An image you uploaded, Image:Traleecrest.gif, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 13:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mary Robinson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you reverted my rv to the standardised format. Just to let you know, the elections series is a standardised template covering all countries (soon to be, anyway - see what I've done so far here) in a certain format. Although other Irish template might be of a different style, this transcends borders as it were, so please don't change it back again! Thanks, Number 57 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the referenda/amendments, there are three problems with combining the two templates:

1. Not all amendments went to referenda (1 and 2)
2. Some referenda for amendments failed (an attempt to make the 3rd failed in 1957?)
3. There have been some non-amendment referenda, such as the adoption of the constitution in 1937.

As some of the red links link to years where there were more than one amendment, perhaps they could just be linked to the first amendment that that referendum concerned? Number 57 09:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my suggestion on Talk:Tánaiste. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion on the grounds that the present international contest began in 1959 is not justified. This was an old Tralee tradition from the 19th century. On evidence from her daughters, before marriage she was the town's "Rose". Accepting she did not "reign" as they do today, the reference is otherwise correct.Osioni 12:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:AlbertReynolds.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bob 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. This image was uploaded under a fair use rationale, but fails Wikipedia's first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Bob 22:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not continue to upload images of living people unless you can prove that they are freely released. The particular image of Albert Reynolds you re-uploaded today is not freely licensed and may not be used here. Thank you. —Angr 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove warnings that an image is missing its license unless you add the license. We need information like that to ensure that no images break someone's copyright. Thanks. Will (Talk - contribs) 10:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I see you reverted a change I made to King of Ireland regarding the nationality of the King of Ireland. I fail to see how pointing out that George VI was British is POV. It is no more different than pointing out that Ruaidri mac Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair (Rory O'Connor) was the last Irish King of Ireland or that Edward Bruce was the (first and) last Scottish King of Ireland. That fact is that George VI was not a native of Ireland. There is a heading in the article called King of Ireland#List of Lords, Kings and Queens of Ireland (Non-Native) (not added by me I add) alluding to this fact. I have added back in my change. Please do not remove it again without discussing it first, regards Snappy56 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC) All copied from User talk:Doops

Hi. Yes, as I said in my edit summary, I do see your point. But it does seem to me on the other hand that insofar as he referred to himself as "King of Ireland", George VI (or anybody else in the same situation) was ipso facto claiming to be Irish. (You're free to disagree with him, of course.)

But anyway, on a more practical note, the real problem with calling him "the last British King of Ireland" is that it seems to imply that there have been non-British Kings of Ireland since him. After all, consider what is implied by saying "the last left-handed King of Ireland was George VI." The introduction of unnecessary, even if undisputed, facts can be downright misleading sometimes; and they can likewise be POV if they were introduced to make a point rather than to present the facts. (This is not to argue that non-Irishness is irrelevant to the page in the way that left-handedness is; but relevance is not exactly the same thing as semantic necessity.)

Mind you, I'm not sufficiently invested in this article to make a big deal out of this all. If the editors who really care about the page are fine with your wording, I won't interfere -- I'm just dropping you this line here so you don't think I'm a total nutcase, so you can see (I hope) my point just as I see yours. Cheers, Doops | talk 05:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi the reason I switched them round to match Template:Election box begin and Template:Election box candidate with party link also because most templates have the party name beside the colour --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 22:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The reason I changed it back to using sups is because (a) I want to differentiate between references and notes (b) the notes about the parties changing need to be directly below the table or it would be too difficult to follow, and (c) because this is how it has been done on all the other Israeli election articles. Number 57 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sean T O Kelly.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. While I understand that you're trying to be helpful with regard to this article, I am Keith Ridgway and I am tired, really tired, of the fact that the Wikipeida article as it stood keeps on getting quoted back to me now almost every time I do an interview or receive questions about my work. The changes I've made are corrections of fact and deletions of information which has nothing to do with the subject of the article - me as a writer.

I am not a "novelist and short story writer", I am a writer. I was not educated at University College Dublin. Nor is my schooling of any relevance in an article about me as a writer. My first published work was not poetry. I have never been a poet. I do not live in "north" London, I live in London. "Horses" is not a "novella", nor was it my first "major published work". "The Long Falling" was not my "first full length novel". "Standard Time" is not a short story collection - it is a set of interlaced fictional prose pieces. I did not "switch publishers" in 2006. And finally, the last link, to a Harper Collins page on me, is out of date and does no more than perpetuate some of the inaccuracies listed above.

While there's nothing much I can do about an article such as this appearing on this website, I hope that you can accept that I can have a say in ensuring its accuracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kosher123 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for correcting the dates from Molyneaux & Trimble in the UUP Leaders template, don't know how I managed to do that.--padraig3uk 09:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snappy - I saw your edits on Tralee (re: removing references to hotels and shops) - I was wondering if you could give an opinion on Tallaght as there are also shops and hotels listed (in the 'Features' section). All I've been doing up to now is removing external links. Thanks. Jhonan ^talk 14:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your wrong there I believe they registered just prior to the election.--padraig3uk 13:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There did register but to late for the name to appear on the ballot papers, if you look at this report in the Irish Times.--padraig3uk 13:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they both should be added to the template as I see no reason for either registration to be rejected, although in the People Before Profit case they are really just a front for the SWP.--padraig3uk 13:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snappy56,

(alignment of 1801–1922)

Just to say the alignment was intended as previously, since (1) it's the only entry under 1801-1992; and (2) "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is a long name!  Hope you don't mind, therefore, if I revert your good-faith edit. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, what I was trying to do was get rid of the underlining of the blank spaces to the right of the word 'Great'...

