Jump to content

User talk:Blue-Haired Lawyer/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 1    Archive 2    Archive 3 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  ... (up to 100)


Irish Nationality Law

Just to point out that your edit of the Irish Nationality law to remove the point that Irish nationality was vested automatically on NI residents under the 1956 Act is incorrect. I know where you're getting this from and I almost made the same mistake myself, but s.7 of the 1956 Act (which you rightly noted created an exclusion for NI residents) did not apply to NI residents who were 'otherwise Irish citizens'. 'Otherwise Irish citizens' was practically all of the NI residents - surely more than 95%. As a result the automatic conferral DID apply to them... It's a fine distinction, I accept that, but it is a distinction nonetheless. There is a book which dicusses this point: S7(1) was solely intended to ‘cover the ‘limited category born in [Northern Ireland] since [independence in 1922] who [were] of entirely alien parentage without any racial ties’ - See Handol, J., ‘Ireland’ in Baubock, R., Ersboll, E., Groenendijk, K., & Waldrauch, H., (eds.) ‘Acquisition and Loss of Nationality Policies and Trends in 15 European Countries, Volume 2: Country Analysis’, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006, pp. 291-328 at 297. I haven't corrected this in the article as I am somewhat fed up with Wikipedia... Heatley (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested...

See this link. Regards. Djegan (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that much mean I must the socket puppet -:) . It kind of depresses me that so much effort has been put into assembling information that just shouldn't be in Wikipedia! And definately not on the passport articles. Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've been looking at articles on other passports and many are subject to the same problem. Would you be interested in getting involved in tackling this issue across the board. Your contributions re. the Irish passport were spot on, but equally apply elsewhere. This question of Visa-free travel is incidental to that of passports, the articles on which should be confined to the physical artefact. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but how? Unless we can convince messrs Passportguy, Majalinno and Passportman (and possibly others) to retire, we may just end up edit waring across several hundred articles. Managing and updating this rather pointless information appears to be almost all they do on Wikipedia, so you can see why they objected so strongly when we removed it from Irish passport!
I decided not to mention it at the time, but I very much doubt it if using the visa information violates copyright (in the US anyway). Of course that doesn't make the information in any way relevant, but it would make it a little more difficult to enforce deletion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only way to approach it is through an appropriate WikiProject. I've looked at a few: Wikipedia:WikiProject Travel and Tourism claims to be concerned with all things 'human migration', but is strongly biased towards recreational travel. Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement have tagged Identity documents as of interest, but again takes a quite narrow approach. The most promising so far seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations, and someone has already tagged the Talk:United States passport as of interest. Perhaps someone there might be approached to help guide the development of all Passport articles. I know there will be resistance to getting some eds. to consider starting new articles such as Visa-free travel for Belorusian citizens, (or preferably some less unwieldy title), and moving the relevant content there. The status quo is this : Botswana passport, and many of its ilk, which tells you absolutely nothing about the Botswana passport. Just brainstorming. RashersTierney (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiprojects are great but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Travel and Tourism even has a discussion about the inactivity of the project. One idea occurs to me that we could pick a reasonably big target like Talk:United States passport and see if we could propose a split to Visa-free travel for US citizens. But I'm afraid I'll be busy off-wiki fot a while and won't have much time to spend on this for at least a few weeks. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to give this a bit of thinking time anyway, rather than go off 'half cocked' and have it strangled at birth by determined opposition. RashersTierney (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can I know why you removed the official EU forum link from European Union? Thank you --Raptor1987 (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a discussion forum, official or otherwise. In Wikipedia:External links external links to discussion groups is listed as being inappropriate. Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Region / County Dublin

Hi. The wording on the Dublin city article is probably best as it is. I appreciate the comment about the redirect, but the term "County Dublin" has no statutory weight any more. The term "County Dublin" does not refer to an existing administrative division - whereas "the Dublin Region" does. "County Dublin" is now split into different sub-divisions (of which Dublin city is one), and the term itself is really only officially used only by GAA, in historical contexts, etc. See the County Dublin article itself for details.

Anyway, the statement that "Dublin city is at the centre of County Dublin" is therefore not as relevant/accurate as "at the centre of the Dublin Region".

If the key problem you are trying to solve is to avoid the redirect, then maybe consider a pipe, or (if you think it's warranted) open an article move discussion. But the wording on the Dublin city article is probably most accurate when referring to the Dublin Region. In an administrative/planning/statutory context. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article is entitled "County Dublin" and not the "Dublin Region". There is a reason for this. Wikilinking one to the other is the wrong way to go about renaming the article. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. Hi. I am not advocating a rename of the article. I thought that was pretty clear. My point essentially is that the statement "Dublin city is in the middle of County Dublin" isn't really factually accurate. Certainly not as accurate as the statement "Dublin city is in the middle of the Dublin Region". I state this because "County Dublin" doesn't exist anymore. Not in any real way. The city is therefore not in the "centre of County Dublin", because "County Dublin" doesn't exist as a geographic entity. For this reason, the Dublin article has instead referred to the Dublin Region - since at least early 2005. Again, to my point above, if your edit is just to avoid a redirect, then it's not really neccesary. But if you think there is a factual innacuracy or other problem, then can you explain what the precise problem is? What's wrong with linking to Dublin Region? It is a more accurate term in the context, is well defined, and is well supported and referenced. Why are you now changing it back to County Dublin (after 3 years)? What changed yesterday? Guliolopez (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. In your edit summary you suggest that "because there is no article called Dublin Region" we shouldn't link to it. This isn't really correct. There IS an article on the Dublin Region. It's just not titled that. The Dublin Region is covered as a SUBSET of the County Dublin article. This is fine - because the article deals with both the historical context of County Dublin, and the modern context of the Dublin Region. Again, I don't see what the problem is, or why pipes or redirects are now suddenly "not allowed"(?) To restate: "Dublin city is at the centre of the Dublin Region" is more accurate and correct than your wording. (Which frankly should read: "Dublin city *WAS* at the centre of County Dublin - until the administrative divisions were altered, and Dublin city was given equal status to the county, and is now in the middle of the Dublin Region instead". Guliolopez (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To state that the city of Dublin is "at the centre of County Dublin" is entirely wrong. Firstly, if we take the situation pre- the breakup of County Dublin then the City of Dublin and County Dublin were two distinct and different entities, at least in law. This is the situation in Ireland for all cities and counties (except Kilkenny which is a "special" case). In modern times cities have never been part of the county except in a cultural and historical sense. Secondly, have no doubt about it the County of Dublin does not exist anymore in the legal domain. The Dublin Region includes both the County of Dublin and the City of Dublin - whilst the County of Dublin excluded the city as mentioned by me above.

Using the term County Dublin only perpetuates the falsehood that the County still exists, its only a cultural and historic relic - their is no legal basis whatsoever for it. Period. Djegan (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I though this was my talkpage. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I've changed my mind. My main concern was that the Dublin Region is really just an official legal designation and has not, in any way, entered common usage and the reference to it in the article is probable the first time most Dubs have ever heard of it. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK - Thanks. I see that Djegan has updated the wording again accordingly. Cheers. (And apologies for "inviting" DJ into the discussion, but I was worried I'd look like a nay-saying pedanticist without another voice to help with WP:CON.) Guliolopez (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new task force under wikiproject Europe

Hello,

I've noticed that you are active in the area of Europe. I just wanted to let you know that a European Space Agency task force has been set up to improve the presently very poor condition of articles about ESA and related topics. If you are interested, please join the task force here. We sure could use your help. Thanks.U5K0 (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonym

Could you add your New Oxford American Dictionary reference to the claim that European is the demonym for the EU article? Tomeasy T C 06:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. I am optimistic this will reduce the frequency of new talk sections related to this claim significantly. Tomeasy T C 15:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An idea

Hi there, I have put forward an idea Here on the Republic of Ireland talk page. I would appreciate your views, positive or negative. Thanks. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Commission on Civil Status

Hello, i've started an article about this interesting and much overlooked institution (the eldest in post-war Europe, no less!) and i wonder if you'd want to add some to it. I'm no native speaker so i'm hesitant anyway. Thanks a lot! Cheers, RCS (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EU FAQ's

Hi BH Lawyer, I saw you editing EU's FAQ. We put this FAQ together a year ago to stop endless repititions of discussions on the EU talk page (such as the anon tried to start). Of course it can be developed further, but if you consider this, be carefull to present all sides of the argument as neutral as possible (we managed quite well in setting this up at a time when the EU mainspace article was subject to an edit war, and received constructive input from both sides of the war, as everyone agreed their point of view was presented fairly). Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Arnoutf, If I plan to make any substantive changes I'll propose changes on the talk page first. Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, noticed your edits were copyediting nothing more. Just informing you of the way and reason of the FAQ page; thought it came in quite handy to counter the anon IP trollish kind of comments today ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But alerted another editor to make wild speculations :-( Thanks for repairing the undiscussed changes. Arnoutf (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raggz

Hello. Could you give me your assessment of User:Raggz' edits to European Union, Talk:European Union, and any other related pages? I'm following up with this user from Human rights in the United States, where a mediation case was started but then abandoned. In addition to User talk:Raggz, you can see further evidence of problems with this user in User talk:Raggz/Archive 1. I've asked for the mediation case to be reopened, but this looks like it is going to be elevated to a WP:WQA and then a WP:RFC. Any help you can offer in resolving this issue is appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Common Travel Area. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Blowdart | talk 11:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried compromise on this page, but the reality is that Wikipiere simply isn't going to accept any, not even your last edit, just wait and see. A very clear and unambiguous exception to the three-revert rule is that reverting the edits of banned users does not violate the rule. I would appreciate if you would more closely read the guidelines in question before reading me the riot act. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except I see no evidence of a banned user, and they're actually following the guidelines set out in WP:IMOS (well kind of, I realise it's not a location article), as well as the compromise on the talk page. --Blowdart | talk 12:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This follows a very long pattern. Wikipéire has been conducting a perpetual edit war over changing "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland". The tatic is to start an account so that he can keep a watchlist but then edit using an ip address. He normally uses Esat as an ISP, whose ip addresses range from 78.16.* to 78.19.*. Please see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikipéire (3rd), Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikipéire (4th) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikipéire (5th).
IMOS applies to articles about places within Ireland. It's silent on how to refer to the Republic as a whole, so I can't see how Wikipéire can be said to be (even kind of) enforcing it. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's who it is? If you'd put that in the edit summary I might have ignored the whole mess :) My apologies in that case. But you're well aware the whole Ireland (Republic of), Ireland (Island of) thing is a royal mess anyway, especially when the country calls itself Ireland. My concern on that article is really that Americans (and others with no concept of geography *grin*) realise that there is a border between the north and south which the common travel area applies to; hence, to avoid even more warring, my expansion of the UK to note it does include NI. Does that seem like a sensible solution? --Blowdart | talk 13:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could always use British Isles, of course... OK, perhaps not :) Black Kite 13:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you

Thank you for weighing in on the Talk page of Denial of the Armenian genocide, your comments regarding translation were right on target. I have now edited the Article to produce what I believe to be a reasonable compromise. If I may, could I ask you which RfC brought you to that page – the one on the Biography board or the one on Language and linguistics?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I got there through the Language and linguistics page. Good luck trying to convince people of the correct translation. Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

Well that wasn't very mature of you was it? I don't care too much though, consensus is changing and your POV will soon no longer be tolerated because it will no longer be the status quo. I can't wait. NPOV will finally win out, people like you will be minimized and Wikipedia will be much the better for it.Rownon (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess registering an infinite number of sockpuppets is? Here my edit summary in case anyone else is reading this:
"(rv let's wait for discussion over at WP:IDTF - edit by sock of banned user - User:Wikipéire)" [1]
The only POV which is being pushed here is the view that (many) Irish people find "Republic of Ireland" offensive. Consensus may well change but why can't we just wait for the discussions at WP:IDTF, and for that matter WP:ARBCOM, to finish before jumping to conclusions over what that consensus might be? Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody says that ROI is an offensive term. They say its inaccurate and misleading. It's not POV, its based purely on fact.Rownon (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

From one lawyer to another, Greetings and a Happy New Year! – ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late Happy New Year !

Dear Blue-Haired Lawyer, I wish you as a fellow EU editor a successful, healthy and happy new year. I hope you keep up expanding high quality EU content at Wikipedia while also maintaining achieved standards. Keep up motivating others to contribute or to correct EU-European content. Viva Europa Lear 21 (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Common Travel Area, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop removing the template. The page is part of the template, it's part of a series on the British Isles which as you well know includes the island of Ireland. If the name of the template bothers you so much then propose a rename for the template rather than removing it from articles where it soundly belongs. Blowdart | talk 10:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't label this POV as policy. I think I'll report you to the administrators' notice board for this. I find the expression "British Isles" useful and offensive. I do not believe this template should be on Common Travel Area, and my removing it does not even remotely constitute vandalism. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CTA, template naming

We're not going to agree on this at all; to my mind transclusion is about consistency. I accept your objections to the name, but these should be dealt with by raising the issue on the template itself. Perhaps we should request an non-involved 3rd party opinion? --Blowdart | talk 22:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go it if you want but frankly I'm getting bored of fighting a three-way edit war, so I might just leave it for now. As it happens the template was specifically designed to allow for alternative names so as to find a way to flexibly deal with the naming dispute. As far as I see it the template is a handy way to label everything "Irish" as "British", but maybe that's just me. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in Local Time

Please put Wikipedia talk:Comments in Local Time on your watchlist; I will be forming discussions there related to the script. I've already posted a question there and would appreciate input. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote popups

I have to say this script is brilliant, bloody brilliant! – ukexpat (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you've just make my day a bit brighter! Was thinking about proposing it as a gadget but it'll need to be tested on more browsers first. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euro: accidental insertions

In the "general fixes" revision of the Euro article, you inserted "/Users/Mjwalsh/Desktop/wiki/script.pl.8252" in several places. I would clean this myself, but I'm not certain what you were trying to fix. Please fix it yourself, or let me know what you intended and I'll tidy the section. Anwynd (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed now. A script I use to change "accessdate=2000-01-01" to "accessdate=1 January 2000" appears to have gone slightly mad. Sorry!!! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 01:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurozone/Euro Area

Thanks for the input. Regards. Tugaworld (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Athos

I am not sure that Mount Athos is in Schengen. Women are not allowed. I think Schengen applies for all citisens. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find a solid source. Neither of the previously mentioned sources said anything about an exemption. One, the BBC article, said that the monks were protesting about the implementation of Schengen, without saying anything about an exemption.
In any case, if I own a house and decide not to admit women, it doesn't mean I'm not longer in the Schengen Area. And once I'm not breaking any discrimination legislation, I'm not breaking any laws. And the same is effectively true of a 1000 acre farm. Religious orders are typcially exempt from anti-discrimination legislation (no female Catholic priests yet) and, who or what they decide to let on their own property is basically there own business. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enlargement

I'm quite sure the old data on these pages was absolutely correct, though am having trouble with sources. Can you confirm? [2] [3]. Thanks. - J.Logan`t: 00:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm pretty sure the new info is correct. There had been an enlargement limit in introduced by Amsterdam, but this was removed by Nice. If there are limits at the moment, they're political rather than legal. I'll have a look for some sources. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 01:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming it was a protocol, stating that a new treaty should be agreed before more members could join. I am sure the media have cited it quite a bit (especially with Croatia's and Iceland's accession) but maybe the wording was not as binding as it was made out - maybe they were meaning the bits relating to the European Convention but not explicitly stating it was needed. Still, if there is no firm source then maybe it was the media taking their lead from us again?- J.Logan`t: 23:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was one of these in the Amsterdam treaty here but it was repealed by Nice. I gather what the Media are talking is a political unwillingness to enlarge unless Lisbon is ratified. I've seen statements saying that further enlargement is impossible without Lisbon, but then there the legally impossible and the politically impossible. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of the patrick j donnelly,actor article

Hi Blue-Haired Lawyer,

I shall delete the patrick j.donnelly article over the next couple of days,my only request would be to be allowed finish my work.

Thank you.

norton3600Norton3600 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion patrick j donnelly

Hello BHL,

Deletion of the above article completed,MichaelQSchimidt nice guy,move it to my sandbox.


norton3600Norton3600 (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with footnote popups @ ApologetiikkaWiki

Hello! I was so happy finding your script because I've been trying to do the same using CSS with bad success. Anyway, I was able to make it work here in the English Wikipedia, but for some reason it didn't work in Finnish Wikipedia and in ApologetiikkaWiki. What would be the problem? This is my personal monobook.js. Thanks and blessings! --Erkkimon (Smg 2 complain?!) 01:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But wikEd.js does work? Curious! try using the following code instead
importScriptURI("http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Blue-Haired_Lawyer/footnote_popups.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript");
and make sure your browser cache is purged. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, wikEd works fine. My browser cache was purged but it still doesn't work. I have modified cite_references_list* and cite_reference_link in Special:System messages in ApologetiikkaWiki. Would it have had any effect. But the weird thing is that Finnish Wikipedia seems to have quite original code in sysmsgs and it doesn't work there neither. The script works right now fine on my English Wikipedia account, but neither in Finnish Wikipedia or in ApologetiikkaWiki. --Erkkimon (Smg 2 complain?!) 15:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I dunno why but I tried it also in MediaWiki:Common.js. Extra buttons defined in the same file works. The Common.js can be seen here. And one example page with footnotes could be this. This is kinda weird. --Erkkimon (Smg 2 complain?!) 15:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I installed the script on Finish Wikipedia (my Finish monobook.js) and it works fine. As far as the other wiki is concerned, if you replace these lines:
 	if(obj.hash.substr(0,11) != "#cite_note-") return;
	if(obj.parentNode.className != "reference") return;
with just
 	if(obj.hash.substr(0,11) != "#_note-") return;
it should work, but frankly you'd be better not messing around with the internals. No one ever sees these (except programmers). — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it works in Wikipedia now. It will be probably included to common.js. When it comes to the other wiki, it unfortunately doesn't. But I don't want to bother you anymore, coz it's my problem. Thank you very much for your help and time! --Erkkimon (Smg 2 complain?!) 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkkimon (talk • contribs)
It's alright, if you follow the instruction above there's no reason it sholdn't work on your own wiki as well. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refugee Travel Documents

Before I move that, can you show me some info concerning how these are normally referred to in official documents?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/ecg/chapter4/ uses the long name.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On this page the title "REFUGEE`S TRAVEL DOCUMENT" is accompanied by a picture of a blue travel document with "Convention of July 1951" written at the bottom.
In order to be a refugee, you need to be recognised under the 1951 Refugee Convention, so it kind of follows that a travel document issued to someone under the convention is a Refugee Travel document. When the American and Norwegian refer to Refugee Travel Document (See here and here respectively) they mean document issued to refugees under the 1951 Convention.
I guess it might be more accurate to say that a 1951 Convention Travel Document is a kind of refugee travel document in the sense that similar documents were issued prior to the 1951 convention. See this doc from the unhcr. Calling the article Refugee Travel Documents instead of 1951 Convention Travel Document, allows us to talk about the history of refugee travel documents, so you could say it's a merge except we don't currently have an article on Refugee Travel Documents in the wider sense of the term. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll buy that -- looks like most of the references to the 51 convention document are talking about rtds in general anyway. Moved the article and cleaned up some of the links to it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HI

I live in Citta' di castello.I know some EU lawyers working in Brussels and they said the Nato citaion is a HUGE mistake in presentation. Many american people wrote about EU.How many EU people wrote about Usa in the presentation? Many of EU people are also EU skeptical(like Arnoutf-a good liar,he wrote that in all the EU passports above all isn't written EU) [so they write with american guys].At the end we have a very low level of Wikipedia about EU. I hope you aren't between the guys that in Ireland voted NO to Lisbon Treaty .After this crisis that is the final sunset of Usa (Usa global debt/gdp 900$-EU 140% to have an idea)Ireland will vote YES to save itself in EU. Ciao! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 22:07, 9 March 2009

Spero di non incontrarti in giro! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 21:08, 10 March 2009

Maleducato! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 21:19, 24 March 2009

You clearly lack any sense of irony! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Union: isbn in ref treated as date

I was just looking at this diff and noticed, right at the end, that you seem to have changed an ISBN, treating it as a date. I thought I'd better let you know, rather than just changing it back, in case you are using a bot that needs some tweaking.--Boson (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No bot, just a search and replace script on a text editor I use. It tends to mangle things which look like dates. I thought I'd checked it. Sorry. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I was subbing an article where I wanted both an ISBN 10 and an ISBN 13. It seems the only way to do that is to use the id tag for one and isbn for the other. Is there a better way? SimonTrew (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 13 digit ISBN are intended to replace the 10 digits ones. If a book has both, I think you're just meant to use the 13 digit one. I think the id tag is just for books with neither a ISBN nor a ISSN. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CTA thanks

Hey BHL,

thanks for your subs of the Common Travel Area article. I am sure you know I made the changes in good faith. As you see, I dislike the constant repetition about UK vs United Kingdom but there is no point into getting into an edit war about it. The change to British government is nicely done.

SimonTrew (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd previously used "Britain" as a short form for the UK but there are some other editors who prefer to say UK. You're may be right over the whole United Kingdom v. UK deal but I suppose I'm used to avoiding abbreviations.

