User talk:Asarlaí/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome

Hello Superfopp! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Building consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Louder Than Love

I noticed you added something about the song Gun being in 5/4. What part is that because the whole thing sounds like 4/4 to me. Nialsh 05:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The bit about "Gun" being in a 5/4 time signature was taken from the song's article (Gun) ...The speed increases for the first two verses, reaches a steady pace for the guitar solo (where the time signature changes to 4/4), then slows to the original tempo for the final verse, again in 5/4... I just added it to the Louder Than Love article along with any other interesting info I could find on the songs. I agree it may need to be checked or verified, although I didn't write the original. Superfopp 15:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Touch Me I'm Sick

do u have a source for that "grungiest" comment? i have sources for most of the other stuff, just have to put it in.. Tommy Stardust 07:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I took it from an interview with the band in December 1988, which can be found here: [1]

About half-way down the page you'll see: The grunge rock label is kind of the band's fault anyway, Steve admits. "We picked, I think, our two grungiest songs for the single," he said. That website has a lot of good Mudhoney interviews if you ever need any info. Superfopp 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Stoner rock / metal

Hi Superfopp, just to give you a bit of background on the rock / metal thing.. This debate rumbled on a while ago, with the consensus being that while the bands covered by the description in the article could be labelled "stoner rock", few could be labelled "stoner metal". As there was no appetite for a separate stoner metal article, the terms are listed as interchangeable, hence there is no need to continually repeat both terms. If you have a different opinion about this, please present it on the article talk page, where editors with an interest in this topic will be only too happy to discuss it. Cheers, Deiz talk 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: the presentation of stoner rock / metal on Wikipedia - You are treading very well trodden ground here. Practically all of the moves and redefinitions you are making have been made before and reverted, argued over etc etc. You have to get consensus for these kind of edits, or you will find yourself in a revert war and disagreements with a number of editors. Talk:Stoner rock is the place to start. Deiz talk 12:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all I should say that I'm grateful for your willingness to discuss with me these matters.

The terms "stoner rock" and "stoner metal" have indeed been used interchangeably, but in my view they are not. The "stoner genre" has two closely-related but distinct sides - a rock side and a metal side - with some bands applying these traits to rock music and some bands applying these traits to doom metal. Some bands could classed as definitely rock but definitely not metal, and vice-versa. For example compare the likes of Fatso Jetson (rock) with the likes of Acid King (metal).

In regards to my edits, my intention was simply to have the articles acknowledge fully that this music is a subgenre of both rock and metal. In the stoner rock article, although the first line mentions this, the remainder of the article does not continue the, shall we say, "neutrality". In the list of heavy metal genres article, I felt the very brief section didn't do the genre justice, and thus I attempted to represent it fully.

However, I agree that the talk page should have been used before making these edits. As there still appears to be confusion regarding terminology, I intend to discuss this in-depth at Talk:Stoner rock. Superfopp 13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Superfopp, like you I am absolutely committed to the most comprehensive and accurate coverage of stoner rock and metal on WP as possible, my intervention here stems from making similar edits and getting grief, just trying to save you some trouble and making sure we can present a united front. Creating a separate article for stoner metal shouldn't be too tricky, however the problem I found was finding reliable sources to establish that the genres are separate, and which bands are which. As Wikipedia reflects published sources rather than the opinion of its editors, this is something that needs to be addressed. As far as the more general metal genre lists go, there would be no problem creating a separate entry for stoner metal if there were separate articles. However, redefining the long-established definitions of primary and cross genre labels will take a bit more work, and proved very frustrating when I tried it last year. I instigated a full overhaul of what counted as a "core" metal genre which was a long, fortunately reasonably successful process. Stoner metal did not make the cut, along with various other genres (viking, pirate and other "metals" for example) but we ended up with a much cleaner template and some positive cooperation between editors who were usually at each others throats for one reason or another. User:Johnnyw is another dedicated stoner rock editor who will no doubt have a lot of useful ideas. I'd suggest putting together proposals for any redefinitions or creations you feel could be made and listing them at Talk:Stoner rock and we'll take it from there. I will note that I do take policy and guidelines seriously (can't completely take off the admin hat, even for stoner metal), the upside to that being that I can point out any problems we might face before taking ideas into the mainspace. Cheers, Deiz talk 14:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rivers of Northern Ireland

Hi, just spotted you've redirected this to Rivers of Ireland -- I have no particular POV for or against combining these lists, but is there a discussion somewhere regarding this change? I imagine it may step on a few toes... The other thing I'd mention is that the NI list had quite a large number of rivers on it; are you likely to be replicating this list within the Rivers of Ireland list? All the best, Fattonyni (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've had no response from you on this I'll have to revert the redirect of rivers of Northern Ireland to rivers of Ireland. If you have any objections to this let me know, but if a redirect is to be made then the contents of the original list should be imported, rather than removing all of the previous information. Fattonyni (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply. I was unsure if all the redlinks should be included in the Rivers of Ireland article. Nevertheless, I'll begin importing that information as soon as possible. ~Asarlaí 14:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks for lists like that are fine (which was why I reverted your redirect). They both encourage people to add pages on the missing information, and provide a fuller list. If you do redirect again (and I'm not sure you should mind you, not without a discussion as I'm sure you're well aware there is an ongoing policy debate on what Ireland refers to and merging Northern Ireland topics with Ireland topics is always contentious - you should notify the project pages first and build consensus) then you should also fix incoming links to that page to point to your new page, and be more direct in your redirect (errr ...) by redirecting to pageName#SectionName so people who do hit the redirect don't have to hunt around looking. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things. Now it's not clear what rivers are where. I know you're trying to "unite" the island, but information has been lost in your merging and that is not good. I'd also consider adding information specifically on the Bann as the largest river in the north. Like it or not they are separate countries and right now what you are doing appears revisionist, especially when in the discussion of canals it's only limited to those in the south.--Blowdart | ^talk 18:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I felt the two articles should be combined is that they both deal with natural geographic features (rivers) on a single geographic entity (the island of Ireland). As such, the focus should be on the island as a whole, not the political subdivisions within it. Furthermore, numerous rivers cross the border.

As far as I can see, no information has been lost. But if you see otherwise then feel free to include it again. ~Asarlaí 18:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Rivers of Africa, a geographic entity - you can see that the countries are acknowledged. I take your point about rivers crossing the border, in fact that would be a great thing to point out. Right now it does smack of an agenda in not acknowledging it. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Africa is a continent with dozens of countries, Ireland is a small island with only two countries. However, if you feel it's necessary then I won't object. I suppose the list could be re-divided into Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Both countries, or something similar. ~Asarlaí 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe list them by the country in which they rise? I dunno. Before the merge it was clear where the rivers were, now it's not. The same would apply to loughs.--Blowdart | ^talk 19:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're concerned about 'locating them easily' then why not be even more specific than NI/ROI and use Ulster/Connacht/Leinster/Munster, or North/West/East/South coast, or something like that? Secondly, I don't see why it's necessary to be able to 'find them easily' – this article is only meant to be a simple list of rivers in Ireland. Thirdly, the article list of Irish loughs is very specific about where the loughs are located. ~Asarlaí 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Because then you have the political mess that is defining "Ulster". Of course I don't see why you merged them, rather than have a holding page which pointed to both. Again I fear there's an agenda at work, and merging Ireland and Northern Ireland articles without consensus is not a good idea. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained further up why they were merged.
The solution is simple – if you want to be specific about where the rivers are located, re-divide the list into NI/ROI, or Ulster/Connacht/Leinster/Munster, or North/West/East/South coast, or something similar. ~Asarlaí 19:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes you have, but you took a unilateral decision on it, something which is downright dangerous on Ireland related articles. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that the list has been combined, I'm not even sure whether it fits on the Rivers of Ireland article -- it clutters up the page, not least with the TOC. Perhaps it would serve better on a separate reinstated List of rivers of Ireland, linked to from the Rivers of Ireland article? I'll bet there's plenty more substantial information could go into the Rivers article page to fill it out, maybe even a section of the article to explain the specifics of which major systems are important to the North and/or the South?

Then with these differences explained in the article, that could leave the list to just be an overall list, with both List of rivers of Northern Ireland and List of rivers of the Republic of Ireland linking to the same page. Thoughts? Should I actually be making this point on the Rivers of Ireland talk page instead? :-) Fattonyni (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a good idea – one article covering Irish rivers in general, another being simply a list of Irish rivers. However, the article would need to have a lot more information before we could consider doing that. Perhaps you should take it to the talk page anyway. ~Asarlaí 00:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bathory albums

I would like you to explain what you think you're doing to my contributions to Bathory's secound and third studio albums. You claim that my edits are unnecessary information and that I instead of bringing forth information of the albums, are reviewing them and that's no the case.

The information is not unnecessary, it's curiousa, (which means that it's pieces of information that gives the reader a deeper look into the absolute necessary information), and I've never clamed the album to be good or bad, (reviewing it), I've just explained the sound in general, what the lyrics dealt with, how well it was received by critics and quoted a critic on "The Return". If you find this wrong, you might aswell remove Allmusic's judgingsystem, (giving albums stars from 1-5, reviewing how good they find the album), of all albums on Wikipedia, since they if that's the case is giving viewers reviews to read, which is according to you all wrong.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I'd like you to explain your actions, because this is getting ridiculous.

LovedTa'Death 19:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly and most importantly, all the information you've added to these articles is unsourced. You've wrote how it was received by critics and what the lyrics are about, but haven't providided any citations. Secondly, much of the wording is akin to a personal review (for example you've described the albums with words like "brutal", "thrashing", "cruel" and "evil"). Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and consider using the talk pages before adding more info. ~Asarlaí 19:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fair, but why would you claim the information to be unessential? I now understand that you reacted to the information in the matter of me acting like a reviewer and to the lack of information. I'll change the choice of words and make a link to what source I possibly could have used, (I mostly collected all the information I've gotten in the time as a fan from different unnameable sources), fair enough? LovedTa'Death 20:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's fine so long as everything is properly sourced and written in neutral wording. You could show us on the talk page what you've got planned and then we could sort it out before putting it in the article. ~Asarlaí 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair, how do I send you the information? And will I have to keep sending you information as I intend to expand information on several Bathory albums in the future? LovedTa'Death 20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're planning major additions, just use the talk pages (for example Talk:Under the Sign of the Black Mark > new section). It's better to make sure you've got it all sorted beforehand to avoid edit wars and such. ~Asarlaí 20:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So what I'll do is that I'll write an argument to why my piece of information should stay on Wikipedia and then post it? (I'm new to this feature) and if it works that way, will you visit the talk pages for the albums I've edited later? LovedTa'Death 10:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Irish Rivers article

Please don't destroy this page again. If you wish to add info then please do so using the current structure. Any further elimination of the tributary format by you will be vandalism and will be treated as such. Sarah777 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your edits are more likely to be seen as vandalism, since you removed a great deal of information without good reason. If you wish to return to the "tributary format" then discuss it on the talk page. If other editors agree to use that format again, then it should be re-implemented without removing any information. ~Asarlaí 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Superfopp, if you wish to add the pointless "List of Irish Rivers" to the "see also" section of various water related articles then please try to do so without removing the link to the excellent Rivers of Ireland article. The man who made room on Wiki made loads of it. Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see you managed to work that out for yourself. Excellent. Better late than never as they say. Sarah777 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New Testament apocrypha

I invite you both to Talk:New Testament apocrypha and the talk page I am using so that we can talk out those issues which are part of the reasoning process that you went through in order to decide why you believe that a section of this article should have the headline "Gnostic Christian texts".

I don't know if you know this or not, but there are very many articles in this encyclopedia alone which establish the reasons as to why Gnosticism (or its near relative, Hermeticism, for that matter) is not the same religion as the New Covenant [Christianity].

If you insist upon having the article section head read "Gnostic Christian", the article which you have edited will be in direct conflict with all of the other articles which touch upon the subject of Gnosticism – factually, evidentially, and in terms of sourcing as well.

I'm just reverting you for now, but if you respond on both of the talk pages that I mentioned, you can air your concerns there and we can work out our differences over the heading. (Naturally, you can also respond here, if you like) Cheers — 198.252.12.202 Talk 01:54, Monday April 13, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for changing the article section head to read "Gnostic texts" instead of "Gnostic Christian texts". Unfortunately (and I do appreciate your interest), this does not resolve the original issue of the supposedly "lost gospels", because over the years there have been a lot of POV-pushing editors here who read The DaVinci Code just one time too many, and now those people are hell-bent upon "proving to the world that the Church is hiding something" about the New Testament canon by making a lot of propagandistic, vandalizing edits in order to "reveal to the world (for the first time) the gospels that the Church has been hiding from everyone".

Please also keep in mind that the very histories of Gnosticism and Hermeticism themselves are, in fact, a shared history of efforts to distort, deny, or refute somehow the orthodox teachings of Christianity; to corrupt, deliberately misinterpret, forge, or otherwise hijack Holy Scripture itself in pursuance of furthering the beliefs of paganism; and (most importantly) an ongoing effort to whitewash and conceal all of this activity from the general public, so that no one catches on to the fact that those behind the agenda to hijack the original teachings of the Gospel possess beliefs and share a belief system that is totally incompatible with orthodox Christianity.

What this means is that if we instead label the article section "Gnostic texts", the article will not reveal to the reader either (1) the fact that people who are Gnostic were engaged, and are still engaged, in a campaign to co-opt and hijack the Bible by tricking the public into accepting their intentional misinterpretations of Scripture (and therefore destroying the Church in the process), or (2) the fact that Gnostic teachings are totally incompatible with Christian teaching.

