Vicipéid:Halla baile/Eadráin

Mo thuairim féin: ní hí an choimhlint seo atá ag cur isteach ar an vicí - is é CMALANT an té atá ag cur isteach ar an vicí. Nuair a imeoidh CMALANT, imeoidh an fhadhb. Tá sé chomh simplí sin. Panu Petteri Höglund 21:30, 31 Iúil 2006 (UTC)

Níl an gotha sin cabhrach ar bith, Panú. Tá comhar i gceist anseo. Riarthóirí, an bhfuil muid in an í seo a bhrostú?

CMALANT

Mar a dúirt mé, ní dhearna CMALANT riamh aon rud fónta ar mhaith leis an Vicipéid, agus tá an chuma ar an scéal gurb ionann é CMALANT agus "I Blame The Parents", sabaitéir a caitheadh amach roimhe seo as Vicipéid an Bhéarla. Panu Petteri Höglund 21:44, 9 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

Níl Uicipéid an Bhéarla i gceist anseo ar chor ar bith. "ní dhearna CMALANT riamh aon rud fónta ar mhaith leis an Vicipéid..." Ráiméis. Is féidir usáideoir ar bith staidéar a dhéanamh ar mo chuid dréachtaí, agus do chuid múineadh chun úsáideoir nua.

CMALANT

Tá a fhios ag madraí an bhaile nach raibh aon mhaith i do chuid dréachtaí. Ní dhearna tú ach an ghramadach a chur ó rath agus na mílte leathanaigh athsheolta a chruthú nach ndearna ach an córas ar fad a chliotaráil le truflais nach raibh gá léi. Rinne mise cuid mhaith iarrachtaí le tú a chur ar bhealach do leasa agus lena léiriú duit céard a bhí cearr le do chuid gramadaí. Níor thoiligh tú oiread is freagra amháin a thabhairt dom, ní dhearna sé ach méadú ar an tsabatéireacht a bhí idir lámhaibh agat. Níl insint bhéil ar an bhfuath agus ar an drochmheas atá agam ar do leithéid agus an dochar atá tú a dhéanamh do chúis na Gaeilge. Panu Petteri Höglund 10:44, 10 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

Arís, is féidir usáideoir ar bith staidéar a dhéanamh ar mo chuid dréachtaí, ó Iúil 2005. "...nach raibh aon mhaith i do chuid dréachtaí...". Seafóid. Agus tá i bhfad níos mó leathanaigh athsheolta ag teastáil uainn. Níor chuala mé fútsa roimh a tháinig mé anseo, neamhchosúil cad a scríobh tú áiteanna eile fúm. Cá bhfuair tú do chuid múineadh? "Psychopath, fascist, bigot, the greatest living threat to the Irish language...", beagáinín díréiréach, nach bhfuil? Measaim go bhfuil uicí-laethanta saoire ag teastáil uait. Go sciobtha. Riarthóirí, cá fhad a mbeidh an cosc seo orm? Ar bhfuair mé é mar bhí riarthóir amháin ró-leisciúil mo chuid dréachtaí a staidéar, agus chreid sé/í cad a dúirt mo dhuine ina áit?

CMALANT

'"...nach raibh aon mhaith i do chuid dréachtaí...". Seafóid.

Níl gramadach cheart agat, agus tá tú ag cur isteach botúin nua i dtéacsaí a bhí ceart go leor go dtí go ndeachaigh tú ag dochtúireacht orthu.

Agus tá i bhfad níos mó leathanaigh athsheolta ag teastáil uainn.

Má tá, caithfidh duine éigin a bhfuil fios a ghnótha aige na leathanaigh sin a chur suas.

Níor chuala mé fútsa roimh a tháinig mé anseo

SULAR tháinig, a deirtear.

beagáinín díréiréach, nach bhfuil?

An duine atá á iompar mar a bheadh síceapatach ann, an duine atá á iompar mar a bheadh faisisteach ann, an duine atá á iompar mar a bheadh biogóid ann, ní díol iontais é gurb é sin an meas a tharraingíonn sé air féin.

Measaim go bhfuil uicí-laethanta saoire ag teastáil uait. Go sciobtha.

Le go mbeadh seans agatsa do chuid sabaitéireachta a dhéanamh?

Riarthóirí, cá fhad a mbeidh an cosc seo orm?

