[WikiEN-l] Lobbyists and Wikipedia (again)
There's an interesting story leading in the British newspaper the Independent this morning based on an undercover sting of lobbyists Bell Pottinger: Discussing techniques for managing reputations online, Mr Wilson mentioned a team that could 'sort' Wikipedia. 'We've got all sorts of dark arts,' added Mr Collins. 'I told him [David Wilson] he couldn't put them in the written presentation because it's embarrassing if it gets out.' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/caught-on-camera-top-lobbyists-boasting-how-they-influence-the-pm-6272760.html There might be some editors who want to start an immediate investigation to search for the members of this 'team' but I think that would probably be a waste of time which would put suspicion on a large number of innocent editors. It's always possible Bell Pottinger were boasting. What might be better is to stress that any lobbyist seeking to use 'dark arts' to correct inaccurate or unfair Wikipedia articles, or to add properly sourced positive information, is best advised to use OTRS and to provide sources. It seems to me that current policy and guideline pages are much heavier on telling people what not to do and threatening dire consequences, than they are on helping people to help us. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lobbyists and Wikipedia (again)
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: This sounds like a splendid idea. Perhaps we could supplement it by informing criminals that they can avoid a life of crime by getting an education and a job, or maybe we could tell politicians to tell the truth. Or maybe News of the World journalists could be informed of the many story-gathering opportunities that don't involve hacking into people's voicemail systems. I don't know, but do any of the examples you cite involve the use of Wikipedia, you know that website where they assume good faith? -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Rating the English wikipedia
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukwrote: There is a project (even longer-running and slower-burning than the ODNB) to construct a reference work covering all MPs, at least as much as they're known, along with various other bits and pieces: http://www.histparl.ac.uk/about.html Or try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Parliament for some explanation of its history. In the past sixty years, they've managed to cover a little over half the timeframe in twenty-eight (!) volumes. I have never seen their work, I admit, but I'd be intrigued to... I have the CD-Rom containing the volumes published up to 1998 and 12 volumes published since then are on a shelf just above the computer. They are very interesting studies, delving very deep into manuscript sources and using as their sources letters between various senior politicians preserved in the archives. They concentrate only on the subjects' Parliamentary and political activities, so for example the only mention of the diary of Samuel Pepys (MP for Castle Rising 1673-79, Harwich 1679 and 1685-88) is that Pepys stopped writing it before he became an MP. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP task force meeting
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Giacomo M-Z solebaci...@googlemail.comwrote: If there is going to be an IRC meeting concerning Wikipedia, are the logs of it going to onto the mailing list and to be published on Wikipedia? If not - why not? I don't see what's wrong with posting the logs on the BLPTF pages on meta. The log for a previous meeting was already circulated on the BLPTF mailing list and the mailing list is going to be made public at the conclusion of the taskforce. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BLP task force meeting
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Giacomo M-Z solebaci...@googlemail.comwrote: Having to have secret little chats because you can't have it all your own way on wikipedia. It's not secret. Anyone can come and the log of the last meeting is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/BLP_Task_Force/Meeting_agenda/Minutes I imagine the log of the more recent meeting will appear on meta soon. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Observer WP airbrushing story implicates House of Commons IP
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: And when later sthe tory says The changes – designed to portray [Edward] McMillan-Scott as a europhile – were made from a computer with an internet IP address named Strasburg , what do they mean? They mean there was an account named Strasburg, would be the simple interpretation. (And this might be another subediting gremlin.) There is an implied link between the two editors, but we couldn't possibly comment, I guess. Obviously they mean User:Strasburg, as he has 5 edits to [[Michał Kamiński]]. But note also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/136.173.162.144 which is registered to the European Parliament in Luxembourg and has a lot of contributions to articles on current British MEPs - including blanking sections of Edward McMillan-Scott's biography: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_McMillan-Scottdiff=prevoldid=302006604 -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Reliable sources for deaths
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:54 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Wylie My source for the death is a tweet. It is a tweet from the official Bletchley Park feed, so I think it's reliable enough ... but I've asked them for more, and a photo if they can :-) Remember: reliable sources is a guideline and requires the application of good sense. Indeed. I would think that twitter feeds can be reliable under the same approach as for blogs - if the blog is an official source of information by a media outlet, or other institution which is reliable, it is a reliable source. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedian image restorations exploited on eBay
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: If you paint the eyes back onto the Sistine Chapel ceiling, have you truly restored it? Or have you created something new? For that matter, what about the restoration of the Dresdner Frauenkirche? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresdner_Frauenkirche -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com: “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a really hard time with it if it had.” ... The question is though is is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a reliable source? What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity. This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news agencies were reliable. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: While I cannot speak for the New York Times, Canadian media have acted in the same way to protect members of NGOs who have been kidnapped. There's a two-year-old ongoing kidnapping in Iraq involving five Britons - a consultant and four security guards. The consultant was named immediately but the security guards were not; eventually their first names only were released*. That embargo has held through the British media and no foreign media has broken it either. There is much more of a culture in Britain whereby voluntary media embargoes are held to (think Prince Harry in Afghanistan, for example). There are definitely circumstances where, although the law should not be used, it is still in everyone's interests if certain details are not reported. In the abstract the press doesn't report things simply for the pleasure of seeing them reported, but because they are important and it is in the public interest that they should be known. An encyclopaedia isn't in the exact same position but it is close enough. * Two of the security guards died during their captivity; when their bodies were repatriated last week their full names were released. It became possible to check and neither had been mentioned in any British publication. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Ramifications to wikipedians of unmasking of police blogger?