Again, I'm just reverting you for now – and I ask you again to discuss these issues on Talk:New Testament apocrypha or the talk page that I am using. 198.252.12.202 Talk 02:55, Monday April 13, 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this "conspiracy" is your own personal theory. As I'm not a theologian, a Christian or a Gnostic, I'm not prepared to debate it with you. But by changing the title to "pseudo-Christian" without any reliable sources to support that change, you are introducing bias. Maintaining a neutral point-of-view is a fundamental Wikipedia policy. I'm sure we can both agree that "Gnostic texts" is a neutral title, as it does not imply that the texts are "definitely Christian" or "definitely not Christian". ~Asarlaí 03:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Newtownards

Just so you know, when I requested a citation for the Irish name of Newtownards, it wasn't because I don't think it has an Irish name, it was solely due to the spelling changing and making sure we had a referencable spelling. I'm not one of these anti-Irish name editors that seem to crop up from time to time, just making sure what is there is referenced so there is no arguments about them. Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. I've asked the same for some Scots placenames too (when I haven't been able to find them myself). ~Asarlaí 15:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

There is nothing wrong with the grammar in piping the proper name of the country in which County Wicklow and County Kildare are located, to the name of the article Republic of Ireland. Piping, like this Ireland, is quite normal, and accurate, per the Irish manual of style. When you insist on linking to the current state article by its wiki article you are misleading readers and are wrong but you could link to the geographical article for the island Ireland instead. In addition I have to disagree with most of your rephrasing of most of the county introductions, especially those of Northern Ireland where the new phrasing implies that Northern Ireland comprises all the counties of the province of Ulster, which you know it does not. We need to be encyclopaedicly clear not confusing. I am sure you don't mean to mislead but casual readers will be mislead or even confused. ww2censor (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

When referring to the island and the state in the same sentence/paragraph, it's necessary to distinguish between the two. It makes no sense to write, for example "County Kildare is one of the traditional Counties of Ireland. It is located within the province of Leinster in Ireland". Readers shouldn't have to click the link to find out which entity is being referred to. However, I agree the wording needs fixed on some Ulster county articles. ~Asarlaí 04:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits to WP:IECOLL

You may be interested in this edit. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Shankill Butchers

Hello and many thanks for your recent edits. I'm glad to see another hand at work. But it's impt to make the intro. to any article as substantial as possible, and the removal of the info. that the gang killed quite a number of Protestant people gives the impression that it only killed Roman Catholics. While it's clear that they were a vicious gang intent on mass murder of Catholics, that balance has to be shown. And they were members of the UVF, not linked with it, as seen by their comvictions. Moreover, the cut-throat killings were random in nature and they were involved in bombings. So I will revert most of your changes in aid of accuracy and fairness but didn't want to do so without dropping a note. Your use of "gang" is good and it should stay. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your arguments. I've rephrased some of the introduction again, without removing the mention of those things. ~Asarlaí 16:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And to you for your prompt response! Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Rice

If you Google it you will finf that rice is the form used in contemporary documents. Furthermore, your edits have left a grammatically incorrect form - it would be like saying "English" without following it with "kingdom" or "realm". ðarkuncoll 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a Google search for Old English dictionaries online. The websites [2], [3], [4] and [5] give Cynedōm/Cyningdōm/Cynerīce/Cyningrīce/Rīcedōm/Rīce as equivalent to kingdom/kindom/realm etc. Since there are so many forms that we could use, I think it's best not to use any, as it would be favouring one over the others. I don't think its grammatically wrong to say (for example) "West Saxons" without adding "kingdom" to the end. ~Asarlaí 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

See [6] for example. On its own, the word for kingdom may well have been cyningrice etc., but when combined with a nominative for a specific kingdom, such as Miercna, it is incorrect to say cyning as well (cf modern German Reich). Furthermore, the nominative form Miercna etc. is incorrect without an object - it's not like modern English. ðarkuncoll 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-writing articles

Crossbarry Ambush

Hi, listen, no offense and I know you're acting in good faith, but we really need to talk about you going in re-writing articles without talking about it first. I'm talking about the Kilmichael Ambush and Crossbarry Ambush articles here in particular.

The Kilmichael thing has blown up into a bit of a pissing contest, but in fairness that is not your fault.

BUt re the Crossbarry article. I'm going to make the following changes but I want to clear it with oyu first so that we don't get into the same problems as in the Kilmichael article.

1.The intro, *Crossbarry is not a village, it's a crossroads.

• 20 kilometres south of cork city is a relevant detail
• a battle is a very large military engagement, Crossbarry was not this, it was a skirmish, hence "engagement" is better.

The next section is ok, I'd prefer "ascertain" to "discover" but I don't mind.

2.Combat section; lots of problems here. My preference would be to revert the whole thing.

• Barry's calculation" v "Barry reckoned", "reckoned" is informal language and not suitable for an elcyclopedia article.
• "sustained" v "withstand", difference in meaning. The problem was ammunition, so they couldn't sustain ie keep up a fight all day. "Withstand" means that they couldn't physically or morally fight all day. Doesn't mean the same thing.
• "column" v "unit", more precise - this was the langauge they used. ALso, repeated use of "unit" makes tedious reading.
• "observed" v "saw", saw means only to see, observed means saw and made a judgment
• deletion of "taking the chance to get away" - pretty important tactical consideration.
• "Rendevous" v "meeting", a rendevous is a pre planned military meeting, so more precise.
• "combats" v "exchanges", combats is more precise, exchanges could mean exchanges of words, or anything.

Also, some of the chagnes seem a little pointless, eg replacing "therefore" with "thus". Why?

Anyway, if you object to any of these chagnes let me know and we'll work something out. If not I'll make those changes.Jdorney (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking the time to explain everything. I wouldn't have a problem with any of those changes. But I'd rather you change only the bits you've noted above, rather than just reverting the whole lot — unless there's something else you object to? ~Asarlaí 13:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't want to revet the whole lot, only the combat section, ok?Jdorney (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're only changing those bits of the "combat" section then I'm fine with it. ~Asarlaí 15:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, done. I've made some other changes as well. If there's a problem maybe we should discuss it at the talk page there so other users can see? Anyway, hope there isn't. Jdorney (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

McMahon murders

Hi again, sorry to be making this a regular occurance, but I really don't like what you've done with the McMahon Murders intro. Could you tell me why you made those changes?Jdorney (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well... since the introduction is meant to be a summary of the article, I thought this one needed more info. I simply added some important facts that weren't mentioned before:

• That the victims were all civilians
• That they were aged between 15 and 50
• The reason they were targeted (being Catholic and nationalist)
• That many believe it was a reprisal for IRA attacks
• That there were many similar reprisals during that era

I removed "all but one were from the McMahon family" because I didn't think it was important enough for the introduction. ~Asarlaí 14:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well first thanks for setting out your thoughts.

Here are my problems.

• First, the first sentence should give the principle theme of the article. So, "the macmahon murders occurred on March 24 1922" just doesn't tell the reader enough.
• Two, the incident has never, to my knowledge, been called the "McMahon massacre". So this shouldn't be there.
• Three the fact that they were all from the McMahon family except one is important, because it gave the incident its name and it increased the emotional impact of it as well. Wiping out all the males in one family is a particularly brutal and indiscriminate act.
• Four, the details of the act, that they broke into the house at night and shot all the men, has been deleted and needs to go back in.
• Five, "Many believe" is bad here. It should be the passive voice, "it is believed". Also, the previous info is much more specific, it was retaliation for the killing of two policemen the day before. This should go back in.
• Six, The paragraph on Northern Ireland is pretty POV. These are issues that are beter addressed in the text of the article itself - as I think they already are.
• No problem with saying the dead were Catholics and nationalists. No problem with adding the ages.

Let me know, Jdorney (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll compromise on the first five points. However, I think it's important to note that the killings were motivated by religion and politics. If we say that the victims were Catholic and nationalist, then we also have to say that the NI police were almost entirely Protestant and unionist – that's a fact. Otherwise we're only explaining half of it.

Here's my proposed intro:

The McMahon Murders occurred on 24 March 1922 in Belfast, Northern Ireland when six civilians were shot dead by members of the Ulster Special Constabulary or Royal Irish Constabulary. The policemen broke into a house at night and shot the eight males inside, seven of which belonged to the McMahon family. It is believed to have been a reprisal for the IRA’s shooting of two policemen the day before. Northern Ireland had been created ten months beforehand, and its police force was almost exclusively Protestant and unionist. In this incident (like many others) the victims were targeted because they were Catholic and nationalist.

~Asarlaí 19:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good, we're making progress. A couple of qibbles though.

• First. I'd prefer getting the McMahon family and catholic into the first sentence. Also there were two injured. And the ages.
• Two. I'd prefer "their house" to "a house". It wasn't a random house, they sought out the McMahons specificially. Also if we put the McMahons into the first sentence, we can take them out the second sentence. Next, they rounded up and shot all the men in the house, so we need "all". Finally, you can't use "which" for people, you have to use "whom".
• Three. The RIC was not mainly Protestant, strange as it may seem, it was actually majority catholic. The USC was another story. They were almost 100% protestant.
• Four. I just dont like the way this is phrased.

So how about:

The McMahon Murders occurred on 24 March 1922 in Belfast, Northern Ireland when six Catholic civilians (all but one members of the McMahon family) were shot dead and two injured by members of the Ulster Special Constabulary (USC) or Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). The dead were aged between 15 and 50. The policemen broke into their house at night and shot all the eight males inside. It is believed to have been a reprisal for the IRA’s shooting of two policemen the day before. Northern Ireland had been created ten months beforehand. Its police forces, especially the USC, which was almost exclusively Protestant and unionist, were implicated in a number of reprisal attacks on Catholics and nationalist civilians in this period.

What do you think?Jdorney (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That wording looks fine to me, but I hope you don't mind me moving "all but one were members of the McMahon family" down a bit, because the first line is a bit long-winded. ~Asarlaí 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Made a very small adjustment. Have a look.Jdorney (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

After all the editing disagreements we've been having, a word of thanks. For noticing the clonmult thing accidentally cut and pasted onto the Upton page. Cheers!Jdorney (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. ~Asarlaí 17:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

You are mentioned here. BigDunc 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a comment about the complaint at WP:AE#Request concerning Superfopp. It looks as though you've been reverting to force the phrase 'non-specific republican' back into the article. While this is already an example of edit warring, you also broke the 1RR restriction on 4 November, which is what the AE complaint is about. There is still time for you to undo your last change to Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997. If you do so, that may be taken into account by the admin who closes the WP:AE case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you have resumed editing without undoing your change or responding at WP:AE, adverse inferences may be drawn. We're waiting to hear from you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya made the right choice, in reverting. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Germanic and Latinate equivalents in English

Hello. I undid the edit you made 17:26, 2 December 2009 due to the loss in semantic correspondence. The latinates are substantives, and therefore the Germanic equivalents should be also. I tried to preserve most of the contribution, managing to salvage "thrill", but "uplift" or "upliftedness" were difficult to work in. Leasnam (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Celtic nations

Hi Superfopp, really like the table you added to Celtic nations over Christmas. It adds to the article and highlights the similarities between the two language groups. I wonder if you would mind checking the Irish and Manx entries for Wales and Brittany though, as I think they may have been transposed. Sadly, the only Celtic language I speak is Welsh. However, I think that in the Goedelic languges the words "Bheag" (Irish and Scottish Gaelic) and "Beg" (Manx), translate as Bach in Welsh, meaning small/little in English. It seems likely to me that "Little/Small Britain" would be Brittany in the sense that it isn't "Large/Great Britain". Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, very much appreciated.

The Gàidhlig "Bhreatainn Bheag", Gaeilge "Bhreatain Bheag" and Gaelg "Bretyn Beg" all translate (literally) as "Little Britain". As you rightly pointed out, the English term "Little Britain" was used to mean Brittany. However, for some reason, only in Gàidhlig is Brittany called "Little Britain". You may want to check the Gaeilge/Gàidhlig/Gaelg Wikipedias for more info. ~Asarlaí 23:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Looks like I managed to prove the old adage - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing :) Adding the extra column (GB) makes a lot of sense. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. I'll use the same string to keep things simple. As I said in the summary, if you're leniting Breatainn > Bhreatainn, in any Celtic language the definite article is obligatory, not optional. And in front of some country names the article is always obligatory. The reason I took the line breaks out is that they, for some reason, hid part of the text (at least on my screen).

Teangannan in Gaelic only means tongues, not language per se. As the introduction says it "highlights some of the similarities and differences", cànain will just have to fall under "differences". On a linguistic note, using proper nouns to show typological similarities is not the best idea really. It sort of works here but still makes for a very odd list. Perhaps some common nouns like iasg, ceann etc should be added. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

List of mass car bombings

Thanks for your work on List of mass car bombings! Much more readable now. Balfa (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

UDA/UFF

Hello, there. It's misleading to call the UFF "the military wing" of the UDA. The UDA is/was itself a military organization - the UFF is/was a "flag of convenience". The relationship is decidedly not analogous to that between Sinn Fein and the IRA, for example. Irvine22 (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the line is a bit blurred. Officially (ie. according to itself) the UDA was/is solely a political group. This is partly why it wasn't banned until 1992. It was/is more a militant political group than military group. However, it's well known that some UDA members carried guns and took part in attacks on Catholics/nationalists/republicans. The UFF, on the other hand, was solely a paramilitary group tasked with killing Catholics/nationalists/republicans. Moreover, the UFF is referred to as the UDA's "military wing" by many sources:

• Wood, Ian S. Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA. Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Page 381.
• Dillon, Martin. The Shankill butchers: the real story of cold-blooded mass murder. Routledge, 1999. Page 266.
• Dillon, Martin. The dirty war: covert strategies and tactics used in political conflicts. Taylor & Francis, 1999. Page 279.
• Atkins, Stephen E. Encyclopedia of modern worldwide extremists and extremist groups. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004. Page 329.
• Kirkland, Richard. Identity parades: Northern Irish culture and dissident subjects. Liverpool University Press, 2002. Page 147.

Google Books throws up dozens of sources that say the same thing, but I don't think we need so many in the article. ~Asarlaí 04:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wonder about the status of the Ulster Democratic Party then. Irvine22 (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the groups overlap somewhat. The UDA was/is the central group that organised everything — it was/is "officially" a political group, though some of its members took part in violence. The UFF was/is the paramilitary wing whose sole purpose was to undertake attacks on Catholics/nationalists/republicans. The UYM was/is the youth wing. The UDP was the political party whose sole purpose was to fight elections and win seats in the Assembly.

The fact is that dozens of sources say that "the UFF is the UDA's military wing". We can't go about adding our own terms — like "the UDA's subsidiary" — without sources to back it up. ~Asarlaí 04:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if not "subsidiary" how about "flag of convenience" or "cover name"? I just have this uneasy feeling that "military wing" is somehow misleading to the casual reader. Irvine22 (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather just say "UDA attacks were carried out under the name Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF)" and not qualify it. Further down we can add something like "many refer to the UFF as its military wing". ~Asarlaí 05:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A-ite. Irvine22 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Drumcree

Cheers for your work on Drumcree conflict. It's great to see Northern Ireland pages on controversial topics getting expanded without turning into edit wars, as was almost inevitable a few years ago. --Helenalex (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. ~Asarlaí 16:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Asarlaí - and Help! I'm bamboozled re description & copyrite process for Drumcree images. They are available online at http://orangecitadel.blogspot.com/. They were originally lifted from a now-defunct local newspaper in 1982 and have been reproduced (without problems) in the book "Garvaghy: A Community Under Siege (1999) - which i co-edited. I think they are important pictures and would appreciate any help. Go to [7]

Thanks, Maolcholann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maolcholann (talk • contribs) 11:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the whole copyright thing is really tricky business. I don't understand most of it either. The only pictures I've uploaded are some maps that I made myself. You'll need to know when the picture was taken, where it was first printed, where you scanned it from, and what that newspaper/book/magazine says about copyright (eg. "the pictures in this book can be re-used so long as Mr X is given credit"). I think you'd be best asking one of our Irish admins for advice — try User:BrownHairedGirl (an admin) or User:Baldeadly (not an admin but he's uploaded a lot of Troubles-related pictures). ~Asarlaí 21:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish names for towns

While i understand that some persons may wish to see Iriah names for towns in Northern Ireland I wish to remind you that the towns here are in the United Kingdom, and not in Ireland. If you wish to include the irish names also please include the Irish Scots definitions. Otherwise leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.84.33 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, all settlements on the island of Ireland have their Irish names shown. The same goes for other parts of the United Kingdom:

• settlements in Scotland have their Scots and/or Scots Gaelic names shown on Wikipedia
• settlements in Wales have their Welsh names shown on Wikipedia
• settlements in Mann have their Manx names shown on Wikipedia
• settlements in Cornwall have their Cornish names shown on Wikipedia

Removing Irish names for no good reason will be treated as vandalism. ~Asarlaí 09:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not every settlement has a real-world used Irish version and nor should made up versions be imposed. There is nothing wrong with using the derive tag to show where a settlement name came from but instead adding Irish versions that aren't even used in the real world, say by a local GAA team, should be avoided. Wikipedia works with facts that must be verifiable. Northern Star ^(talk) 21:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up!

