Go raibh míle maith agat an méid sin. We of the Irish thank you
Welcome
Hello, Claíomh Solais, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- PBS (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other user names
For a new user you seem to be editing in quite a sophisticated way. It may be that you have grasped how to edit quickly, but often such editing skills indicates that an editor has edited Wikipedia before. Have you ever edited under another user name? -- PBS (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gaels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gaels, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Britain and Scotti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas MacDonagh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seán Mac Diarmada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Clarke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Standish James O'Grady, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gaelic and Castletown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-Scottish sentiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacobite. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Just to let you know that according to the agreed manual of style for Ireland related articles, we only add Gaelic names if the person actually used it in regards to themselves. If they didn't then we don't add one as this is the English Wikipedia. Please see WP:IMOS for further details. So please stop adding them to articles and revert the ones you have done. Mabuska(talk)18:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, thanks for that link. How do we deal with historical people from times when Ireland's language was majority Gaelic? For instance, in the case of somebody like Arthur Guinness, he was living in the 18th century and his family are known for their Gaelic roots, so Art Mac Aonghusa is his native name. Although obviously they allied themselves to Anglo-Irish culture. Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Art Mac Aonghusa is not his native name. That is the Gaelic equivalent of his name. His native name is Arthur Guinness as English was his native tongue if you catch my drift. It is what he called himself and is how he is referred to in academic sources and popular culture. It would be absurd to go around and add Gaelic names to English people of Gaelic descent such as Noel and Liam Gallagher, Wayne Rooney, etc. unless they themselves use one.
In regards to historical Gaels: if they have an English and Irish name then the name that is most commonly used in English is what the article is named, with the other name mentioned afterwards in the lede, for example: Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone. The reverse would be Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair.
For Gaels before the introduction of English and Anglicised names then they are usually named and start with the academic and historical name commonly used for them, which is usually Irish. For example: Áedán mac Gabráin, Donnchad mac Briain and Brandub mac Echach. If they have English/Anglicised forms them they would be mentioned afterwards. Though there are exceptions for example Brian Boru, but that would be obvious considering that is the most common name for him in use in English. The same for Niall of the Nine Hostages, though his lede starts off with the Irish form.
There is obviously a lack of consistency in Wikipedia but that is roughly how it goes which is pretty fair enough as it is WP:OR to invent Gaelic names for people who never used them. Mabuska(talk)22:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gaels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scots. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Orphaned non-free image File:Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I have reverted you again. You are now on notice that your edit is disputed, so instead of just doing it again, discuss it.
As I have said in reply to you on my talk page, Conor and Conchobar are distinct names, and there is no overlap between them, so the two articles refer to distinct sets of people. Modern people with the name Conor are not called Conchobar, and medieval people with the name Conchobar are not called Conor, so a reader looking up "Conchobar" is not looking for people called Conor, and vice versa. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When creating this article, was there an actual need for it to be created? As this is the English Wikipedia people will most likely to searching for the English name of the flag as there is a Gaelic version of this site for Gaelic entries. The name "An Gal Gréine" is definitely not used in the English language as far as I know academic or otherwise and if its view-counts over time show that it is not used by viewers, it will be viable for deletion unless significance for it can be proved.
Another issue I notice is your removal of the Category:Ancient Irish dynasties, replacing it with Category:Érainn. Why? If your simply grouping them into the Érainn group fine enough however you could of put it alongside the Ancient Irish dynasties category, or more properly yet, add the Ancient Irish dynasties category to the Érainn category page seeing as they naturally fall under it as a child category. A short description of what the Érainn category page relates to would also be good to inform readers.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Linda Ervine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stormont. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Claíomh - I'm just wondering about the Template:Ulaid, you seem to have created it. Claíomh, its an excellent template with lots of useful information, do you have any references for the information in the template? More specifically, do you have any reference for the list of surnames in the section about the Conmaicne "Magh Réin - Muintir Eolais". I'm doing some research on this group. Thanks for any help you can give me. John37309 (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited O'Higgins family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kilbeg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited O'Donoghue, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cashel and Dunphy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of kings of Munster, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ormond and Desmond. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Whilst I understand the rationale behind the redirect would it not be better being kept as an article for the usage of the derogatory term 'taig', considering the bigots never spell it any other way? Or even a dedicated section in the tadhg article. Mabuska(talk)18:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the broader picture it is probably just a chapter in the name Tadhg and a standalone article would be odd. In the article on the name I've put it under a header "Taig and the Troubles" for the modern history, since that is when the most vitriolic "Kill all Taigs" usage applies to. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomond, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ó Néill and Corcomroe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Desmond. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I noticed that you removed several entries from the Turlough disambiguation page. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind this is. I have reverted it for now, but feel free to start a discussion on the talk page!
Thank you! (talk to) Gaelan('s contributions) 04:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Young Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scots. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Orphaned non-free image File:Regimental Capstar of the Irish Guards.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Regimental Capstar of the Irish Guards.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iar Connacht, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Desmond. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I see you've been removing {{Irish rebel songs}} from a number of articles that state that they are Irish Rebel Songs. On the surface, it seems disruptive and perhaps agenda driven. Is that correct or is there something else that I'm missing? Toddst1 (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Máirtín Ó Direáin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaeldom. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Without knowing the exact year of publication, it's difficult to say whether or not the lyrics are still under copyright. When in doubt, leave it out. We can't post copyright material. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 14 Intelligence Company into Special Reconnaissance Unit. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 17:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i noticed you added a Euston Manifesto to a list of neoconservative organisations. There must be some mistake, because to the best of my knowledge and all available sources it's not an organization - it's just a manifesto, and the vast majority of the signatories self-identify as left-wing. Are you sure you have not confused them for some other group?
Hello, Claíomh Solais. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on O'Connor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://clonalis.com/oconnor-kings-of-connacht/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
November 2016
Your addition to O'Connor has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Warring
Your recent editing history at Far-left politics in the United Kingdom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Thanks for uploading File:Church Mission Society.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Halò a Chlaíomh Sholais, as per Wikipedia best practices and discussion on the talk page, I've gone ahead and removed the redlinks from Template:Gaelic literature which you created. If you think that significant authors were removed, you can go over to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Literature. I invite you to create the articles (all of them are listed as "(dialect) Irish-language writer" or "Scottish Gaelic writer") and add the writers back as appropriate. Tapadh leat. Alázhlis (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alázhlis (talk • contribs)
Irish version of names
Hi there. I've noticed that you've been adding "Irish" versions of the names of Victoria Cross recipients, some of whom aren't even Irish or born in Ireland, such as John Hogan (VC). The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles is quite clear on adding Irish-language versions of people's names. It states: "If someone used the Irish version of his or her name use that version when naming the article if it enjoys widespread usage among English speakers. If the Irish version does not enjoy widespread usage among English speakers then use the English version when naming the article. In the latter case, refer to the Irish version of the name in the first sentence of the article. An Irish version of a person's English-language name may be given in the first sentence of the lead of an article on that person if it is a well-known, commonly used name for that person. If there is no commonly used Irish version, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research. Also, the mere fact that an Irish name appears in certain sources, such as databases, is not sufficient evidence that it is commonly used."
I'd be grateful if you could remove the "Irish versions" of these subjects' names, unless, of course, that you can provide evidence that these are "well-known, commonly used name(s) for that person". Otherwise, they constitute original research.--Damac (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish slaves myth until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Royal Irish Academy.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Donald Trump–Russia dossier is currently under discretionary sanctions. See the talk-page. If you do not revert your re-addition you may be blocked in violation of
"All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The edits you made to this page are about unproven incidents relating to former members in two of the sections. The facts in both cases are publicly disputed with no court cases to resolve either. In the case of Steve Hedley he was clearly not a member at the time of the alleged assault. These links are not adding to the knowledge of the CWI or what it stands for. Vahvistus (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
March 2017
Your recent editing history at Far-left politics in the United Kingdom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Learn to use the talk page and don't accuse experienced editors of vandalism when they challenge the value of your sources ----SnowdedTALK22:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vladimir Mayakovsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Novodevichy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catholic Church in Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The West. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You've been adding macro calls, such as {{Catholic Church sexual abuse in Ireland}} and {{Rothschilds}} to many articles. Those aren't links. Curly brackets invoke Wikimedia macros. What are you trying to do? John Nagle (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there actually is a template called "Catholic Church sexual abuse in Ireland". I thought you were trying to add a Wikilink. OK. John Nagle (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I was really interested to come across this article while curating pages. I think a summation of the many references made in Who Is Ireland's Enemy? would be very encyclopaedic, especially of the names checked, but it would also be useful to have some overview of the chronology of the revisions and alterations. Obviously, if the original was written in 1914, then the verses referencing deaths from 1916 onwards are a later addition - were these also authored by O'Higgins too? If added by others, then that needs acknolwedging and citing. As O'Higgins died in 1963, I believe his work would be considered to be still in copyright, so unless there is evidence it was released to the public domain (including all the later revisions) then it shouldn't really be reproduced in its entirety, but only quoted in small sections. I do hope these thoughts are helpful!! Mabalu (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes, the original version from 1914 obviously didn't mention the people who were executed in 1916, but O'Higgins adopted it to include them and the anti-Treatyites who died after then. He was throughout his life on the anti-Treaty side and led Sinn Féin in the 1930s. A version has been recorded by folk group the Battering Ram/Declan Hunt in the 1960s/70s but the words themselves would be the property of O'Higgins. The last version would be from 95 years ago, so public domain by now. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abrahamic religions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Semitic religions. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please familiarise yourself with WP:LDERRY before creating any new articles mentioning "County Derry". City is Derry, county is Londonderry. Thanks, — Jon C.ॐ12:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also I regards to County Tyrone, Wikipedia procedure is to use the Anglicised form of a non-English name if there is one. In this case O'Neill and Tyrone. Mabuska(talk)13:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must point out that this edit, which well intended and not controversial in a normal manner goes against an agreed manual of style for the counties of Ireland that was agreed after much argument and discussion quite a few years ago - having said that I notice it has been largely ignored quite recently on most of the NI counties (until there now where I restored it), suggesting it mightn't be a big deal anymore. Similarly your changes to the infobox now put it out of sync with the other 31 traditional county articles. Yet I see them as improvements and would hope to see the other articles brought into line with this one especially if no-one takes issue with. Mabuska(talk)18:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can't see why people would have a problem with it. Obviously in the Free State the counties are still used for local council affairs (with the exception of Dublin), so it should be OK to get the manual of style changed. So long as it is mentioned that the counties in the North are still used as a cultural =/sporting reference point. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As @Jon C.: objects to your latest alterations to County Londonderry it should be discussed at the articles talk page for a suitable conclusion to be found and not via revert edit summaries. I pinged Jon C. in this message too and this message applies to them also, but as it is your edit that is being contested the onus is ideally on you to initiate the talk page discussion as you want the change. Mabuska(talk)16:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, and as is standard across Wikipedia, articles about places should relate to the current country/state of which they're part. Ireland as a united, independent nation no longer exists (and arguably never has), no different to the Russian Empire or Byzantium. New York's article says it's part of the US, not the former Iroquois Confederacy. — Jon C.ॐ09:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert your edit, but the reason I accepted the removal is: a) no sources; and b) the text in the article doesn't really show how they were neo-nazis - it says they were pro-monarchy and pro-orthodox church. I'm not reverting because I don't know about all the history behind it, but there SHOULD be a source, and it should discuss relevant information regarding their neo-nazi views, not other information about them. Just my thoughts. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peadorᐁT₳LKᐃ13:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, you stated in your edit summary "'narrowly' seems subjective... going to need a source for that)". You ignored the fact that in this source, which was already in the article body where the results of the primary are referenced, the sentence "The Republican contest was surprisingly competitive. Corey Stewart, a former state chairman for the Trump campaign who campaigned on preserving Confederate monuments, narrowly lost to the heavily favored Mr. Gillespie." Note the use of the word "narrowly", as well as the fact that the primary was decided by about 1% of the vote. You seem to be unhappy about my reverts of your edits where you have not provided a source. Understand that if you do find a source, the material you add can stay. That's quite different than your battleground edits where you literally removed a sentence that was well-sourced just as some sort of sick revenge angle. I'm attempting to discuss this with you, but failing that, I'll have no choice but to seek admin action on it. Doug Weller and Dr. Fleischman have already warned you about your combative behavior, so I don't think ignorance can be used as an excuse. Rockypedia (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be really careful about following me around from article to article to remove material that I've added. I fear it won't end up well for you. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're a very disruptive editor. And your talk page suggests you are repeating this pattern over a range of articles. The next step now is to refer you to an administrator to decide what needs to be done. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just what is wrong with you? If you are on some religious campaign to troll the pages of wikipedia to suit some sort of personal agenda then I suggest you stop. Now. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimrod de Rosario until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Capozzi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Thanks for uploading File:Torch Network Antifa.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
When I look tomorrow I expect to see my edits -- which you deleted without explanation-- restored or their removal justified. You can't just bulldoze your way through other people's work cause your editwar-ing with someone else. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Claíomh Solais, I do not enjoy making my acquaintance with you under these circumstances, but as an admin I have a few duties to fulfill--one of them is to maintain the peace. This page is full of warnings, and you have run into conflict in many places, and from what I can tell you have brought it on yourself. You have certain positions, that's fine, we all do, but they shouldn't lead to disruption. One of the areas where trouble arises is that of the BLP, and of course I deleted your St. Gallen category earlier this evening. If I find that you continue to be either unaware of or uncaring about the BLP, I will impose sanctions--most likely a topic ban which would prevent you from editing BLPs or BLP-related material. In fact, any admin can do that: the template above is warning enough. I strongly suggest that you deal with BLP matters much more carefully than you have; I also suggest that in for instance LGBT matters you focus less on your stance and more on what makes decent articles. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Gallen Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
August 2017
Your recent editing history at St. Gallen Group shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am blocking you for a variety of reasons--a refusal to drop the stick, the continuation of this edit war, playing fast and loose with the BLP (mind you I'm not even throwing the book at you). It should be obvious that your edits in that article are regarded as very problematic and have no consensus, so that you would return to it in the same way is rather puzzling to me. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Consistent life ethic. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
He/she doesn't seem too horrendous, but anybody who is overly obsessed with banding about the term "stickie" as a form of abuse and doesn't salivate at the mouth a little bit while reading "stickie" Eoin Ó Murchú's vision of a Maoist-Gaelic Republic (as in "Culture and Revolution in Ireland") probably needs their house putting in order. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Coustos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanoverian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Claíomh Solais, I noticed that you recategorised and added a template to the Syd King article regarding the United Grand Lodge of England. I had a quick look and found the ref detailing his initiation into Merchant Navy Lodge No 781 (I've added this to the article). As someone who knows next to nothing about freemasonry, could you please clarify for me how UGLE is related? The article itself doesn't mention UGLE, so I'm just making sure this is relevant. Many thanks, Nzd(talk)10:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, there are lodges (equivalent to a local branch) and these in turn come under the jurisdiction of a wider Grand Lodge which organises various lodges. In the case of the lodge you mentioned, it falls under the jurisdiction of the United Grand Lodge of England. Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your instant reply! Are you aware of any notability guidelines regarding individual lodges such as this, i.e. would it be appropriate to have an article on the lodge detailing this fact? Or, as an alternative, a list of lodges that fall under the juristiction of UGLE? It might be useful for people like me who don't have this level of knowledge. Thanks again, Nzd(talk)10:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments. Firstly, most of the categorizations you performed regarding the UGLE are unreferenced. Particularly for living persons reliable sources are strictly required, but even for the deat published sources must be available. Furthermore, categories should be "essential, defining characteristics" of the people in question. Often, the articles don't mention any freemasonry, let alone a UGLE membership. Secondly, going from a membership in a specific lodge to UGLE membership seems to me to be original synthesis, for example for Oscar Wilde who was a mason for a few years, but neither the article on Wilde nor the one on the lodge he was a member of confirm that he was a member of UGLE, or even that the lodge itself was a compontent of UGLE. I'm going to revert those categorizations where the article's content doesn't confirm the category. Huon (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template transclusion
Hello, Claíomh Solais, and thanks for your contributions, in particular, your recent additions of freemasonry categories. I'd just like to point out WP:BIDIRECTIONAL to you. Basically, it says that articles should only transclude templates that they are linked from. The template that you have added, {{UGLE}}, is a navbox between various article relating to the United Grand Lodge of England. As such, its purpose is to provide simple cross-navigation between the articles linked in the template. Per the guideline, the template should not be routinely "slapped" onto every article more or less vaguely relating to the topic.
I will remove the template from articles that transclude it, but are not linked from it (but I will not touch the categorization).
So it is inappropriate and pointless to link to the "in Europe" article in the main Freemasonry article... it creates a link loop... anyone following the link just gets redirected to the article they were already at. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lana Lokteff, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Grayfell (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Atonmwaffen Division.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
There is a slight error - or probably more correctly a misleading impression - in your today's edit of Ivison Macadam page
Dear Mr. Solais. Re. your edit of the Ivison Macadam page do you think that his involvement in the Round Table quarterly magazine merits being put up at the top of the entry with his principle positions? The synopsis at the beginning should surely just highlight the main positions and achievements when the subject has many?
The Round Table was, however, an international magazine (the oldest in Britain) and its main importance was that it supported the new concept of the Commonwealth, whose name for the Old Empire Dominions was incidentally the concept of Lionel Curtis - and it was not mainly involved in the support of the older concept of British Empire, as it was still known, by the time. Ivison Macadam became a member of the Moot (Editorial Board) of the journal in the 1930s.
The Round Table magazine is mentioned in the body of the Ivison Macadam entry further down correctly as one of the bodies he was involved with - it was never a movement in his day, if indeed it ever had been. I would suggest that if you want to include this edit it should refer to the Commonwealth rather than the British Empire (see the Wikipedia link that you have included to the Round Table which states that "With the entry of the United States into the First World War and the promotion of the League of Nations, the movement { I have trouble with that appellation of "movement" as I personally do not think it is correct] moderated its conception of the empire as a "Commonwealth of Nations". He was not involved with the magazine until well after the First World war beginning in the early 1930s. But surely being Chairman and Editor of the Annual Register, the world's oldest continually published reference book for 26 years, founded and originally edited by Edmund Burke, should take importance over his sitting on the editorial board of a quarterly journal? It is included among his many other activities further down in the body of the text. So is the Round Table. In other words if your entry is included in amended form, would you not agree that it surely would be more appropriate further down among his other - not principle - roles and positions where the Round Table is already mentioned?
Regardless the edit would surely be misguiding for it to read "He was also a prominent member of the Round Table movement supporting the British Empire" as this is not strictly correct, although of course they did not oppose the British Empire but wanted to see it reform, mainly originally as a bulwark fir world peace with the failure of the US to join The League of nations so it should more correctly read "...of the Round Table international quarterly journal with its interest in the Commonwealth." or some such wording? I hope you are in agreement and will happy to amend this. Many thanks for your participation. William Macadam (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Round Table was already mentioned in the Ivison Macadam article before your edit of yesterday.
Thank you for your response on my talk page. However you are mistaken the Round Table was already mentioned for the past years in the article in the Ivison Macadam entry before your one sentence addition to the opening paragraph of yesterday. There has been no change since your edit of yesterday or before it for some years and you obviously missed it below where the Round table was certainly correctly mentioned in the body of his entry. Of course I could move the Annual Register up to the opening paragraph synopsis but I think that both it and the Round Table along with the other organisations that he was involved with should more properly be in the body of the article and not included in the opening synopsis where his two established and principal life roles were described, the founding of the National Union of Students and Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs] - growing it into an internationally recognised body of expertise - are highlighted there but not detailed until in the body of the entry. Otherwise the article and any entry, I am sure you will agree, just repeats itself unnecessarily and everything he was involved in could equally be placed in there opening paragraph at the outset which is not good or established practice. As you will see from the Wikipedia entry on the Round Table it was while Ivison Macadam was on its editorial board (the Moot) involved with the Commonwealth aspect before the name the Commonwealth was formerly adopted by the Commonwealth nations post WWII. I knew a number of the editors of the round Table (Harry Hodsom, Dermot Morrah etc.) and can attest to this fact. Would you for instance think it correct writing to put the same description in the opening synopsis of former foreign minister Douglas Hurd's involvement as a member of the Round Table editorial board in his Wikipedia entry? I am sure you would not. You see what I mean?
There seem to be two Wikipedia entries one on the so called Round Table movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Table_movement). This states "With the entry of the United States into the First World War and the promotion of the League of Nations, the movement moderated its conception of the empire as a "Commonwealth of Nations".
"During the interwar period the Round Table groups continued to advocate a policy of collaboration among the Dominions of the British Empire (Canada and Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, and Southern Rhodesia) together with the United States. However, its embrace of the "Commonwealth" ethos also led it to support movements for self-government within the Empire such as the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 and the Indian reforms of 1919 and 1935."
And in the other Wikipedia entry on the Round Table magazine, which Ivison Macadam was involved with (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Round_Table:_The_Commonwealth_Journal_of_International_Affairs)
The latter states "It was initially subtitled, A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Empire. Its writers promoted Imperial Federation, a proposal to create a federated union in place of the existing British Empire."and "Post-World War II, its subtitle was altered to A Quarterly Review of British Commonwealth Affairs to reflect the changing nature of the Commonwealth. It became less a journal espousing a particular view, and more a forum to exchange opinions."[as by then the Commonwealth they had espoused was a fact]
Either way you will see regardless of its title your edit that "He was also a prominent member of the Round Table movement supporting the British Empire" is not a correct description in that during the time Ivison Macadam was involved it was advocating a "Commonwealth of Nations", which later became known as the Commonwealth. The two separate Wikipedia entries on the Round Table also clearly bear this out [[1]] and . You may have had your own misunderstanding because of its initial subtitle "A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Empire" but they are not as put strictly correct as you will see from above. You can argue the Wikipedia entries if you like with their editors but they are correct as far as the editorial stance of the magazine was during Ivison macadam's time and the concept of the Commonwealth was important to him. If you want to include that in an edit of the roundTable in the body of the entry it would be correct. I hope you have the grace to accept this.
You may also feel that this is a stylistic point as to where the Round Table is put but surely it is not. If you wish to add to the Round Table entry on the Ivison Macadam page I would appreciate if, as someone who with others did a substantial amount of careful and detailed research and work on the entry with extensive research, sources and footnotes, if you were to do any factual edits they should properly be where the Round Table is already is mentioned in the body of the entry. Your one sentence edit in the first paragraph is misleading there as to what Ivison Macadam is most noted for (and he is more noted for other things already listed in his entry below e.g. The Annual Register, The Coronation etc programs, King's College and the Macadam Building there over his involvement as a member of the editorial board of the quarterly Round Table Journal, however influential and however committed he was to it. The one sentence edit is not in its abbreviated form in the opening paragraph accurate in that context. I am sure that you can agree that would follow no correct editorial precedence there for if it did it would require all these above to be there also and I think that that gives the impression that the entry has not been as carefully and thoroughly researched as it has and any edit re the Round Table there would be misleading especially put in the context that you have put it. I trust you will agree. I do appreciate your involvment . Yours sincerely William Macadam (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Great Priory of England and Wales.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Great Priory of England and Wales.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Your recent addition re the Round Table in third sentence of the Ivison Macadam entry is definitely still an error
You responded to my message above There is a slight error - or probably more correctly a misleading impression - in your today's edit of Ivison Macadam page on my talk page as follows:
"I was very surprised to see the Round Table movement not already mentioned in Macadam's article at all before the edit. Certainly the activities of this network are extremely significant in world history. Their magazine did not drop the subheading "A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Empire" until after the Second World War (when the British began to pretend they were no longer an empire, going the "soft power" route). I don't see a problem with mentioning the Annual Register in the introduction as well, if you so wish. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course the Round Table was and is mentioned in the entry correctly further down.
