| Revision as of 13:12, 2 June 2009 editDomer48 (talk | contribs)16,098 edits →Discussion of the name of this (and other) articles: com← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:20, 2 June 2009 edit undoSarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators51,670 edits →Discussion of the name of this (and other) articles: Not preventing discussionNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| You "have archived all current discussion in an attempt" to prevent discussion. That Sandstein you concur is not surprising, consulting you would be consulting a butcher about the keeping of ]. SarekOfVulcan you have been ], were unable to support your opinions of defend your position, so you closed it down. You are both setting out to mislead our readers, and preventing them from informing themselves. The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed article namely ]. The arguement is based on nothing more than editors opinion, with not one reference to support their POV. The article text you removed illustrated this all to well. SarekOfVulcan I never violated any ArbCom's directives, you mate Sandstein said I did "what amounted to" a violation, and closed down the discussion where I set about defending myself. Why should I take it to ], and get more of the same. A joke! Only thing is, it's the readers who it's on. If you need me to provide Diff's you just have to ask. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | You "have archived all current discussion in an attempt" to prevent discussion. That Sandstein you concur is not surprising, consulting you would be consulting a butcher about the keeping of ]. SarekOfVulcan you have been ], were unable to support your opinions of defend your position, so you closed it down. You are both setting out to mislead our readers, and preventing them from informing themselves. The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed article namely ]. The arguement is based on nothing more than editors opinion, with not one reference to support their POV. The article text you removed illustrated this all to well. SarekOfVulcan I never violated any ArbCom's directives, you mate Sandstein said I did "what amounted to" a violation, and closed down the discussion where I set about defending myself. Why should I take it to ], and get more of the same. A joke! Only thing is, it's the readers who it's on. If you need me to provide Diff's you just have to ask. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :No, I archived the discussion to prevent discussion IN THE WRONG PLACE. Subtle difference, but important.--] (]) 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:20, 2 June 2009
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:IECOLL-talk
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republic of Ireland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
|
To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item. |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 29, 2004 and December 29, 2005. |
Discussion of the name of this (and other) articles
The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. That structure does not involve discussing it on the individual talk pages. If you want to discuss the subject further, follow the link above. I have archived all current discussion in an attempt to get people to comply with the ArbCom's directives. If you don't like it, take it to the Administrators' Incident noticeboard. I'm declaring this an administrative action to comply with an ArbCom directive, which is not reversible, until consensus there determines I'm mistaken.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Concur. Sandstein 12:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You "have archived all current discussion in an attempt" to prevent discussion. That Sandstein you concur is not surprising, consulting you would be consulting a butcher about the keeping of Lent. SarekOfVulcan you have been activly involved in this discussion, were unable to support your opinions of defend your position, so you closed it down. You are both setting out to mislead our readers, and preventing them from informing themselves. The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed article namely Ireland. The arguement is based on nothing more than editors opinion, with not one reference to support their POV. The article text you removed illustrated this all to well. SarekOfVulcan I never violated any ArbCom's directives, you mate Sandstein said I did "what amounted to" a violation, and closed down the discussion where I set about defending myself. Why should I take it to Administrators' Incident noticeboard, and get more of the same. A joke! Only thing is, it's the readers who it's on. If you need me to provide Diff's you just have to ask. --Domer48'fenian' 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I archived the discussion to prevent discussion IN THE WRONG PLACE. Subtle difference, but important.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Ireland articles
- Top-importance Ireland articles
- B-Class Ireland articles of Top-importance
- All WikiProject Ireland pages
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class Irish republicanism articles
- Top-importance Irish republicanism articles
- WikiProject Irish republicanism articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused
- Selected anniversaries (December 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (December 2005)