Now that's what I'm talkin' about!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Population stats in Craigavon

I see what you mean with the citation request in the Lurgan article. I had assumed that your man that put in the historical populations table was correct with his four citations, but looking into them he just linked to the home page of a lot of those sites. Where did you get the breakdown of population figures by ward? I was going to put in a citation tag on that but I thought I'd ask you here first. Also, I see you're working on the Portadown page. I was going to turn my attention to that after getting Lurgan up to GA standard. Wanna work together on Lurgan until we get GA and then we can work together on Pordydown? Thanks! --Eamonnca1 (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I found it on the NISRA website. If you enter a full postcode or street name in the search bar on the main page, it'll give you all the stats for whatever ward that postcode/street is in. Under the 'geography' section it has links to all the neighbouring wards. I'm sure there's some other way of doing it but, if you ask me, the whole layout/navigation of that site is awful.

As for the working together, I'm right behind ye.

~Asarlaí 06:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I have the answer. Head on over to Talk:Lurgan and let me know what you think. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I understood that you're an Irishman (I wish I can visit your wonderful country some time soon!), so can you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country, music and language! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

County Navboxes

Personally i couldn't care if you decide to hurry and plaster your navboxes on every Northern Ireland article to ensure that your have "majority" status. I'm placing the NI specific one on them as well. Personally i'd rather edit your tags to the new one just as you like changing article templates to impose your all-Ireland view on them. However there i believe allows us to both have our navboxes on an article page - mine is Northern Ireland specific whilst your is all-Ireland diminsion - even if only in picture and very POV colour scheme. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

However as Northern Ireland as a political entity comes first, mine will be placed above yours which is based on an outdated and inaccurate number of counties and on something that is only historical at best. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the current navboxes, creating a whole new series of rival navboxes isn't the way to deal with it. Threatening to paste those new navboxes beside all the old ones is even worse. On Wikipedia, we deal with problems like this by talking. ~Asarlaí 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as many of them were only added today they are hardly old. Your one to talk. I know the way i went about it wasn't the best way, however i am willing to discuss the issue in a more appropriate and better manner. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Randomly titled heading, since I can't be bothered with wit today

Wikipedia today....

Since I refuse to post in a manifestly incorrectly titled thread as the one above, I'll start my own. You may want to review WP:CONLIMITED, you cannot override a global consensus to implement a local consensus, the global consensus being the one at WP:CFORK which I'd have hoped (in vain evidently!) that anyone planning on forking an article would have read and taken note of. So fix the problems you have created which are against global consensus, or I am merging the articles back until you do. You created the problems, you fix them. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There was an agreement on the talk page that Loughgall Ambush should have its own article. It's fairly obvious why that is – it was a notable incident, the East Tyrone Brigade article was getting a bit too long, etc. So, if you tell me exactly what needs to be done I'm sure I can have it fixed fairly quickly. ~Asarlaí 14:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've written a fuller summary of the ambush on the East Tyrone Brigade article. ~Asarlaí 15:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Townlands

I've reverted your edits in the townlands section of the Newtownabbey, Cookstown, and Craigavon articles. Whilst we know its true and that there are sources that back up in essence what you've added, its original research to expand that to individual places. Also is there even any need for it in the articles? Many other bits of information in articles can be found by the appropraite wiki-links and i believe keeping out what looks like original research is easily achieved by linking the section to townlands where the reader can find out more about them. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with you Mabuska and I think you should take this to each individual talk page and not bring it here. Bjmullan (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In the bigger towns many streets, roads, schools and housing estates are named after townlands. Hence, I think it's useful to have information on those townlands in the articles. I also think it's important to have a brief introduction rather than just a list—especially for those "not in the know". As you said, the information I added is factual (and obvious) and can be backed-up by reliable sources, so what's the problem? ~Asarlaí 13:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Bjmullan i would like a more exact reason as to why you don't agree other than you don't, you are a very ambiguous person at times lol :-)

The problem Asarlai is that it isn't backed up by reliable sources - sources talk about townlands and towns in general, not specific towns. Thats why keeping such a general statement is better in the actual townlands article and not stretched beyond what it actually states whether we know its correct or not. It is also troublesome and lacking verifiability to declare that many of the streets or estates are derived from a townland - they may have the same name as the townland they reside in or are near, but unless you have a specific source that clearly states that that town's estates and streets are then it is original research to make that statement yourself.

Also should we expand every NI settlement articles "Troubles" section to define for readers not in the know as to what it was about and who was involved? Its kept to a simple line and link as that is all thats needed and the reader can easily click the link. I've been told before that a wiki-link to the Northern Ireland article is suffice enough to inform a reader of the country an Northern Irish county belongs to (United Kingdom). So whats the problem with such a standard being used in this instance, seeing as its used elsewhere, and seeing as information like this thats already contained in another article is usually linked to rather than stated.

In regards to the Cookstown Main Street, it is original research to look at a townland map and then come to Wikipedia and state that it spreads across three townlands. A source didn't actually state so, you did and thats original research. I also feel, as i've stated before, that looking at the maps and stating the townlands that constitute a town may also breech original research rules. But this exact issue needs to be brought before the reliable sources or original research board or whichever it is.

Aside from those issue, if you are going to declare "mostly come from the Irish language", i feel that the term "commonly derived from the Irish language" should be used. They may mean the same thing, but the latter to me sounds appropriate and encyclopedic for Wikipedia.

Mabuska ^(talk) 20:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree because townlands are an uniquely Irish thing and the information on townlands can help people better connect with their past, whether it's locals looking at their town/village or people across the oceans tracing their past. Including information about townlands directly in the article enriches it. I do prefer your "commonly derived" because I also think it sounds better but when it comes to maps I don't think that it could be consider OR. Bjmullan (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That is why we provide wikilinks to articles that go into the detail and provide a user a way to find out more. See the examples i posted above for other things that aren't expanded upon other than in their own article. The source and issues of potentially personal research is the major concerns here, and whether or not its OR needs to be decided by the appropriate methods here on Wikipedia, not you or me. I don't mean to be such a pain however DerryBoi and VintageKits gave me hell over sources, reliability, verifiability, and such stuff so its only right that i do the same - just like i pushed and pushed for a proper source that declared townlands to be of Gaelic origin - the article is better for having a proper source for it. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Also if we are to include a description and short history of townlands in each article's section on townlands you would have to be even in the content. If you state "mostly from the Irish language" or "commonly derived from the Irish language", you would have to state what the rest would be derived from, i.e. English, Scots, Old-Norse etc. A simple wiki-link and/or "See Also" tag is more than suffice. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Townlands lists: proposal for deletion

There is a proposal to delete townlands lists that I created and in which you showed some interest by inviting me to list them at a list page of yours, which I gladly did. You may contribute to the discussion, and defend the lists, if you wish at the discussion page. If you know of others with similar interests to ours in Irish townlands, could you please let them know? Thank you. —O'Dea 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Folk music of Ireland

I've reverted your edits to the above article not because I disagree with them but because they are quite extensive and (as far as I can see) no notice was given and no discussion offered on the talk page. I appreciate your efforts and I (and others interested in folk music) would gladly discuss any effort to improve this article, but before making major changes there should be an opportunity for discussion. Hohenloh ⁺ 01:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand that some might disagree with the restructuring... but why remove the sourced info I added to the history section? Or the pictures? If you have no objections I'll add those back into the article. I'll also ask for opinions on my proposed restructuring, though I doubt there'll be much input. ~Asarlaí 02:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please replace the sourced info. I'll get back on the restructuring. Hohenloh ⁺ 23:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Samhain & Halloween edits

Clicked on Halloween discussion, one German editor Bakulan is trying to rewrite the article how he sees it (German view of having absolutely no celtic origin whatsoever) and has done so to Samhain article, and with no concensus. Having looked at edit history, you have contributed to Samhain page so i thought i'd notify you of this (if you haven't already got it on watchlist of course). --Xavier 21 (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Drumintee/Dromintee

Hi, I just wanted to query what websites you regard as reliable sources and what is recognised as proper spelling of placenames. I am speaking the changes to the edits of the "Dromintee" page. Thanks --Beirneach (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The spelling Drumintee is used by the Northern Ireland Placenames Project, the Placenames Database of Ireland ([8]) and Ordnance Survey Ireland ([9]). On Wikipedia, those are almost always seen as the most reliable. However, I don't doubt that Dromintee is used by many locals. When it comes to articles about places, usually the commonest spelling should be used in the title – see WP:IMOS for more details. ~Asarlaí 00:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I accept what you have said above, however I still object to the changes in the Irish version of the placename in old Irish. I gave a source when I made my change and your edit was incorrect and unsourced. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beirneach (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Islandeady

Hello, I am looking to question your reasons for regarding "Illaneedan" as a historic name for the village of Islandeady. I am a member of the heritage group in our parish and I have never once come across this name and nor have any of the other heritage members. If you could reference this with some credible source(s) I would be more than happy to leave it on the page, but as it stands their is no demonstrable evidence for the existance of this placename ever in Islandeady. I would also like to know why you felt it necessary to delete the education and schools information aswell as the transport and location information. I feel it is necessary to revert a great deal of your changes, only due to the fact of their accuracy and due to the fact that important information was deleted. Jizelbeck (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Placenames Database of Ireland gives Illaneedan and Ellaneedan as older spellings for the townland of Islandeady, not the village or the parish. It can be found in the archival records here. I removed the other information because it was about the larger parish, whereas the article is only about the village. However, if you feel the info is needed then you're free to re-add it. ~Asarlaí 19:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a million for clearing that up. I will re-add the info as the page is more of a village/parish site. Thanks!

Jizelbeck (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Miami Showband

Thanks for the tweaks. When you get the chance, could you please take a look at the related article I created a few days ago: Glenanne gang. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I was getting round to it. Good job, by the way! ~Asarlaí 09:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Glenanne gang

How does Glenanne gang look now?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added some of the members. What do you think? Which others should be included? McConnell, Irwin and McLure, I think should be there. I'm going out now, so won't be able to work on it for a couple of hours.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes

Happy New Year and thanks for all your help on Glenanne gang. It's been assessed as B Class!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Same to you :-) ~Asarlaí 20:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding the UVF

Asarlai, I asked this question over at Ref Desk Humanities, but so far, I haven't received any answers. Would you happen to know which UVF brigade commanded Omagh and the surrounding area in the 1970s? Thanks. I presume it was the Mid-Ulster brigade, but I haven't seen anything which states this as fact. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Omagh would be to far west to be covered by the Mid-Ulster UVF. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree Omagh is a bit far away from the Lurgan/Portadown area where the Mid-Ulster brigade were based. I recall having read in old back issues of the Belfast Newsletter there was a UVF group operating in the Tyrone/Fermanagh area and they'd been involved in a series of killings and attacks in and around the Omagh area in the mid-1970s. I am curious as to whether or not the local UVF commander may have been one of the Somerville brothers involved in the Miami Showband killings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally i don't know. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If I still resided in Dublin I'd take the bus into town and head over to the National Library. The old copies of the Belfast Newsletter would likely resolve the issue.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Does Peter Taylor's Loyalists cover them? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, nor does he make any mention of Billy Hanna, Robin Jackson, and the Glenanne gang. The book was written before John Weir made his affadavit. He does discuss the Mid-Ulster brigade but without naming the leaders.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We all know Billy Wright was its leader for years until he broke them off to form the LVF - its well documented. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything either, but I'll let you know if I do. ~Asarlaí 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Asarlai. Yes, Billy Wright took over Robin Jackson's command in the early 1990s when Jackson became stricken with cancer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Miami Showband killings

Hi Asarlai. I have added more info and details to the Miami Showband killings article. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're doing a great job, don't worry so much! :-P ~Asarlaí 12:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the new section and subsections I 've added to the article. It needed a background section with a brief history of both the band and the political situation in the North at the time the killings occurred.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done ~Asarlaí 16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks fantastic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

At least 90% of that fantasticness is thanks to you. ~Asarlaí 17:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You are being too modest, Asarlai.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Asarlai, I just nominated Miami Showband killings for GA status. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Good choice. I think it'll pass easily. ~Asarlaí 18:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it does. You and I have done a great deal of work in improving it. Just take a look at it back in 2008! Just one long paragraph and one image.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Miami Showband killings article is now GA. Thank you for all your help on the article!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Pronounciations

I'm guessing you've started adding pronounciations after i started adding it to a few articles. One problem though - what is your source for them? Mine are sourced, whereas i don't see any sources for yours so are they original research or actually sourced? If they aren't then you should revert them, especially as some places have two or more pronounciations, i.e. Clougher may be "Claw-hir" but also "Cloc-er". Mabuska ^(talk) 21:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Also pronounciations should be along phonetic lines such as IPA. For example Carnlough should be along the lines of "karn'lɔx" not carn-loc and the Clough in Cloughfin, Clougher, and Cloughmills should be "klɔx". Mabuska ^(talk) 21:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a great knowledge of IPA so I added non-IPA pronunciations in the hope that someone would convert them later. Most of the pronunciations are obvious (for example we all know that lough in Irish placenames is pronounced loc) and I've also heard them being spoken. I have no idea where we would find reliable sources though. ~Asarlaí 22:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, is it MOS to use only IPA pronunciations? Most people don't have a clue how to read it :-/ ~Asarlaí 22:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wierdly enough some of the IPA is easy enough to pronounce, but luckily when you use the {{pron-en|'klɔx}} tag, and similar ones, it provides a link to IPA where you can match the symbol to the pronounciation. Its the way pronounciations are done on Wiki despite the oddity of some symbols.

The best source is the volumes of the Places-Names of Northern Ireland created by Queens University Belfast. For every townland, town, civil parish and barony they give the pronounciation(s) used locally. Only problem is one symbol it uses isn't in the IPA, however after requesting over at the IPA board what IPA symbol matches it, i've got it sorted. It helps produce the "au" sound as you start to pronounce Upperlands etc.

However at the moment, despite the best intentions, yours are original research meaning they should be removed. Ignoring the "clock-er" type of pronounciation for Clougher, "claw-hir", can be argued as actually being "claw-her", and so without sources means they could be dubious.

The source i'm using (the one above) also delves into and lists the actual possible origin of a townlands name and so would be a far better source for the derives in NI settlement introductions than Logaimn, which almost only provides modern retro-translations or variations - which are perfect for the infobox which is for just that. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Can any of Places-Names of Northern Ireland be read online? If not, could you convert my pronunciations into IPA? I've added them to most Northern Ireland settlements that have ough in their spellings. ~Asarlaí 23:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately i only have volume 5, The Moyola Valley, which deals with most of Loughinsholin. If i tried to convert any that aren't in the book i have then i'm guilty of synthesis and original research. Heres the full list of volumes that they've produced. Despite the fact some of the books earlier editions came out in 1996, not all of NI seems to have been covered. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You see I'm worried that foreign readers are wrongly pronouncing very common or basic placename elements like lough and clough. Since those kinds of pronunciations are common knowledge in Ireland, would it be wrong for us to add IPA pronunciations to those kinds of spellings without a source? I'm thinking of WP:BLUE here. ~Asarlaí 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronounciations i don't think can fall under WP:BLUE due to the fact there are different ways to pronounce some places, and the fact the words we choose may not actually best represent them. You might have one way of pronouncing somewhere than i do - example being Clogher. However it would be daft of us to add in partial pronounciations, say just for the "Clough" bit but not the "er" or Clough but not mills. It would be possible to synthesis for some places, but the problem with Claw/Clock-her/hir/er is which do we choose without a source? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me that when I lived in Dublin I worked with a woman named Grainne. Well, some people pronounced it as Grawnya whereas others as Groanya. I always called her Grawnya (which is how she herself pronounced it!). Which is actually correct?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that both are correct. Different areas/regions will have different pronounciations of the same name and they will more than likely use the version that they know or where brought up with. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

She was a Dubliner, anyway. Oh, how are these names normally pronounced: Padraig and Cait?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I usually hear Padraig being pronounced "Pad-raag" and i'd assume Cait would be something like "Kate". Mabuska ^(talk) 22:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the pronunciation of Cait, but I usually hear Padraig being pronounced "Pad-rig". ~Asarlaí 22:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard both for Padraig. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I knew a Padraig and he was called Porrig', whereas people pronounced Cait as Codge. There was a girl Siona from Clifden and people usually called her Sh-i-on-a, however her sister used Sheena.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed

The 1969 Northern Ireland Riots article is fantastic-a definite B class or higher! The prose is superb: Fluid, readable, plenty of pertinemt details. It does need an image. Unfortunately my PC was reformatted so my scanner will have to be downloaded again. When my daughter returns home from school I'll get her to do it. I have found a wonderful image which shows a masked man hurling a petrol bomb from a Dery rooftop during the Battle of the Bogside. I'll upload it to the article as soon as I can. You're doing wonderful work here, Asarlai and you are a real asset to the encyclopedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful picture? Don't get me started lol. Before giving it a rating does the article treat the subject evenly from both sides? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't being political. I meant wonderful as it would greatly enhance the article. As for balance, I have just added a loyalist perspective regarding the arrival of the British Army.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have found an even better picture which has since been added to the article. What do you think? Oh, and I found an image of James Mitchell, which I 've uploaded to the Glenanne gang article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'm mighty impressed at the work you've done too (which is a lot more than me).

The picture is great. I'll be uploading another soon. What we really need now is an old map of west Belfast.

...It's probably best to continue this on the article's own talkpage though :-P ~Asarlaí 23:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Spurious edit summary

I noticed this edit summary at Moneyneany: (cleaned-up; added pictures; added reference for Irish name). I don't know how rewording something is exactly cleaning it up, however i feel more perturbed by the fact you claimed to have added the reference for the Irish name which you clearly did not in that edit or in that article at all, especially as i did. I would suggest against claiming other peoples additions as your own as its bad faith and using edit summaries that are more factual. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My summary does not in any way claim that "these references were added by me and nobody else". There was only one reference for the Irish name; I added two more. There was no picture; I added one. There was unneeded info, wordiness and unneeded links; I cleaned that up. ~Asarlaí 23:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you did add two more sources. I hate the way Wikipedia sometimes fails to highlight every change made to an article as you can see from the edit page of yours i provided above. My apologies, however why are two more sources even needed? Is Queens not a reliable, verifiable source? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. I just like to add Placenames NI and/or Logainm links so people can read the source online. ~Asarlaí 16:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bombay street

There's a documentary on the 1969 riots and the burning of bombay street on on BBC tonight at 10.30, might be of interest and a source for the article.

Rgds Jdorney (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It was a good show and I think we could use it to back-up some things. It should be on BBC iPlayer. ~Asarlaí 18:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

UFF/UDA edits

Do you have consensus for these edits? --John (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Which edits are you referring to? ~Asarlaí 17:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The many edits you have been making that switch UFF for UDA. --John (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I need a consensus for that. I should note that I haven't changed every mention of UFF to UDA; I've only done so where it was needed. It's a well-established fact that UFF is a covername used by the UDA when it wished to claim responsibility for attacks or other actions. This is explained further (with sources to support it) at Ulster Defence Association. ~Asarlaí 18:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I see this used as a source, which is pretty good as sources go. On the other hand, the article says "some" regard this as a cover name for the UDA, which sounds like there may be other opinions on the matter. Meantime, why not raise this centrally and see if you can get a consensus for it. If it's as straightforward as you suggest, that shouldn't be a problem. --John (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll go over my changes again and deal with them case-by-case. ~Asarlaí 00:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting a broader consensus in a central location would be better. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Asarlai, why not move this discussion over to Talk:Ulster Defence Association?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't sound rude, but I suggest you look through the edits I've made today (10th March) one-by-one. I haven't simply changed every mention of UFF to UDA, I've dealt with it case-by-case. In some cases I've re-added UFF. Where changes have been made, I've backed them with reliable sources. ~Asarlaí 12:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not being rude at all. The UFF/UDA labels are indeed very tricky, especially when the name was not officially used until 1973, yet the UDA death squads had begun killing people in 1972. These squads became known as the UFF, but as you say that was just a covername used by the UDA to avoid being proscribed by the government. I ran into this difficulty when I created the Davy Payne article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Asarlai, check this YouTube video clip out. This shows that the UDA themselves admit that the UDA and UFF are indeed one and the same:[10]--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL...what a song. Are you sure you got the URL right? I can't find the bit you're talking about. ~Asarlaí 15:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's the right clip. The title says UDA and UFF and seeing that the clip was obviously uploaded by a supporter, it indicates that they themselves consider UDA and UFF interchangeable. Oh, do you think the guy in the Wombles anorak is Davy Payne? I think I recognise Glenn Barr as the blond guy being addressed by the commander (Andy Tyrie?). Isn't that young man with the long hair smoking a cigarette scary-looking?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

St Patrick's Day

Hi. It's usually the accepted practice that when your edit is reverted in an article you take the matter to the talk page. You do not revert the revert. It's called bold, Revert, Discuss. Please revert your change again and discuss on the article talk page.

In response to what your edit and summary said; "Church Of England" does not equate to "Protestant" (particularly for a chiefly Irish holiday), and "Calendar of saints" does not strictly equate to "religious holiday". Do you have any examples you can give (or cite) that demonstrate St Patrick's Day being celebrated in a religious manner by Protestants? Are these significant and widespread enough to merit mention in the article lead?

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

St Patrick's Day is a feast day in the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and Luthern churches. The Anglican Communion and Lutheran churches are Protestant. I've added that to the infobox along with links to the calendars. There are services held in Church of Ireland (Anglican Communion) churches on St Patrick's Day: see for example [11] and [12]. ~Asarlaí 15:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks good. I suppose I've learned something today :) My only other concern would where it says that the Protestant observation of the day followed that which was originally Catholic. Naturally, the Catholic Church is older and everything Protestant originated out of the Catholic. But I think what it says implies that adoption of St Patrick's Day by Protestants is something aside from, or later than, that. In which case, would it be better for the lead to summarise that it is a Christian religious holiday, with greater significance to the Catholic Church, and leave its origins to a later section? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. How about we simply say which churches observe St Patrick's Day? For example: "It is observed by the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion (especially the Church of Ireland), the Eastern Orthodox Church and Lutherans. It became an official feast day in the early 17th century". ~Asarlaí 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. ~Asarlaí 22:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland: country / state

My inclination is to agree with the use of country unless in the very unlikely case it can be proven to be contentious as you claim, Asarlaí. As I remarked earlier, in fairness the previous discussions all related to development and use of the parochial and now deprecated IPI infobox, which made the use of "country" somewhat more problematic. You and a few others decided "state" was the least controversial word, but that was because you were developing an infobox that would be used only for the island, with its split sovereignty of the UK and Ireland. The UK itself gets bogged down over what to call its constituent parts, but there is no such question for the Republic, it is a country. {{Infobox settlement}} is used worldwide, as it is intended to be. Your concerns are more associated with the differences within the United Kingdom and how they relate to Ireland. My initial sense was that "state" lessens the sovereignty a bit in the eyes of some, and certainly would among potential American readers who otherwise always call Ireland a "country". The discussion you cite was superseded by the deletion result for the template you were discussing. Therefore, I will continue to use "country" in the infobox and pipe the word to Sovereign state. The use of "state" is unnecessarily ambiguous when "country" is proper and correct. Sswonk (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'v started a discussion here. ~Asarlaí 08:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Falls Curfew

I've just read this article you've had a big hand in. Considering how emotive and potentially politically charged this article could be I find it well written and reasonably concise. Well done, please keep up the good work. Ozdaren (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ~Asarlaí 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks...

... for all the hard work you're doing ensuring NI-related articles adhere to a NPOV by featuring both regional languages rather than just the one (and the same goes for the Welsh translations on Welsh articles, etc). It's much appreciated. Keep it up. JonChapple^Talk 22:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I wish the Scots and Ulster-Scots folk (or should I say fowk) would agree on a single orthografy tho. They seem to be changing their minds all the time! ~Asarlaí 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The leid does seem to evolving quite a rate. The sources you've provided from 2008 look almost English, but those from last year, with their "männystries" an aw, are something else entirely! JonChapple^Talk 22:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The erlier spellings ar very odd indeed (diacritics galore) but the recent spellings look more like the Scots you'd find in Scotland. No offense to whoever chose the spellings...but I think at the beginning they wer trying to make Ulster-Scots look like an independent language (separat from both English and Scots). Thankfully they seem to hav "toned it down" a bit :-p

~Asarlaí 22:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my mistake. I was thinking it was getting more elaborate as time goes on, but it appears to be just the opposite. That's a shame; I'm a sucker for diacritics! JonChapple^Talk 12:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Another thought: do you think we should make the Irish names smaller in the county infoboxes? I can't help but feel at the moment that where there's a few Ullans translations and they've been made smaller, they look secondary to the Irish name. I know it wasn't your intention, but perhaps it might be an idea to format both names the same for NPOV purposes. JonChapple^Talk 15:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I made them smaller is becaus (usually) ther's more than one spelling and so they take-up more space than the Irish name. Wher ther's only two Ulster Scots spellings, I'll make them the same size as the Irish spelling. However, I think it'd be sensible to leav the Ulster Scots spellings small on County Londonderry. ~Asarlaí 18:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. JonChapple^Talk 18:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Me again. Can I ask why it's in any way more neutral to refer to the Ulster Scots language as the Ulster Scots dialects? A quick Google indicates that Wikipedia seems to the be the only place to use that term, which is bordering on original research, whilst "Ulster Scots langauge" has a slew of results from the official bodies, BBC, etc. The page was originally at Ulster Scots language; do you know why it was moved? I know it's open for debate whether it's a dialect of language, but I'd say it's much less neutral for Wiki to decide it's a dialect. Best, JonChapple^Talk 09:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying it's more neutral to call it simply "Ulster Scots" in other articles. If we call it "the Ulster Scots language" we would appear to be taking sides in the debate. ~Asarlaí 10:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case the article shouldn't be at Ulster Scots dialects then. That's a POV in itself. JonChapple^Talk 16:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think the title should be changed then you should start a debate on the talkpage. ~Asarlaí 16:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing up the Braniel page, it needed it. Sorry about the parliamentary map, couldn't find a map that located the Braniel itself, I live in the Roddens part of the Braniel so im trying my best to keep things to the rules of wiki and im new so it doesn't help, if im doing stuff really wrong message me on my wall please or on the articles discussion. Cheers User:EastBelfastBoy 19:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Siaradwyr y Gymraeg

I'm ashamed to admit it, but I'm so inexpert at SVG manipulations that I wouldn't know where to begin colour coding File:Wales location map.svg for the Welsh-speaking population (and you're right, it is clearly a superior map). A user called VermillionBird seems to have done the SVG conversion on File:Siaradwyr y Gymraeg ym Mhrif Ardaloedd Cymru2a.svg. I certainly didn't, though I do at least know how to fix the mismatched colour in the code if you'd like me to. (Two censuses have also gone by since the original... Maybe it's time for a whole new map instead.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the error when I added the SVG map to Welsh language. I think I'll just revert to the original for the time being.

If two censuses hav been held since the map was made then it probably would be a good idea to make a new one. Maybe VermillionBird would be able to help with the color-coding? ~Asarlaí 13:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Irish: official names

Hi,

Please don't use condescending statements like:

"Ros Dumhach is the only official name. The anglicized spelling Rosdoagh and English name Rossport have no official status."

We are all adults here. This is the English wikipedia. This isn't a government website. Governments change and so do their policies. This is not a legal dictionary.

We use the common names of things (not neccessarily the 'official name') - see here.

Thanks. Djegan (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that statement is condesending; it's a statement of fact. Surely readers should be made aware of that fact somwher on the page? Furthermore, I'v put it in an inconspicuous place (as a footnote of the infobox), not in the very first line of the article.

You can re-add the English/anglicized names to the infobox if you like, but they should appear below the Irish name since they hav no official standing. The format should be:

official_name=Ros Dumhach
other_name=Rosdoagh

~Asarlaí 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. WP:ON makes it clear that common names should be used before official names. Lets keep on the example we have, lets look at some 'hits':

Ros Dumhach (7,220 hits)

Rosdoagh (4,260 hits)

Rossport (1,430,000 hits)

We aren't here to 'go against the grain' or present personal preferences. We certainly aren't here to be a promoter of government or parliamentary preferences. WP:IMOS may provide more detail. This is th English wiki. Djegan (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This may be the English Wiki but that doesn't mean we should hide the facts. The fact is that the English/anglicized names of Gaeltacht villages have no official standing. All I'm doing is ensuring that this is made clear by:

• Adding a footnote to the infobox (which is an inconspicuous place)
• Making the Irish name appear first in the infobox and lede

The Irish names still only appear twice in the whole article: the infobox and lede. The English/anglicized names ar still the ones that ar used everywher else.

Also, the IMOS refers to article titles. I'm not asking for these articles to be renamed, just making it clear that the Irish name is the official one. ~Asarlaí 21:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate maps

It's not clear to me why you have added 2 or 3 duplicate maps to Shetland island infoboxes - they provided no genuine additional detail or information that I can see. Ben MacDui 18:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

They show the islands' locations much clearer than the Scotland locator map does. ~Asarlaí 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So you think the red dot for e.g. Fair Isle on one map provides more information than the red dot on the existing one? Hardly. Ben MacDui 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair Isle isn't a good example, but generally the maps show the locations much more clearly. In most cases, the red dot appears much bigger than the island. For examle, compare the two maps for Fetlar or the Out Skerries. ~Asarlaí 18:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Village

Just be aware that there are such things as Urban villages and the term "village" is WP:COMMONly used to refer to places within Dublin. --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Lough Melvin

Out of curiousity the source provided for the Irish for Lough Melvin doesn't provide any evidence that it is derived from Irish and may be a translation from the English into Irish - hence why i altered the lede to state that it was also called that in the Republic. I don't see exactly how Meilbhe would translate directly into Melvin. Melva or something similar yeah, but Melvin? Sounds possbly like a plantation naming. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You do know it really feels like synthesis to use the full translation from Logainm as if it is the origin of a placename when it only provides modern trnaslations of place names. That is factally incorrect as how on earth does sliabh sound like the derivation for mountain? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the loch is named Lough Melvin rather than Lake Melvin or Melvin's Lake points to an Irish origin. On the shore of the loch ther is a townland named Edenvella, from Éadan Mheilbhe meaning "hill-brow of Meilbhe" (look it up on Logainm). I hav no idea how the -n got ther, but stranger things hav happend to Irish names (see Upperlands for example).

You'r right tho, we don't hav any sources (yet) confirming that the name comes from Irish. Until then, I think the best solution is to write "Lough Melvin (Irish: Loch Meilbhe)..." as most of the loch is on the Co Leitrim side of the border.

As for Belmore Mountain, how about we write "Belmore Mountain (from Irish: Béal Mór)" and keep Sliabh Bhéal Mór for the infobox?

~Asarlaí 19:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As most of it is in the Republic, the (Irish: Loch Meilbhe) would make sense, however when we debated the IMoS on place names, we never thought how to deal with geographical features such as this. Believe it or not it is possible to get Upperlands out of Áth an Phoirt Leathain, though going by how fast some of the people around that area speak i'm not surprised it got anglicised into Upperlands which doesn't sound very Irish origin at all.

