User talk:Fennessy

Fullstop/Mithraic Mysteries

I think that was just a template, not a specifically patronizing message (the template itself is ridiculous and patronizing but that's another story). I don't know anything about this, so Wikipedia:Mediation is probably the best route. Adam Bishop 19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flag

Hi, you don't have to do anything; the Commons image shows up automatically at Wikipedia. In this case, however, you (presumably unintentionally) put an extra space (also rendered as an underscore) at the end of the file name before the extension: the image's name is Image:Ulster banner .png (or with underscores, Image:Ulster_banner_.png). You can upload it again under the name Commons:Image:Ulster banner.png if you like, but in general it's preferred to have flags as .svg files rather than .png files, as the current Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg is. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to your question on the mediation talk page

Hi Fennessy. Since we should refrain from further discussion on that mediation talk page, I'll try to address your question here. I believe my position is fully aligned with Wikipedia policies, and my proposal reflects that. To summarize in brief:

• The Union Flag is the only official flag of Northern Ireland. (easily meets WP:RS and WP:V)
• The Ulster Banner was the flag of the government of Northern Ireland from 1953–1972. (easily meets WP:RS and WP:V)
• Despite these points, several major sports organizations and media organizations currently use the Ulster Banner to represent Northern Ireland teams and/or athletes. (easily meets WP:RS and WP:V)
• Therefore, we have two seemingly contradictory positions that need to be reconciled on Wikipedia. My approach is as follows:
  • For articles that show thumbnail size images accompanied by explanatory text (captions or prose), illustration of the Ulster Banner is permitted as long as it represents both of these views. (meets WP:NPOV)
  • For articles that show icon size images, where no caption is possible and therefore a context is implied, the Ulster Banner icon can only be used in uncontroversial situations (e.g. for the selected set of sports where N.I. competes distinctly) (meets WP:NPOV)
  • For decorative images in navigational boxes, use a non-contentious image (such as the map icon) for almost all situations, except for uncontroversial situations as described previously (e.g. a navbox dealing with the 1953–1972 government) (meets WP:NPOV)

Honestly, I don't see anything at all here that is a violation of policy. The one area I was struggling with is how to measure "undue weight", and I admitted that. WP:UNDUE is clear about the amount of weight to be accorded multiple views, but it (unfortunately) does not have any guidance on how to actually measure the importance of competing views. I had attempted several times to start a discussion along those lines, as I thought it was the right track to follow, but those attempts were immediately met with non-sequiter replies, torpedoing any constructive engagement. That's my frustration. I'm not afraid to come to the conclusion that the sport/media unofficial usage deserves less due weight than my current opinion, but I want to go through some process to actually support a conclusion. Other involved parties seem hell-bent on avoiding any work that might lead to an unfavorable result for them, even if it might also lead to a conclusive positive result for them. That is so brazenly contrary to the spirit of mediation, that I am left feeling rather disspirited about all my work. Andrwsc 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well all thats fine(as I'm sure you must realise by now, I consider giving the Ulster banner any weight in an info-box, etc. to be undue), the thing that concerned me more than anything was your accusation that User:Padraig was misinterpreting WP:LOP, which was unfounded. He may well have made reference to them in non-sequiter responses, but thats another matter. This was compounded by the fact that you didn't make any attempt to actually work out if the use of the UB was against content polices, and diverted editors to general guidelines(WP:GUIDELINES) as a counterargument.
Finally I was very disappointed when I saw that you suggested that this editor report my editing as an incident on the admin noticeboard & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors even though I had nothing to do with the troubles case, & my edits were entirely in good faith. Petty & pathetic is the only way I can sum that up. Fennessy 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion to report the incident to ANI was primarily due to the appearance of an apparent sockpuppet (Commons:User:FalseXflag), the invocation of CommonsDelinker to expedite the process before anybody knew about it, and most of all, the lack of any discussion about the name change, as I had originally suggested in this edit. I did not specifically suggest that your editing should be reported, but I can see how that could be implied, since my message was rather brief and didn't mention any of these reasons. Sorry for any consternation on your part. Andrwsc 17:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Although Andrwsc had advised that I report you to the Admins noticeboard, IE doing his job as an impartial Administrator, I declined to do so. However following your offensive comment on my Talk page, IE: the link placed in your post, which was uncalled for and in breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have now referred your comment and your previous action to the Administrators' noticeboard.

