User talk:Evertype/Archive 1

Hello Evertype, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to join the community. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How to edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Newcomers' Village pump. And of course, feel free to talk with me or ask questions on my talk page. Enjoy! --Αλεξ Σ 23:05, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

List of writing systems: syllabaries vs. abugidas, and where Canadian syllabics fit in

Thank you for organising the various Canadian "syllabic" scripts under one heading on List of writing systems. However, even though they are usually called syllabaries, I believe that they do not fit the strict definition of a syllabary since syllables beginning with a consonant are related in shape (e.g. by rotation, reflection, or addition of dots)—so these related writing system are (in my opinion) abugidas instead.

Please feel free to discuss this on the article's Talk page. -- pne 14:20, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Euro

Hi Evertype - "There is no "standard keyboard", and alt+xxxx is a poor and ancient way to type" - I've not heard of any other way. So how is it supposed to be typed? - MPF 13:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've taken this point up at length on the euro talk page. Evertype 21:13, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

ISO 8859-12: Celtic or Indic?

Hello, could you please take a look at Talk:ISO_8859? A discussion is ongoing there if ISO/IEC 8859-12 was intended for Celtic or for ISCII, and I found a statement attributed to you: "According to Michael Everson there are drafts for future ISO-8859-11 Thai, ISO-8859-12 Latin7 (Celtic) (...)". Any insight would be appreciated! Anárion 09:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I will try. Evertype

Plural of euro

While I may accept some people using "cents" and "euros", I disagree that "The ordinary plurals in -s are preferred for euros and cents in the English language". You may abhor the reason why people here are using the s-less plurals, but they are. I assure you the s-less plurals are more popular. The usage on Wikipedia of course, nevertheless has to be agreed, but captions like you added are quite arrogant. Zoney 12:48, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to be getting into an edit war - but I for one will not be reverting if anyone changes it to "cent" again. I do feel my "clumsy" compromise should have been accepted - why should it be written the exact same manner as dollar? Consistency? No - while the article should be written in a similar way certainly - having the exact same sentences is not a necessary encyclopaedia feature. Zoney 12:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unicode

I'm pretty sure that Unicode does is not allowed in titles, but then again I'm not the best person to ask for a techy question. --Αλεξ Σ 23:25, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

It isn't - see Naming conventions (technical restrictions). --Red King 19:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cornish language

Thanks for the heads up. You mostly did what I was concerned about (taking out the advert for the bookshop). I've made a few changes on teaching of Cornish, and added a reference for where I got the info from. --ALargeElk | Talk 16:25, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ise vs ize

Both forms are accepted in British English. The "ize" is indeed the one used by many dictionaries. However, where US spelling is being strongly avoided, "ise" is more clearly European. "ise" is quite common for European publications (referring to EU topics, organisation is more common than organization). I personally find the "zees" quite jarring - regardless of the dictionary standardisation.

Certainly I will continue to write using "s" rather than "z". If an article has already "standarized" on "z", then yes, I'm not going to change it. User:Zoney|talk 16:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the spelling in the euro article should be consistent. I was saying that you were wrong to suggest that -ize is an Americanism. It isn't. It's a more authentic historical spelling than the admittedly common -ise; it is recommended by Oxford, one of the most respected authorities of English spelling and practice. I would say that -ise is a common English spelling, but that -ize is perfectly good European and North American practice. The International Organization for Standardization follows Oxford spelling practice. Evertype 16:32, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

I did in fact state that it is a "non-US" spelling. That, I believe, is accurate. Using such spelling discourages actual US-only spelling from creeping in.

I accept your points on the origin and correctness of "ize" - but it won't change my practices. I don't feel I should have to justify supporting "s" over "z", considering that a quick Google for "organisation" and "organization" threw up 11 million vs 12 million (selecting results only in English), despite "organization" appearing in my (British) English dictionary. Based on such results, it really looks like "s" is preferred this side of the Atlantic (of course, I don't know for sure!) I really object to a European article commencing with "organization"; the correlation with the French "organisation" is a good thing in my opinion!!! User:Zoney|talk 16:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"I accept your points on the origin and correctness of "ize" - but it won't change my practices." The bane of every standardizer. Sigh.... [irony]I hope you don't vote Fianna Fáil because your grandparents did....[/irony] Evertype

Nah, I'm one of those left-wing pinko Labour supporters. :o) Actually, I probably more agree with Christian Democratic principles, but that's not quite Fine Gael! Besides... Enda Who? Zoney|User talk:Zoney 17:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd love to see Pat Rabbitte as Taoiseach myself. He's a smart man, and will, I trust, have his Minister for Finance instruct the Irish media to regain their senses and say euros and cents as the rest of the English-speaking world does. Evertype 18:22, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

I was taught both "ize" and "ise" spellings at school (in UK). My personal preference is for "ize" spellings, "civilsation", for example, just looks wrong when compared to "civilization". However, if I am writing papers for government departments I use "ise" spellings as these are more commonly used. I'm not quite sure why "ise" spellings have become more popular in Britain, historically "ize" was the spelling used from early modern English onwards; Robert Cawdreys 1604 publication lists "equalize", "methodize" and "scandalize" and I've only ever seen John Donne's poem "The Canonization" spelt as such, it also includes the word "epitomize". I could be wrong, but i also seem to think that the King James Bible (1611) uses the spelling "baptize". The spelling has also been used since the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica in the 18th Century. In 7 out of 8 of the British dictionaries (all published 1989-2001) I own, the "ise" spellings are not even listed, in the other it is only an acceptable variant. The "ise" form has only become more common in British publishing in the last 20 years- The Times, for example, only switched when Rupert Murdoch bought it. I proudly carry the flag for Great British traditions and as long as the OED continue to list civilize before civilise I will continue to use the "ize" spellings rather than the abhorrent French alternatives. Even the Spanish prefer "Z"s e.g. organizacion.

If you're going to write an essay here, please sign it. Evertype 19:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

-ize is indeed good European spelling. I usually spell: colour, centre, fulfil, labelling, analyse, recognize. By the way, it's not only the ISO that uses British spelling with -ize, but also the United Nations system, the World Trade Organization, the International Red Cross and last but not least: Nature, the world's best scientific journal! 80.184.135.210 22:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It isn't "British spelling with -ize". It's Oxford spelling. Evertype 22:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Irish wikipedians' notice board

Hi there, I'm not sure if you know about it, or if anyone has previously mentioned it to you, but there is an Irish wikipedians' notice board up and running. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Irish wikipedians' notice board. zoney ♣ talk 23:53, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Last Resort

I wrote a paragraph about the Last Resort font in Mac OS 8.5 and later on Apple fonts. It would be nice if you could review it for accuracy. In particular, I don't know what the best way to describe the various character categories is. I think i wrote "unicode blocks" but the symbols don't map directly to blocks, do they? — David Remahl 19:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reviewed and corrected. Yes, they're blocks. Also, I used Chicago on purpose, so it's not "curious" really. Evertype 20:15, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that out. Good to see you on here. I've been writing an email to you for the past month or so, but it's still in my drafts box :) Nicholas 22:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Culture of Ireland

The feasts/observances section is a lot better now. It actually probably misses out on some things - I did to some extent, throw it together just to have something. (I really don't have the time to actually do serious research for Wikipedia articles). zoney ♣ talk 23:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not finished, either. By the way, the plural of euro is euros. ;-) Evertype 23:05, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Actually the EEC decided that the official plural of Euro would be Euro. Only in the English language is it commonly called Euros. Nicholas 22:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WorldScript

I know you're a busy man, but could you take a few minutes to review what I wrote about WorldScript on Apple typography? I've never personally used WorldScript, since Swedish is neatly covered my MacRoman. I used a page of yours as a reference for what I wrote. If you feel generous, perhaps you could create WorldScript too? Lets keep the typography article reasonably free from technical details. — David Remahl 06:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't have the time to author an article on WorldScript. Evertype 16:50, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

Westport, Ireland

Would you like to contribute to the article on Westport, Ireland? As I am away from home at present, I am unable to take the photographs that the article will need for it to be home of true Wikipedians.--Brendanconway 02:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modern Greek scripts

The "polytonic Greek script" and the "monotonic Greek script" are not some neologism I've coined up. It's the exact translation of the Greek terms "πολυτονική γραφή" and "μονοτονική γραφή". Each script (γραφή) has its own orthography (ορθογραφία). I suggest restoring the original name of the articles. Etz Haim 18:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'Script' has other uses in English, as does 'écriture' in French. More comments on your talk page. Evertype 18:50, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Runes

Category:Runes is intended to include individual runes. I suppose. rune and Elder Futhark are best put into Category:Runology. regards, dab (ᛏ) 17:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware of being part of an edit war. I was in the process of categorization without noticing you were editing at the same time. Let's talk, then. dab (ᛏ) 17:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're right, and I modified what I said on your talk page. Evertype 17:12, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Re: Deleting a Celtic article?

