User talk:Iota

Contents

1 Welcome message 2 Prime Minister 3 Name change 4 Anthems 5 PIRA 6 CPO-STV 7 Federation 8 Article Licensing 9 Flag of Ireland 10 German presidents 11 Article: Kurdistan 12 History of the southern Irish state 13 vandalism? 14 US spellings 15 Question about Derry Edit 16 Mr. Coolcat Goes to ArbCom 17 Kurdistan 18 Kurdistan Phase #2 19 Taoiseach changed? 20 Amendments to the constitution 21 Why revert?

Welcome message

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you feel like it, you may leave a note at the new user log too.

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

Dori | Talk 15:04, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Prime Minister

I think the use of capitals is not uncalled for. The Constitution itself glosses 'Taoiseach' as 'Prime Minister', with capitals. It is also worth mentioning that UK and US media often just use the term 'Prime Minister of Ireland' or 'Irish prime minister'. Morwen 01:02, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Name change

Certainly. I've gone and done the changes. Morwen - Talk 17:27, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anthems

There is room for overlap between the two projects. Personally I do not consider national anthems or other important short works of poetry source documents. All wikipedia article usually start small and grow. I think it is important to show the lyrics in full because they are central to the article itself, how can you learn about something if you don't see it there before you. If you remove them I guarantee at some point in the future someone will add them back, because it makes sense to have it. Wikipedia is running out of room, there's space for the text to exist in both projects. Mintguy (T) 07:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PIRA

apologist noun : a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; e.g "an apologist for capital punishment"

Mintguy (T)

I have only drawn an inference from your actions, if my inference was incorrect then I apologise. However , in considering the factual information that you removed (i.e a summary of just exactly who calls the IRA a terrorist organsation and the fact that well-attended anti-provisional marches have been held in Dublin along with various other edits), I can come to no other conclusion that that you wished to portray the Provisionals in a more positive light by removing these negative perpectives. What other conclusion am I meant to infer from these actions? Mintguy (T) 22:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello Iota. I am not overly familiar with Wiki etiquette so please forgive me if this isn't the right place to post this comment. Anyway, I'd like to draw your attention to my question in the discussion we were having on the PIRA page about whether or not "terrorist" is a fair word to use...

"Iota, to clarify: assuming that a significant minority of Arabs don't consider them to be terrorists, is it your position that Al Qaeda should not be referred to as a terrorist group in Wikipedia? [CK]"

CPO-STV

Hello, Iota. I have written a paper about an STV method that is very similar to Tideman's CPO-STV method. Please send me (markus.schulze@alumni.tu-berlin.de) a short mail if you want a copy of this paper (PDF format; 88 pages; 4.6 MB; you need Adobe Acrobat Reader 5 or later to read this file). Markus Schulze 08 Nov 2004

Federation

The European Union is NOT a confederation and I feel I was quite justified removing that claim from the article. -- Dissident (Talk) 01:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Flag of Ireland

Iota what's your source for the E company info? I could find only one dubious source on Google. -Lapsed Pacifist.

Just that it seems dodgy to me. It could well be true, but I have read a fair bit on this and never came across it before.--Lapsed Pacifist 06:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I presume this revert (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Ireland&diff=12143121&oldid=12083735) by you was a mistake, since it's tagged as minor and has no edit summary. There's a bit of deja vu going on in the edits. Joestynes 10:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

German presidents

That's ok about the German Presidents artice - you just have to be less possessive about your articles in time like Adam and I have learned to be. PMA 00:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - i have an autistic disorder so things sometimes don't come out the way i mean them to - no rudeness was intended or written - you just seemed to be as protective of your articles as Adam and I were in our early days and i was trying to be helpfull by suggesting that you could start to ease up in time like we did. PMA 00:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article: Kurdistan

The article Kurdistan has a very sensetive nature, I dont know what your problem is but do not revert the article unless you have support for your changes in the discussion. I moved quite a lot to there. Things are first discussed that added to the article. POV is not tolerated on wikpedia. Coolcat

No problem. I guess "Vandalism" was a harsh word. My views on the Kurdistan issue are irrelevant. I just dont like seeing accusations on wikipedia forums. My views on the Kurdistan is primarily based on my experienced with the group known as the PKK. I am very sensative on the issue. However I don't let my emotions drive me, so all I want to achive is neutrality in the article. --Cool Cat 07:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Check kurdistan talk ;) --Cool Cat| My Talk 15:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

History of the southern Irish state

To head of an imminent edit war, please respond to challenge to your arbitrary reversions in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_southern_Irish_state

vandalism?