Chuala tú cheana féin é: go hinfinideach. Go críocha na héigríche. Go Lá an Luain. Go dtí na críocha déanacha. Go dtí go dtuirlingeoidh Íosa le breithiúnas Dé a thabhairt ar an gcine daonna idir bheo agus mharbh. An bhfuil míniú níos fearr ag teastáil uait?

Ar bhfuair mé é mar bhí riarthóir amháin ró-leisciúil mo chuid dréachtaí a staidéar

Ní bhfuair. Fuair tú an cosc, toisc go bhfuil do chuid Gaeilge go dona, agus tú ag cur obair na ndaoine eile ó mhaith, nó níl tú ábalta droch-Ghaeilge a aithint thar dhea-Ghaeilge. Sin a bhfuil ann. Tá daoine anseo nach bhfuil tar éis, fiú, do leibhéal féin a bhaint amach sa Ghaeilge, ach tá suim acu sa teanga, agus iad ag déanamh a ndichill le tuilleadh a fhoghlaim. Sin é an tuige nach raibh deacrachtaí ar bith agam leosan. Panu Petteri Höglund 12:52, 10 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

Trácht ó duine ar bith eile?

CMALANT

Sílim go bhfuil siadsan bréan breoite den scéal cheana féin. Panu Petteri Höglund 13:13, 10 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

Bíodh foighne agat, Grimesy.

C

Nope. It's a revert war, then. Panu Petteri Höglund 13:28, 10 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud lads (PPH/CMALANT), is there no scope for compromise on this? This is descending into a shouting match again.

Gabriel/Evertype/(admins), can we define a process for actual "arbitration" on this? Otherwise I think this will go nowhere and decend into a purposeless spiral. (In the same way that it did when I attempted my own failed "arbitration" a few months ago. Which - as I noted somewhere recently - failed because I just set-up the page, and didn't actually engage in an arbitration process that was structured by any real "facilitation". Same thing will happen here too without support/structure.) Guliolopez 17:37, 10 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

You are entirely correct Guliolopez. The problem is that we do not already have a suitable model for dispute resolution on this wiki; for example there is no Arbitration Committee, as on other Wikipedias, who can vote on such an issue. I propose this: Panu (and other disputants, if any) should make a list of what he considers to be disruptive actions on CMALANT's part. Links should be provided to specific diffs that illustrate each of the allegations. CMALANT should then be given the chance to give his views on the legitimacy of each of these allegations - that is, he/she should solely talk about the allegations given. After a week, the community as a whole will then take the statements of both parties into account, vote on whether the allegations are proved or disproved, and vote on what measures need to be taken. What are everyone's thoughts on this? --Gabriel Beecham 19:25, 10 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

I have already expressed my opinion. There is no scope for compromise at all. It is either CMALANT or me. I have already written a whole catalogue of CMALANT's destructive activity, and am more than happy to reproduce it here. It's me or CMALANT, and it is moreover my opinion that the concerted action of all Irish-language Wikipedians is needed in order to protect the whole project against him. The day CMALANT was born was a black day for the Irish language, and I think I know now what is actually stopping the language movement short of success: people like him.Panu Petteri Höglund 21:33, 10 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Panu has made his case. He has been as courteous and patient as anyone might be. Evertype 18:05, 11 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

I'm no fan of protracted bureaucracy; my only intent in proposing this additional stage of dispute resolution is to make explicit, for future reference, that any possible action taken against CMALANT has demonstrated support from the user community of this wiki, to avoid the possibility of allegations that admins are merely making choices on who to block by their own prerogative. --Gabriel Beecham 18:57, 11 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, Gabriel.Panu Petteri Höglund 19:13, 11 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

I think it is time for the vote now. For my part, I've read more than enough to have an opinion. Evertype 18:30, 15 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

Aontaím, Gabriel. Tar éis an eadráin seo ba mhaith liom freisin bheith in an caint faoi droch-dréachtaí Phanú, go sáiniúl na naisc atá scriosta aige/aici. B'fhéidir in eadráin eile. Beidh'm sásta na difríochtaí a thaispeáint. San idirlinn, an féidir leat an cosc atá orm a tharscaoileadh? Mar gheall air, tá ríomhairí eicint nach bhfuil mé in an a úsáid, mar cuimhníonn an cosc liom.

CMALANT

Mar a dúirt mé: ní féidir liom bheith ag comhoibriú leis an síceapatach seo.Panu Petteri Höglund 13:21, 11 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

Iarratais eadrána

Cuir Mise An Locht Ar Na Tuistí

• Dáta oscailte: 10:10, 11 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)
• An té a d'oscail: Gabriel Beecham

Daoine atá bainte leis an argóint

• Cuir Mise An Locht Ar Na Tuistí (plé • dréachtaí • athainmniuithe • an úsáideoir a chosc • loga coisc)
• Panu Petteri Höglund (plé • dréachtaí • athainmniuithe • an úsáideoir a chosc • loga coisc)

Ráiteas de chuid Cuir Mise An Locht Ar Na Tuistí

...

"I believe that Panu has made his case. He has been as courteous and patient as anyone might be. Evertype 18:05, 11 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)".

Iontach, Evertype. Ró-leisciúil mo chuid dréachtaí a staidéar sula chuir tú cosc orm, níl clú agat cad a bhí PPH ag déanamh ach creid tú gach focal a scríobh sé/í fúmsa. Téigh ar ais agus féach ar an loitiméireacht ar mo leathanach úsáideora agus:

"I have several times tried to contact Cuir Mise... on his talk page...":

GET A FUCKING LIFE and stop destroying other people's work. Panu Petteri Höglund 19:27, 11 Meitheamh 2006 (UTC)

Keep off the pages I edit, or I'll raise a fucking hell. Panu Petteri Höglund 19:32, 11 Meitheamh 2006 (UTC)

"the fact is that he seems unable to add a link without compromising the grammar."

Bréagaí. Go leor ailt ní raibh athrú ar bith ar an gramadach, ach scrios Panu (agus anois Evertype) na naisc.

"To start with, I took him as a bona fide editor, more enthusiastic than capable. However, I have successively lost any confidence in him..."

As it seems idle to try to get anything across to you in Irish, please take note of this: The unhappy fact is, that you do not have enough Irish to even add links without murdering the grammar. Please stop vandalizing my writings, because what you doing can only be called vandalism.

Bhí sin ar an chéad lá a raibh Panú ag caint liom.

"He seems to have had a personal grudge against me..."

Ní raibh aithne agam ort.

"people have come here and done some edit - and found their job soon destroyed by some over-zealous busybody who has only a very shaky idea of the language. Who was that busybody? I have my suspicions."

Cá fhad a bhfuil mé anseo? Cé mhéad dréachtaí atá agam?

"Links and commentary to his mischief is forthcoming."

Táim ag fanacht.

"There is, will be, and can be NO arbitration or reconciliation between me and CMALANT. The only solution I accept is, that he will go, leave, disappear."

Tá sin mar pháiste a thógann an liathróid abhaile leis nuair a mbíonn an cluiche ag dul an slí mícheart.

"An duine atá á iompar mar a bheadh síceapatach ann, an duine atá á iompar mar a bheadh faisisteach ann, an duine atá á iompar mar a bheadh biogóid ann"

CONAS?

CMALANT

Ráiteas de chuid Panu Petteri Höglund

Ag déanamh ath-aithris ar mo sheanráiteas:

• I have several times tried to contact Cuir Mise... on his talk page, pointing out the systematic errors in his Irish, and I have even pointed out that I am entirely willing to make use of any materials on the Web he finds relevant regarding a certain article. I have adviced him to use the talk page to give me advice, so that I could work any additional material into the articles. He has ignored the proposal.

• I am not against his adding links, but the fact is that he seems unable to add a link without compromising the grammar. As he has entirely ignored my advice, I can only conclude that he is sabotaging the Wiki wilfully. He seems to add hyperlinks just in order to give his sabotage a bona fide appearance, or to induce himself the feeling that he is actually doing any good.

• To start with, I took him as a bona fide editor, more enthusiastic than capable. However, I have successively lost any confidence in him, and am indeed convinced that he does not mean well, but is rather bent on damaging the Wikipedia and, by extension, the language cause, just for the sheer fun of it.

• He seems to have had a personal grudge against me, and has attacked and vandalized my edits systematically, even before the present "war" broke out.

• There is way too much bad Irish floating around already. If we want to save the language, we must take it seriously. I have spent the last ten years of my life studying Gaeltacht Irish with the explicit goal of acquiring fluency and natural, idiomatic expression. If we want the Wikipedia to have a positive impact, this is the kind of Irish we should strive for, inside the bounds of the official standard.