Whatever one thinks of the decision by The Times to run a story about him, it is plainly right that he should not have been able to maintain his anonymity through the courts. It would have been very surprising if the court had found otherwise. Attempting to find the real person behind a literary pseudonym has a long heritage; one of the stories that Hitler Diaries journalist Gerd Heidemann worked on for Stern magazine was about the identity of famed and mysterious German thriller writer B. Traven, for instance. The real identity of 'Simon Haxey', who wrote one very well-informed book about the internal workings of the Conservative Party in the late 1930s, is still unknown. As Oscar Wilde wrote, if one tells the truth, one is sure sooner or later to be found out. Take it from one who knows. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Ramifications to wikipedians of unmasking of police blogger?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.comwrote: My first impression is that this seems to be consistent with current UK privacy (ie, expanded breach of confidence) jurisprudence, though I haven't read the whole case yet. Does anyone know where a copy of the decision might be available? Looks like it will be another important case in this developing area. Best place for current UK court judgments is BAILII: http://www.bailii.org/ Not everything gets there but high-profile cases in the higher courts normally do. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Ramifications to wikipedians of unmasking of police blogger?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.comwrote: My first impression is that this seems to be consistent with current UK privacy (ie, expanded breach of confidence) jurisprudence, though I haven't read the whole case yet. Does anyone know where a copy of the decision might be available? Looks like it will be another important case in this developing area. Best place for current UK court judgments is BAILII: http://www.bailii.org/ Not everything gets there but high-profile cases in the higher courts normally do. Update: It's there already: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/1358.html -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: With vandalism, I think there is a duty of care to check the recent history and go back to the last version before the vandalism started. Sometimes you have to stop and look quite carefully, but if you don't, who else will? I agree. Quite often vandals will come in and keep making vandal edits until they are stopped. It only needs some other user to make a routine edit in the middle for the reverter to miss the earlier edits, which might mean that the article will be left with vandalism that appears to have been accepted as valid. It's always worth investigating the history, and also whether the account or IP has vandalised anything else, when doing a vandal revert. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Politician praises Wikipedia
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:45 PM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: Well, in relative terms, anyway: http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/04/The_age_of_austerity_speech_to_the_2009_Spring_Forum.aspx http://tinyurl.com/dxdujw Our government spends nearly £400 million a year on advertising to reach sixty million people while Wikipedia, one of the largest websites in the world, spends about one per cent of that to reach 280 million people. Not sure if his figures are accurate, but it's intriguing. Does this mean the Tories will be composing their next manifesto by wiki? If so, is David Cameron founder or co-founder? It shows some confidence that he should mention wikipedia, given the problems over the Titian edits not so long ago. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of l...
On 4/23/09, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote: What do we do about well-sourced information which turns out to be incorrect? I don't think policies cover this area particularly well, but the commonsense view is to word it something along the lines of: A national newspaper in 2007 reported that celebrity x had been arrested for taking drugsref /ref; however this was later shown to be untrue ref /ref If it's not that important you can always include the details in a footnote: Joe Blow (b. 15.1.74) refNote the New York Times stated he was born on January 14 - (ref). However, this source shows the actual date to be 14 Jan /ref The added advantage is it means editors don't add the incorrect information in again at a later date. This is what I've done on a few occasions when it's obvious that one source has got it wrong - see the footnote relating to the birthdate of Emlyn Garner Evans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emlyn_Garner_Evans. However there are always some where it is impossible to tell which of the conflicting sources has got it right; see Edward Doran for an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Doran. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Edward Doran
On 4/23/09, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In the 1901 England Census, there are four Edward Doran's born between 1884 and 1894 inclusive, who state that they were born in Lancashire. If we could know the names of his parents, in his Wikipedia article (I did not see them listed) then we could pin it down to a single entry. None of them state they were born in Failsworth Rather the placenames stated, in Lancashire, for these four boys were Rochdale, Barrow, Oldham, Newton Heath Failsworth is not a registration district in its own right; it would be part of Oldham. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Green Ink Day (stick to Alan Cabal)
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Bill Carter billdeancar...@yahoo.comwrote: NOTE: The deletion review was actually held on March 30th to April 4th or 5th. You made an error. Furthermore, it was speedy deleted. You CANNOT speedy delete an article with 40 fucking references. This is scandalous. It is not really reasonable to say the article was speedily deleted. The third AfD debate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Cabal_(3rd_nomination)) ran for the full time, and ended in a clear delete consensus. The article was then created again, which made a clear case of speedy deletion under criterion G4 (recreation of previously deleted material). Only after this was noticed and the article deleted under G4 was the AfD close taken to deletion review. During this debate the article history was restored so that non-admins could see the article. A further full time debate was held. There was no consensus to overturn the close, so when the deletion review ended the history was again deleted. Deletion debates do not always come to the right decision, but when they don't, it is a mistake and not a scandal. The reason for the article being nominated for deletion was lack of notability, and not lack of references. The problem with the references is, I suspect, that too few of them are in the sort of mainstream publications which would make a clear case of notability. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Interesting remark in Guardian blog
