computer, and the person who owns this computer has an add on where "car" is replaced with "cat", for some reason. Therefore, I saw "cate" instead of "care", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBGamer117 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No damage done. RashersTierney (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have reverted my hard work with explanation of "this has been discussed at great length - linked as agreed". But you failed to provide a link, you only came to my page to ask if I edited Wikipedia before. If you are wondering if I am here on a clandestine operation to sabotage something that was "discussed at great length - linked as agreed" because I have no idea what you are referring to. I would appreciate if you could provide link for that, or if you can't, I would appreciate for you to not remove my hard work. Also I sense that you are referring to Visa-free links (I assume only because you failed to provide any information in edit description), however as you did it automatically and blindly, you managed to remove some other content with which I expanded those articles. Therefore I will revert myself all your edits fully in articles where you blindly removed other content. As for the articles where you removed the sections on visa-free travel, I will wait for you to provide a link for the final decision where it was decided that for whatever reason these articles cannot have a section linking through a {{main}} template like all others throughout Wikipedia. If you do provide it, fine you are free to remove the information. If not, please reinstate my hard work into those articles. My only goal is to expand those articles. I've never heard of an embargo on article expansion. If it really exists I will be greatly surprised as it means such an article can never achieve a higher standard with greater amount of content because someone somewhere decided to block further expansion of an article. This is all very puzzling, and even more so why you removed all of my work so angrily as if it was harmful in any way. Even if it turns out there is no decision to halt expansion of passport articles, I would still like to hear from you, what made you so angry about those edits, and why do you think they were such a big problem and so harmful for Wikipedia (as this was not my intention and I still fail to see how could it be seen in that way).--Twofortnights (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quack. Murry1975 (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are unfamiliar with the discussion and resulting consensus, you could start here. RashersTierney (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay even though this doesn't answer my question on putting an embargo on article expansion I see the compromise consisted of "compromise solution to move the visa-free sections to a separate article while keeping the link for this new supplemental article through a proper template (Template:See also & Template:Main) with an image and one sentence as it can bee seen all over Wikipedia." - which is exactly what I did yet you removed my contributions. I hope you agree to reinstate information consisting of Template:Main, image and sentence on the passport ranking back to articles as this seems to be the compromise you reached all the way back in 2010? Also would you please tell me why you saw these edits (in accordance with or not in accordance with consensus) as so harmful to Wikipedia because that was not my intention, yet from your tone I sense you saw it as a very serious problem so I would like to know more as I still fail to understand.-Twofortnights (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your cherry-picked 'interpretation' is emphatically NOT what was agreed. RashersTierney (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can answer any of my questions please do so. If you are only here to bully me, please skip me and find some other articles to hinder. I think I've been polite enough, and you've been nothing but aggressive towards me, and my repeated questions of what is the big issue remain unanswered. But you don't have a problem with replying to me in abusive caps locks. So I am not interested at all in that, if you want to discuss specific issues, I am all for, if you see me as a prey to bully - no thanks. If you choose to again ignore my on-topic questions and to be abusive, my answer in advance is that I am not obliged to put up with that at all and I will no longer be involved in discussing matters with party disinterested in achieving a consensus. So the question is - what is the big problem and where is the supposed final conclusion that doesn't allow me to further develop articles (you are free to cherry pick, but please give me one conclusion, even from 2010, that says we can't expand articles). And keep in mind I didn't start any of this, you were the one who removed my hard work, and the basic decency is to give an explanation (which goes beyond half-sentence meaning a comprehensive explanation). And if there is indeed no rule that I broke - that is fine, but please do not treat me like I did break the rules any further.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no embargo on expanding passport articles and it is quite dishonest of you to suggest that I advocated such a stupid notion. There is a hard-won WP:CONSENSUS to keep articles on passports and 'visa free travel' separate and distinct, linked as agreed at 'See also' sections. I have provided the link to that discussion and the result. 'Hard work' does not trump consensus on Wikipedia. RashersTierney (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded at Talk:Hungarian passport#Visa free travel. RashersTierney (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well I wanted to thank you, I've finally been freed! Sorry to hear about what happened, maybe you should try something less demanding like a Usergroup or a Thematic Organization first (I think there is information in Meta) and then after some time if that works fine you could move towards a Chapter; it's just an idea, hope it can help. Again, take real care, have a really wonderful and merry Christmas, wish all the best to you, your people and your country! Tabhair aire! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Claudi, certainly worth considering. Best wishes to you too. RashersTierney (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rashers. Apparently I was in the room with you here and I didn't even know! I'm the grey/bald guy in the dark jumper. Which one is you? Scolaire (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to have (almost) met you Scolaire. That's me second from the end on right with specs. Saw later you'd signed the attendance page but thought you were 'maintaining the mystery'. You didn't go for a pint at 'The Long Stone' after? RashersTierney (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. I had to get back home early. We'll have to make sure to meet up properly the next time there's an event. Scolaire (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to it. With advance notice next time we might even manage to get more of 'the regulars', including from outside Dublin, to come along. Good start yesterday anyway. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a special piece on 1014retold. Well done to yourselves and the other editors. Murry1975 (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Murry. There was a comment in passing at one stage about doing something similar for Bloomsday. We'll see. RashersTierney (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Franklin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drumcondra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RashersTierney (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the changes you made to my changes. Referring to the Lalleri, I found ref's to them as being from Austria and Germany also, but also being the Romani in Sudetenland, which is in the current Czech Republic. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting back sooner. One of those days. I have also found refs to Sudetenland in the context of Robert Ritter. They aren't a group I'm very familiar with, but it should be easy enough to apply geographical sources as you say. RashersTierney (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few references to them. The only historical ones I've found were in documents of or articles relating to the Porajmos, where they were mentioned with the Roma and the Sinti. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A sub-set of Sinti invented by Ritter et al? Have only briefly looked at the term, but haven't found anything in Google books before the Nazi era.RashersTierney (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did find one reference in which the writer was puzzled that they are mostly ignored. A glossary of Romani words was that Lalleri means "outsider" in at least one dialect, but that it is also the name of a Romani group. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rasher,

I keep adding verifiable info to the HOWTH site and you keep dileting it!

I am not a super IT guy and do have support but don't know how to do that.

Can you help?

Schwabill — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCHWABILL (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch and I'm happy to help 'get you started' SCHWABILL. You don't have to have super IT skills to edit Wikipedia but there is a bit of a learning curve at the beginning. Hope you don't mind if we continue this conversation at your User Talk Page. RashersTierney (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email about Wikimedia Ireland and Wikimania. Just wondering if you got it? --Tóraí (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]

Hi Rashers I reverted an edit on the Irish Traveller page today by the user Fakirbakir here [[5]] The editor decided as an NPOV decision to revert all mention of Irish origins for the Irish Traveller community in favour of a Romani based one. I reverted the edits back as it was probably done in good faith. Cheers Uthican (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some Romani inter-marriage, sure, esp via UK. Romani 'origins', dubious at best, and unproven from anything I've seen so far. RashersTierney (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user reverted the page stating his edits are an NPOV and unbiased. He ignored the request to not edit anything while we discuss this in the talk page. I've reverted it back to the original as you say Romani 'origins', for Irish travellers are dubious at best, and unproven. I don't want this to get into an edit war as its unproductive. If he continues is it best to get semi-protection status on the page? Uthican (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut back considerably on my contributions to Wikipedia recently, real-life issues that are time-demanding. The best thing to do is engage in the Talk Page discussion, assuming 'Good Faith'. 'Ethnicity' is a social construct and so there will always be alternatives when it comes to 'origins'. Not at my reference books at the moment but will try to participate when time permits. Main thing is most editors are doing their best to improve articles here so engage with them accordingly, especially if you disagree with their proposals. They are much more likely to appreciate your point of view if they see that you respect theirs (without necessarily agreeing) Find sources hat challenge their perspective and support yours at the TP, but 'discuss'. Protection at an articles page really is to to minimise disruption rather than to settle content disputes. Discussion and sources is what Wikipedia is intended to be about. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RashersTierney! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have read your edits concerning a previous contributor. You said that the 18 and 83 bus routes travel in a different jurisdiction. If so, can you please explain what jurisdiction Clareville Road, the top of Westfield Road and Kenilworth Park is located because those buses travel on those routes or maybe I can refer you to Thom's directory.

Regards Letsbepedantic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsbepedantic (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'...all parts of the British Isles' eh? Thanks for dropping by, but no thanks.RashersTierney (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --