Talk:Tipperary Hill

message: From the article: "© 2001 David (Papa) Bishop". The text must be under the GNU FDL (or compatible to it). --Mrwojo 03:54 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)
To whomever I am suposed to be addressing this note:
My name is David W. Bishop (aka Papa Bishop).  I live on Tipperary Hill a few blocks from the Tipperary Hill light and wrote the article in question.  I have also posted it here twice, only to have it removed again.  I hereby grant permission to Wikipedia, and anyone else for that matter, to use the article.  I only ask that I be given credit for having written it.  If there are any questions I can be reached at PapaBishop@aol.com or by phone. (I'm in the Syracuse phone book.)
Signed,
David W. Bishop (PapaBishop)
: Wikipedia articles must be under the GNU FDL, meaning they cannot be copyrighted by the author. Wikipedia articles do not contain author credits (other than that anyone who looks in the article history can see what user contributed various edits). Wikipedia articles are open to revisions (minor or major) by other Wikipedia users. If you do not agree to this, Wikipedia is not the place for your articles. -- Infrogmation 16:44 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
: I sent a copy of this comment and the URL of this talk page to the above email address. -- Infrogmation 16:54 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
:: Asking to be given credit is entirely compatible with the GFDL, and we do this in Wikipedia by using the article history and (optionally) comments like the above on the talk page. Martin
----
Should not a distinction be made in this article between the Irish, as in the Irish immigrants who settled in the area, and "the Irish", as in the Irish-Americans who vandalised the traffic lights (seeing as "Sons of Ireland" is a phrase used by the Irish-Americans to describe themselves) Jimregan 21:49 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
: If you can state definitively (and give a source) that it was either Irish immigrants or Americans of Irish descent who vandalized the lights, then yes, a distinction should be made.  -- Plutor 14:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Has the light ever caused problems with color-blind people? Just wondering. Smartyshoe 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Couldn't a horizontal traffic light (with red on the left, amber in the middle, and green on the right) have been installed instead? It would have looked a bit funny (as does this inverted signal), but it would have conformed with MUTCD standards yet probably not upset the Irish. 76.21.8.213 (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but this probably isn't the correct forum to discuss it. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 04:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizontal traffic light 

message: I am reposting an earlier issue I raised after reading this article regarding it's quality and lack of neutrality. It was removed (first time I have ever seen a talk page 'reverted' before) by User:TheOldJacobite with a tasteless note of 'take your ignorant rant elsewhere', followed by an ironically polite note on my talk page.
Firstly, I want to point out that given the immediacy of his actions it's quite clear that he's guarding the article avidly, as his edit history conveys a vested interest. Secondly, the simple fact someone would suppress a talk page entry addressing a bias or agenda and most woefully blatent racism is bigoted and disgusting. I am now asking that this be dealt with as a NPOV matter, and will request arbitration if neutrality cannot be reached by common sense and consensus removing all racism and bigotry and keeping this article at least encyclopedic in nature.
Below is my prior comment:
:Since when do we aggrandize and point of view push blatent racism and pathologically insane behaviour? I have no British or Irish in me, so I've got no dog in the race, but I sure as hell am ashamed to read this section of the article (which just got a lot of exposure on reddit) to be ashamed of our encyclopedia for allowing such a heavy slant on the article pushing what is clearly a bunch of ignorant hicks bullying city officials to cause the inverting of an internationally recognized symbol just because they're racist and clearly incapable of comprehension. D:<
:Honestly, how did this not get brought up sooner? How did it even pass a first proof? It's disgusting, and if it were perpetrated by any other ethnicity or nationality to any other by and by it would have been removed as vandalism. It's 2012, 'boys will be boys' and inbred racist hicks will be inbred racist hicks doesn't wash anymore. These brazen acts of vandalism and harassment of city officials to deface a traffic control device to push a political and racial agenda is exactly that, not a hurr durr it's lol because they're poms and my aunties uncles cousin rented a flat with an Irishman so I'm on their side by default.
:C'mon guys, use your heads. 60.225.69.174 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it your contention the "campaign" to reverse the colour order of the traffic light was racist, or that the way it is written about in the article or, indeed, the fact that it was written about at all, is racist and POV pushing? FiachraByrne (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

text: And now TheOldJacobite is constantly removing the NPOV tag even though the dispute isn't resolved, citing 'because I say' as cause. :/ I'm not here to get into petty edit wars, I've reached out to him to address his conduct. We'll probably need to get 3OP or dispute resolution involved to get anywhere as far as even the possibility of examining the way the racist elements in the stop light section goes and the weasel word and general article quality issues. Are any regular editors of this article or locals available to assist in reworking that section specifically? Preferably someone who is neutral, doesn't have a vested interest, yet has enough connection to the article to ensure that edits made do justice to it and improve it's quality? 60.225.69.174 (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Issue & Blatent Racism. 

message: There is no NPOV issue in this article.  The discussion of the traffic light incidents is factual and well-referenced, not slanted or opinionated.  The recent edits, including the rants here on the talk page, seem to be an example of I don't like it, which is not a legitimate position to take in a talk page discussion.  There is no "blatent {sic} racism" in this article, as the anon. user claims, and the accusation is absurd and insulting on its face. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, there is no NPOV issue in this article.  The anon. who has made repeated complaints has shown no evidence of POV and only repeats that [WP:I DON'T LIKE IT|he doesn't like it]], which is irrelevant.  Most of his commentary on this page is devoted to stating his opinions about this article and my editing history, which is also irrelevant. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't see anthing racist or POVpushing about this section. It seems to be sourced to local newspapers and discusses a local anomaly, namely the upside down traffic light and its origins. It isn't POV violating just because you don't like it personally. Even if the actual events were racially or ethnically motivated, that doesn't mean we should not have a well written neutral description of the events. Heiro 19:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Heiro. I removed the tag. No more. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the tag is warranted, but I object on some level to the phrasing in the sixth paragraph of that section, in particular "It was explained to him carefully" and "When the commissioner did not quite get the point, it was explained to him carefully." The rest is completely factual, but these small phrases don't seem NPOV to me at all. I would change them myself, but this issue seems to be quite contentious, so I thought I'd ask for input. Frankly, it's condescending towards the commissioner, and appears to represent the Irish POV at the time, being that he was stupid not to accept their demands. Does anybody vouch for the wording as it is? It seems like the isolated but clear-cut example of non-NPOV within the section. Coppaar (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Coppaar, good point! I've trimmed the entire section, including that paternalizing phrase you remarked on. This is all clearly written by someone with an interest in the locality, and from that perspective. What's being talked about here as quaint is in fact replete with excessive detail and trivia, and I hope that in days to come this article will be made more encyclopedic. Whoever authored this can copy an earlier version from the history to keep somewhere else as a record. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the trimming of some of the more "flowery" language and making it a little more encyclopedic in tone. Heiro 03:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI!  01:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem