User talk:HighKing/Archives/2009/February

In breach of agreement

You are in breach of the agreement you made some time ago stating that you would not remove the term British Isles from an article. ðarkuncoll 12:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Um ... Yes, strictly speaking you are correct, although there's a teeny wiggle room that I was reverting a move against consensus that triggered an edit war, and I've also requested protection from page moves for the article. I won't be participating in any edit wars on this topic, don't worry... --HighKing (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So "wiggle room" is okay, is it? ðarkuncoll 12:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's a clear case of reverting vandalism, then yes. --HighKing (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The name changes to that page were clearly not vandalism. ðarkuncoll 12:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The change was against consensus, against discussion on the Talk page, and caused a move war. Now an admin has looked and protected the page. But yeah, you're right. I shouldn't have gotten involved by reverting as it goes against the spirit of our agreement. Apologies - I genuinely had a brain fart. --HighKing (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

Hi, I nearly didn't see where you commented on something I put on Talk:Flag of Ireland. Where I say Irish law (Republic of Ireland Act 1948) says that the state be "described as the Republic of Ireland." You tell me that I am wrong and should read it again. Here is the full quote "2. It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."[1] That is the quote from the "Republic(?) of Ireland Act" But anyway, I wonder what you would say? Would you say what was once Ireland is exclusive to the south now, that Ireland in the name Northern Ireland is barely noticable as inclusive of "Ireland" and that in the republic use of the term Ireland universally is a reference to a seperate part of the island rather than an affinity or non conformal view of the whole thing? ~ R.T.G 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your statement was The term "Ireland" is ambiguous and Irish law says the state be described as "the Republic of Ireland in the English language.". The Act says nothing about the English language (you're probably mixing up with the name in the constitution of Ireland). It's also a smaller point, but the act does not state that the state be described as "the Republic of Ireland", but rather that "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland". (It like saying that the law says the man should be described as a solicitor instead of the law says that the description of the man is a solicitor. The first assumes exclusivity of desciption, the second confers a description)

As to your question, the island is named Ireland, and the state is named Ireland. Each has equal legal rights to the name, and I find the entire argument about whether one has more rights or less rights childish and peurile and riddled with POV. --HighKing (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am deflated that a person obviously claiming the island has a name should feign out, whoever they are. We cannot all mediate our own views. Also, about obscure points of law, should I like to give you an advisory note about sailing the Goode shippe Pointe of Law Obscuritus through waters infest of sharks and other most ungodly monsters? You go play "Throw this one out Judge" and I will sit here and take notes! :D~ R.T.G 00:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You asked, I answered. And if you have trouble reading, it's not always because it's obscure. Them's just the simple facts and available to anyone to read and conprehend themselves. I can't help it if some see less than others... --HighKing (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK but do you know that on this page the man responsible for the Act is quoted as saying " I say that my name is Costello and that my description is that of senior counsel, I think that will be clear to anybody who wants to know. If the Senator will look at Article 4 of the Constitution she will find that the name of the State is Éire. Section 2 of this Bill declares that “this State shall be described as the Republic of Ireland.” Its name in Irish is Éire and in the English language Ireland. Its description in the English language is “the Republic of Ireland.”." Which seems to me, in the last sentence, to say that the state be described as the Republic of Ireland in the English language. I ask, is the arguement against use of the word republic a new and unfounded one born of some skewed sentimentality or some dismissive attitude? ~ R.T.G 20:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I've posted on this topic more than my fair share. As I've pointed out, you mixed your quotes and misrepresented the Act - the Act does not legislate that the state will be described as the Republic of Ireland.