If you go to the Round Table Magazine's page you will see that you are wrong about the magazine not dropping the subheading ""A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Empire" until after the Second World War. In fact as you will see from The Round Table's own website below that the new emphasis (after WWI) led to a change in the journal’s sub-title in 1919, to ‘A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Commonwealth’. (It became ‘A Quarterly Review of British Commonwealth Affairs’ in 1948, ‘A Quarterly Review of Commonwealth Affairs’ in 1966, and ‘The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs’ in 1983.) It also led to The Round Table‘s support for and involvement in moves towards increasing self-government in the empire— notably in connection with the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 and the Indian reforms of 1919 and 1935."
See: http://www.commonwealthroundtable.co.uk/journal/history/,
I have also been in touch today with the leading expert Dr. Alexander May of Oxford University, Research Editor (twentieth and twenty-first centuries) for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a research project of the History Faculty funded and published by Oxford University Press, who authored the Round Table, 1910-66 (available at https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:ee7ebd01-f085-44e9-917b-98d21a0f4206)
Dr. May subsequently has become the Honorary Secretary and a member of the editorial board of the Round Table Magazine.
He wrote me today that "+ the Round Tablers had largely ditched ‘empire’ for ‘Commonwealth’ in the actual articles by 1917, i.e. long before your father [Ivison Macadam] became involved."and
"I don’t think it is possible to speak of a Round Table ‘movement’ after about 1917. (+ even before, the ‘movement’ was only a ‘study movement’ – there was huge disagreement on the central question of federation let alone all the minor questions.)
So now re you happy to acknowledge that your added edit, the second sentence to Ivison Macadam entry, that "He was also a prominent member of the Round Table movement supporting the British Empire" is incorrect both as to the British Empire, as opposed to the correct Commonwealth, and to Ivison Macadam's being part of a Round Table "movement" as opposed to the correct description as a member of the editorial board of The Round Table Quarterly, which is already in the body of the entry along with his other activities. So would ‘Claoimh Solais’ (I had missed the reference) be an actual ‘sword of light’ and use the sword to kindly slash out and remove the offending sentence. Ivison Macadam's activity in this regard had already been correctly described in the entry. I am a stickler for accuracy and would appreciate you deleting your entry so I do not have to correct it.
I appreciate that Wikipedia entries may well be improved upon and improvements are welcome but it cannot be improved by erroneous edits and especially as the two Wikipedia entries on the Round Table (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Round_Table:_The_Commonwealth_Journal_of_International_Affairs) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Table_movement) indicate that your edit would not have been correct and clearly refer to the Round Table's support for the Commonwealth, quite apart from the Oxford historian who is secretary of The Round Table and the Round Table magazine's own website showing your edit is incorrect.
I hope that you are now able to agree and I look forward to you resolving this obviously inadvertent error by deleting your sentence now I have taken untold trouble to point out that it is not accurate. I hope you will take this in the spirit it is intended. I am always happy to have anyone point out any error of mine, which it is always easy to make.
I've tried to discuss this on the talk page for the Knights Templar (Freemasonry) page but no one has responded. Masonic pages about a particular rite or body do not include an infobox or are written as if they are their first established grand body. Those are separate subjects and if notable require separate pages. They deserve a mention of course, but they are not the subject of the article. You would have my full support in writing a Grand Priory page, but for the existing page, an infobox about a particular, even the first grand body is inappropriate. PeRshGo (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Claíomh Solais. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Discretionary sanctions for pages and edits related to post-1932 US politics
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk22:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Your sexist language and offensive polemics have no place on Wikipedia, which is a collaborative project dedicated to creating an encyclopedia. I posted the discretionary sanctions alert above with the idea that you might need to be removed from the arena of American politics, where you have been posting stuff like this[2][3], but having seen some of the diffs provided at ANI, I now think you may need to be blocked from the entire project. This, for instance, besides being generally offensive and uncollaborative, is also an eye-popping attack on the particular user you're replying to. This is a final warning. Bishonen | talk10:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Claíomh Solais, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to inform you that The Dictator Pope, an article which you have significantly written, has just passed the GA quality. Apart from another editor's relatively minor involvement, I believe you deserve major credit for the effort. Kudos! Slightlymad14:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1832 Rothschild loan to the Holy See
Read the article. It's a very good article. Have you planned making it a GA? What happened to the loan though? Was it payed back and when? Keep up the good work. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per your contributions here and here, your personal views about Soros, the correct application of the term "left-wing", Karl Popper, etc, are all irrelevant. The talk page is for discussing an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA article. Please keep your WP:OPINIONs off the article and the article talk page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring new material without consensus
Your edit here restores new material without consensus on a page subject to discretionary sanctions. Since your edit introduces new material and has been challenged, you need to self-revert and not restore that edit unless or until you can get consensus at the article talk page. Thanks, Neutralitytalk17:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please resist the temptation to add material which is based on slender evidence or your own interpretation of what is notable. Having insisted on using primary sources for members of Labour Friends of Israel, while being warned against the practice by several editors, you reverted. Now you have added a mention that several notable African Americans were Freemasons usually based on a passing mention in a reliable source. I have removed your edits and would not add such material myself as it adds unnecessary clutter to an article. If you must include this detail, please ensure it is better sourced than hitherto. Philip Cross (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis-Misraïm.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis-Misraïm.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You were warned about BLP violations right above by User:Drmies. This kind of nonsense [4] where you accuse living people of being Nazi collaborators when they weren't (in fact were targeted by the Nazis), where you falsely say that someone was "a Judenrat" (sic) (at 13? I don't think it worked that way) and then say that the person was "turning tricks for Nazis". Don't restore this again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:The Dictator Pope.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I am guessing you are Irish. And if I understand correctly you are the editor who created the O'Conor-clan template for use on biographies, yes? I noticed that the template has a "personalities" section where there are number of people with Conor-related names. I have had a look at some of these names, and other than the fact that the person mentioned is pretty clearly Irish, for some of them I haven't seen anything within their articles that connects them by anything other than name to the "Conor" royal house of Ireland. The article on Daniel Connor, for example, is based on a single source written by the subject himself and mentions nothing about being associated with the Connor Clan of Ireland other than what is implied by his name. Am wondering how you chose to include these particular "Conor"-related individuals for the template (considering there must be thousands and thousands in the world and hundreds on Wikipedia), or was this meant to be just a sample of Irish people with Connor-type names? A loose noose (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
revert yourself
what you did go against the consensus,especially that there is still debate,what you have done goes against the consensus.Alhanuty (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Jamez42 (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely not going to fight over this, but your Edit summary about Meghan being a Protestant is rather amusing, since the source you used talks about her being Catholic. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions alert for gender-related issues
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please provide footnotes for your article, you can find out about footnotes at WP:CITE, and how to properly format them at WP:CIT. They are especially needed for quotes.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Hi, its from two books; The Global Impact of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by Esther Webman and Imperial Russia's Jewish Question, 1855-1881 by John Doyle Klier. I will have to dig these out and put the inline citations in the article. About Ernest Jouin specifically, there is actually an article about him on the French Wikipedia (and Spanish and Italian) which could probably do with being translated to the English one. Claíomh Solais (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever use "autistic" as an insult again I'll do everything possible to see you blocked indef. That is if someone doesn't block you for this. --Tarage (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs given here show a disruptive approach to talk pages relating to at least BLPs and modern politics, if not race, religion, and sexuality as well. This block is independent of whatever the consensus regarding a NOTHERE block turns out to be. You do not need community consensus to appeal this block (which, honestly, would require a topic ban from those five aforementioned topics), unlike the NOTHERE block if the community decides to support it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel there is convicing evidence that I have violated the basic principles laid out on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (such as pushing a single POV in mainspace... I have always advocated the NPOV be upheld in the mainspace, nor have I added original research, violated any 3RR, etc). None of the examples of disruptive editing given here are relevant to me or warrant a block: Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing
I have been blocked, without proper chance to reply (I have been away today), on the supposed "evidence" of selectively quoted diffs provided by (the ironically named) User:Neutrality, for the simple fact that I open discussions on talkpages challenging content bias where it is found and seeking the opinions of others to build a census to change content before just bulldozing into the mainspace (well inline with Wikipedia policies). Specifically, Neutrality apparently dislikes me for personal political reasons which have nothing to do with Wikipedia as such, as a self-evidently right-wing American guy who is very pro-Anglo-American Empire and pro-Israel.
The only thing I can be genuinely accused of is a verbose pattern of speech (people cannot help their personality or how they naturally speak... or in our case type). However, I have never made personal attacks against other editors and I have not set out to disrupt Wikipedia as a project (on the contrary I have staunchly promoted upholding the NPOV in the article mainspace, even when it is upopular or where Anglocentrism and bourgeois bias is being pushed as normative). I have also contributed a lot of valuable well researched content, including GA content.
I wouldn't really care about the other three topics (I don't have any interest in race and my interest in sexuality is only to the exent that it is used to POV-push Western soft-power in geopolitics), but I think it would be unjust to be topic banned from BLPs and modern politics. I have never entered into the mainspace any claims which do not reference reliable sources and in modern politics, I have simply challenged bias in the mainspace which is in favour of a bourgeois and Anglo-American imperialist POV, where such bias is to be found. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notes:
In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I do not feel there is convicing evidence that I have violated the basic principles laid out on [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]] (such as pushing a single POV in mainspace... I have always advocated the NPOV be upheld in the mainspace, nor have I added original research, violated any 3RR, etc). None of the examples of disruptive editing given here are relevant to me or warrant a block: [[Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing]]
I have been blocked, without proper chance to reply (I have been away today), on the supposed "evidence" of selectively quoted diffs provided by (the ironically named) [[User:Neutrality]], for the simple fact that I open discussions on talkpages challenging content bias where it is found and seeking the opinions of others to build a census to change content before just bulldozing into the mainspace (well inline with Wikipedia policies). Specifically, Neutrality apparently dislikes me for personal political reasons which have nothing to do with Wikipedia as such, as a self-evidently right-wing American guy who is very pro-Anglo-American Empire and pro-Israel.