Thanks for supporting the deletion of Westcountry Brythonic. What's the other article you suggested might be dodgy? Evertype 13:03, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

It's Neo-Gaelic language. While I find it downright likely that Irish and Scottish Gaelic were spoken in the Appalachians at some point, I know of no research that verifiably establishes the existence of this language. Probably the author's grandmother told him that her grandmother used to call her "mavourneen" or something like that. --Angr 13:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um, Michael, are you a Wikipedia administrator? Because if you're not I don't think you're allowed to summarize Votes for deletion. I could be wrong, though. --Angr 20:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey Michael, if your comment "Woo hoo! Now it is a revived language with speakers!" was intended as sarcasm (as I suspect), you should probably mark it as such. These Celtic-Devonianists seem to be a pretty humorless bunch. --Angr 09:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, while I think most of that "Neo-Gaelic" article is a myth, yes I think there is some documented use of Scottish Gaelic in the Carolinas, although I wish I could find it again! I heard that one of the last native speakers there died in the 1920s. Native Ontario Gaidhlig died out only several years ago.

Comments on maps

Evertype,

I have changed the map to reflect the previous map colouring, and also the NI boundary. I will however entertain alternate colouring suggestions (as I said, I was not completely content with my first offering myself).

I must admit I was a bit taken aback by the ferocity of your comments. I assure you that with the huge amount of work involved, it was more about greater map precision than some 32-county agenda!!! I hope you believe me on this considering I have demonstrated no objection to changing the scheme to match the previous setup. I genuinely felt it was unnecessary to delineate the border and Northern counties.

(Yes the ROI county articles have a local government role, although you will see from earlier comments that I would like that split off in the same way as the NI boroughs are separate articles. There was a dispute as to where North/South Tipp etc. fit in the existing series. I would like three separate series - ROI admin divisions, Ireland 32 traditional counties, NI boroughs/councils. At the moment the former two are merged - with either the 6 northern counties, or the "new" ROI counties not fitting in.)

I do think it was a bit overboard suggesting this was a broader issue for which the Irish Wikipedians' notice board was unsuitable. As has now been determined, there is no "convention" for map colouring (regardless of the "recommended palette" that isn't much used). Certainly the colours in use by the existing Ireland maps and Iran provinces are just Morwen's personal choice.

I should point out that I did ask for comments before making a blanket change. That is courtesy, not a requirement. Nor would it have been a heineous crime were there a map colouring convention that I was unaware of.

I do hope we can get along, regardless of the earlier dispute over euro/euros and cent/cents.

zoney ♣ talk 19:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Orkhon script

Thank you for inserting the image of Orkhon script — the little present that cheered my day — it's good to see the articles of various writing systems getting good coverage. Thanks. Gareth Hughes 20:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Evertype! Gangleri | Th | T 21:44, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

It's my job, isn't it? Evertype 22:05, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Olmec, Maya, Vai, and Roylee

Hi Michael,

A few days ago I came acros User:Roylee, a user whose editing pattern I can only describe as a continuous attempt to edit fringe theories into Wikipedia in a misleading and self-supporting way. A lot of his unsubstantiated and highly dubious additions have been reverted already over the past days. Just now he added a woolly paragraph to Maya hieroglyphics and Maya civilization. At the latter article his edit was reverted on sight by another editor. At Maya hieroglyphics, I moved his addition to the Talk page of the article. Could you maybe let the light of your expertise shine on this content and on the sources he is linking to? — mark ✎ 15:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. — mark ✎ 11:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New article on Irish typography (including manuscript)?

As this is your field, are you inclined to contribute an article? Now that Unicode can handle dotted consonants (eg Meḋḃ), it must be timely to explain an ċló tradisúinta, the local letterforms for d, g and t - and indeed how we got there from the uncial script in the Book of Kells. I'm thinking of your Ceannainais and Doire fonts, so it occurs to me you might have most of an article that you put in the oven earlier? --Red King 11:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

re: VfD links

Before we had this process, we used to copy the entire discussion into the article's Talk page. Some still argue that we should move the discussion and not merely link to it. (See here.) No one argues that we should just delete the discussion. We have just found too many situations where we need to refer to the prior decision. For example, we used to have a lot of re-nominations - people trying to game the system. Everyone would waste several hours commenting (again) until someone finally said "we decided this a month ago" and the entire tenor of the debate changed. Since we have been systematically archiving the discussions and recording the link to them, we have had much better luck pre-empting that kind of abuse.

I understand your comment that some of the discussions become abusive. Unfortunately, I don't know how to help you. Wikipedia insists on verifiability and NPOV on article pages but tolerates a great deal more on Talk pages, etc. There is a standing rule about No personal attacks which some people interpret to allow the redaction of personal attacks but that is a very controversial interpretation. Many people believe that the abusive comments should be a part of the permanent record - that the abusive comment itself serves as evidence that discredits other comments by the user. There is also a very reasonable argument that if we allow the redaction of attack comments, we will just move the problem since the participants would then get into fights over whether the comment is a personal attack or is just an aggressively worded comment relevant to the discussion.

Personally, I think that providing the link but not copying the full discussion into the talk page is the right balance. Few people will dig into the discussion page to look at that level of detail unless they are looking to answer a specific and probably legitimate question. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The Modern Persian Scientist List

Thanx for the alphabetizing. I can imagine how hard it was. I appreciate your work there.--Zereshk 19:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:Alphabet

Hello. If you think some of the information on Template:Alphabet is incorrect, would you mind pointing it out on the talk page? --Puzzlet Chung 09:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Lowland Scots

I see that on Brythonic languages you removed "and Anglo-Saxons brought an Anglo-Saxon language with them, Lowland Scots." with the comment (Reverting. Could we have some discussion on this point with dates before introducing Anglo-Saxon Scots at that early date?). It seems non-contentious that Lowland Scots is a Germanic language, derived like Northern English from Northumbrian; and that it displaced Brythonic languages in the south of Scotland as Gaelic displaced them in the north. What is your objection here? Is it that Lowland Scots is not identical to Anglo-Saxon (which is certainly true, but better dealt with by adding 'which evolved into' rather than deleting the phrase entirely. --Nantonos 00:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Response at Talk:Brythonic_languages which is where this belonged. Evertype 07:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yiddish Wikipedia

Hi Evertype. As a Yiddish speaker, you might be interested in my half-baked plan to revitalize the moribund (only 121 articles) Yiddish Wikipedia. Please see my idea at Talk:Yiddish_language#Yiddish_Wikipedia, and thanks.--Pharos 05:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

British Summer Time

Anyone bored? The table would be more useful if 2007 were at the top and 1916 at the bottom. Evertype 13:27, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

I thought they both might be usefull so I've created British Summer Time/Reverse. --βjweþþ (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006

Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 03:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Aetius

You may want to take a look at Talk:Aetius and contribute your informed opinion. I have no axe to grind here -- let's just do the right thing! --Macrakis 21:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Our forum

Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedia notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under their relevant cathegory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedian%27s_notice_board

--Anittas 18:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ogham

Vandalism? Jesus Christ, have you considered civility? Have you even looked at the changes I did? before -- after (plus the subsidiary Bríatharogam, In Lebor Ogaim, Auraicept na n-Éces, Book of Ballymote, of course). Does this look like vandalism to you? Now, addressing your actual point, I assume you are referring to the {{Table Oghamletters}}. What do you mean "standardized" vs. "Old Irish"? I am under the informed impression that the names are Old Irish, and the spellings I used are normalized Old Irish according to McManus (1998, 1991). I realize that Old Irish terms often have a variety of spellings, so I am certainly prepared to have a civil discussion about the matter, so if you care to tell me in what sense "your" spellings are "standardized"? dab (ᛏ) 09:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In view of your reply, I consider my comments above inappropriately polite. I quoted a source for the spellings I used. McManus is no doubt the prime reference in the matter of Ogham names. You merely claimed your spellings are 'standard'. I would like to hear your rationale, but if that implies being called names, I'd rather let you have your way and turn to more serious points. dab (ᛏ) 13:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks -- I was a bit tense because of unrelated matters (Talk:Rajput), and I appreciate your conciliatory approach. Regarding the template, I think it would better to have it at a name more intuitive than {{Table_Oghamletters}}. Maybe simple {{Ogham}}? I am not sure it is a good idea to have individual articles about the five forfeda, they are better discussed together, at forfeda. Of course I accept that they "are" letters in the manuscript tradition, but they didn't exist in the original Ogham of course. I am positively opposed to listing Peith as a letter, since it isn't part of the alphabet even in the manuscript tradition. It's just a random forfid, and any number of others could be listed (see also Image:Forfeda.png). Anyway, I won't touch the template again, as you clearly know what you are doing (even if you are clearly focused on Unicode; the only reason to list Peith is that it has an Unicode encoding while others do not). dab (ᛏ) 11:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