In regards to Belmore Mountain that's what i had before you reverted it as quite simply only the Belmore bit is derived from Irish. I left the infobox alone as thats for modern translations of places. Thats how i was treating the articles which contained names derived from English and Irish - only providing the derivation of the Irish bit which is still technically correct according to IMoS i think. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can i go and makes these changes? Mabuska ^(talk) 20:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Which changes? ~Asarlaí 21:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes that mean only providing the derivation of the Irish part of a placename, i.e. Belmore Mountain (from Irish: Béal Mór) whilst keeping the modern translation, i.e. Sliabh Bhéal Mór in the infobox. Makes more sense than suggesting that mountain is an anglicisation of sliabh, which is actually slieve, i.e. Slieve Gallion. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

By all means! (silly me, I thought it had alredy been done). ~Asarlaí 15:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Contributions

Asarlaí, whilst I've no problem with the changes you've just made at Flags of country subdivisions, I can't help but notice that you'd never edited it before now and I don't think it's the first time this has happened. Have you been trawling through my contributions? JonC^Talk 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

While that's a very polite question, why did you name this section "Hounding" which is anything but? Also - it's pretty common to check out other people's contributions and it doesn't constitute hounding. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right, in retrospect it wasn't the best idea. I'm not suggesting Asarlaí is following me around. Have changed it. JonC^Talk 12:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I just happend to take a gander at your contribs and noticed that edit. I hav Irish Republic on my watchlist and, as you'v been posting a lot of comments on it's talkpage, you'v been showing-up on my watchlist a lot too. ~Asarlaí 12:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Righty-ho, no probs. I fear the Irish Republic mess could drag on a little while longer yet. JonC^Talk 12:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you

for your excellent additions and tweaks on the 1991 Cappagh killings article. The image looks good as well. I have been wanting to do this article ever since I started editing the Billy Wright article. This morning, as you can see, I finially got round to it. Alas, whilst editing, we had a freak power outage and my PC went black!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No thank you for your amazing work on loyalism-related articles. It's hit after hit after hit! Keep it up. ~Asarlaí 09:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have been occupied with expanding the Billy Wright article, otherwise the Cappagh article would have been created before now. Regarding Cappagh, I believe Wright carried it out as a test to see if he had the capacity to succeed Robin Jackson as brigadier of the Mid-Ulster UVF. This sounds like a dumb question but would you happen to know if the gunmen were masked and whether or not the bar was full?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wouldn't know. Try serching Google Books and Google News arcives for "Cappagh killings", "Cappagh shootings", "Cappagh 1991", a.s.f. ~Asarlaí 13:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mouths

"linked to river mouth as this is obviously what is meant - rather than the mouth of a cave, for example"

I'd call it the entrance of a cave lol ;-)

Mabuska ^(talk) 10:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Heheheh. ~Asarlaí 14:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In regards to Muiríoch, we're supposed to provide the English meaning of the Irish deriviation, no? Even the NIPIP posters state its anglicised as Murry, so i don't see why we still have to use the Irish name for the English meaning especially seeing as this isn't a historical figure who is more commonly known in history sources by their Irish name. So in that respect, it should state Murry as that is the English for Muiríoch. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see wher you'r coming from, but the database says that the man's own name was Muiríoch and that Murry is merely an anglicization. Seeing as he livd before the 1600s and was named Muiríoch it seems highly likely that he was an Irish speaker. Saying it was named after a Murry would be like saying Stewartstown was named after a Stiubhart. ~Asarlaí 01:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We are providing the English meaning of the Irish. The derivation which is the original Irish is already given in the tag prior to the English meaning of it. In English, the name is Murry. The Stewartstown anology doesn't work seeing as if we were providing the English translation of the name it'd still be Stewart. Stuibhart would make sense in the Gaelic wiki if used derives (obviously with English and Gaelic the other way around). Mabuska ^(talk) 18:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, seeing as the source uses it then I gess that's fair enuf. ~Asarlaí 03:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several sources which simply give the English for it. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

1989 Jonesborough Ambush

Hi Asarlaí. When you get the time would you mind taking a look at my latest article: 1989 Jonesborough ambush? It hasn't been completed yet, however.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I will indeed. It's looking good so far. I gess it was only a matter of time before sumone startd an article on this; it's been in the news here a lot over the past few weeks. You'll find lots of good sources (news articles) on Google News, the UTV News site and the BBC News site. This site is also good for Troubles-related news. ~Asarlaí 09:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The political neutrality of that site Asarlaí came into question the minute i seen the phrase "saoirse32", so even if its good for Troubles-related news, its neutrality would definately have to be in question. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The name might suggest a republican propaganda machine, but it's really just a collection of news articles related to the Troubles and political goings-on in Ireland. Nearly all of the 'blog posts' are just stories (thankfully with links) from the BBC and UTV or from Irish and British newspapers (no matter their allegience). It does focus on stories related to Irish republicanizm/nationalizm but it's no Saoirse Irish Freedom or An Phoblacht :-p ~Asarlaí 10:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

True. It does provide good links to reliable sources. The more I read about the Breen-Buchanan killings, one realises the extent of corruption and collusion. One couldn't trust anybody! What a kettle of stinking, rotten fish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your changes to the article look good. I hadn't realised some of my sentences were so verbose. I have found more startling info which I've since added to the article. It's about a death threat a Guard received about Buchanan (whom he regarded as a friend). Apparently the Garda officer never informed (his friend) Buchanan about the threat lest he should feel he wasn't welcomed down south!!! I tell you, the old cliché is spot on: with certain friends one never needs enemies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I like to make sure things ar always as straightforward as they can be. Often it helps just to use plain Anglo-Saxon words insted of Latin/Greek ones (e.g. midway rather than equidistant). The article is alredy well-written tho, so I hadn't much to change.

It's a kwer story. The bit that really struck me was the claim that the officers may hav been shot by British agents within the IRA. It shows just how dirty a war it really was. ~Asarlaí 15:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I think Kevin Fulton's version is the correct one. They were going to interrogate the officers. One of the gunmen (or more) was an agent, and terrified the men would reveal his identity under torture shot them dead. That's why Breen waved the hankie, hoping was gunman was indeed an agent. Personally I think Breen had a pistol which the IRA stole along with his other stuff. No RUC officer as high-ranking as he would dare cross south Armagh without one. The gunman who shot them instead of taking them for a grilling had to have been pretty high-ranking himself to disobey an order.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Great photos

The photos you uploaded to the Glenanne gang article look good!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgotten merge proposal

I've accidently stumbled upon your proposal. Do you mind going forth with it? I have begun a series of mergers in this field, discussed here.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Scots and Gaelic names on railway station articles

Hi, please join in the discussion at WT:TIS#Scots and Gaelic names on railway station articles. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't add any more Gaelic or Scots names using this or this as sources. These do not seem like reliable sources for adding information about what settlements are actually called. These seem like inappropriate edits. I intend to revert them. Do you have any objection? --John (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't plan on adding more, but what makes them unreliable sources? ~Asarlaí 04:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for saying you would not add more. These sites don't seem like reliable sources for asserting that the Gaelic and Scots versions are actually used enough to make them worthy of mention in our articles. If this is the best quality of source available for the information, to me that is a red flag that the information is not notable enough for inclusion. --John (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In my experience ther ar lots of Wikipedians who see Gaelic and Scots placenames as worthy of inclusion. For Gaelic names especially, I think you'll get a lot of flak for trying to remove them without a consensus (for example from the Scottish Gaelic taskforce).

I don't see why tens and tens of Gaelic/Scots names should be removed just becauz they arn't used as much as the English names. On Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland articles, Irish names ar included on every one of them even if most of the residents speak English. The same goes for Welsh placenames on Wales articles, Cornish placenames on Cornwall articles, Manx placenames on Mann articles, a.s.f.

Furthermore, ther ar lots of Scotland articles wher the Gaelic/Scots names ar included without a source. Do you plan to remove all of those too?

Ainmean-Àite na h-Alba is "the national advisory partnership for Gaelic place-names in Scotland" and has been "working with Ordnance Survey, local councils, roads authorities and other public bodies since 2000 to provide Gaelic names for maps and signs". The Scots names mostly come from Billy Kay’s The Scots Map and Guide/Cairte in the Scots Leid, published by MMA Maps.

~Asarlaí 04:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am Scottish and I am very sympathetic to the preservation of our two national languages. However I think it is a leap to gratuitously, by default, including versions of a name which has never been used historically and is not used presently. What would be the point of that? Some parts of Scotland have used English (or a dialect of it) for such a long time now that to add a Gaelic name on a 2011 entry in an English-language resource where there are no reliable sources for its use look like advocacy. As you know, WP:V is a primary test for inclusion here. Thanks for pointing me to the Scottish Gaelic taskforce; I'll definitely drop a note there before doing anything major, as you should have done before making these mass additions. Did you? --John (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be very little agreement within Scots writings about spelling - see the many articles in the Scots Wikipedia and this example from The Scots Parliament Records which has 3 different spellings of Milngavie, none of which match the one on the English WP article, which is also different from Joan Blaeu's Atlas of Scotland. In short, my advice is keep it simple, where there is any debate, link through to the Scots or Gaelic WP's. I do agree with user:John about not encouraging those make up Scots or Gaelic names where they have never existed or been used, or who fall into the trap of using word variants that differ the most from English because they must be the "most Scots". At the same time, it's great that you're adding to some articles where the relevent history and usage exist. Wikiwayman (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue of how widely used a placename is hardly makes AAA a reliable or unreliable source in itself. They are the de-facto source of placenames for public sectors bodies in Scotland as of... oh, some time in 2010/11 and they employ placename specialists to research the forms they publish or provide to bodies. Ergo they're a reliable source, barring typos. Where have you spotted an invented name? Akerbeltz (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Without wanting to get into a debate, I have an issue with "Mulguy". Milngavie is a mill, it could be a mulle, but only in East Scotland. Search this resource for "Mill". Any of the spellings from historical Scots texts referred to above would be preferable. I propose that to end the debate, I'll put a couple of lines in the Milngavie history section with all the Scots variants (including the Mulguy one). Wikiwayman (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

When you're removing the Gaelic and Scots names from railway station articles, could you please leave the Gaelic name if it was already there prior to your previous edits, as this usually means that the Gaelic name is actually displayed on the station signs. Two examples are Garelochhead railway station and Haymarket railway station - both those stations have Gaelic names on their signs. Thanks. –Signalhead ^< T > 18:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, thank you

I see the nice additions you made to the Bayardo Bar attack article. Would you happen to know who actually put the bomb inside the pub? Clarke or Hamilton? McFarlane drove the car, but I cannort find out which one of the two fired the gun and who planted the bomb.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have seen on various blogs that Hamilton planted the bomb; unfortunately, they are not RS.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Chlorane Bar attack

The 5 June 1976 UVF attack on the Chlorane Bar in Belfast City Centre has been largely ignored by academics and journalists. It is said that members of the Shankill Butchers as well as senior members of the UVF carried it out. Three Catholics and two Protestants were killed. I would like to create an article on it but I cannot find much info. Strangely , 10 days after the gun attack, the pub was blown up but I haven't been able to discover who did the bombing. Would you know anything about it? Regarding "Mr F", I'm uncertain as to whether naming him as the UVF's head buck cat violates BLP (even if the dogs in the street all know his identity!).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Martin Dillon's The Shankill Butchers describes the attack in great detail. You can read most of it on Google Books. I found eight results on Google Books, but I havn't found eny contemporary news articles yet. Ther wer' a number of similar UVF attacks during the mid-'70s that caused more casualties (May '74 attack on the Rose & Crown, April '75 attack on the Strand Bar, July '76 attack on the Ramble Inn); you might be able to find more info on those. ~Asarlaí 14:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the attack on the Rose & Crown gained a lot of publicity. I had a friend whose dad was injured in that attack. Alas, there isn't much about it on Internet. As for the Dillon book, most of the pages are unavailable at the moment. The Chlorane Bar attack was probably in retaliation for Kingsmill as it appears the Catholic customers were separated from the Protestants, and shot, yet two Protestants were also killed. Basher Bates was one of the gunmen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy 2012, Asarlaí! Thanks for all your improvements on the Troubles articles!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne. Same to you. ~Asarlaí 17:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I created a dispute resolution involving you on the noticeboard at [13] Seamus48 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Syrian uprising edits

Just wanted to mention i find your edits and additions to the 2011-2012 Syrian uprising related articles as highly contributing, please continue your good work.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Same to you. ~Asarlaí 18:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

My latest article

I think you might be intested in the new article I created this afternoon: 1972 and 1973 Dublin bombings. I'm afraid its in its embryonic stages so has very little text at the moment. Feel free to add to it. I won't be working on it again until tomorrow.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Athlone, Victoria, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. and Newry, Victoria and Tullamore, New South Wales. It is likely these places are named after the places in Ireland - but you can't just assume. You need a reliable source stating that. They could just as easily been named after someone or something that was itself named after the Irish place. Cheers. Mattinbgn (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this user knows how to contribute to this project, at least I had good experience with Asarlaí. --217/83 11:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Norman "Mooch" Kerr

Thanks for adding the info on Norman Kerr from McKittrick's book. Now here is someone who's been completely overlooked by journalists which is strange seeing as he was a local celebrity of sorts and involved with the music scene albeit as a DJ rather than performer. Additionally, the shooting came shortly after the Buskhill attack. What's really unsettling is his uncanny resemblance to Fran O'Toole.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary on Lough Corrib

Sorry Asarlaí, when I put in the edit summary I made a typo, aas was meant to be as per WP:IRE-IRL. Just realised my mistake, wasnt calling you anything or refering to you in anyway. Got to watch them fingers. Sorry about that. Murry1975 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. ~Asarlaí 18:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep clumsy person alert, would love to know where the rest of what I typed went... And hows take care. Murry1975 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Great work!

The Battle at Springmartin article looks fantastic after all your additions. I added an infobox this morning. How does it look? I wasn't sure what to put regards strength etc. According to Lost Lives, John Pedlow was shot by the British Army, however CAIN says the IRA killed him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne, and thanks for all your help. I think the article's looking great. I couldn't hav' done it without Google Books tho, as sadly I don't yet own a copy of Lost Lives or any of the others.

The area seems to hav' changed an awful lot since 1972 so I'd be interest'd in seeing some pictures of how it lookt back then. Maybe we could put one in the article. ~Asarlaí 17:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to your efforts the article is looking really good. I like your rewording of the lead. British Army did need to be mentioned as a combatant in the opening sentence. I was also thinking about an image of the area from the early 1970s-or better yet actual photos of the clashes. I haven't been able to locate any, alas. I'll ask over on Belfast Forum if there are any pictures of Springmartin Road c. 1972. That's a great site, BTW. It's got fantastic old photos.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Lettermore/Lettermullen

I suggest you read the WP:IMOS. "Official names" are irrelevant, we use the English language name as the article title and introductory title. Information on official names isn't required either. --Kiand (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Englished names are used as the article titles and introductory titles on Lettermore/Lettermullan. Nothing in my edit goes against IMOS, which I've read thoroughly.

It's important to note that the official name is different to the Englished one. The same is done for towns and cities in other countries on Wikipedia, so why not Ireland? ~Asarlaí 19:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The English language name goes first in the introduction, and elsewhere. The article "Munich" doesn't start with "München", there are no double standards here. The need for an explanatory note in the infobox is questionable. --Kiand (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the English name goes first in the lede, but the official name goes in the "official name" field of the infobox. You'll notice that the Munich infobox has München at the top.

It's important to note somewhere that the official name is different to the English name. I don't mind where it is, just as long as it's somewhere in the article. ~Asarlaí 20:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Map of War of Independence

Hi, I like the maps you've been adding of engagements/incidents in the War of Indpendence.

I wonder if it would be possible to make one map mapping all the engagements to show the geographic distribution of the conflict?

And even doing the same for civil war down the line.

All the best,

Jdorney (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This is probably something you should take to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I'm sure ther'd be a lot of debate about what to include, what not to include, wording, a.s.f. ~Asarlaí 15:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well we just need dots on the map for the incidents in the campaign box to be honest. Jdorney (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean a map like this for the main page, right? I'm sure I could do that. All I need is the co-ordinates and a bit of free time to put it together. ~Asarlaí 21:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. If you could it'd be great. Jdorney (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I just spent a while putting the map together with Template:Location map many. I added most of the engagements/incidents from the campaign box – 21 locations in all. But then I realized that Location map many only allows 9 locations. So, either we pick the 9 most noteworthy or we make a new map using Template:Location map+, which allows any number of locations but is more time consuming.

The map I made using Location map many
Dublin Cork Belfast Rineen Tooreen Ballinalee Kilmichael Clonfin Dromkeen Upton Clonmult Coolavokig Sheemore Clonbanin Seltan Hill Burgery Crossbarry Headford Scramoge Kilmeena Carrowkennedy

~Asarlaí 14:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Cloughey

Why do you think that your spelling of "Cloghy" should be the title of the page? My edit was correct. Everyone from there uses the spelling "Cloughey". From where did you derive your apparent authority on the matter? Surely the most common spelling should be used as the spelling in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaselaw (talk • contribs) 01:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I found ~125,000 Google hits for "Cloghy", compared to ~93,900 hits for "Cloughey". Per Wikipedia gidelines, "Cloghy" should be the name of the page but "Cloughey" can be given as another spelling in the lede.

Furthermore, "Cloghy" is the spelling uzed by the Northern Ireland Placename Project (link) and the Placenames Database of Ireland (link).

Your edit also removed the co-ordinates, the link to the Dutch version of the article, and the category Category:Villages in County Down. ~Asarlaí 01:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please check - on Google search I get ~25,400 results for "Cloghy" and ~93,700 for "Cloughey". Also when searching for Cloghy Google search asks "Did you mean: Cloughey?"

"Cloghy" is used by www.placenamesni.org but this organization seems to be focused on a historical and Gaelic spelling of place names.

The spelling used by everyone living there for many years and the more common spelling is "Cloughey" and this should therefore be the one used. See - http://www.cloughey.org.uk, http://www.portaferrylifeboat.com/history/history.htm, http://www.clougheytennis.org.uk, http://www.scribd.com/doc/95728370/History-of-Cloughey-School

I apologize for the editing errors, as I'm sure you are aware, I'm new to this. Weaselaw (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you would get a very positive response if you were able to help move the page to the modern/most common spelling on the page title as I am aware that it causes frustration amidst people in the village when spelt "Cloghy". You're expertize in editing and clear history of meaningful contribution would be a great boon to the people there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaselaw (talk • contribs) 06:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Burning of Cork City

If you intend making radical changes, it would be better to discuss in advance at the article TP, rather than presenting a 'fait accompli'. The topic is, obviously, 'sensitive'. RashersTierney (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd also suggest avoiding making very subjective wording changes to sensitive articles such as you did here. The ensuing edit-war due to changing "killed" to "summarily executed" resulted in 6 editors being topic-banned for at least 3 months. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Donaghcloney

With regards to the 'Edit War' on Donaghcloney, at the moment, I have no hard evidence. I am sorry I am unable to provide you with any, but I can provide you with:

1) Living in Donaghcloney, my postal address says: County Armagh. I live on the Lurgan side of the Lagan in Donaghcloney, and on the Banbridge side, postal addresses are County Down.

2) The NIFRS (NI Fire and rescue service) obviously have to keep maps on every settlement. According to their maps and records, Donaghcloney is officially listed as being in County Armagh.

I hope we can resolve this argument soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.181.157 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability. If you put something into an article and it's challenged by someone else, you should support it with reliable, published sources.

All of the sources I put into the article show that Donaghcloney village is in County Down only. The Northern Ireland Place-name Project says that it's in the parish of Donaghcloney, the barony of Iveagh Lower, and the county of Down. This map from Ordnance Survey Ireland shows that the County Armagh border (the black dotted line to the west) is miles away from Donaghcloney. If you search for maps of County Down and County Armagh on Google Images you'll see that they also show Donaghcloney in County Down.

Your postal address might say County Armagh because your nearest post town is Craigavon, which is in County Armagh.

~Asarlaí 21:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with you there. Donaghcloney is very firmly in Co Down but has an Armagh postcode because of its proximity to Craigavon. "Barony of Iveagh" is a big clue. There's no Iveagh land in Co Armagh. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Goidelic languages

You commented this recent edit with "the origin of Gaelic in Scotland is disputed - this wording is more neutral and accurate". I don't have any particular bone to pick, but the text that was there described a long-held view (whether misguided or not). Don't you think it would be a good idea to put a little something on the talk page to explain your motivation better? ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 04:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've added two lines explaining both the traditional view and alternative view. ~Asarlaí 15:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Irish Munros

Hi Asarlaí. Thank you so much for helping with the new articles on the Irish Munros. I have a question about The Big Gun though. peakery.com says its the 5th highest peak in Kerry and 46th in Ireland as a whole. You amended that to 10th highest in Ireland, which seems much more plausible (after all there are only 13 Irish Munros or Furths). But where in the reference does it confirm that? And can we trust peakery.com at all?! Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll find the ranking for The Big Gun by clicking the "more detail" button on the right, underneath "rating". MountainViews recently switched to a new layout. I'm not sure how Peakery came up with those rankings. I don't think we should use them, as they don't make much sense and are contradicted by more trustworthy sources. ~Asarlaí 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A few questions

I'm new to this so I'm not even sure that I am using this 'talk section correctly.

I want to know why there was an edit done to the page I contributed to on the Black and Tans. I had typed out a quote from an original source to support the fact that the term 'Black and Tan' was customarily applied to all the provisional recruits who were sent in to Ireland during the War of Independence. I thought that actually putting in and quoting an original source was the best way to demonstrate this.

Also in the article the history of Home Rule was mentioned - and if that is going to be mentioned I consider it important to know the entire history of the HR bill - going back to 1886. The generation that lived through it - and reacted to its suspension in 1914 - had had the experience of seeing it fail many times prior to that. The 1914 suspension should not be viewed as an innocuous brief setback without this further historiographical context.

Thanks. I hope I have this in the correct place. BealBoru (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I took the quote out of the lede because it was too long. It's okay to put quotes in the lede, but not quotes as long as that. See WP:LEDE. The section "Conduct in Ireland" might be a better place for it. Also, make sure you include all the important details when adding references. For example, when referencing a book you must include the writer's name, the year it was publisht, the publisher and the page number. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Template:Citation. ~Asarlaí 16:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have gone back in and replaced the quote in the 'Conduct in Ireland' section as you suggested. As regards sourcing and paging. I have included the page numbers when I have quoted from hard copy book sources. My Bulmer Hobson ref in on my Kindle - and I am unable to supply an exact page number for those references as Kindle does not give these. BealBoru (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Loyalism

Asarlaí, please stop reverting edits to this page. Several users have either removed or objected to the inclusion of that section and you are the only one who has supported it. You have plugged identical text on three separate pages. In addition to the policy pages on NPOV and undue weight I linked to the essay WP:ROC which explains further:

Use summary style

Main page: Wikipedia:Summary style

Wikipedia articles should be written in summary style, providing an overview of their subject. This overview may touch upon several related topics or subtopics, but any details not immediately relevant to the primary topic should be moved into other articles, linking to them if appropriate. If coverage of a subtopic grows to the point where it overshadows the main subject (or digresses too far from it), it may be appropriate to spin it off into a sub-article.

Article scope

Articles on very general subjects should serve as an introduction to the entire subject, and avoid going into detail on topics for which more specific articles exist. Articles on very specific subjects can treat their subject in depth.

Plus WP:COATRACK which is particularly relevant in explaining my concerns:

A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there. The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack – the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. However, a largely critical article about a subject that really is discredited is not covered by WP:COATRACK; see the policies laid out at WP:FRINGE for more information.

The Flea

...

This sort of case begins with facts about one main topic (perhaps a specific type of flea), then launches into more sub-topics (still dealing with fleas, but on a much broader scale) about which the writer has prepared way too much information, and may make occasional tangential reconnections (hopefully) to the original main topic (that specific type of flea) in an attempt to hide the coatracking. The "Flea" may be something correct but misplaced as in this example, or nationalistic propaganda, or simply irrelevant trivia about which nobody but the writer cares.

I've explained my position in terms of both common sense and policy. I don't feel you have justified yours beyond "I want it there". If you can't take on board the views of others I can do little else except take it to dispute resolution.--Shipyard Special (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for input from other editors at WikiProject Ireland. With only the two of us involved in the discussion it'll go nowhere.

The only editor who has sought the removal of this section is you. Another editor made an account solely to remove it, then suspiciously vanished after spending only two days on Wikipedia. I've explained my position: loyalist paramilitarism is a big part of loyalism, and loyalist collusion with the security forces was a big part of that. You say that security force collusion with loyalists is not related to loyalism, yet you haven't shown us how. I don't feel you have justified yourself beyond "I don't want it there". Maybe the section could be trimmed, but nixing it altogether (which you've been doing) is just hiding the truth. It would be like nixing all mentions of the Provisional IRA Arms Trial from the Provisional IRA article. Furthermore, we shouldn't nix it just because the other sections are poorly developed. Don't just sit there, develop them! I've already begun to develop the lede, the paramilitaries section and the fraternities section. ~Asarlaí 14:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"Suspiciously vanished"? If you are implying that either myself or someone else is operating a sockpuppet, get it investigated instead of casting innuendo. Also, several IPs have removed the section before, all reverted by you. As for "hiding the truth", that can hardly be said to apply since, as I have repeatedly noted, you have cut n' pasted identical text into several other articles. I don't object to a brief, well-sourced mention of collusion, but not a sprawling multi-paragraph cut n' paste on a subject to which it is only tenuously connected. And since you bring up the comparison, the Arms Trial gets one paragraph of 62 words on the PIRA page. Collusion gets over 700 on Ulster Loyalism (plus same on The Troubles and Operation Banner). As for my approach to editing, I will set my own priorities. Unfortunately certain editors seem to regard the loyalist articles as their own fiefdom of which they have taken ownership.--Shipyard Special (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather we keep this discussion in the one place, i.e. Talk:Ulster loyalism. Thanks. ~Asarlaí 18:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Springmartin

Asarlai, when you get the time please e-mail me at jeannegriffin@hotmail.it I have discovered some interesting info regarding the Battle of Springmartin. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail on 7 April. Did you not get it? ~Asarlaí 23:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I must have overlooked it. I'll check now. Thanks Asarlai.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Checked and double-checked but never got it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it went into your junk folder and got deleted automatically. I'll send it again. ~Asarlaí 17:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Project assessments

I notice that you are removing project class assessment ratings from articles without letting anyone know about it. It is somewhat disruptive because no one knows about the removal so they could reassess the article. I think it would be far more productive and more likely to get results if you were to request a reassessment at one of the projects related to the article, or ask one of the project's members to do so. I just happened upon some of them when reviewing the Irish assessment table for a completely different reason. WikiProject Ireland has a formal assessment request area at: WP:IE/A#Requesting an assessment though I seem to be the only one active there at this time, or just post me a list and I'll look at them for you. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

UDR and collusion

Hello, I'm SonofSetanta. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Operation Banner seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

In addition to this you have broken the WP:1RR ruling on a Troubles related article. You have done this twice in a 36 hour period. This entitles you to an immediate sanction from administrators. In this instance I do not intend to raise a complaint but instead will contact a sysop who will guide you and make his own decision. In the interim I have posted the missing templates at the top of the talk page and suggest you read them and become familiar with the implications of them. Which, in all honesty, you should have been already if you are editing articles on the Troubles.

Your editing style is a familiar one and it isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. The encyclopedia has firm rules regarding the neutrality of articles and the article at Operation Banner fails many of them as it is a blatant attempt at creating an anti-British article. The section is question regarding Collusion and in particular the Ulster Defence Regiment is too long and too details for such a comprehensive overview of a British Army operation which went on for approximately 35 years. The place for accusations against 7th (City of Belfast) Battalion, 10th (City of Belfast) Battalion and 7th/10th (City of Belfast) Battalion is on their respective articles where there is more room to explore individual accusations leaving the Op Banner page with just a taster and an inline reference.

I welcome anyone who has the knowledge and skill to edit Troubles related articles in a neutral style. Thus far I am not convinced you are prepared to do that. I respectfully suggest to you that, in future, you do not apply your own opinions to articles on Wikipedia but instead adopt a collegiate and WP:NPOV approach. In doing so you will find me, and many like me, to be supportive and enthusiastic editing partners. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see my reply here. ~Asarlaí 13:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to you at the same location: here. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to appreciate your edits. Correct me if I'm wrong but you do seem to be republican in style but I think you're getting to grips with the Wikipedia way of doing things. Have you considered joining the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration? The project has Irish editors with different backgrounds who are dedicated to editing Irish history fairly and without POV. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't get put off because I appear to disagree with some of the content you edit in or when I revert you. I have firm views, as I'm sure you do. My editing style is very influenced by the need to avoid POV. I won't countenance it in any way shape or form and will do anything I can to eradicate it from any article I choose to work on. I'm not perfect however, none of us are. I make mistakes and sometimes I'm too quick on the "revert" click. The only way to get past any issues is to discuss and there are plenty of talk pages out there to do so. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you give me your opinion on this please? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW - I saw you quoting from Ryder - do you have the book? Just asking so I'll know in the future if we can refer simultaneously to it. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No I don't own the book but I was able to read chunks of it on Google Books. ~Asarlaí 21:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see. It's worth having Asarlaí, although hard to get now. Potter's "Testimony to Courage" is a more complete and recent history though and very worth having on your bookshelves. You've got to bear in mind though that Potter was a Major (adjutant of 3 UDR) in the regiment so his opinions will always be pro-UDR. There are a few battalion specific histories but AFAIK only one still in print which is "Echo Company" by Ronnie Gamble, all about 5 UDR - very useful, lots of ancillary history in it too. You can read it online at http://ecohcoy.tripod.com/ but you can also get a free copy of it through the Coleraine library service, or I can put you directly in touch with the author and he'll send one out to you. He gets money from the National Lottery fund to provide free copies of his books. There are three military histories and you can have them all for nothing.

I'm not trying to convert you into a UDR man btw. I've as many books on Irish and republican history as I have on military history. It's one of my passions. Only by understanding where both sides in the conflict were coming from can we understand the conflict. That's my view anyway. SonofSetanta (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks for the link. ~Asarlaí 23:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

USC

Asarlaí you may not like the new section but it is reffed with much more up to date sources than previously used which is what has changed its tone. Rather than being anti-nationalist propaganda it counters nationalist/republican propaganda from the period to the present day. As explained on the talk page the paragraph you deleted was a well sourced comparison vis-a-vis the 1920's USC and their successors. As explained before you cannot simply have the nationalist/republican view on an article. As this type of propaganda has now been exposed as just that it needs to be removed from all Troubles articles and the reason why given, i.e that it is "an ideological imperative" not a truth. As Luken has acted very inappropriately I am seeking advice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring. You may wish to comment there too although no complaint is raised against you. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

help

Asarlai, how do I restore chunks of text as well as a whole section that was removred from the Miami Showband killings by SonofSentanta while I was away? It's a GA article which took me and another editor months to write and polish into shape. This had to happen just when I had decided to return to Wikipedia full-time. Now Im thinking of retiring completely from the project.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Jeanne, I can tell you how to restore the text but wouldn't it be prudent to look at the reasons why I deleted it? I've left you a comment on your talk page as regards this. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the peer reviews as well as the comments by the actual GA reviewer? They all thought the page was worthy of GA class; in fact, some even suggested it was worthy of a FAC.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's good to hav you back Jeanne. You're one of the best editors I know; if you left it'd be a huge loss to Wikipedia. Many editors would agree with me on that.

As you can see from the discussions above, myself and SonofSetanta hav had a lot of disagreements lately. I've re-added a lot of what he removed but also left a lot of his changes untoucht. See my post on the article's talkpage.

Also, I sent you an e-mail about two weeks ago but it might hav went to your junk folder. ~Asarlaí 15:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Asarlaí my edits on the Miami Showband page were all in good faith. There's no reason for them to be otherwise. I don't like over wordiness, that's all. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Asarlai for the praise and re-adding the removed text about the attack on the two Gaelic football fans. It's pertinent to the article. SonofSetanta has indeed made excellent additions to both the Robin Jackson and Billy Hanna pages, however he should be careful about removing text on the basis of "I don't like it".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you back Jeanne! Simply select a previous version of the article and click edit and then copy and paste what you want from it into the latest version. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks but I'm not so sure being back is a positive thing. Everytime I go away for the summer I return to a broiling cauldron of contention. SonofSentanta, I think the Miami Showband article looks fine the way it is. I am assuming my opinion counts for something.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe...

...I'm asking for too much? [14] (also, have your own creepy smile, haha!) --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Plantation

You do know we are not meant to add comments into articles even with the comment html. Though the statement is easily sourceable and I will do it later. Though off the top of my head, many Catholics where planted in the barony of Strabane. Exact numbers aren't needed as we are also only stating some not a lot. Some estimates of Gaelic speaking Scots is upto 50% of them which should be mentioned as that is a lot.. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Warrington Bomb BBC Documentary

Thank you for your comments on my removal of "Englishmen" from the possible suspects in the Warrington Bomb. Neither of the cources you cite supports that. The Warrington Guardian story you cite merely states that the IRA authorised such operatives in the past. Neither the BBC nor the Warrington Guardian speculate as to the identity of the bombers, much less their ethnicity, only that Red Action (a political grouping active in the North of England and whose makeup doubtless reflects the diverse ethnic makeup of that area) may have been responsible. To specify a distinct ethnic (as opposed to civic) group is somewhat inflammatory and unsupported by the sources you cite. 217.206.177.210 (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The documentary does speculate that the bombers may hav been Englishmen. The first line of the Warrington Guardian article is this: "A documentary to be shown tonight, Monday, will ask whether a rogue IRA unit made up of Englishmen could be responsible for the Warrington bombings". You can watch the full documentary on YouTube – Wikipedia won't let me link to it, so search for "Who bombed Warrington?". At 1m5s the narrator says "These men are probably the bombers, but could they hav been Englishmen? A rogue IRA active service unit?". At 17m15s he says "They [the police] had no comment on the possibility that the Bridge Street bombing could hav been carried out by a rogue IRA unit comprised of unknown Englishmen". ~Asarlaí 15:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the previous poster. The inclusion of essentially groundless (merely two sentences of speculation on a regional news report supprted by no police source). and inflammatory, verging on racist, speculation has no place in an encyclopaedia. The IRA admitted they planted the bomb. They said the police ignored a warning. The police denied this. The documentary posed a question that no-one answered. We may as well put in a National Enquirer headline reading "Is Elvis on the moon?" as speculation. All we know is that the IRA said they planted the bomb. 213.205.241.166 (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Troubles

Thanks for yr refinements to The Troubles page. A couple of quick comments about the usage issue:

I'm not sure that "especially in Belfast" is really accurate, in reference to the 1920s. It seems to have had wider usage in common parlance, including the Easter Rising events in Dublin and elsewhere, as well as the Civil War in 1922-23.

Also, "reappeared in 1969" sort of implies that the term had faded into disuse prior to then, which isn't quite true. It had remained in general usage to refer to the 1920s events - there are plenty of citations for that. Rather than reappearing, it was sort of "repurposed" in 1969, to its present usage.

These are definitely rather arcane nuances, but I thought they might bear some clarification in the light of yr edits. Cheers! jxm (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I've changed "The term re-appeared in 1969 to describe the worsening violence" to "In 1969, the term began to be used to describe the worsening violence". I've also removed the "especially in Belfast" bit. In the 1920s, the term "Troubles" does seem to hav been used to refer to the conflict in general. However, many modern writers tend to use it only when referring to the sectarian violence in Belfast at that time – see for example Alan Parksinson's Belfast's Unholy War: The Troubles of the 1920s and Joe Baker's The McMahon Family Murders and the Belfast Troubles 1920-1922. Maybe that could be noted in the article. ~Asarlaí 22:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Its been quite a long time, but I seem to remember coming across the phrase "the troubles/these troubles", informally referring to the events of the 1500s in Ireland. Perhaps the phrase has some antiquity in Ireland? Fergananim (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A question regarding names of dead

Hi Asarlai, I was wondering if it would be possible to include a list of all the British soldiers killed in Operation Banner? The reason I ask is that I saw am online forum where people were complaining that Wikipedia didn't have lists for the soldiers killed yet there is a complete passenger's list for the Titanic. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you again Jeanne.

Well, there's alredy a list of all 700+ British military casualties at CAIN (and indeed other websites), so I don't see a need to make another list here. I think it'd lead to lots of wrangling over neutrality, the circumstances of deaths, inclusion critera, and so on. Also, we'd probably hav to make a list for each of the other combatants too (the RUC, the IRA, the UVF, asf) and for the civilians.

That's just my take on it. If you want to know what others think you could ask on Talk:Operation Banner or on one of the WikiProjects. ~Asarlaí 18:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Asarlai. I'll ask on Op Banner's talk page and see what the consensus is.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Jean McConville

I note your edit of 02:08, 3 May 2014‎ on the article Murder of Jean McConville, in which you purposefully removed the text associated with the intervention of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. This is key in the evidence trail, and removing under the edit summary "clean-up" is personally miscreant. I have hence reinserted the text. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It was removed because the information is inaccurate and taken from an opinion piece ("Sinn Fein should never be able to escape Jean McConville's ghost").

That opinion piece says "The lord chief justice, Robert Carswell, ruled that in this one instance the government should break the policy commonly known as NCND (neither confirm nor deny) and reveal any secret service dealings that had taken place with Mrs McConville. There were none".

It doesn't mention a "government investigation", but it does go on to talk about the Ombudsman's report. On pages 12–14 of the Ombudsman's report, it mentions Carswell saying the NCND rule could be broken in some cases. But Carswell was talking about Freddie Scappaticci, not Jean McConville. It was the Ombudsman herself who said the government should break the NCND rule for McConville. ~Asarlaí 16:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The home (Tuam)

Hi. Sorry about the edit conflict. I tried to fix it as per edit summary. Sorry if I did not do so properly. Just curious -- did you intent intend to rv the following (non-consecutive) quotes? Just asking in case my edit conflict screwup caused something to be lost.

On behalf of the Irish Daily Mail, a private company surveyed the site with ground-penetrating radar. It found two unnatural structures, one box-shaped, and recommended minor excavations as the next step in the investigation.

Corless claimed the matter had "been widely misrepresented" in the media and her own statements had been misquoted. The local police stated that there was no need for a police investigation: “These are historical burials going back to famine times. There is no suggestion of any impropriety and ... there is no confirmation from any source that there are between 750 and 800 bodies present."

Yours, Quis separabit? 17:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: Someone has already addressed part of the above, so you may need to re-review. Quis separabit? 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be sorted now. Thanks. ~Asarlaí 00:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:79.97.222.210_-_Persistent_disruptive_POV_pushing_and_edit-warring. Thank you.

I am notifying you simply as I make reference to your thanks over my revert of the IP at Military Reaction Force. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're interested...

I have set up a new ptoject. Would you like to join? Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Northern Ireland Troubles. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

‎Requesting guidance

Greeetings

It seems you have been working on culture related some articles too. I am requesting your kind guidance for change of name of one article. When I started working on a new article recently, presently named Poles in mythology actual article name was some thing different, actually due to some misunderstandings some one changed name of the article to Poles in mythology. Matter of the fact is I wanted to cover cultural aspects and festive celebrations as an umbrella article and wanted to have historical mythological, worships wherever concerned as a small part of the main article.

Poles in mythology is altogether a different subject when I am doing research and writing cultural aspects of festive celebrations are also coming up simultaneously and I am coming to a conclusion that for covering cultural aspects of festive celebrations of 'pole' we need to have a separate umbrella article altogether so we will not have more confusions and misunderstandings. Either we need to change present article name or split and create a new cultural aspect related article.

Please let me know your openion and if you are positive to my suggessions what should be the new articles name ? In fact you can join in discussion at Talk:Poles_in_mythology#Change_of_article_name

Looking forward to your kind guidance

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed redirect to Disappeared (Northern Ireland)

I noticed you performed several redirects while an active discussion on this was taking place [15]. Could you explain why you performed these redirects? It also appears that you simply redirected, causing the article content themselves to be deleted (as they content was not moved). As a result I have reverted your redirect, restoring it to its stable, and pre-discussion state. Thanks for your feedback on this matter. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, Tiggerjay, I didn't see that discussion until now. I redirected the articles to The Disappeared and copied over the details that weren't already on that page.

I think they should be merged into The Disappeared for three reasons. Firstly, neither of these men are notable in their own right; they're known only as being one of the Disappeared. Secondly, the articles are very short and not much else can be added to them (they're permastubs). Lastly, if we have articles for these three, for fairness sake we'd also need to have articles for the other Disappeared. However, aside from Jean McConville and Robert Nairac, none are notable enough to warrant their own articles. ~Asarlaí 19:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Likely true... and probably where it should end up. Lets have the RM wrap up first, and then move on towards the merge... How about you take a moment and share your thoughts on the requested move discussion. Thanks! Tiggerjay (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

(revert: again, this isn't for individual killings)

Billy Wrights wasn't a normal killing, it was a planned operation involving 3 INLA members. Like Operation Conservation, a planned counter-ambush by the South Armagh Brigade. Airey Neave has a wiki in the GB & Europe campaign box of the Troubles. What if we there was a campaign box of high profile people assassinated during The Troubles? TommySocialist 22:00, 8 July 2019

TommySocialist, all assassinations during the Troubles were planned by more than one person. If we include Billy Wright's assassination we'd have to include dozens and dozens of others. The Troubles campaign box is already far too long. It was only meant to be for the notable military & paramilitary actions that were part of the conflict. But it's become bloated with minor incidents, many of which are barely notable enough to have an article. It got so long that I had to make another campaign box just for the incidents in England and Europe. If it gets any longer it'll end up being deleted because it's too big for people to use. ~Asarlaí 13:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That's why we should create a seperate campaign box for only notable figures assassinated during the Troubles ~TommySocialist 21:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Beltane Etymology

It's quite a widespread belief that the etymology is from "fire of Baal". I've seen the discussion on the Talk page (In the section: Irish and Canaanite?). Based on this statement "This etymology is now repudiated by scientific philologists, and the New English Dictionary accepts Dr Whitley Stokes's view that beltane in its Gaelic form can have no connexion with teine, fire.", I don't understand how the new etymology still includes "fire".

Funnily enough, if the earlier edition of the Encylopedia Brittanica is being taken as the best source on this, the current web version cites the Baal theory also. Would you think it's reasonable that I add a section on it as an alternative etymology or "rejected" etymology due to its popularity? I'd be happy to do it. AshSIreland (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

AshSIreland, the Beltane article notes that the most widely accepted etymology is from a term meaning "bright fire". It also notes that some medieval writers suggested it meant "Bel's fire". Maybe a bit more could be added on that, if it's backed by good sources. Some 19th century writers (especially British Israelites) suggested it referred to a Middle Eastern god Baal, but that's been rejected by modern experts, so I don't see a need to say much about it. Also note that Encylopedia Britannica mentions the Bel theory, not Baal. ~Asarlaí 21:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have seen a old source that claimed the Red Hand could possibly have come from the Phoenicians who funnily enough came from northern Canaan and were Baal was worshipped. I would think it'd be a very long shot to prove any tangible link but a reference to such fringe views can be mentioned worded properly. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I can't help but fail to notice how the title of the "Role of the church" sub section at Norman invasion of Ireland and the addition of certain bits of information you recently added to the article are direct copies of my work in my user space. The fact you copied an entire block of text minus the year I can only feel is bad faith and I will be seeking administrator advice on the matter.

[[16]]

Mabuska ^(talk) 00:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

More specifically Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_plagiarizing_another_editor_wrong?. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion, which I have made clear at just to clarify, is simply a question on whether it is plagiarism and is not about seeking sanctions or the like not would I accept any being imposed. It is an administrator noticeboard so where else could I ask for admin views.

I have also dealt with your comments there as well and hope we can work together to get this article up to shape.

As appears to be the predominant view at that discussion you should attribute other editors wordings/work. I will take up your offer or you can do it and reinsert it giving credit if you prefer.

Mabuska ^(talk) 09:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Croke Park guns

I see you've slightly changed my Bloody Sunday contribution to say that no weapons were found in the stadium as well as not on the crowd. I have Mills in Michael Foy's 'Michael Collins intelligence war' saying "We found no arms on any of the people attending the match" but nothing about no weapons being found in the stadium itself, they were recovered by Army search teams later rather than the Auxies at time so he may not have been aware of them? Do you have him actually saying no weapons were recovered from the stadium? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamrockawakening (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The following quote is taken from David Leeson's Death in the Afternoon: The Croke Park Massacre, which is referenced throughout the article:

Dublin Castle said that thirty discarded revolvers were picked up off the field. This claim was untrue. Brian Toomey made this clear in his interview with the Daily News: "no revolvers had been picked up on the ground, as was averred by the official report." Major Mills corroborated this point. In his testimony to the Mater Hospital Court, the Major said: "When the ground was cleared we searched for arms and found none." In his testimony to the Jervis Street Hospital Court, he said that, once the spectators had been searched, "I then walked round the ground but found no arms at all."