• We have a reason to believe that Cuir Mise... is a person who was already banned from the English-language Wikipedia because of sabotage and POV-pushing.

To sum up:

• I see myself as a bona fide editor and want to work for a better Wiki, and I would like people to respect my contribution enough in order not to vandalize it wilfully. It is tedious to be compelled to correct the same grammatical errors over and over again, when you could instead go further, correct other articles, write and translate new articles and so on. I am not trying to keep my Irish for myself, quite the opposite: I want to share my knowledge with others, and am already working on the Gramadach na Gaeilge article in that purpose.

• I do not trust Cuir Mise... more than I can throw him, and this distrust is the result of cumulating evidence against his good will. I find it quite impossible to cooperate with him in any way. It's him or me, quite simply.13:11, 11 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

More of my old statements regarding the CMALANT case:

And again he reverted a page (Na Ceithre Chúirteanna) where he had destroyed the grammar (for example, that jarring way of his to put a fleiscín into superlative constructions, like "is-fearr", "is-mó" - it can be only his invention, his POV regarding the Irish grammar, because nobody else ever uses it). His idea of correct Irish grammar is so shaky, and his will to tinker with the wording so great, that I already depend on it as a matter of principle that all his edits, no matter how bona fide, will include some similar stupidity. This is precisely what I mean when I say that I do not trust him, and this is why I revert his edits as a matter of routine before adding new content, and recommend this routine to everybody else. Nobody else has ever vandalized my grammar in any way, but to him this kind of vandalism seems to come unintentionally.

The fact is - and I am positive nobody contests this - that my command of Irish is, due to a ten-year-long intensive self-tuition and research in Gaeltacht Irish writings, vastly superior to his. If he wants to learn better Irish and stop sabotaging, then he will ask me nicely what exactly is wrong with his Irish, or take the trouble of reading some of the good books I have read and recommended - to him. He has never even tried this approach, presumably because he couldn't care less. As you see above, I have several times explained to him what exactly was wrong with his grammar. He never paid any heed, but continues to actively reproduce the same grammatical errors.

One more note: It is really not about links.

Interestingly enough, in our little "revert war" he never tries to insert the same links into the grammatically correct version. Instead, he reverts to the grammatically incorrect version. If it were really about links, and nothing personal, he would understand that it is much easier to insert the links into the grammatically correct texts, than restore the grammar around his new links. So, it is not really about links. It is some personal grudge of his, or he is wilfully sabotaging the grammar. Besides, if I do restore the grammar after he has attacked the page, he'll tinker with it again. So, this link thing is just an excuse.

And yes. It is still me or him. Considering that he seems to be the same person who was banned from the English-language wiki for POV-pushing, I do not see why we should give him free rein to destroy everything here. His "contribution" is entirely destructive and irritating.

I'd like to add that being a member of the Gaelic-L e-mail list since 1995, I have had the opportunity to find out about how fluent mainstream Irish-speakers feel about Vicipéid. The prevailing attitude is surprisingly, shockingly negative and even tarcaisniúil - derisive. The reason is, that people have come here and done some edit - and found their job soon destroyed by some over-zealous busybody who has only a very shaky idea of the language. Who was that busybody? I have my suspicions.

The fact is, Vicipéid is never going to thrive if people like CMALANT are allowed to have their way. This project could be a great asset to the language if we could enlist more fluent speakers. But they won't come, they won't go anywhere near us. Why? Because they think CMALANT is all there is to Vicipéid.Panu Petteri Höglund 13:16, 11 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

Links and commentary to his mischief is forthcoming. However, there is something I want to make absolutely clear: There is, will be, and can be NO arbitration or reconciliation between me and CMALANT. The only solution I accept is, that he will go, leave, disappear. Any other solution will lead to me renouncing all cooperation with the Vicipéid. I will take my drafts with me to my own Wikispaces pages, and go on translating articles from the English-language Wikipedia. As soon as I hear CMALANT isn't there anymore, I will come back and hand over my translations to the Vicipéid. But I simply do not trust the good intentions of CMALANT, and will NEVER EVER cooperate with him. Panu Petteri Höglund 13:36, 11 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

Demonstration

Dearcaimis ar an gcaoi a d'fhág sé ar an alt faoi Mhícheál Ó Coileáin.