I am new to that stuff and a bit confused that there is no standard contact address to report vandalism so I tell you: your entry for federation has been overwritten and noe there is some advertisement. -JamaicaJan

US spellings

Whoops. Thanks for your corrections, I see I didn't check (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marginalised) carefully enough (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scrutinising). Now I (http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/marginalised) know better (http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/scrutinising) and promise to check more carefully in the future.
Sorry again. -Nikai 15:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question about Derry Edit

Good you fixed the history link, I'm new to this so didn't figure that the history link was broken rather than non-existant. So it made sense to remove the history link subsequently. Just wondering why you removed the sporting links I added? From what I have read I didn't reckon they were against policy, but I thought they added to the usefulness of the wiki...Just wondering where I've gone wrong. Newbie mistake? Difference of Opinion? CheersSeanMack 21:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No worries about the edit, I've added them back in and included the rugby for balance. SeanMack 04:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Coolcat Goes to ArbCom

Hi, I've noticed that you've met Cc; care to have a chat about him? Davenbelle 13:03, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Kurdistan

We agreed to a lot of things which we no longer, may I ask why? Why was "Kurdish seperatists" removed? It isnt exactly contraversial as you suggested. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I am sorry, I wasnt expecting outside interference by several users. Apperantly they were responsible. I made some modifications to the article. I removed foot note, please dont add it as samething exists in links ;)
• I find the title Mr. in front of my nick insultive, feel free to keep it if you want to insult me.
• The articles related to Kurds are under attack by two users as you can see from history, I do not know what they are trying to prove, but I will not allow the neutrality of these articles comprimised. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I ment them not you. I have seen your minor edits, thats why I did not simply revert, new picture is nice. I placed the table in a template and off the page as we can use it on other articles.
  • The word attack was carefully chosen, they have been revrting most of my edits remotely related to Turkey as "POV" since I made the mistake of disafreeing in Armenian Genocide article. In life never ever disagree with armenian genocide, people will eiter murder you or annoy you to death as they are doing. You have no idea what I am dealing with, so please accept my apoology of some of my wrath escaping at your general direction. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, since the cloud of uncertantly settles, and since you are a reasonable and logical fellow, lets work on the articles related to Kurds and Turkey together as I have been declared "a chronic POV pusher whose edits must be reverted", I need your confirmation in matters.

Kurdistan Phase #2

I do not belive Turkish Kurdistan or Iraqi Kurdistan is approporate. The word Kurdistan stads for "Land of the Kurds". Turkish "Land of the Kurds" does not quite work as intended, implies invasion of a loosely called region. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 04:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You and I are a very constructive team, I value your opinions, please understand that by no means do I want to offend you. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 04:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• There? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taoiseach changed?

Who changed it form Taoiseach?--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Amendments to the constitution

am removing my comments, if that is OK with you, Iota. FearÉIREANN 03:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it. Sorry if I lost the head but apart from anything else it jammed my browser and I lost 4 hours of work on a new article. We'll find a way to get back the lost talk page. But seriously, I was not trying to mess up the article. You have done some fabulous work on wikipedia. I just was going on the universal advice of academics. A tip - if an article is moved, give about a half an hour to see if an explanation is made on the talk page. There may be a very good reason. I don't move articles except with very good reason. We'll find some way of merging the talk pages. I undid the other damage by going to your page and rolling back your edits, which put the main pages back with the links. But as my comments had already been saved on the talk page of the on we ended up with two talk pages. We'll let the technical lads sort it out and we writers can get on with our writing. :-) Sorry again for the rather strong reaction. FearÉIREANN 03:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problem solved. I've deleted the to talk page, then moved the of page to the empty to space and that has joined up the article to its talk page and to all its links and archives (except I think for your cut and paste. I think that may have been lost, though you may be glad of that). I'm amused at my technical prowess. At this stage I'd better go to bed. Slán abhaile, a chara (or is it a cara?) :-) 03:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why revert?

Why did you revert my changes to Upper House ? Any particular reason, since you didn't state anything in the edit summary? Thanx 68.39.174.150 00:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)