Talk:Corrib gas controversy

message: I object to this article's deletion. The controversy generated is separate from the project, the campaign against the current project configuration, and the men who have gone to jail over the issue.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine that you object. However the issue isn't whether a separate issue exists but whether the separate issue is notable in its own right. So far all the references which might establish notability AFAICT are on one of the above. Over to you...--BozMo talk 07:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion objection

message: People can be absolved from what would otherwise be unlawful behaviour if they give a "reasonable excuse". And that Burke et al facilitated this project is definitely relevant.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Absolution

message: What is the explanation for deleting the link to the www.publicinquiry.ie report? Does it say the wrong things?
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't trust it is a WP:V source - it only has three reports, two of which are related to Corrib, they were all written in 2005. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

text: If it were a proper independent inquiry body, shouldn't it have at least a few reports a year, on different subjects? Three reports, two covering the same subject, doesn't exactly bode well for its independence. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: As I've pointed out on the Shell to Sea talk page, the head of the Centre for Public Inquiry (Kevin Connolly) is a brother of one of the "Columbia Three" (Niall Connolly), Sinn Fein's representative in Columbia. Given Sinn Fein's involvement with Shell to Sea, that alone is enough to discredit the supposed independent nature of the report (and centre). Thanks! Fin©™ 19:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you mean about the name and country, I've spelt everything correct according to this page. I'm not talking about him, no. I misspoke about the discredited bit, I've change it now. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link deletion 

message: The bag's contents were neither a device nor, because they were loose, were they  explosive. Many people (including myself) would associate "IED" with the devices used with such lethal force in Iraq, rather than a plastic bag with unattached odds and ends that was less explosive than a mobile phone at a filling station. I suggest we simply describe what was left outside Shell HQ. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "sinister" plastic bag 

message: A lot of background information that should probably be in this article is covered in the article Corrib gas project. As the two articles are essentially about the same subject, ie. the corrib gas project and subsequent controversy either relating to it or generated by it, I believe it would be much more beneficial to readers if this were all covered in one article, the corrib gas project article.  GainLine  ♠  ♥ 12:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. If you want to move info from the project article here, that would solve the problem you mentioned. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

text: What part of my reply led you to think I agree with your unpopular proposal? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: They're the reasons I proposed the merger, concensus seems to be to have two diff article.  Have a look on talk of the project page, another user has proposed structure GainLine  ♠  ♥ 13:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger with [[Corrib gas project]]

message: It would  make more sense to merge policing into controversy. Cathar11 (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merger of Policing of the Corrib gas protests inyo here

message: After a read of this article, I don't really understand why there is a controversy, other than some complaints from unions that their workers weren't hired for the construction and some nebulous complaints from environment groups. I propose that the article be expanded to focus on the reasons for the controversy, rather than just paying attention to incidents and so forth. Jtrainor (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Page looks a lot better now GainLine  ♠  ♥ 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs work 

message: I'm not entirely sure the GSOC stuff needs to be here in its entirety as as Fin said, its not entirely relevant to Corduff but to me thats besides the point.  Currently there is a just a recommendation to discipline a senior Garda.  At this point it seems premature to add info on a disciplinary procedure in process when the person hasnt even been named officialy. I think this needs to be pared back and if (or when) this happens, it will probably quite a large story in itself, thoughts? GainLine  ♠  ♥ 12:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you posted this in the wrong place GSOC not mentioned here yet.;)Cathar11 (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GSOC

message: Why is there nothing about O'Donnell's jailing? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pat O'Donnell 

message: I propose to merge Policing of the Corrib gas protests, Shell to Sea, Rossport Five and Pobal Chill Chomáin articles into this article as integral parts of the controversy. The article is not so long that we need spin-off some parts of it. Beagel (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I disagree with some of this proposal. 
I think that Policing of the Corrib gas protests should be merged into the Corrib gas controversy or the Corrib gas project as you see fit.  
However, Shell to Sea, the Rossport Five and Pobal Chill Chomáin are three separate and quite different articles albeit relating to the same, very relevant problems.  Your only argument might be to merge Pobal Chill Chomáin into the Rossport Five article or vice versa but Shell to Sea is national and international, the Rossport Five article is now historical (but very relevant) and the other demonstrates the position of the community besieged by the Corrib Gas Project proposals.  The current time, being bang in the middle of the major on ongoing Oral Hearing into the Corrib Project is NOT the time to start merging articles together as if they have become irrelevant.  The last three should remain as separate articles until a conclusion is reached one way or the other on the issue. I have no problem with the first being merged as directed but only as directed as it does not have relevance within any of the other articles.  Thank you.  Comhar (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged Policing of the Corrib gas protests. Additional opinions about merger of Shell to Sea, the Rossport Five and Pobal Chill Chomáin are needed. Beagel (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: I disagree

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) 14:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Shell to Sea protest in Glengad.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

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) 14:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Shell to Sea protester injured in Belmullet Courthouse.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

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:3527 greensdail31jan06web.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Surely the fisherman could of just moved his pots out of the way? And then what happened? The section seems a little dubious. --Éamonn Cálraighe (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glengad 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/corrib/
*:Triggered by \boffshore-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

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: I propose to rename the article Opposition to the Corrib gas project. --― Jjm596 ✉ 17:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to do that then you must make a formal rename proposal. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. ww2censor (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Proposal