The only thing I can be genuinely accused of is a verbose pattern of speech (people cannot help their personality or how they naturally speak... or in our case type). However, I have never made personal attacks against other editors and I have not set out to disrupt Wikipedia as a project (on the contrary I have staunchly promoted upholding the NPOV in the article mainspace, even when it is upopular or where Anglocentrism and bourgeois bias is being pushed as normative). I have also contributed a lot of valuable well researched content, including GA content.
I wouldn't really care about the other three topics (I don't have any interest in race and my interest in sexuality is only to the exent that it is used to POV-push Western soft-power in geopolitics), but I think it would be unjust to be topic banned from BLPs and modern politics. I have never entered into the mainspace any claims which do not reference reliable sources and in modern politics, I have simply challenged bias in the mainspace which is in favour of a bourgeois and Anglo-American imperialist POV, where such bias is to be found. [[User:Claíomh Solais|Claíomh Solais]] ([[User talk:Claíomh Solais#top|talk]]) 23:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I do not feel there is convicing evidence that I have violated the basic principles laid out on [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]] (such as pushing a single POV in mainspace... I have always advocated the NPOV be upheld in the mainspace, nor have I added original research, violated any 3RR, etc). None of the examples of disruptive editing given here are relevant to me or warrant a block: [[Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing]]
I have been blocked, without proper chance to reply (I have been away today), on the supposed "evidence" of selectively quoted diffs provided by (the ironically named) [[User:Neutrality]], for the simple fact that I open discussions on talkpages challenging content bias where it is found and seeking the opinions of others to build a census to change content before just bulldozing into the mainspace (well inline with Wikipedia policies). Specifically, Neutrality apparently dislikes me for personal political reasons which have nothing to do with Wikipedia as such, as a self-evidently right-wing American guy who is very pro-Anglo-American Empire and pro-Israel.
The only thing I can be genuinely accused of is a verbose pattern of speech (people cannot help their personality or how they naturally speak... or in our case type). However, I have never made personal attacks against other editors and I have not set out to disrupt Wikipedia as a project (on the contrary I have staunchly promoted upholding the NPOV in the article mainspace, even when it is upopular or where Anglocentrism and bourgeois bias is being pushed as normative). I have also contributed a lot of valuable well researched content, including GA content.
I wouldn't really care about the other three topics (I don't have any interest in race and my interest in sexuality is only to the exent that it is used to POV-push Western soft-power in geopolitics), but I think it would be unjust to be topic banned from BLPs and modern politics. I have never entered into the mainspace any claims which do not reference reliable sources and in modern politics, I have simply challenged bias in the mainspace which is in favour of a bourgeois and Anglo-American imperialist POV, where such bias is to be found. [[User:Claíomh Solais|Claíomh Solais]] ([[User talk:Claíomh Solais#top|talk]]) 23:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I do not feel there is convicing evidence that I have violated the basic principles laid out on [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]] (such as pushing a single POV in mainspace... I have always advocated the NPOV be upheld in the mainspace, nor have I added original research, violated any 3RR, etc). None of the examples of disruptive editing given here are relevant to me or warrant a block: [[Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing]]
I have been blocked, without proper chance to reply (I have been away today), on the supposed "evidence" of selectively quoted diffs provided by (the ironically named) [[User:Neutrality]], for the simple fact that I open discussions on talkpages challenging content bias where it is found and seeking the opinions of others to build a census to change content before just bulldozing into the mainspace (well inline with Wikipedia policies). Specifically, Neutrality apparently dislikes me for personal political reasons which have nothing to do with Wikipedia as such, as a self-evidently right-wing American guy who is very pro-Anglo-American Empire and pro-Israel.
The only thing I can be genuinely accused of is a verbose pattern of speech (people cannot help their personality or how they naturally speak... or in our case type). However, I have never made personal attacks against other editors and I have not set out to disrupt Wikipedia as a project (on the contrary I have staunchly promoted upholding the NPOV in the article mainspace, even when it is upopular or where Anglocentrism and bourgeois bias is being pushed as normative). I have also contributed a lot of valuable well researched content, including GA content.
I wouldn't really care about the other three topics (I don't have any interest in race and my interest in sexuality is only to the exent that it is used to POV-push Western soft-power in geopolitics), but I think it would be unjust to be topic banned from BLPs and modern politics. I have never entered into the mainspace any claims which do not reference reliable sources and in modern politics, I have simply challenged bias in the mainspace which is in favour of a bourgeois and Anglo-American imperialist POV, where such bias is to be found. [[User:Claíomh Solais|Claíomh Solais]] ([[User talk:Claíomh Solais#top|talk]]) 23:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Template:Gaddafi backed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. PanchoS (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm . Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 14 Intelligence Company into Special Reconnaissance Unit. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., 
Your addition to O'Connor has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 25. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 25.. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