[[1]]

Note that this difference is between my last edit before his getting at it, and his last edit before I saw how he was treating the article and reverted his edits. So, there are several edits by him between the two versions I am comparing.

• Impractical links. He just made a link out of the genitive form [[Airt Uí Ghríofa]], instead of makin it a piped link: [[Art Ó Gríofa|Airt Uí Ghríofa]]. Somebody (Guliolopez maybe) told him how to make piped links. He ignored the advice, as he ignored my prior advice regarding grammar. Instead, he went on linking genitive forms and mutated forms, and when he found out they were not the dictionary or basic forms of the word in question, he created a redirect page to the dictionary form. And, as we know, sometimes he lost the count of these redirect pages that he actually created a chain of two or three redirect pages from the link to the destination page.

• For some unfathomable reason, he wanted to take away the [[]] from around the abbreviation IRB, but somehow he left it there as "([RB)", not as "(IRB)". He was so busy with his mischief, that he didn't bother to correct this botún cló.

• Note the line Le pas a fháil, mhol sé [[Impireacht na BreataineMóire]] go hard na spéire. When he made the words "Impireacht na Breataine Móire" into a link, he inadvertently omitted the space between "Breataine" and "Móire", and was again so busy with his mischief, that he didn't bother to correct this little misprint even after a series of edits.

• My version: "b'ar an lá céanna a lámhach cathlán d'Óglaigh beirt saighdiúirí dubha a bhí ag gardáil coinsíneacht geiligníte ar an tSulchóid Bheag i gContae Thiobraid Árann." For some reason, he does not like the words "saighdiúirí dubha", which is a time-honoured Gaeltacht expression for RIC policemen (you can find it in Ó Dónaill's dictionary), but wanted to use "póilíní" instead of it. This amounts to reducing the information content, because "saighdiúirí dubha" is an established term with an established meaning, while "póilíní" could be any kind of policemen. In fact, "póilíní" is even today relatively rare except as a generic term. Most Northern Ireland Irish-language writers seem to have usually called RUC constables "péas", while the police in the Republic are, of course, called "gardaí". - Of course, our friend might have thought that "saighdiúirí dubha" was too racy and folksy to be used in an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be written in a flat style without too much expressions of this kind. But he could simply have added a link to the page "Constáblacht Ríoga na hÉireann", like this: [[Constáblacht Ríoga na hÉireann|saighdiúirí dubha]]. Of course, this never occurred to him, although he is so damn fond of adding these links everywhere.

• My version: d'áitigh sé ar na hÓglaigh gan "targaidí ina suí" a dhéanamh díobh féin. The idea is, that Collins is giving concrete and tangible persons (na hÓglaigh) concrete and tangible advice, as somebody who is schooling recruits for war. CMALANT makes this into "d'áitigh sé ar [[Óglaigh na hÉireann]]...", i.e. he is giving advice to the abstract organization. CMALANT wanted to insert a link there, and he was obviously too stupid or had too bad Irish to understand why I had used such a wording. Of course, even now he could not be bothered to make a piped link, like this: d'áitigh sé ar na h[[Óglaigh na hÉireann|Óglaigh]]...

• My version: leis an Rí Seoirse a Cúig. His version: leis an Rí Shasana Seoirse a Cúig. What is wrong? Anybody who can answer, lift a hand. Yes. It is the old favourite botún, the double definite article. In Irish, one definite noun makes everything definite, and Sasana, being a place-name, makes the whole noun-phrase definite. Thus, "an Rí" is definite, "Rí Shasana" is precisely as definite, but in "an Rí Shasana" there is one "an" too much. "An Rí Sasanach" = "the English king" would again be correct, because "Sasanach" is here an attributive adjective.

It is the same thing as when you write "Uachtarán na hÉireann" for "The President of Ireland". In English, you must have the "the" there. In Irish, it would be entirely wrong to write "*an tUachtarán na hÉireann".

Now, as I told him on his own page, we could give him the benefit of the doubt: if he doesn't know syntax, he doesn't know syntax. However, I have several times pointed out what is wrong with this kind of syntax, and he still goes on making the same mistakes. There is a limit after which bona fide ignorance becomes wilful ignorance, i.e. sabotage.