euro cent symbol

Since I've come to regard you as the expert in such things, a query here before I revert. In Euro#Trivia concerning the coins, you changed "50c" etc to "50¢" etc. My understanding is that the "¢" symbol is a US notation, not used in Europe. I've certainly never seen it! (but then again, my young cousin has been heard to use the term "yo-yo", though that was AGES ago - so you are not infallible!) Is it an artefact of Irish greengrocer's [sic] who are "returned yanks"? --Red King 17:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I knew about the generic use of $ sign, so I recognise the extrapolation and give way. I'll only remark that I've seen Dutch prices (in gulden) that used the trailing letter "c", so maybe you could copy the relevant portion of your reply to me onto talk:euro? --Red King 17:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Cornish? - English? - British?

If you disapprove of Cornish people being categorised as "English" (sic), then say so: you will probably find a very sympathetic ear from my direction. If however your kneejerk reaction is to fling the word "vandalism" at a hard-working contributor acting in good faith then you are very likely to simply get their back up. Do not turn potential allies into automatic foes. --Mais oui! 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas was born in London. He doesn't live there, and hasn't for decades, so he can hardly be called a Londoner. He lives in Ireland, and self-identifies as a British subject. So why you keep categorizing him as English is beyond me. And he isn't Cornish. I reverted your changes, and made comments as to why, and you simply reverted them. Frankly I don't see why "English" and "Scottish" and "Welsh" are better categories than "British" for linguists, and I think the whole lot of your cats should be reverted as unhelpful to the end user. Evertype 18:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

cuneiform encoding

hello Michael -- I just had a look at the cuneiform code charts of Unicode 5.0.0 beta, and I note that the entire emphatic (q-, ṣ- ṭ-) and glide (w-, y-) series appear to be absent (compare Cuneiform_script#Unicode). Considering that Unicode 5.0 will be frozen in two weeks, I find this disconcerting; am I missing something? dab (ᛏ) 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think they may all be there, they are just extremely difficult to find; Akkadian ṭu for example is Sumerian GĺN (= NĺR =TÙN); however, I couldn't find that sign either under G or under N or under T. It will be a lot of work to build conversion tables for that.... dab (ᛏ) 13:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

is evertype just a nickname that you use?

or is it something more than that (at least one article of ours for instance mentions "michael everton of evertype") Plugwash 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess, without being churlish, that I would me more inclined to answer a question like this if it (1) used correct punctuation and capitalization and (2) spelled my name correctly. Evertype 19:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again!

I remember you from thinkexist.org. Thanks for adding the info on the Blissymbolics article. Upon further inspection, this is not the same claim as I was thinking of, the one on Douglas Crockford's www.crockford.com/blissym; however, interesting nevertheless. I just found unilang.org, and copied the article to there. Anyhow, I'm thinking about starting a Blissymbolics wikia. Let me know if you're interested. Cheers! --Mlandau 04:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Saint Kea

If he belongs on Wiki, accept my apologies. I should have stubbed him instead. Apologies, HubHikari 17:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Big Dipper

Thank you for your contribution. However as the stars you discuss are not actually in the Big Dipper, I am moving your paragraph to Ursa Major where it more properly belongs. B00P 22:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish Language

Can't see how my edits are more POV. I live in Ireland, so my point of view may differ from yours. It's called Irish here, has been for many hundred years. eg the in France they speak French, in Italy they speak Italian etc etc. I know my edits weren't sparkling, but was trying not to change things too much! Can you please explain? Red blaze 18:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I live in Ireland too. It's also called Irish Gaelic here, and I know Irish speakers who call it Gaelic. You were right that the original text was woeful -- it was rather biased already -- not everyone considers "Gaelic" to be derogatory. Your edits took a request for substantiation of one of those biased comments away, and it seemed worse... but I hope the new edits are satisfactory and that the article is improved. Evertype 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I since discovered that you live in Ireland, hope the weather is kind. Just to add these 2 points. Really I have only heard it being referred to (in Ireland) as Irish or Gaeilge and less often Gaelic. The article shouldn't have to apologize or explain why it should or shouldn't be called Irish. There is a group who would prefer it not to be called Irish, and instead have it called Irish Gaelic, leave that there. I do like your edits, the paragraphs read much better now. Red blaze 20:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Orcynus thynnus ...

... is invalid because Orcynus Cuvier, 1816 is a junior homonym of Orcynus Rafinesque, 1815. See Talk:Scombridae Gdr 11:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)