As to the "new and unfounded" ... perhaps you're new to this part of Wikipedia, but this argument has been going on for years. In a nutshell, under UK legislation, the *name* of the state is "Republic of Ireland". Nowhere else is this term used as the *name* of the state (all international bodied like UN, EU, etc, etc). Yet here on Wikipedia, many editors use this term as a name and as a title. Ireland, the state, is a republic, but it is not *called* or *named* or *titled* Republic of Ireland anywhere but on Wikipedia (and, in fairness, British inspired media - cos it's the legal name in the UK after all...). And I've already stated, this argument is old, and if you read the discussion pages and their archives, all of this has been said before (ad nauseum). I'm trying not to be rude or dismissive - I'm trying to point you to places where you can read all this yourself - but this argument is being settled by ArbCom (any day now...) --HighKing (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have shown you here, if the act differs with what I said, it differs with the man who wrote it speaking shortly afterwards to explain the matter. If you wish to differ in such a signifgant way, small points will not do. You may know this discussion to be old. You have addressed me with it and concerned me that I should refute a particular point. Black and white, friend. I will explain it to you, if you wish, word for word with no mistake. Maybe you can explain to me what I fail to interpret in Cosgraves words? I am familiar with British inspired media. I have not read any for years. Perhaps to say you are unfounded is an error but to say that limiting the word Ireland to any government is of course new and unnecessary. Perhaps you can show the necessity or what I miss between the words of Cosgrave and his act of law, please do. ~ R.T.G 00:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already gotten old with this discussion over the years. No offense, but please feel free to continue this on the appropriate article discussion pages, and not here. Especially if you still can't accept the points I made on interpretation. --HighKing (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's black and white Highking. You didn't read it or do not understand it. I cannot think of a more appropriate place to tell you this but if you won't recount the facts I can think of no more a waste of time. You act in your own opinion while using the word citation. My offer to point it out to you word for word is open but no good if you are not. All best. ~ R.T.G 14:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.
• I say that my name is Costello and that my description is that of senior counsel, I think that will be clear to anybody who wants to know. If the Senator will look at Article 4 of the Constitution she will find that the name of the State is Éire. Section 2 of this Bill declares that “this State shall be described as the Republic of Ireland.” Its name in Irish is Éire and in the English language Ireland. Its description in the English language is “the Republic of Ireland.

~ R.T.G 15:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. Your statement was The term "Ireland" is ambiguous and Irish law says the state be described as "the Republic of Ireland in the English language.". That is incorrect, and I pointed it out. Period. Now go away and bother someone else. --HighKing (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Highking, the term may be used for an island or a political government. For words of more that one meaning the term ambiguous is absolutely correct (not up for debate). I directly quote suggestions in the law that the description Republic of Ireland has some use. I sympathise with your time of the month but I cannot allow you to lose perspective, can I? Don't worry about it. You are less interested in debating the law than my disagreement with you. I should not expect you to reconsider on any grounds as I do not believe now that you are open to consideration but I should not think it appropriate to view anyone like that without fair consultation. If small continuous debate is not acceptable to you, might suggest you declare yourself not open to discussion and not enter in to such ? ~ R.T.G 18:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, stooping to personal insults is as much as I'd expect. I note you didn't comment on your incorrect quotation on Irish law, which is the point I made initially - I'll take that as an admission that you accept you got that bit wrong. The rest of your discussion, as I've pointed out, is old. You're not making any new points. Please, for the 2nd time of asking, don't post on this topic here any more - the correct place to rehash the old points is on an appropriate article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

UKrail-header removal

Hi, I see you have changed a lot of Rail Template maps from UKrail-header to Rail-header. Had you considered using the simpler BS-header instead? This provides View - Discuss - Edit options in the map title bar, which are missing in the Rail-header template (compare Template:Calderdale Lines with Template:Swanage Railway). Is there a discussion on this change that I can view and do you know if there are plans to add the extra functionality to Rail-header? Scillystuff (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiya - no I renamed the template and was fixing links. But your point on using a standard template has merit - I noticed that the Rail-header is used on a number of templates that had nothing to do with Rail, but if there's significant overlap with other templates, it makes sense to simplify everything and pick one that has all the necessary features. --HighKing (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC) --HighKing (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock

Response at my talk Jeepday (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming of the Ireland articles

Howdy HK. Am I correct in assuming, that a third Administrator hasn't been found, yet? GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be the situation. Can't for the life of me understand why!  :-) --HighKing (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Jimbo Wales to consider being the third moderator. If he says no, he might recommend someone. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)