The UK may not be an island but the British government seem to behave as if it were. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Sorry about that revert. The last time I checked "state" had its own article. I should have checked again before my edit. Shoreranger (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OSCOLA

Hello Blue-hair. It's basically that I'm a born-again convert to no full stops. OSCOLA is now pretty well acknowledged as the proper citation method, and is being used by the House of Lords and the major academic journals, including the European ones. If you think about it, we all save a lot of time without those extra dots too!. The Americans will catch up at some point, I'm sure. :) Wikidea 13:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your modest proposal...

Hi, I've replied to your modest proposal on the IMOS. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I though the proposal was very good. Nice one. --HighKing (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- BigDuncTalk 20:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote popups

I don't understand why in the footnotes popups documentaion, you recomend to install your script using this: importScript("User:Blue-Haired Lawyer/footnote popups.js");, shouldn't it be like this: importScript('User:Blue-Haired Lawyer/footnote popups.js');?, I don't understand why using quotation instead of colons Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 04:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC) PS:Excellent script, very cool![reply]

There are single quotations marks (') and double ones ("). I normally use the latter out of habit, but it doesn't make any difference. Last time I checked, a colon was this : . — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Ireland article names

Constitution of Ireland

Hi, You removed the sentence about basic law from the opening paragraph in the Constitution of Ireland, saying it was stating the obvious. From a non-legal view, I don't see this but if you say it is then I won't argue. However, the opening para of the article needs to be improved, because now it going straight into a brief history. It should, answer the question, what is it? For example the US Constitution opening para reads: "The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It is the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America and the Federal Government of the United States. It provides the framework for the organization of the United States Government and for the relationship of the Federal government to the States, to citizens, and to all people within the United States." I think we need something similar for this article. Perhaps the second para could be reworked and made into the opening para. Snappy (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blue-Haired Lawyer. You have new messages at NuclearVacuum's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EU legislative procedures article

Thoughts on this idea?- J.Logan`t: 18:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about these delay, I don't have much time to be on Wikipedia these days. I like it. It's not a bad idea to describe the institutions involved in the legislative procedures, but I'm not so sure about describing them as chambers. Perhaps even more importantly, we'll just end up edit-waring over these terms. I not sure how to title the article, but what about talking about "players" in the legislative process, rather than chambers. We'd also really need to include a bit about the Commission, the right of initiative and all that. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ECHR

Hello Blue Hair - did you put the stuff you just removed somewhere else - like on a UK law page? Better not to lose the factual material, even if the opinion goes, right? Wikidea 17:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at [AFD] for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the last AFD.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quote on italian constitution

Moved to Talk:Constitution of Italy/Archive 1#Lead quote. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Removing the "visa-free travel" blocks in passport articles

Following from a brief conversation we had some time ago, I think you might find this proposal of interest. Best RashersDogRusty (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC) (generally nown as RashersTierney)[reply]

I should really have done this ages ago. Unfortunately I suppose we'd better tell the opposition as well. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only came across it by accident myself. I'll leave a link at Talk:Visa (document). RashersDogRusty (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are just wasting your time. A LOT OF people will undo them. People like those details. People want those details. People look for those details. They're useful information. Or maybe people visit their passports articles to see some photos and the colour of the passports? Not funny. --Ozguroot (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well only you thus far! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just noticed your new proposal. Is this not just a fork of the centralised discussion? Surely the same issues apply across the board? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a fork, but unfortunately there's enough people at the centralised discussion arguing that deleting the visa information is an inappropriate topic for centralised discussion that the whole process may prove to be futile. Having de-centralised discussion on a page by page basis may well be the only way to progress this thing. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EU Culture section

Just to say superb job fixing up the Culture/Sport section of the page which really has been needing tweaking for ages (loads of POV crap in there beforehand). May need to keep an eye on it though as it was at the centre of that massive debate ages ago with Lear and Solberg in particular refusing to allow it to change - I reckon as soon as either returns if they do, they will probably just try to revert it. Think he's done so in the past, just have to hope he never notices I guess! --Simonski (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness it was basically Lear against everybody else! Now that he's been banned for sock puppetry, we can enforce long standing consensus. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reverts at The Sun