Anyway, the addition of "Shasana" there did not constitute an addition to the informational content of the article, because anyone reading the article knows that the bloke was the King of England. It was just another instance of CMALANT's needless tinkering, which serves no other purpose than his need to have the feeling that he is actually adding something worthwhile.

• My version: limistéar an stáitín thuaisceartaigh (the territory of the Northern statelet). His version: limistéar an stáitín Oráisteach. Of course, he could not have been bothered to use the correct genitive form: limistéar an stáitín Oráistigh. (Omission of adjectival declension here is certainly OK in Gaeltacht speech, but as yet it is not standard Irish.) As regards the wording, i.e. calling the Northern statelet the "Orange" statelet, it is somewhat emotional and loaded, but I do not object to it very strongly, because we all know about the highly undue influence the Orange Order has exerted upon the politics and administration of Northern Ireland since its inception.

Another comparison. [[2]] Ar an taobh clé a fheiceann sibh an bhail a d'fhág mise ar an leathanach i ndiaidh a chuid sabaitéireacht a cheartú. Ar an taobh deas, na "feabhsuithe" a rinne sé.

• His hatred for "na saighdiúirí dubha" knows no bounds. At this time, I had made it a piped link:

Bhí an tír ar barr lasrach le cogadh cruálach, agus na [[Constáblacht Ríoga na hÉireann|saighdiúirí dubha]] is [[na Dúchrónaigh]] ag rith damhsa fud fad na hÉireann.

so that even people less conversant in the ould Gaeltacht Irish would find out what the "black soldiers" are. (There is, by the way, also the expression "saighdiúirí dearga", which means "redcoats", i.e. regular British soldiers, although I guess it would be way too quaint to call today's British soldiers "saighdiúirí dearga", now that they don't wear red coats anymore.) Our friend of course takes away "na saighdiúirí dubha" and makes it "agus an [[Constáblacht Ríoga na hÉireann]] is [[na Dúchrónaigh]] ag rith damhsa fud fad na hÉireann". Of course, with his unerring inexactitude, he manages to make two grammatical errors at one stroke: to start with, constáblacht is a feminine word, so it should be "an Chonstáblacht". But as "Constáblacht" governs here a definite noun in genitive (na hÉireann, which is both inherently definite due to its status as a proper name, and for the sake of grammatical convention usually takes the definite article in genitive), it is wrong to insert any kind of article before it.

So, CMALANT again commits the same mistake I already told him to avoid. This kind of stubborn disregard of grammar cannot be excused as bona fide ignorance. It is toilghnústa as they used to say in Rann na Feirste: the word means both "wilful" and "malicious". And as his changing the wording didn't really add to the informational content, it is another example of his childish and egomaniacal tinkering which does much harm and no good.

There is another instance of "saighdiúirí dubha" in the text - NOT linked to the article about RIC - which he for some reason didn't tamper with. Now, let's imagine somebody reading the article who does not know what the saighdiúirí dubha are. The first instance has been linked to "Constáblacht Ríoga na hÉireann", so that the reader learns at once what it means, and isn't amazed by the next instance. However, by destroying the first mention of the saighdiúirí dubha, CMALANT also destroyed the possibility for the reader to find out what the expression means. So, he was again doing harm to the informational content of the article (making it impossible for the reader to learn the meaning of the expression "saighdiúirí dubha"). Panu Petteri Höglund 17:57, 13 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

• In this particular comparison, we see that CMALANT for some reason changes the word "Poblachtánaigh", republicans, into "frith-Chonraitheoirí", anti-Treatyists. While this change, of course, can in itself be defended, I doubt it adds anything substantial to the informational content of the article, because the Poblachtánaigh/Saorstátairí conflict should to some extent be known to anyone who can read Irish, i.e. that the idea of Republicanism, after the introduction of the Free State option, meant opposition to the Treaty. - However, this is not the point. The point is, that he cannot write the word "frith-Chonraitheoirí" correctly, but consistently omits the lenition of the C-, writing either "frith-conraitheoirí" or "frith-Conraitheoirí". So, again he wants to tinker with the wording, and introduces new grammatical errors. Panu Petteri Höglund 18:21, 13 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