Ahhh – thanks for this information, as I think I now realise what needs to be done to align the entry as previously but without this result. I'll try implementing it a little later. Meanwhile, thanks again for reminding me of this pitfall!  Yours, David (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

...Hopefully all now satisfactory. Yours, David (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work there on the Members of the 30th Dail

Hello Snappy

I recently removed some false and malicious edits to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciaran_Cuffe. I noticed that you seem to have edited the page after the vandalism, but you left included false, unsourced and negative information about the subject, and added a 'citation needed' tag, which seems to indicate that you did see it.

This appears to be directly in conflict with the Wikipedia policy as stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material

Can you tell me what your reason for this was? Thanks

Hi Snappy

First off, I appreciate your work on wikipedia, and I know how many people like yourself put a lot of effort into keeping up standards.

I think that the main criticisms come from people who feel they have been wrongly criticised, which is why I think the policies on information about living people is so important - they are very strict and very explicit for a reason. I don't think it's a good idea to make up your own policies, especially when they conflict. That's why I linked to the official policy.

That said, I can't claim to be an expert, especially technically. I don't know, for example, how to take the comments out of the history. Since they are clearly libellous, I think they should be removed - is this possible?

Tzq99 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snappy

you ask a few (rhetorical?) questions in your last message, but I think that they are all answered in the official Wikipedia policy. It's not clear from our answers whether you reject the official Wikipedia policy in favour of your own, or you're just not aware of it. That's why I linked to it in the first place.

I'll try to be as clear as possible:

Firstly, how would I know what is libellous to one individual and what is not?

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced

My interpretation of this is that we should not be concerned about whether it is libellous, we should be concerned about whether it could be libellous. If it could, then it should be immediately removed unless it is backed up by solid references.

If someone writes "CC is involved with builders/developers etc", I may think that this in untrue but how can I prove it?

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

There is absolutely no burden of proof on you to demonstrate that it is true. The burden of proof lies on the editor who inserted it, and clearly in this case there is none.

Can you clarify whether you accept the official Wikipedia policy? Tzq99 18:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving Cork City North and Cork City South to Cork City North West and Cork City South East. The latter two are the correct titles see [1]. I suspect that what led to the confusion is that the elections ireland site has the wrong name in the general election section [2] however note that they do have the correct names in the boundary section. [3] Valenciano 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding the links to other John Dillons at the top of this article; we only disambiguate from confusingly common article titles to more specific ones, not vice versa. No one is going to go to John Forrest Dillon if they're looking for another John Dillon. Postdlf 22:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your reply on my talk page; if you have a response to that, please post there so we can keep the thread in one place. Postdlf 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice you've changed the links to his page. Im pretty sure there is no fada on the i of Micheal. See http://www.entemp.ie/corporate/ministersoffice/ --Rye1967 08:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I will revert my changes. Also the article should be moved back to Micheál Martin. Snappy56 09:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, in your recently created articles about Irish politicians you used the ambiguous link [[Irish]]. I think it would be better to use [[Republic of Ireland|Irish]] in these cases, or occasionally [[Ireland|Irish]] or [[Irish people|Irish]] might be justified. All the best, Gil Gamesh 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep removing wikilinked dates from Michael McDowell and citing WP:DATE as your justification. Please stop it, or at the very least follow the guidelines in WP:CONSENSUS and discuss your reasons on Talk:Michael McDowell. Please note that WP:DATE does not support your position, so it is incorrect to use it as justification. Please note you are now also in breach of WP:3RR. DrFrench 08:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You have made 4 reverts in 24 hours, I have not. You have breached WP:3RR, I have not. You also said that wikilinking dates is a 'common mistake' please provide evidence of why this is a mistake - there is nothing in WP:DATE to support your view. As I said befroe, please follow WP:CONSENSUS. DrFrench 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on the changes to the 30th Dáil, in reference to Ceann Comhairle. I should have seen that myself, and not edited in haste yesterday. Thanks. --The.Q | Talk to me 08:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice you recently edited this article. You stated that the Dail had officially appointed the government (you used the word ministers). This is technically incorrect. The government are appointed by the president after election by the Dail on the nomination of the Taoiseach. It is therefore the president who officially appoints the government. I hope this is of help. Additionally the Ministers of State are appointed by the Government. The government meeting to effect this happened on 20th June. I hope this is of help. Rigger30 10:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You have descibed Jackie Healy-Rae as being a member of this (defunct) party. Although he publicises himself as Indpendent FF, and would be "genetically" aligned with the Blaney family, he has nothing to do with that party, takes no guidance from them, has no input to their decisions, or pays any membership there. IFF is a used description by Healy-Rae, not as membership information. So, I think it is inaccurate to link to that party. --Rye1967 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've changed the Kerry South constituency article. There's no mention of it on his own article. Snappy56 08:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I think Kerry South is where I saw it.--Rye1967 15:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, even though I thought it was Scéilig too, it appears that J. J. O'Kelly's pseudonym was actually Sceilg.[4] I've encountered this on other sites as well.--Damac 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, I presume he took his pseudonym from the Skellig islands, he was from nearby, in Irish the spelling is Scéilig. There are plenty refs to this on the net. The spelling Sceilg may be some anglicised form of the Irish word, in the same way Skellig is. Snappy56 11:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of where he took the nickname from, but please consider: The Royal Irish Academy library catalogue refers to him as Sceilg, referred to as Sceilg in a book title), also referred to as Sceilg, Sceilg again, the Department of the Taoiseach refers to him as Sceilg, the Princess Grace Irish Library (Monaco) refers to him as Sceilg, Mealy's auction house recently sold off documents written by Sceilg, Conradh na Gaeilge also refer to him as Sceilg. I'll make the necessary changes.--Damac 10:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough then, as along as the spelling is consistent, that's the main thing. Make sure you add one or two of those references to his article so there is no question in future. regards, Snappy56 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see you recently added the category LGBT people from Ireland to the Louis Walsh article. Please could you explain this in the article and add a reliable source for the information, otherwise the category will be removed. Thanks, --User:Belovedfreak 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No "reliable" source but read this: [5], Boy George should know! Anyway it's well known in the Gay community in Dublin that Louis is gay, an open secret one might say. Remove it if you like, it won't change the facts though! He is a gay man. Snappy56 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:CBI - Series B - One pound note - front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:CBI - Series B - One pound note - reverse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that really stupid mistake of mine, somehow that didn't parse correctly on the way from my eyes to my cerebrum. ;) (Or maybe it's just that I'd personally prefer SF over the PD? ;)) —Nightstallion 23:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No bother it happens to us all now and again! 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