Note that I entered this issue as a totally impartial editor and I feel made a fair comment on the mediation page. Thinking more about the issue; there is no actual need to rename the image, or replace it with an identical one with a different name. Wiki Commons is simply a repository of images. Over time flags all over the world come and go. Either they are redesigned entirely or just amended. If all the various flags that have been changed since they were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons were to re-uploaded with new names, followed by the subsequent changing of links and the various mediations then Wiki Commons would grind to a halt under the mediation requests alone. The multitude of changes to those flags in various African countries comes to mind here. As the images are held on Wikimedia Commons, which has a different set of rules and requirements to this Wikipedia, no images will be deleted until their editors and Admins have made their own decision and every single link to the image in each countries version of Wikipedia around the world has been changed. That job by the way is not done by the Wikimedia Commons Admins; but is the job of the person requesting the change. So with over 9.1 million articles, in 251 non English languages; such as:- Български, Чăвашла, ગુજરાતી, 古文 / 文言文, 한국어, Հայերեն, हिन्दी, ইমার ঠার/বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী, and ಕನ್ನಡ, to name but a few, I doubt it will happen. to soon. As I have edited on the Indian, Thai, Indonesian, Vietnamese and Chinese wiki's I do not envisage you will manage it. Their page layouts and login requirements are different to the English method and it only takes one link on one Wiki to retain an image on Commons. But then thats not my problem. Richard Harvey 01:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To claim that Andrwsc is an "impartial Administrator" in regards to this particular issue is laughable. The only thing that was uncalled for were various false accusations of breachs of WP:LOP, left both on my user talk page & on the mediation page. Slander itself is a personal attack, & adding to a mediation page after the case has been closed by the moderator is an actual case of vandalism. Going out of your way to misrepresent people won't get you very far either(no I didn't check the history on the page, that edit was part of a long list of edits).

Clearly by the long, rambling & uninformed post you left on the adim notice board nothing will come of this. Fennessy 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Eco-terrorism

The only reason I removed it was because, by the end of the game, Avalanche isn't particularly eco-terrorist anymore. Thus, it could be described in more detail at Gaia (Final Fantasy VII) or Characters of Final Fantasy VII where such detail is appropriate. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Religious texts

Of course you can change the importance of an article, especially if the editor has rated an article's importance incorrectly--Java7837 (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong articles

It would be better if you do not revert the article at the moment. It would only leave to more reverts and I am trying to reason with the contributors in concern at this moment. Thanks! Herunar (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not intend to do that, and I strongly suggest you not to do so as well. Yes, by most standards, his behavior deserved a ban a long time ago. But I haven't lost all hopes. I'm going to reason with him until it simply is unacceptable; then I'll proceed for greater admin intervention. 3RR bans don't solve problems, they only create more tension that is unnecessary. Herunar (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Too late to not report him. The guy needs some time to cool off anyway, hes way out of line. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment at the admin you reported to. The fact is, banning him simply for a 3RR does not help at all. The edit war is not the problem. It's his attitude. And a short ban would only worsen that. I'm going to skip and seek for ArbCom case if I find all hopes lost on this contributor. Until then, I'm not going to take any action. Herunar (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Israel's third paragraph

Please take a look at Talk:Israel#Third paragraph. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Petrocaribe.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Petrocaribe.jpg. 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) 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Tamara.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tamara.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Bus transport in the United Kingdom

Please direct me to a policy or consensus that supports your reversions in more detail, as I have been unable to find any as indicated, and see no reason to remove the flag in this instance of its use. MickMacNee (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong article

Myself and I am sure some others would appreciate it if you left a note on the talk page and explained the reason you moved that paragraph from the introduction. I am aware that you hold a negative view of Falun Gong, but I would be looking for something more substantial to explain this edit. Citing WP:Lead doesn't really help us to understand that, in particular, when there is currently an edit war on the page. Please be quite transparent. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 06:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

Please see Talk:Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. 82.20.19.200 (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)