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/16/internet-copyright-lawcaught my eye because of its rather alarming headline. However it's about copyright law; the headline refers to this paragraph: In a second thought experiment, imagine that it's five years ago and you are responsible for developing the most comprehensive and up-to-the-minute encyclopedia the world has ever seen. One strategy is to create a global company, employ the brightest people available, check every fact produced, and implement the most rigorous editorial controls. A second option is to just create a website and let anybody put up anything. Again, we'd mostly have opted for the first strategy, and the world wouldn't have Wikipediahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/10/wikipedia.internet . I might quibble with the description let anybody put up anything but the author makes an interesting point. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC article on vandalism
On 3/6/09, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: Yes, but why *that* picture of Jimmy? I would say that BBC gets all their photos though Getty Images, and thats just the image that they had on file when BBC first wanted one so that became their file photo for jimbo and has never updated it. BBC News online has always preferred to use wierd/odd pictures to ordinary looking ones. If it's someone for whom there are a lot of images, they will always use the one taken mid-grimace, or when they were wearing a silly hat, or when someone in a gorilla suit was behind them. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How to raise the tone of the wiki
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote: Personally, I'm usually the fourth person, totally boggled as to why people care about Celebrity Come Dancing in the slightest, as an unconstructive intersection of two concepts lacking in long-term cultural significance, but then, perhaps that's why I've become more interested in medieval Wiltshire monasteries of late. P.Ss, if you know of anyone who would, er, pay me money for doing this, please let me know, as I do miss being able to afford cheese. And meat. There is the Institute of Historical Review, and has the VCH of Wiltshire been completed yet? -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Flagged revisions in The Sunday Times
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article5682896.ece Slightly confused article headed The wiki-snobs are taking over by Giles Hattersley. Misnames 'administrators' as 'arbitrators'. Towards the end the author claims My entry features at least two errors, one libellous (unless my mother has been keeping a dark secret, I am not Roy Hattersley's son) which has me befuddled since there is no entry on Giles Hattersley nor was there ever one (unless it's been oversighted). -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC article on Flagged Revisions
On 1/27/09, Alvaro García alva...@gmail.com wrote: It's have, not hav. Unless you are Nigel Molesworth, hem hem. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Biography of Living persons
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:15 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 12/29/2008 9:33:08 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk writes: In many ways, the most effective solution would be a hard-and-bright line like the DNB uses - no-one who is alive, end of story, and we could deal with living people as tangential notes in their work. But it certainly wouldn't be popular! Oh silly that would never fly! No article on George Bush? No article on John Major? No article on Brad Pitt? That might look odd but it could certainly be justified. However, the real problem with only including biographies after the deaths of the subjects is that this is a general encyclopaedia and not a specific list of biographies; biographical information is found in a very wide range of articles. Hence it is no use having a rule which prohibits a biography of (for example) Bill Clinton until he dies, which then permits an article about the impeachment in 1998 which must discuss other claimed examples of his infidelity in order to be comprehensive. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
The latest news is souding hopeful: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/09/wikipedia-censorship-iwf-reconsiders -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
Don't know if this is any use but a press search dug up an entry in The Sun's WWW column from 18 January this year. zonicweb.net/badalbmcvrs/index.htm WHAT IS IT? The Museum Of Bad Album Covers - an online collection of the worst sleeve art ever committed to cardboard. WHAT'S ON OFFER? Ever received one of those Christmas gift books about great album artwork? Here is the perfect antidote (or something to make you fully appreciate the covers in your book). This is a truly appalling selection of album art - tasteless (Boxer's Below The Belt), bizarre (Phil Barry's Songs For Gay Dogs) and every one will leave you pondering: Whatever were they thinking? Of Course, Kevin Rowland's My Beauty - with the Dexy's frontman pictured in drag and flashing his knickers, earns a place - but more obscure acts like The Frivolous Five and Mike Terry are well worth a giggle. Visitors to the site have also voted for a top ten of the most dreadful offerings, but be warned, the album at No1 - Scorpions' Virgin Killer - is highly offensive. You can enjoy a soundtrack while trawling this site by clicking on Bad Music Radio to hear streams of the worst music ever. Hear monstrosities like William Shatner's Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds and Mr T rapping. WORTH A CLICK?: Cover your eyes. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Trouble in Ireland
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: In case anyone is curious, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tariqabjotudiff=255356231oldid=255352300#Congrats_for_bravery and the expected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Ireland_page_moves Have to say that regardless of my feelings on the matter, that was a dubious reading of the 'consensus of the discussion'. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