Just wondering what the purpose of those edits are? Notice at the bottom that all the years (1999-2007) are linked.Ryoung122 23:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I replaced <references/> with the template {{reflist}} (which looks a bit nicer and is in widespread use). Snappy56 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry just read your message dont know how I missed it lol, I have updated the page with a map. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 21:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks! Snappy56 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I updated your entry in the Taoiseach's nominees section of this article to correct the fact that Donie Cassidy was not nominated by the Taoiseach. Brian Ó Domhnaill was appointed. Mr Cassidy had been elected as part of the Labour Panel see www.irisoifiguil.ie for 30th July. The full list of appointments is on www.rte.ie/news . Mr Cassidy was announced as the Taoiseach's nominee for Cathoirleach but he has yet to be elected to this position which will not happen until the 23rd Seanad has met for the first time, even though the election may be a foregone conclusion. I hope this is of help! Rigger30 15:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Seán Milroy, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.politics.ie/wiki/index.php?title=Se%C3%A1n_Milroy. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 14:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Is material on Politics.ie\Wiki copyrighted? I don't think so? Please prove it. Snappy56 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't look at the infobox, look at the list! Look at other lists pertaining to these dates. Look at the pages of the two Presidents after Chavez resigned! And incidentally, the article you put seems to say that Chavez says he DID step down. Stop changing it Therequiembellishere 18:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am adding a footnote for clarification, to say he was first elected in 1999, don't remove it! Snappy56 18:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

lol, I won't, ant that's a much better compromise.Therequiembellishere 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, and one edit war is enough at a time and I see you are busy with someone who thinks Antarctica is sovereign state! Snappy56 19:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I just wonder why Patrick Maume states quite clearly on p227 of The long gestation, Who's Who John Lymbrick Esmonde - quote: Attorney-General in the Government of John A. Costello 1948-50: = an "acknowledged authority" or a statistic got it wrong ?? Osioni 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If he was AG then surely he would be mentioned in the http://www.attorneygeneral.ie website. According to the AG website, the AGs from 1948-51 were Cearbhall O'Dalaigh, Cecil Lavery and Cearbhall O'Dalaigh again. The oireachtas DB says he was a Barrister-at-Law but no mention of him being AG. Perhaps Patrick Maume isn't infallible? This link for IrishStatuteBook [6] has his name in it as part of Circuit Court Rules Committee. Seems to have been involved in law allright. An internet search for his name and attorney general returns no results (excluding wikipedia). Snappy56 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice that in the article on the cathaoirleach of the seanad you have placed Mr. Moylan as cathaoirleach of the seanad. At the time of writing he has not been elected as the 23rd Seanad Eireann is not to meet until today and has not met yet. see here for info http://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/pdfs/Ir040907.PDF

Perhaps I'm being pedantic but it is theoretically possible that someone else will be elected. If for example the presidential commission had to be activated Rory Kiely would still be a member because he is currently the cathoirleach! I hope this is of assistance. I do acknowledge that todays irish independent newspaper names him as the cathoirleach but this is only the fact that fianna fail chose him as their candidate.Rigger30 13:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a little quick off the mark, but you're being very pedantic! Anyway he is the Cathoirleach, so all sorted! He was the Fianna Fáil nominee, FF have a majority and most importantly he is Brian Cowen's personal choice (fellow Offaly man), so there was no way anyone else could have been elected!, regards Snappy56 19:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I've added back in, the change you tried to make to Members of the 23rd Seanad, you added a reference, the correct syntax is <ref>some text</ref>, you had the closing one as <ref/>. Snappy56 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being pedantic alright and I do realise that the possibility of anyone else being elected at that time was remote but my position is that each of these pages should reflect reality until the facts change. It's a pity to see technical errors as people might use these pages to find out the mechanics of how such people are appointed. (I know I would have when I studied politics!). Thanks for the tip with the reference and thanks for adding it. Iris Oifigiuil is a handy reference for official government announcements, they all have to be listed sooner or later, it might be of help to you as I note you edit a lot of these articles. Rigger30 17:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eur.be.050.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eue.be.100.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No case of WP:OWN. Just a highly developed aesthetic sense and a keen eye for article layout and composition. Whereas YOU are obviously an ace categoriser! (Sarah777 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