• Please note also this. My version has: Ní raibh anseo ach tagairt shoiléir do na Trioblóidí i dTuaisceart Éireann. Note: i dTuaisceart Éireann. For some unfathomable reason, CMALANT doesn't want to talk about troubles in Northern Ireland, but in the province of Ulster. So, he writes: Ní raibh anseo ach tagairt shoiléir do [[na Trioblóidí]] i Chúige Uladh. Note: i Chúige Uladh! Okay, let's assume that CMALANT did not know that a naked noun following the preposition i is not lenited, but eclipsed. But he had a good example there: if I wrote "i dTuaisceart Éireann", shouldn't he have been able to conclude, that the correct form is "i gCúige Uladh" and not "i Chúige Uladh"? Nope. He wanted to tinker with the wording, and then he murdered grammar either because of his ignorance, or wilfully. Panu Petteri Höglund 23:37, 14 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

More examples: here, in the article about the Four Courts:

[[3]]

• My version: nuair a bhain Éire amach rialtas dúchais mar Shaorstát. His version: nuair a bhain an chuid is-mó d'Éire amach rialtas dúchais mar Shaorstát. While his correction in itself may be defended, he again compromises grammar for the sake of his need to tinker. The use of hyphen in "is-mó" flies in the face of all the Irish usage in the world, and I am actually positive he knows it, but he obviously has some profound personal need to bend grammar and orthography after his personal quirk. For my part, I would prefer us to observe standard or, if you don't know the standard (and I admit sometimes it IS open to interpretation), then the established literary usage of some dialect (I guess people still tend to err in the direction of Munster Irish after so much Peig). Surely the least recommendable idea is to introduce new orthographic quirks entire of your own making.

And, of course, he does not remember that Éire has a dative form, i.e. it should be "an chuid is mó d'Éirinn". In fact, it is more acceptable to write "Éirinn" for "Éire", i.e. "nuair a bhain Éirinn amach rialtas dúchais mar Shaorstát", because when dative died out in the spoken language, it was the dative form "Éirinn" that was kept in many (if not most) dialects instead of "Éire" and used even instead of nominative. (Note that even in Scots Gaelic, Ireland is Eirinn.) Panu Petteri Höglund 19:16, 13 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

• My version: ba sna Cúirteanna seo a thosaigh [[Cogadh Cathartha na hÉireann]], go bunúsach. His version: ba sna Cúirteanna seo a thosaigh Cogadh Cathartha, go bunúsach. - For some reason, neither the link nor the full name of the war are to his liking, now. So, he takes away the name of Ireland, and leaves just Cogadh Cathartha there. Nobody knows why. But of course, NOW, when he should add the missing article there, i.e., "...a thosaigh an Cogadh Cathartha", he doesn't remember, or still does not understand how definiteness works in Irish, or can't be bothered. In this particular case, he seems to have tinkered with the wording just for the sheer fun of it, and as his Irish is so shaky, of course he introduces a new grammatical error. Panu Petteri Höglund 19:22, 13 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

Here begins CMALANT's answer:

"Tá 553 athruithe agam. Tá tusa ag scríobh faoi trí. Cé mhéad an bhfuil fadhb agat leo? Agus an fiúntach cosc iad? Panu, cén fáth a rinne tú (agus Evertype, cén fáth a spreagann thú?) an loitiméireacht déistineach seo:

[4]"

• Let me break up CMALANT's answer here, because I'd like to comment this link. The link takes us to the page about Cathal Goulding. Now, CMALANT's version is on the left-hand side, mine on the right-hand side. He calls this "loitiméireacht dhéistineach". Well, in his versions the Northern Catholics are to be protected against Unionists - ar na [[Aontachtóirí]]. Of course, he did not have enough Irish to add the h: "ar na hAontachtóirí" would have been correct, because the plural definite article na adds a h- to a vowel (except in the genitive, where it adds a n-: na Gaeil a chosaint ar na hAontachtóirí = to protect Gaels against Unionists, but: Páirtí na nAontachtóirí = the party of the Unionists). I reverted it back to "ar na Dílseoirí".Panu Petteri Höglund 00:00, 15 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

As his namesake's edits on the English-language Wikipedia, his edits over here are mostly just petty-minded tinkering with the wording of articles dealing with Northern Troubles. On the English side of the fence, this was less detrimental, because English is a language he demonstrably does know, and besides, English is regrettably not an endangered language. Over here, though, his tinkering is more damaging, because, as the examples I have mentioned, he isn't able to tinker with the wording without compromising grammar. - Of course, all this begs the question, whether we should devise guidelines regarding the usage of politically loaded terms connected with Northern Ireland. Panu Petteri Höglund 16:21, 15 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC) modified: Panu Petteri Höglund 16:24, 15 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