Hello... look, if you wish to reopen the discussion, by all means do so. However, repeatedly changing the redirect after a discussion has already reached a consensus position is not appropriate. Please, in the interest of avoiding disruption for readers, discuss the matter. Thank you in advance. --Ckatzchatspy 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? Where? And I'm not the only one making reverts. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review this discussion, where the matter was considered at length. I noticed your comment there, but you should note that:
The opposition was based on the idea that "The Sun" refers to a newspaper while the "Sun" refers to the fire ball - an argument which accords with policy (WP:THE) and which was not remotely taken into account in the amended proposal. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much in the way of Robert Mugabe. The discussion was evenly split, plain and simple. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Months not years, and that's irrelevant anyway. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should be ashamed of your block. I edited the article twice and you blocked it for a week! I have difficulty getting that for frequently vandalised pages! You should be de-sysoped for this! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ashamed? I'm not choosing to ignore the results of a consensus discussion, and I'm certainly not comparing an established, highly productive editor/administrator (User:Anthony Appleyard) to a dictator. As for the duration of the lock, timing is influenced by the number of edits on the article. There's hardly any activity here, on the order of a few edits a year. A week-long pause won't affect anything. --Ckatzchatspy 03:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is my talkpage so if I want to respond to your comments point for point I do just that. Maybe ashamed is too strong a word and I was being ironical about Anthony who appears to have been just a bit careless. You on the other hand have protected a page to further your own position in a content dispute. Something which is quite clearly against policy. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can of course do as you wish (within reason) on your talk page, but it is customarily understood that we don't break up comments in that manner as it is confusing and can potentially affect what the initial poster intended. As for your claim, well, again I have to take issue with your position. The discussion resulted in the version that presently stands, and as such the version that I've maintained. You may disagree with it, but the proper method is to seek a new consensus, not to arbitrarily rewrite it as you see fit. If you achieve a new and different consensus, then I'll certainly maintain that one with equal zeal, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. --Ckatzchatspy 18:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Passport

Several weeks ago, you expressed support for removing visa-free articles from passport pages. This discussion has been continuing from that point on, on Talk:Passport, and eventually only between three users. Several days ago, Ozguroot (talk · contribs), a suspected sockpuppet, canvassed 15 users, all who have expressed a negative viewpoint, to come to the discussion and utterly overwhelm a budding and tenuously reached compromise, which users are now beginning to renege on. This is the second time he has canvassed users to the dispute. Prior to the canvassing incident, I requested mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-02-04/Passport, with no response. I have reported Ozguroot's canvassing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ozguroot_canvassing_again, again with no response. I am utterly disheartened by the community apathy, it seems our dislike for the "dramafest at ANI" has become a disdain for dispute resolution of any kind, an apathy for processes of justice. To make sure the weeks' worth of discussion at Talk:Passport aren't undermined by an egomaniacal nationalist, a sockpuppet, and their canvassed hordes, and in light of the utter apathy I have received from the community, I am notifying all editors who expressed support for the proposal. I am aware of the tenuous ledge on which I am pirouetting, but in the absence of better advice (as sought at ANI), I am sure you will agree it is only fair to attempt to balance the canvassed users who expressed a negative viewpoint. Your participation is required - not to be melodramatic, but to quote Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". —what a crazy random happenstance 14:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Union law

It wasn't on that title because people call it that, it is naming conventions: Law of France, Law of the United States and so on in the same way you have Culture of France and Symbols of Europe.- J.Logan`t: 19:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what about English law? Where's the policy that says it should be Law of the European Union? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brown move request

You have recently participated in a discussion about moving Sarah Brown (spouse). The request has been modified so please revisit it here for further discussion if you care. — AjaxSmack 02:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presently

I didn't revert your edit to styrofoam (presently -> currently), because in that context, I have no objection to "currently" but I want to note that I see no basis for your objection to that usage of "presently." See, for example, [4]. Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's only considered a mistake on this side of the Atlantic and I have to admit I wince a little every time I hear it being IMHO being mis-used. However given I have little chance in changing all of the other 18,828 instances of "presently" on Wikipedia, I'll probably have to take your advice. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 01:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good-humored response. I hope you don't have to wince 18,828 times. Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding text with CN tag appended

I accept that it is a judgement call, but no, I don't think that it is strange. My options were (a) do nothing and leave an important omission that I know should be filled; (b) just add some text that I know broadly to be true, but without any indication of its provenance. That's what most people seem to do.; or (c) add the text that I know broadly to be true, but since I can't readily find a good citation, tag it with {{cn}} so that someone else [such as your good self] will say, 'ah, I know just the thing and anyway Red King's text is not quite right so I'll improve it and add the cite to it.' Which you did, thank you, objective achieved. --Red King (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz talk 01:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blue-Haired_Lawyer/Archive_2&oldid=1144406196"