And did I detect a bit of pointless reverting on R445? (Sarah777 01:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

Nothing like a bit of pointless reverting! Yeah, I likes me categories! You do a lot of good work on the Irish roads articles, well done on that. Do you travel around Ireland taking all those pictures yourself? Snappy56 10:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eur.de.100.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 10:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eur.comm.orig.010.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 10:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eurocoin.es.100.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 19:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eurocoin.es.001.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 19:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eurocoin.va.series1.100.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eurocoin.va.series3.020.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eurocoin.va.series1.020.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eurocoin.va.series3.010.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Eurocoin.va.series3.005.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

1 cent euro coins The latest change of the pictures, the Irish coin is there for both the Greek and Irish examples; the Monegasque and Belgian coins depicted are the 5 cent ones. --Doyleb23 01:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I have corrected the article. Snappy56 11:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading the new images... should there be

{{Money-EU coin national}} {{Non-free currency}}

for every coin image to comply with the deletion robot nazi? --Theeuro 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Liamcosgrave2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:100EUROF.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:100EUROR.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:500EUROF.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:500EUROR.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:50EUROFR.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:50EURORE.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:10EUROFR.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:10EURORE.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:5EUROFR.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:5EURORE.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eur.comm.orig.001.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eur.comm.orig.002.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eur.comm.orig.010.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eur.comm.orig.001.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eur.comm.orig.002.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Duabuachalla.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eur.comm.orig.001.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eur.comm.orig.002.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eur.comm.orig.001.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eur.comm.orig.002.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've stared a discussion on the provision of Irish names in biography articles on the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Gaeilge project page. As you've been busy adding Irish names to articles, I would appreciate your views on the matter. The main problem is that, contrary to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), there is very little evidence that these names have been used by the people they are attributed to. For example, Prionsias Ó Fiacháin (Frank Feighan) brings up nothing in a Google search.[7] I'd like to hear your views on the matter.--Damac 13:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eur.comm.orig.001.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eur.comm.orig.002.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eur.comm.orig.005.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eurocoin.ie.100.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Happy New Year! The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Eurocoin.ie.100.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Happy New Year! The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Quotes section of Bertie Ahern has been there for a very long time. Quotes by an individual are integral to any article on any notable personality, in the public eye. Your removal of the Quotes section from Ahern's article is disingenuous editing and I have reverted accordiongly. 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Government of the 22nd Dáil, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you for obeying Wikipedia's rules. --Henry the 1st (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Government of the 22nd Dáil, you will be blocked from editing. This is your LAST CHANCE to proceed, obeying Wikipedia's rules. --Henry the 1st (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• How is it vandalism to align the tables on a page? Please explain? Snappy56 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Snappy

Please can you stop reinstating unecessary table-markup in Government of the 10th Dáil and other related articles? I'll post a longer explanation in a moment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• 'unnecessary' (watch spelling now) well thats your opinion! Snappy56 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Snappy, please stop while we discuss this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The tables should be aligned otherwise, the page is a horrible jumble of several different tables each with different column widths. Having the columns aligned looks alot better. That is my aesthetic opinion. Please respond. Snappy56 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am writing a reply. Please can you stop reverting while I finish it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just spent some time last night going through those articles systematically removing excess markup, and I am very disappointed that you have simply reinstated much of it without discussion.

I was tidying up three issues, which I'll list separately below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Changing to the Irish and UK format of DD month YYYY, instead of the American variants month dd, yyyy or month DD, YYYY (see WP:MOSDATE)
2. Placing a space around the endash (<nowiki–</nowiki>) in date ranges (again per WP:MOSDATE, where the space is omitted only in bare years (e.g. 1955–1956, buut 3 March 1955 – 5 June 1956).

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• No problem with this Snappy56 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Many of the tables had table markup which used CSS to set specific background and/or border colours. This is at best unnecessary, and in some circumstances will be disruptive to the reader.

There is a standard Wikipedia CSS class for tables, called "wikitable". That sets colours and borders in a way which is consistent across articles, and in general it should be used with minimum adornment, to ensure consistency and readability.

Some of the tables have had a border added below the heading. I can see no specific case for applying that to these articles; there may be a general case for changing the CSS in particular implementations of the class "wikitable", but nothing that I can see which applies specifically to these articles and not to others. In other words, if you want to change the way in which tables displayed on wikipedia, then the appropriate course of action is to go to the appropriate place to argue for them all being changed, rather than just adding style markup to the tables in these articles.

I also mentioned how adding the colourings and borders can be dispruptive to the reader. Like most users, I use the default monobook theme, and you markup works rather elegantly in that theme, but there is guarantee that it will work in any other theme. Introducing unnecessary markup into an article simply reduces its portability, by creating the possibility of display glitches in other themes, whether on Wikipedia on the many WP mirror sites.

• No problem with this either Snappy56 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The immediate reason I removed the fixed width was that it was causing some of the cells to wrap on displays where there was plenty of room to display the cells unwrapped. Apart from looking ugly, this makes the table harder to read, because it gets unnecessarily spread out over too many lines, and in some cases it means that the whole table ceases to be visible on screen.

The problem is that while I'm sure the constrained widths looked fine on your screen, readers use many different permutations of screen size and font size.

There are two underlying issues here: whether to align, and if so how.