"[5]"

In this article, we see examples of CMALANT's bad link-making: instead of piped links such as [[An Ghearmáin|Gearmáin]] or [[An Rúis|Rúis]], he simply makes links such as [[Gearmáin]] or [[Rúis]]. And an example of his petty-minded tinkering: instead of "Meiriceá", he wants to use "SA", which is not a very established abbreviation (usually, SAM is used). "Meiriceá" for United States might be less than accurate, but it is eminently more intelligible to anyone really familiar with Irish than SA, which refers to the Sturmabteilungen or storm troops of the Nazi party - in just about any language. Panu Petteri Höglund 10:50, 19 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

"[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

Ta i bhfad nios mó ná seo, scóranna. Fiuntach cosc, Evertype? Agus arís, loitiméir agus bréagóir, níor thug tú freagra dom:

"An duine atá á iompar mar a bheadh síceapatach ann, an duine atá á iompar mar a bheadh faisisteach ann, an duine atá á iompar mar a bheadh biogóid ann"

CONAS? CÁ?" (End of CMALANT's answer)

CMALANT, you are supposed to write your answers where they belong, i.e. under "Ráiteas ó CMALANT". You did not even sign your answer.

You stupid or something? I have the whole week's time to tell what is wrong with ALL your edits. Rest assured that they are all bad, and that I am able to show it. By the way, your Irish is too bad to be even understood. What do you mean with "fiuntach cosc", for instance? It is an entirely unintelligible wording that has no similarity to existing Irish grammatical structures. Panu Petteri Höglund 16:25, 14 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

"CMALANT"

Oh well, you did sign it after all. Well, I'll put quotes around your contribution, so people know who wrote what. By the way, I think the whole point of this process, for CMALANT, is just to bog me down in a never-ending commentary of his edits. He is a troll with a personal faltanas, and I doubt he is in any particular way interested in Irish and its future.Panu Petteri Höglund 16:35, 14 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

Tuairimí eile?

CMALANT

Hi CMALANT. I think you're acting as your own worst enemy again. My opinion (seeing as you asked for it) is that the "evidence" that PPH puts forth is pretty strong, and that (per Evertype) there is enough detail here to warrant some kind of a decision or action pretty soon.

And so, with time running out, as I havn't seen or heard that you have addressed the concerns laid out (in the relevant "CMALANT's position" section as PPH notes). I would recommend that (if you are see any of this discussion even remotely come down on your side) you need to:

1. acknowledge that you did in fact ignore PPH's comments and suggestions for too long
2. admit that you should have heeded those suggestions
3. confirm (as I think we all talked about before) how you plan on generally CHANGING your behaviour in this regard
4. address the concern that "CMALANT is just going to keep adding links to the detriment of the language of the articles"
5. etc.

I expect maybe that you might have expected that the arbitration would be a "debate" with a "winner" and a "loser". I don't think that (under such a model) you could ever have seen this resolved in your favour. (PPH total "owns" the past - his comments and references stand up to any argument - apart possibly from the one about being civil in all cases). And so, with "reactive" debate all but useless, the only way to "win the audience" at this point is for you to focus on the future, and not the past.

So, you need to address the concern (held unfortunately also by myself to a degree - even though I'm trying to be open-minded) that you'll just fall back into the same pattern again. If you can't convince ppl that this won't happen, then you're out of luck. And - to be honest - even if you manage to convince people of that, you may still have an uphill struggle. Guliolopez 19:01, 15 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

Gheobhaidh tú tuairim Evertype, a CMALANT. :D Panu Petteri Höglund 23:26, 14 Lúnasa 2006 (UTC)

An Lárionad comhphobail:

Irish learners

If your Irish isn't the best or you're still learning it, don't be afraid to add articles, edit articles where you see a mistake or ask questions, in any language. The users on the Vicipéid have a wide range of languages, so ask away and someone will answer you. Most of all, add to the Vicipéid: "a full Wikipedia with terrible grammar is better than an empty one with perfect grammar".

PPH:

"...find out about good Irish, and come back after one year..." Panu Petteri Höglund 21:28, 7 Bealtaine 2006 (UTC)

Idir an beirt acu, cé atá ceart?

CMALANT

Vótáil

Le teacht.