Talk:Shell to Sea

message: It says in the article that the gas will be at 340 bar . This is un ture the operational pressure will be 160 bar.
Where is your figure from?
Lapsed Pacifist 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  340 Bar pipeline 

message: I've removed the citation for Indymedia. See: WP:SPS. I've also done a little tidying up in the SF/IRA accusation section. The edit to remove bias went just as far in the other direction. --sony-youthpléigh 18:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell that to Tony O'Reilly! --sony-youthpléigh 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indymedia - SF/IRA 

message: There is no way that this  can be acceptable. The totally unsourced statement that "this is broadly similar to national trends" is re-introduced; the unwelcome news that "the findings suggest that on the ground in most of Mayo, the issue may not be as divisive as the national media claims" becomes only one newspapers opinion.
If you have some spare energy to work on this article, please use it to dig up refs for the all too many unrefd statements William M. Connolley (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently , one should look at Corrib gas project for some evidence. I'm puzzled as to how the casual reader of the intro to this article can be expected to guess that William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing 

message: Having asked repeatedly for citations for this stuff, and received none, I've finally removed the uncited material. Please don't restore it unless you can find reliable citations, or can present here some reason why it should be allowed to violate the std rules William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 / 8 

message: LP said that the Mayo poll produced results "broadly similar to national trends", and produced  in support. I read that to say Fifty-five per cent wanted the gas to be processed offshore with a lowpressure pipeline connected to the gas terminal at Bellanaboy. One-third of those surveyed wanted the project to continue in its current format and 55%:33% is not broadly similar to 3:1, its notably less. This does rather demonstrate the virtue of sourcing statements William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This  is nonsense. If you want to repeat it, please address the problem I've raised just above William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadly similar to 

message: Incidentally, this  is fun. It was cited elsewhere, but oddly enough the line "we believe most people are not opposed to the gas coming ashore" wasn't quoted William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priestly fun 

message: I am puzzled by the removal of 2 pictures showing various protests taking place .Is this supposed to indicate those protests didn't take place because nobody has a citation from a newspaper etc  that says they did.
Also the removal of a ciation from  journalist Colm Rapple blog .Apart from being a fairly well respected  journalist his blog contents appear  to be a reprint of his newspaper columns in one handy location .Garda40 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have got carried away, sorry. To me the blog just looked like a blog, and blogs aren't usually WP:RS though there are exceptions. This might be one. But it would be better to link to the original article. The pics: got hacked when I cut a lot of unsourced stuff from 2007 I think. They could go back if you like (but perhaps not so big?) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After doing a quick search on the newspaper site Daily Mail there doesn't seem to be an Irish section or links to the articles themselves which may be the reason he has a blog .Garda40 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 2 Pictures and Blog 

message: One editor says there are not enough citations in this article. Now another says there are too many external links. I think both of you need to talk to each other.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The two are not contradictory. Text within the article needs more sourcing. There may be too many links bunged in under ext lins, I don't know William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: LP reverted  with the comment Removing speculation (no matter how convenient for some). But... its a direct quote from the newspaper cited. So... I'm having a hard time understanding how that revert is justified, other than don't-like-wot-it-sez. Do please explain William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's helpful in any contentious article to use words like nonsense in the edit summary even if the claim is justified .Garda40 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Its a direct quote from the paper: Just 15 per cent of those surveyed supported Shell, but a significant 40 per cent said they had no opinion on the issue or were not really interested. The findings suggest that on the ground in Mayo, the issue may not be as divisive as the national media claims. They also show that some of the political parties could be out-of-tune with the views of their supporters on the Corrib Gas row. I'm presuming that you consider that to be a reliable source, since it was you that added it . Or does it become unreliable when it says things you don't like? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Weirdly enough, you don't get to give me orders. Unless you've recently joined the board of csr, that is. What can I say that I haven't already? The journalist I'm quoting was introduced by *you* not me. You liked he article well enough when you thought it said what you wanted it to. Sadly, it doesn't, but you don't then get to dismiss it. You don't seem to understand wp's policy. We report what sources say. That you personally happen to know that the journalist is wrong is of no interest whatsoever William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Your failure to answer my points becomes rather obvious. The paper is an RS, but you're removing the bits that disagree with your POV William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I fear you *don't* know what a WP:RS is. I'm not required to trawl through the national media to find a sense of their collective opnion, nor indeed would it be at all approriate to do so - that would be WP:OR. What Wiki wants are RS's for the information. You seem to be asserting that the paper is an RS for some bits of info you like - the poll - but not for other things. Thats hard to sustain. The only evidence you have in favour of this idea is your own personal knowledge that the paper is "wrong". That, of course, is irrelevant for wiki, though you're free to write it into your own blog William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: You have fundamentally misunderstood wiki's standards of evidence. Trawling through the media and synthesising the result is *wrong* (WP:SYN). Finding a quote from a paper that says it is *correct*. Your own personal knowledge isn't a permissible source William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, jolly good. Could you suggest a compromise between including it and not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not see any reason why the material should not be added.  I would, however, suggest providing the date of the publication with the in-text attribution. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about simply reporting the results of the poll (X for, Y against, Z don't care) and omit the journalist's personal opinion as to its significance.  We should leave it to the readers to decide on its significance. --Red King (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that's a viable compromise. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing speculation (no matter how convenient for some) 

message: There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding the suggested entry into the article, and as far as I'm concerned, the reference given is considered a reliable source under WP:RS#News organizations.  I would recommend to the both of you to quit your edit warring and work out a compromise before editing that section of the article again. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, jolly good. Could you suggest a compromise between including it and not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not see any reason why the material should not be added.  I would, however, suggest providing the date of the publication with the in-text attribution. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about simply reporting the results of the poll (X for, Y against, Z don't care) and omit the journalist's personal opinion as to its significance.  We should leave it to the readers to decide on its significance. --Red King (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that's a viable compromise. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: Is there any basis in fact for the claim "thereby making it safer to transport" in the first para? I am aware that taking smaller fractions out of "live" crude makes it safer but when I was a safety engineer I never saw any risk differential between raw and processed natural gas (except when it has a toxic impurity in it)? Perhaps this new science is since I stopped admittedly a while back ; there is a lot more pipeline to base it on. However you might think the higher fractions would reduce the line pressure a little and if anything help? Also what is the pressure of this "high pressure" pipeline? Is there any pipe line of this size and lower pressure or is it just emotive wording from local press we have picked up without thought? --BozMo talk 12:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so this is a partisan submission by people protesting against the development which asserts that there is a higher corrosion risk from wet gas. But I cannot see any overall risk assessment even in this supporting "thereby making it safer to transport" --BozMo talk 21:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: Could we have some kind of source, or at least dates, for:
: Local landowners in Rossport were told that the raw gas pipeline would be coming through their lands, and if they didn't agree a settlement with Shell, it would be forced upon them by the use of Compulsory Acqusition Orders (made possible by government legislation not long before). Some agreed to allow Shell on their lands. Others refused, and Frank Fahey, then Minister for the Marine & Natural Resources signed thirty-four separate Compulsory Acquisition Orders for Shell. Still some people refused to back down and were threatened with legal action. Out of scores of people who had blocked Shell workers from going on people's property, five men were singled out and brought to court. After refusing to promise to allow Shell put the pipeline through their lands, the men were sentenced to jail indefinitely. They became known as the Rossport Five.
and
: Local and national reaction was immediate. 24-hour pickets on the Shell sites at Rossport, Bellanaboy and Glengad began. Rallies in support of the men's stance were held in major towns and cities, and Shell and Statoil filling stations were frequently picketed.
William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources/dates? 

message: I was contacted by User:Falcon9x5 to help de-escalate the situation related to Shell to Sea articles, and reach consensus. I suggest a case be opened in WP:MEDCAB, if everyone involved (User:Falcon9x5, User:Garda40, User:Lapsed Pacifist, are there others?) would be willing to participate. I'm willing to help, but would also welcome other uninvolved editors to assist, seeing that this dispute seems to span several articles, and there seem to be quite a few issues being disputed. I would also like to point out that I'm just another regular editor, and MEDCAB dispute resolution is completely unofficial and informal. There will be no sanctions or judgement, and this is completely voluntary. I feel going through the issues with an uninvolved, neutral editor might help however. If you'd be willing to participate, please state so here. Thanks! — Twinzor Say hi! 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Addition: Also please state if my proposal is not acceptable, and we'll think of some other method for resolving the dispute. Thanks! — Twinzor Say hi! 00:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm up for mediation, obviously. There aren't any other editors involved (to the best of my knowledge). Thanks! Fin©™ 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely willing to participate, this is a welcome development. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I'll set up the medcab case. User:Garda40 hasn't replied so far, but he is welcome to jump in at any point. I will post a link to the case once I've got it up. Since the issues concern several articles, we should keep the discussion on the medcab page to keep it from fragmenting over several talk pages. — Twinzor Say hi! 15:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The case is set up here: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Shell_to_Sea. See you there! — Twinzor Say hi! 16:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: The device is described differentlyto the description in the newspaper article that it is referenced to.  Its description needs to be changed to something just like device or the source where its described needs to be addedGainLine ♠ 14:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to edit any more (any disputed articles) until mediation is completed - all my edits just get reverted anyway! Thanks! Fin©™ 16:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Well the Times article says bomb, so use that or IED or prefix it with "homemade" or something, rather than suspect package, if you're going to change it. Yep, burden's on the adder of information. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: See  and . Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: You're right, it belongs on the Controversy article. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Device outside Shell HQ

message: I believe the section on the april 2009 attacks on should be moved to the Corrib Gas Controversy article.  This article is on the protest group Shell To Sea and there's nothing to suggest that its members were responsible as there are several protest groups active in the area. GainLine ♠ 11:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009

message: I reverted the bold content deletion by Bigdaddy1981 per bold, revert, discuss. BigDunc 11:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment The Article as it stands is a mess with many problems.  Bigdaddies edit may have been a step or two too far.  The article needs a rework/rewrite. GainLine  ♠  ♥ 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment I may well have cut too much material but was greatly concerned re the weight of frankly pretty minor day-to-day events and also a fairly heavy POV. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I see what you mean; I was surprised that its crept even into the main article on the Garda and on County Mayo. I think more balance is needed as more thought as to what is important and what is not within the articles; perhaps some form of consensus might be reached here at least for this article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My revert 

message: O'Donnell is two weeks into the longest sentence ever handed out to an S2S campaigner, and there's still no mention of it in the article? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jailings 

message: The website www.indymedia.ie is the main media outlet used by the activists. There is not one mention of it in the article. Mrchris (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indymedia 

message: Just in case anyone misses all the pictures - they were uploaded by the now blocked sockpuppet User:Lapsed Pacifist, as they were taken from various pages of http://www.indymedia.ie. The license on the web pages quotes "Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial Reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and Elsewhere" - the non-commercial usage prevents its use on Wikipedia.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:8806 greens2s 21nov06web.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The Arbitration Committee are proposing to remove sanctions related to this topic area which appear to be no longer required.  Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration Motion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Shell to Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231193519/http://www.publicinquiry.ie/pdf/Accufacts_Report_Hi_res.pdf to http://www.publicinquiry.ie/pdf/Accufacts_Report_Hi_res.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061229225619/http://www.publicinquiry.ie/pdf/Fiosru_2_HI_RES_Final.pdf to http://www.publicinquiry.ie/pdf/Fiosru_2_HI_RES_Final.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Shell to Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.westernpeople.ie/news/story.asp?j=38192&cat=news
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525023911/http://www.shelltosea.ch/ to http://www.shelltosea.ch/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225213746/http://www.shell.ie/home/content/irl/aboutshell/our_business_tpkg/e_and_p/corrib/ to http://www.shell.ie/home/content/irl/aboutshell/our_business_tpkg/e_and_p/corrib/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090331201355/http://mayogasinfo.com/ to http://www.mayogasinfo.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)