Taking the "how" question first, it is nearly always a bad idea to align text-based tables in measures of pixels. The relationship of pixels to character size is highly variable, and produces very different effects on difft browsers. For example, one of my computers has a 17-inch CRT monitor at 1280*1024 pixels; it's a rather worn display, so for legibility the font size is set quite high, about 50% higher than on another setup, an old 14-inch monitor at 640*480 pixels, where the font size is set very low so that stuff actually fits on-screen. There are many other permutations out there, so many that few assumptions can be made about the relationship of pixels to characters. Any attempt to constrain text layout that way may work if the font size and face are strapped down, but that assumes that the reader is using a particular font (which may not be available on their system) and that they have not overridden the size (there are many reasons why they may do so)

There are two methods of specifying widths which are more portable: by setting a percentage of the screen, or by using ems, and both of those have limitations.

If a table or column width is set using ems, then if it set generously someone using a big font on a small screen will find that the table is too wide for their screen, requiring horizontal scrolling, which is a real nuisance. If the width is set narrowly then some other users will find the text being wrapped even though the screen is big enough for it all to fit.

The only way that I can see of avoiding either the table being too wide (causing horizontal scrolling) or too narrow (causing unnecessary wrapping of lines) is to set width="100%". That way nobody will be subjected to horizontal scrolling, and nobody will have lines wrapped unnecessarily. However, that will mean that in many cases the table will be full of whitespace, making it harder to read than if it is auto-sized.

Tables which auto-size to different widths may not be the prettiest solution, but they are better than the alternatives.

I also see that another editor had given you a vandalism warning for this before my comments. So please now stop reinstating this markup which makes pages harder to read. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you here. Harder to read is just *your* opinion. Government of the 10th Dáil has 7 tables, each with different table widths, it looks completely awful, amateurish, like a bad website from 1998, is this what you want Wikipedia to look like? That's *my* opinion. It's impossible to cater for every readers screen size and pixel settings, so it's best to go for an approach that suits the majority of people who will be viewing the screen with large screens and high resolution. I think the way to go is to set the column width to a percentage rather than a fixed number. It won't look as nice as a fixed width display (and there is nothing wrong with a column going over 2 lines, imho) but it will a hell of a lot nicer than what is there at present. There may be alot of extra whitespace but better that then the way the articles look at present. I will experiment with percentage widths (in my sandbox) before changing the articles.

And for your information, I was *NOT* warned for vandalism, the user Henry the 1st was actually a vandal himself who is now indefinitely blocked from editing. You'd know this if you bothered to check, rather than rush to judgment and say to yourself, "oh look, someone else supports my point of view, I must be right!"; all you had was the support of a vandal! ;-) Snappy56 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Snappy, you are partly right that it is "impossible to cater for every readers screen size and pixel settings" ... but only if you try to force the display to behave like it would in paper publishing, and the web is not paper.

By simply letting the tables auto-size, the table layout does adjust itself for all permutations of font and screen size, whether readers are using a tiny display on a handheld device or the latest huge widescreen monitor.

The choice is between the aesthetic issue of tables of varying widths and the usability and aesthetic disaster of un-necessarily-wrapped text, and usability wins every time. To give you an example of what can happens when widths are fixed unnecessarily, look at this table, to which I have added line-breaks to replicate what happened on two of my test setups.

The effect of fixed-width columns
Office	Name		Term	Party
An Taoiseach		John A. Costello	1954–1957	Fine Gael
An Tánaiste		William Norton	1954–1957	Labour Party
Minister for Agriculture		James Dillon	1954–1957	Fine Gael
Minister for Defence		Seán Mac Eoin	1954–1957	Fine Gael
Minister for Education		Richard Mulcahy	1954–1957	Fine Gael
Minister for External Affairs		Liam Cosgrave	1954–1957	Fine Gael
Minister for Finance		Gerard Sweetman	1954–1957	Fine Gael
Minister for the Gaeltacht		Richard Mulcahy	1956	Fine Gael
Minister for Health		Tom O'Higgins	1954–1957	Fine Gael
Minister for Industry & Commerce		William Norton	1954–1957	Labour Party
Minister for Justice		James Everett	1954–1957	Labour Party
Minister for Lands		Joseph Blowick	1954–1957	Clann na Talmhan
Minister for Local Government		Patrick O'Donnell	1954–1957	Fine Gael
Minister for Posts & Telegraphs		Michael Keyes	1954–1957	Labour Party
Minister for Social Welfare		Brendan Corish	1954–1957	Labour Party

That's both ugly and hard to read: most of the screenwidth is unused, because the table widths have been fixed, and apart from the aesthetic mess, the result is that reader has to scroll down to read information which logically should be on one line, and would fit on one line, but has been split over two or more lines.

This all arises from the fundamental mistake of assuming that a web designer can predict or assume what sort of device the page is being read on. That's absolutely true in DTP, but it's entirely false on the web. It's the approach which used to lead some websites to have warnings on the front page telling the reader that they needed a particular browser set to a particular resolution on a particular screen size. This sort of thing was quite common the 1999-2000 dot-com boom, but has been so heavily attacked by usability experts that mercifully it's now much rarer. (That sort of approach is particularly invidious for people with visual impairments, who often have browsers set to radically different settings than other users, usually involving huge fonts).

Plenty of paper publications have tables of varying widths, depending on the data being tabulated, so this isn't even something unique to the the web — although it is more common on the web, because (unlike DTP) HTML text is a fluid medium which is intended to adjust its display to a huge variety of reader agents.

If you really want a consistent width, then the only way that I can see of doing it without making assumptions about what device the reader is using is to simply set the table width to 100%

By using percentage widths for each column, it may be possible through experimentation to set a column width which doesn't cause wrapping in the setups which you test. That's the nub of it: whatever conclusions you reach applies only to the setups which you test on the devices you have available.

Percentage widths is almost certainly the least-damaging way of achieving consistency, but it still runs the risk of causing readability problems on the many many different devices which you cannot test, all of which will be much greater impediments to usability that the minor aesthetic point of inconsistent table widths.

So the end result will be to add complexity of markup to achieve a personal aesthetic preference (akin to the choice between right-justified or ragged-right text), but at the price of risking usability problems, particularly for those who are not using well-sighted and using the latest large-screen display technology in a particular fashion.

Much better to just keep it simple, rather than cause problems for readers. Ragged right paragraphs is the default setting for text display, so it's it's not as if the standard page layout has a consistent right margin anyway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for your detailed response. I agree; keeping it simple is best. After some thought and looking at other articles, I have decided not to use percentage widths or ems (or fixed widths again!). The article List of United Kingdom by-elections neatly solves all the issues, I think. I have updated Government of the 10th Dáil based on this formatting and it looks good, imho. I hope this is an acceptable compromise as:

• A) It is based on existing articles in Wikipedia. (Formatting in use for about 2 years)
• B) It contains no markup or fixed widths whatsoever
• C) All the tables are aligned neatly
• D) You yourself, BrownHairedGirl, have edited this article on numerous occasions and have not changed the table formatting.

Let me know what you think Snappy56 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a note to say that I think that what you have done with Government of the 10th Dáil in these edits is an acceptable compromise.

Personally, I don't think it's as clear as the previous version (with separate tables), because the headings are less clearly distinguished from the text. But so far as I'm concerned, the main thing is that it's not going to cause unnecessary wrapping of text, so if you reckon that it goes some way to what you want, then I can live with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had started drafting my response before I saw your comments, but yes, it looks like we got something we can compromise on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 02:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer the article to have separate fixed tables but as some pop group once sang, "You can't always get what you want but if you try sometimes after a reasoned debate on Wikipedia you might reach an agreeable comprise that you can live with" or words to that effect! Snappy56 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

True. But I do think it's a pity that the pursuit of a particular aesthetic preference is going to create a reduction in legibility. It'll still be more readable better than the wrapping columns, but less readable than separate tables, and I'm always sorry to see design triumphing over legibility :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a reduction in legibility. Snappy56 (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The reduction in legibility comes from the headings being just another table row, with the same background colour and border as the other table rows. In the previous version, they are outside the tables, surrounded by whitespace, and gain prominence by the visual separation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That depends really, I think that this version is less readable because all the tables are un-aligned and the columns are different widths. The issue of headings being another table row is minor one becuase the headings are bolded and are spanned across one table row, and as I mentioned before this is how it is done in other articles like List of UK by-elections. Snappy56 (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

They are logically separate tables, but are no longer displayed as such. Yes, some other articles make the same mistake, but that doesn't make it a good idea to prioritise the aesthetic goal of alignment over the logical a separation of the difft tables :( ----BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Logically separate", that's your opinion; "other articles make the same mistake", again your opinion. Speaking of logically separate tables, why are you lumping everything in to one big table in the Members of the 23rd Seanad and planning to do the same with one big ugly table at List of Irish by-elections. It is surely logical that each Panel/Constituency should have a separate table in the Seanad articles, and likewise that all by-elections in each Dáil should be a separate table rather than one huge table with every by-election since 1923? Seems to me like you want it both ways, complaining that one article should have logically separate tables and then putting one big table in other articles. Snappy56 (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Logically separate" is not just my opinion, it's evidently the opinion of the article's creator, who created separate lists — and it also seems to be yours, since you joined the tables only to achieve alignment.

As to the Dail by-election list, see my comments below, where I am asking your views (I started drafting it before I read your reply here).

On the Seanad lists, some of my comments below may be relevant, but the reason for combining the lists is that having them as one big sortable table allows for many different ways of viewing the data: in other words, it adds functionality and helps the reader to more readily answer questions than can be done through through the separate static tables. That does not apply to the government lists, where no new arrangemnent of data is created by combining the tables. All that is achieved is a bit of right-justification.

I can see no case for separating out the Seanad list into different tables for the difft panels which would not also apply to the Lists of TDs, which (so far as I can see have always been combined lists, see e.g. the 1st version of Members of the 14th Dáil). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Snappy

As you will probably have seen, I have been converting the lists of Senators to one long sorted list rather than several separate lists (see for example 22nd Seanad: current version and previous version. This may make the list slightly less useful if looking for members of a particular panel (because the display is less cluttered on the separate lists), but I think that overall the sorted list is a major gain because it makes it easier to identify senators by party or by name -- e.g. the question "who were the PD senators in the 22nd Seanad" is easily answered by going to the [of senators] then clicking twice on the sort-by-party button. Answering the same question on the previous version can be done only by scanning 4 or 5 screenfuls.

I plan to use the same format on the 20th Seanad (nearly complete in my userspace) and the previous Seanads and also to roll out the same format across the lists of TDs — though there are a few things I'll want to talk to you about first about how to apply it wrt to the Dail lists.

However, the immediate question I want to ask for your thoughts on is the List of Irish by-elections. It occurred to me that the same approach of one big sortable table might be helpful there, for example by allowing the reader to find by-elections won by a particular party, or to alphabetise a list of by-election winners. So I created a sortable list in my userspace at User:BrownHairedGirl/List of Irish by-elections, which does have some of the advantages listed, but also seems to me have a few disadvantages.

You and I seem to have a difft approach to these issues, so I thought it would be useful to ask you to if would be willing to discuss this with me to try to assess which format works better overall.

My main concern at the moment arises from having created a redirect for ever by-election to the Dail (e.g. Waterford by-election, 1966 redirects to List of Irish by-elections#18th_Dail (I had placed anchors in the article for every Xth Dail shortcut). This works fine for now: it brings the reader to a table with a visible heading, setting out all the context to allow the reader to make sense of the table. However, although the sortable list includes anchors User:BrownHairedGirl/List of Irish by-elections#18th_Dail, it seems to me to be less informative because there is no visible heading to identify the columns. That's fine for most of the columns, but it isn't clear from the table fragment who is the winner and who is outgoing TD, which seems kinda critical :(

(sidenote: [start rant]Theoretically, this should not be a problem. Browsers should by now have adopted the W3C's suggestion in the 10-year-old HTML4 specs that user-agents use the <thead> and <tfoot> elements to "support scrolling of table bodies independently of the table head and foot" … but as usual, we have to work within the limitations of the pathetic browsers in use rather than the decent ones we should have. [end rant])

I have considered a few presentational tweaks such as re-ordering the columns, but the best I can come up with is User:BrownHairedGirl/List of Irish by-elections_v3#List_of_by-elections, with the winners names in bold. Better, but still not entirely clear.

So my thinking for now is that the best idea would be to use the sortable table to create a separate list of by-election-winners, like User:BrownHairedGirl/List of Irish by-election winners (which needs intro text etc, but that can be done later if it's used).

I rather like the separate list of winners: one of the first things I did was to look for anyone who had won two by-elections, and found only one: Thomas Hennessy, winner of both the Dublin South by-election, 1925 and the Dublin South by-election, 1927. But what do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see the advantage of sortable tables, and for that to work you need one big table. I think the User:BrownHairedGirl/List of Irish by-election winners table is the best, perhaps you could bold the Winner column as well to make it clearer and more visible, after all by-elections are about producing one winner!

Btw are you planning to create articles for all the Seanads from 1922 to 1997? That's a lot of work! Snappy56 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have moved the winners list into mainspace at List of Irish by-election winners. Like the list of List of Irish by-elections, it needs more entries in the reasons column, but it's a useful start for now.

I don't know whether I'll succeed in doing lists for all the Seanads, but I'll certainly do a few more of them. Most of the job is quite simple; the basic data (names, panels and parties) is available on the Seanad section of the Oireachtas Members database. The difficulty arises when vacancies have been filled, because the database isn't always clear about that ... so trying to figure how and when each one arose and when it was filled can be a bit of a sweat, but I generally manage to do it without reading through every official report from the Seanad in that period. I do wish I had a shelf full of Nealon's guides, but at £100 or more for each of them secondhand, I don't think that's very likely to happen soon :( BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Members of the 20th Seanad now moved from userspace to mainspace. It's fairly well-referenced, but it needs some explanation of how there was a change of govt mid-way ... and like all the Seanad articles it needs a section on the officers (Cathaoirleach, Leas-Cathaoirleach, Leader of the Seanad), which in the 20th Seanad gets to be a rather long list. I think that my next effort will be to finish my list of women in the Seanad, which has been languishing in draft form for too long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I made some progress on the Seanad list by writing a perl script to help sort and format the data in the lists of Senators in the Oireachtas Member Database, which meansd that I can produce the initail lists (sorted and properly formatted, but not disambiguated) in about 10 minutes for each Seanad (it was taking hours manually). Sadly, the Oireachtas database is quite patchy in recording party affiliation before the 1990s. So I have ordered a copy of Walker's "Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland 1918-92", which should fill in the gaps. With that reference, I think I'll be able to do the lists relatively easily. Fingers crossed :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent! Using a Perl script, definitely beats doing it by hand. I have a question for you about categories, I'll put in on your talk page. Snappy56 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My copy of Walker's "Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland 1918-92" arrived today. It is very thorough in its coverage of elections to the Daíl, the European Parliament and the Parliament of Northern Ireland (as well the various sort-lived assemblies in NI after 1972), and the first few refs I checked threw up an inaccuracy in the Oireachtas database.

All good so far … except that there is no sign at all of any data on the Seanad. So far, I can't even the words or "Seanad" or "Senate" anywhere in the book. :( I don't regret buying it, because it's a very useful reference for the Daíl and the European Parliament, but its useless for the Seanad.

That makes me wonder what sources might be available. The Oireachtas Members Database is bad enough on the Daíl, but it's very poor on the Seanad: see for example the list for the 13th Seanad, where there are so many Senators without a listed party affiliation that the best I can produce is this list — more disambiguation can be done, but having no party info for 25% of senators is ridiculous, and I'm not sure how much I trust what's there (see for example Patrick Baxter#_note-2).

The best I can think of so far is the Irish times digital archive, so I'm going to try that. But if it doesn't do better than the Oireachtas database, I may have to conclude that the lists are impossible without massive original research ( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not redirect this page (and equivalent pages of other counties) to the county's own page; this redirect had already been specifically deleted by myself before you reinstated it. There is no reason why, in the absence of a page about the council specifically, it should go to the county page; it would be similar to creating a redirect at a football player's page to the team he plays for, which would be equally pointless. You may instead wish to expand the page; I think the only Co Co page we currently have is Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Thanks. --Schcambo (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously Fingal County Council should be redirected to County of Fingal because it has a section on the County council in it. Snappy56 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Snappy. In the absence of a specific article in the council, it is quite proper to redirect to the article on the county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

About Future Designs of the Euro coins. I have to disagree with your comment, Wikipedia is full of these dates all over the place, and although true that they have not been confirmed, it is worth for people to know these are tentative dates (and Slovakia for 2009 is more likely to happen). So I have put the dates back and added a small comment at the bottom of the table.

For your reference, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro#Post-2004_EU_members

If you are OK with it I will change all other pages as well. Thanks!

Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is full of dates, many of which aren't sourced or cited properly. Have you read WP:CRYSTAL? Anyway, Estonia has changed its proposed date 3 times from 2007 to 2008 and now 2011; the Czech Republic has changed its date twice and will probably change it again.

It's probably best to leave the dates in as it is useful information. I have updated 1 euro coins with some grammar, spelling and re-wording changes. You should use this format for all the other euro coin articles. Snappy56 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Euro coins has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Care to comment here, or shall I be bold and revert? jnestorius^(talk) 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

undo moronic edits is not an appropriate edit comment as it constitutes a breach of the Wiki policy WP:NPA and possibly WP:AGF and certainly WP:Civility. In fact you are possibly in possible breach of so many Wiki-policies you leave me breathless. Please amend your ways. Sarah777 (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! That edit summary was a joke or jest, a merry jape! Humour sometimes is lost in print. But anyway, you've been blocked numerous times for gross civility, harassment and derogatory comments, so go away you hypocritical stalker and stop quoting policies at me and try following them yourself! Snappy56 (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that's not very friendly. But I was doing a bit of merry japing myself so I'll forgive you:) Sarah777 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we're are all a pack of jokers, let's end it before anyone gets hurt! Snappy56 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, deleting the gallery was a mistake. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

yes I can!!!!! Markreidyhp 07:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bertie Ahern. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Snappy, this edit is your 4th revert. It's a few hours outside the 24-hour period, but if brought to WP:ANI/3RR, that sort of thing is regarded as gaming the system ... particularly since you have also been adding order numbers to other Taoisigh, while the issue is under discussion at Talk:Bertie Ahern. Please stop, and discuss the issue to seek consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, my reply is on Spannerheads talk page. Snappy56 (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Snappy, I'm shocked!! How dare you insult spanners by that comparison? All the spanners of my acquaintance are straightforward and honest, and no spanner that I have ever heard of has ever sent an underpaid former secretary off to be economical with the truth under oath.

</fake-outrage> ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC) with tongue in cheek

I apologise profusely for any slur or offence that I may have unintentionally made about Spanners. I now realise that all Spanners are totally and scrupulously honest, and that having large sums of cash in various currencies, on or about their person or premises at various times in the past was totally credible and plausible and not at all unusual behaviour in any way. Again, my humblest apologies. Snappy56 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sire that the the spanners will happily accept your apology, and make you an honorary nut ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to introduce myself. I am an administrator, Thegeneral, of the politics.ie/wiki website. You appear to be familiar with the webiste, and may be a user on the politics.ie site like myself, as a number of articles that I have written have been cut and pasted onto this website by yourself and passed off as your own contributions without any accreditation to either me or the politics.ie/wiki. I have been shocked by your audacity in doing this given that I am engaged in research professionally and therefore am aware of research and professional etiquette. In addition I have also published articles in international journal and contributed at conference for my PhD so it baffles me that you have appeared not to even consider examining the copyright guidelines of the politics.ie/wiki, which I should inform you, you are in breach of.

I look forward to getting a response from you before I decide to take this further on behalf of the wiki. Generalissimo1 (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What's this then, have a go at Snappy day? Listen Corporal, don't come to my talk page and try to bully me! Audacious, thanks, haven't been called that in a while. Professional, PhD, blah blah blah! Anyway, what's this website you are blathering on about? I tried to access www.politics.ie/wiki but there is no website at this address. No website, nothing to discuss! Snappy56 (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:10EUROFR.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Hi Snappy

As you have probably seen already, I have added a few comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Irish_Political_History_Series_Navigation_Templates, and I hope that something can be worked out to accommodate everyone's concerns. I think it's unhelpful that ONIH has been so strident in his responses, but I wanted to point out to you that I think I can see a bit of how things escalated, and how that could have been avoided.

Basically, it boils down to WP:BRD: bold, revert, discuss. It's a very important essay, which IMRHO should long ago have been uprated to a guideline, because it is invaluable in helping to avoid a disagreement escalating into a dispute. Basically, it suggests that if you have been WP:BOLD but your edit is reverted, don't revert again, and instead discuss the issue with the other editor(s). I think that if you had applied that principle in this case, it would have helped to keep things calm.

Please may I ask you to seriously consider this for the future? It's an approach which really helps to avoid wikidramas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will use this approach in future. The user One Night in Hackney has been more than strident, he's been ignorant, rude, insulting, patronising and arrogant, but it doesn't bother me. Furthermore, he only objects to the IrishR template and has ignored the Loyalism, Unionism, Nationalism and Monarchism ones. He also has repeatedly avoided answering the question as to why the Template:Politics of the Republic of Ireland is not contentious when it too was changed without discussion and is also collapsible in style. Snappy56 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I helped you not vandalized you!!!Ehccheehcche (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You undid an edit to this page by Snappy56.

How does it help Snappy for you to undo Snappy's edit to his/her own talk page? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)