Leeson also notes that Captain Bartlett, in command of the soldiers along Clonliffe Road, stated that one revolver was handed to the British Army by a resident, who said someone from the crowd left it at his house. ~Asarlaí 19:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The Croke Park guns picture also appear in the Belfast Telegraph and Daily Mirror... Are they also untrusted sources? What would I need? A caveat stating this picture was from the Daily Mail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamrockawakening (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's from the Belfast Telegraph it would probably be fine, but an academic source would be best. You would need to link to the article in which they appear, so everyone can see what is written about the picture. ~Asarlaí 19:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Archive 1

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your outstanding work in the Ulster related articles. Boundarylayer (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! ~Asarlaí 20:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your conscientious editing as here, for instance. What do you think constitutes the majority of "other causes" of deaths of MoD personnel? Just curious. More suicides than have been publicised, maybe? Yours, Quis separabit? 05:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. I'd say most of the "other causes" of deaths would be accidents such as vehicle crashes, accidental firing of weapons, falls, and so on. However, I'd say suicide wouldn't be far behind. Only the MoD would know for sure tho... ~Asarlaí 22:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

1996 Manchester bombing

That's a lot better and more relevant now, good work. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mabuska. I'd considered removing that stuff too. ~Asarlaí 21:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Black and Tans

Really excellent work. It saves me having to do anything! I hope it doesn't get reverted though. I left some more sources on the talk page if that's any use to you. Jdorney (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Far-right Russian nationalism in Ukraine

@El C: as you semi-d Russian separatist forces in Donbas, you should now that this user has started his edit warring again.

At first, some of us removed the content he was copy pasting both at Far right politics in Ukraine and Russian separatist forces in Donbas. But after the users agreed to keep the content but get rid of the misrepresentation and cherrypicking (this user ignored the whole "conclusion" chapter of the source he relied on). After that, this user happened to ping the other contributors[17] on talk page (discussion) and falsely alleged another user of censorship.

But nevertheless, no one opposed the new modifications by another user that were made here.

Since then, Asarlaí is resorting to avoid engaging in talk page and continuing the edit war to retain his misrepresentation of sources on both articles. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

As myself and other editors have noted in the discussion, it looks like yourself and Segaton have been working to censor information about far-right forces on the pro-Russian side in Ukraine. Since more editors became involved and it's clear the consensus is against you, you've stopped repeatedly deleting content wholesale, and have begun misrepresenting the sources instead. Because of your latest reverts here and here, the current versions of those articles now misrepresent the sources, as I explained here. But you've both ignored my comments yet again.

You both have a pattern of ignoring other editor's rebuttals, repeating the same false claims, and working together to repeatedly revert these two articles. I also note that your accounts were both created in 2019-2020, you both seem to be non-native English speakers, and you both have a history of editing articles related to India.

Unfortunately, not many other editors seem willing to get involved. Perhaps El C or another editor could direct me to the best place to raise these issues. ~Asarlaí 17:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

See further discussion about article content at Talk:Far-right politics in Ukraine#Neutrality and removal of far-right Russian separatists.

Nomination of The Troubles in literature and popular culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Troubles in literature and popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Troubles in literature and popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Some guidelines for you

Do you understand what is WP:CANVASSING and WP:TAGTEAMING?

If you read about it, then you would know that you are not allowed to make messages like this. Recruiting editors for targeting particular editors reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and you need to stop it. Segaton (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Segaton, better late than never: that message was not against any rule. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

List of Celtic deities

Sorry, I got carried away--I see you're also still working on it. I'll leave it alone for a while, and will come back later to clean up those notes, duplicate citations, etc. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies, the article needed a good cleanup. ~Asarlaí 09:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

And thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirect

I think you may have gotten carried away with some of your redirects, I have reverted some of them where there wasn't a clear explanation. I'd suggested a deletion review would have been more appropriate if you think notability isn't established. WCM_email 08:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Wee Curry Monster. I've now left explanations on the articles I had missed out. They were all created by the now-banned sockpuppet of a banned user. The sparse references did not show lasting notability. More references showing notability had been requested for at least six months, but still hadn't been provided.

This user and their sockpuppets made numerous Troubles articles, doomed to be permastubs, because they're about non-notable incidents as far as the Troubles go. The incidents are already detailed on the various Troubles timeline articles. Many of the stubs were poorly-written, poorly-referenced, and made up mainly of irrelevant details on the 'background' and 'aftermath'. The only other edits to these articles were by users trying to clean-up the mess. ~Asarlaí 10:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the explanation, I probably lean to the view that a deletion review would have been preferable as it gives the opportunity for wider community input and enables articles to be expanded if notability is established. But as content created by a disruptive editor I can see your rationale. WCM_email 11:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Balmoral Castle

@Asarlaí When making edits, regardless of what they relate to, it is important to follow what a source actually says. Your edit at Balmoral Castle stated that the most likely etymology was a Gaelic term meaning "hut of the big clearing". This isn't what the source states, it doesn't describe this as "the most likely etymology", it merely lists a footnote saying that the name is from Both Mhor Iail (doesn't specify the language) meaning "hut at the big spot" JoeyofScotia (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@JoeyofScotia the source does say "We think Both Mhoir-ail is the most likely". Although it doesn't explicitly say so, this is clearly Gaelic, and the entry begins "Balmoral...from Both Mhoir-ail, in Gaelic [ba'vor'al]". But you're right, the source does indeed say "the big spot (of ground)", I must have been looking at another that said "big open space". ~Asarlaí 10:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dead and Euronymous.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dead and Euronymous.jpg. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Controversies section of Traditional Unionist Voice Wikipedia page

Hello, Asarlaí.

Would you like to discuss these edits on the Talk page of the Wikipedia page for the Traditional Unionist Voice political party? There's already a section for 'controversies' on that Talk page and I've begun a new thread at the top of it.

Regards

BrownBowler (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Asarlaí, in order to get the requested WP:BRD cycle on this subject started, I've added a request for clarification over the parts of my 17th Feb 2023 edits which you found to have unnecessary detail in them or which didn't match the content of the reference sources.

If you're busy or not available to discuss the subject, please let me know via my Talk page or via the Talk page for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownBowler (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Asarlaí, have you an interest in continuing the discussion on the Talk page about the Traditional Unionist Voice party? If so, when you get a moment, would you take a look at the latest suggestion I made there? It's in the Talk section about the Controversies paragraph. BrownBowler (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, Asarlaí. I thought I'd have a go at inviting a Third Opinion on the appropriate choice of phrase to use, i.e. "British soldiers involved in the Troubles" or "Troubles-related prosecutions of former British soldiers" - see Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. This note is just to let you know I'd done so, since I believe that's the required etiquette. Regards BrownBowler (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Asarlaí, I've added a few observations to the Controversy section on Talk page for Traditional Unionist Voice political party. They are about the edit on the Irish Language controversy. If you have the time, maybe you could take a look. Regards BrownBowler (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The war started on April 6th, not April 12th 2014

The War in Donbas (2014–2022) and the absolute rebellion began on April 6, 2014 in Donetsk and Luhansk, and on April 12 it only escalated into an armed uprising. In the period of six days (April 6 - 12), there were already dozens of injured and wounded. The first military corps of the armed forces of Ukraine entered the Donbass on April 9, and the uprising in Sloviansk and Kramatorsk was still three days away. April 6 is the precise date of the beginning of the war in Donbass (2014 - 2022) when the rebels seized state institutions in the two largest cities of Donbass, Donetsk and Lugansk. The following day, the unrecognized Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics were formed, and in the next six days, the rebels occupied various administrative offices. There are sources of information about all this. I don't hear anything vague. – Baba Mica (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

New articles and templates

It is obvious that on May 10, Ukrainian forces started a counter-offensive in the region of Baḫmuta and Horlivka, because today Ukrainian officials officially announced that the Ukrainian counter-offensive started a few days ago. The results are evident in the vicinity of Baḫmut between 10 and 19 May despite the loss of control over the city of Bahmut itself on 20 and 21 May. On May 22, Ukrainian forces penetrated the northwestern districts of the city of Horlivka, which means that the article Battle of Horlivka (2023) or Second Battle of Horlivka is required. – Baba Mica (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Darker Dreams (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI, the rules of dispute resolution say that you should not reply to another editor, but rather make your responses in a new Additional statement section. I've notified the moderator, but if you could just move your reply to your own additional statement section, it would resolve the breach of protocol. Skyerise (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your addition of a reply to my additional statements section. Please follow the protocols of the process and create your own subsection for your responses. Skyerise (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you are unaware of the "protocol", I'm just here to confirm that Skyerise is correct, if that's of any help. Cheers. —Alalch E. 12:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I thought it was only the original summary statements that shouldn't be replied to. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration Request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# Witchcraft and related topics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, - Darker Dreams (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

European witchcraft

I'd just like to thank you for your help getting Euro-specific material moved to this article. Reducing the European content in Witchcraft makes that article more balanced, I think. Skyerise (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Skyerise, same to you. European witchcraft has needed worked on. It needs more sources, and some more European content could be copied into it, but I don't think we need to remove much more of it from Witchcraft. After all, Europe is where the term originated and is one of the few parts of the world where there have been massive witch hunts. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 21:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it could at least be summarized more concisely as it really predominates and overshadows the article's global content. That talk pages is a mess.... I made sure discussions about new proposals get discussed on the related article page rather than at Talk:Witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft and related topics declined

Hello, the request for arbitration, Witchcraft and related topics, has been declined the Arbitration Committee. They had concluded that arbitration is not appropriate at this stage.
For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft and related topics

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darker Dreams (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring on various articles

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. StairySky (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You're the one alleging WP:OR, so it's up to you to explain what exactly is OR on the talkpage. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The onus is on you to gain consensus for the changes you wish to introduce, instead of edit warring. You can do so on the talk page. StairySky (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear any legitimate, policy-based reasons for your reverts. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It fails WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR (sources don't refer to the links you introduced). You'll need to gain consensus for these changes instead of edit warring over them. StairySky (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I would argue your reverts are WP:TENDENTIOUS and go against WP:NPOV. For example you removed the fact that the Donbas 'republics' are in Ukraine, or that the flag-waving stunt was condemned by local councillors. Key bits of referenced detail were deleted. Also, off-Wikipedia sources generally don't refer to Wikipedia articles anyway, so that's a non-argument. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's constructive to re-direct things to focus solely on those things and not all the others. But to address that, I wouldn't have any particular issue with you reintroducing those things. So we can move on from that now.

"Also, off-Wikipedia sources generally don't refer to Wikipedia articles anyway, so that's a non-argument." I assume this is in reference to me saying "sources don't refer to the links you introduced"? I meant that the sources don't, for instance, say PBP is promoting disinformation, not that they don't speak of Wikipedia. StairySky (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, some of the claims objectively are disinformation and there are sources accusing them of that. But I never added that to the article, as I thought it might be unbalanced. The wording doesn't accuse anyone of deliberate disinformation. I only linked to the relevant articles discussing the claims, and added a bit of referenced detail I thought was key for readers' understanding. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources still don't list PBP etc. And anyway, it's POV to assert it in Wikipedia's voice. StairySky (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. Which sources don't list PBP and what's being asserted in Wikipedia's voice? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No sources given which mention PBP etc call it disinformation. StairySky (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't call it that either, not on their article. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 18:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Look at the page you're linking to. StairySky (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the title of the link, so "disinformation" no longer appears in it. But if someone's making an exceptional claim, why shouldn't we link to the very article discussing that claim? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 08:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It's still an issue because it redirects to the same page and to "Russian allegations" StairySky (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft

Friendly note to make sure you realize that restoring that tag was your 3rd revert. Skyerise (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise, I thought it was only the 2nd? If it's the 3rd I'll self-revert. But this behavior is out of line and I'm very close to bringing it to ANI. I read through the sources and couldn't find anything that supported the statement, so I asked them for quotes to back it up. Instead of simply doing that, they reverted me, warned me for 'edit warring', then said "oh the quotes are on the talkpage somewhere". Where? Could you not help us out here? See if you can find anything in the sources that backs up the statement? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No need to self-revert... Just noting that you removed the added text twice and then reverted the removal of the tag. I'm sure replacing the tag could have waited until tomorrow. It's not like there is a WP:DEADLINE. Skyerise (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Asarlaí reported by User:Darker Dreams (Result: ). Thank you. — Darker Dreams (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Skellig Michael

Thanks for the all the clean-up here and moving sections to under the correct headings. Had been struggling with the getting the TOC correct, ie splitting the Monastery and Hermitage sections...the revert was because you flattened the headers again, but see now that there were underlying issues which you fixed. Nice work. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Tolkien and the Celtic

I've really no idea why you might think that "the Celtic" is "incorrect". We Brits, and the article is in British English, say "the British", "the French", "the literate", "the good": it is absolutely correct to use an adjective as a noun. I'll consider undoing your undiscussed move. Since you've never edited the article, or as far as I can recall anything on the WikiProject before, the move was a bit of an imposition really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, correcting incorrect grammar isn't an "imposition". The group of peoples aren't called "the Celtics"; they're called the "Celts" or the "Celtic peoples", and their cultures and languages are called "Celtic". It's not used the same way as "British", "Irish", "Norse" etc. So saying "Tolkien and the Celtic" is grammatically incorrect (Tolkien and the Celtic what?). Correct wording would be "Tolkien and the Celts", "Tolkien and the Celtic languages", or "Tolkien and Celtic culture". Feel free to raise it at the language desk if you disagree. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. No, I'm not calling the people "the Celtic"; it's like "The good" or "The literate", an adjective as I said. It would help enormously if you'd not assume that native English speakers are illiterate and unable to cope with their own language's grammar. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

All I did was correct your grammar mistake in the article title and explained it as politely as I could. But it seems you've taken offence to that for some reason. So again, if you think I'm wrong, you can raise it at the language desk and/or Wikiproject Celts. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Irish mythology, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion

This now looks like a violation of WP:3RR. Mellk (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Tandragee Idol

Hi Asarlaí, good to see you back and thanks for the edits on the idol. Have two requests if that's ok - can we compare sources on the 1000BC claim as I'm seeing that date, cautiously mind you, almost everywhere. And, if you have time, would you mind fact-checking the Corleck Head article, given you wrote the wiki page on the Lughnasadh, your insight would be valuable. Hoping to get it to FAC in next few weeks. I don't need a copy edit I think, as it's been through GA and PR recently, but there are areas I'm uncertain about, eg was its use as a cult idol sequentially with Lughnasadh? Did they overlap? Also, I think the head cult sect is underdeveloped so pointers needed! If busy no problem, but no harm in asking. Best. Ceoil (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Ceoil. I've seen a few sources dating it to 1000 BC as well, which would be the Bronze Age. But most sources I've found so far date it to the Iron Age (500 BC-500 AD), and those seem to be better quality sources - more 'academic', more recent, and discussing the idol in more depth than a passing mention. But we should try to find as many sources as we can and compare them. Feel free to post some on the talkpage, and I'll do the same when I've time.

And yes I'll get a good look at Corleck Head next week, no problem. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. PS, I'm guessing you have access to JSTOR, but if not I can email the relevant articles. Many thanks, as am very uneasy about the level of supposition re dating. Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to say appreciate the help with the Corleck head, excellent and informed edits. While the topic is fresh in my mind, planning to take Tandragee to GA in around a month; have ordered a few books (Welsh, Raftery, Billingsley) which should arrive in a week or two. Ceoil (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Samhain - new regions

I'm currently editing the entire article.

So far, I've only updated the table, but the changes are linked to Wikipedia files that themselves relate the towns and customs mentioned to their Celtic origins. I don’t understand why you deleted it.

In the rest of the article on Samhain, I will include more details with references, but that will take a few days. For now, I've revised the table, starting from the previous version but with more accurate information. I don’t understand why you reverted my changes, Asarlaí. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.110.137 (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was undone because you didn't provide any sources for it. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability - it's one of the key policies of Wikipedia. You can't add something without sources and say you'll add the references later. So if you keep adding things without references, it will keep being removed by myself and other editors. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The original one doesn't provide them. I did the same, with inner (wikipedia) links. You can click on each one of them and check them out as they support the information given. The link and source is already on wikipedia itself. The original board doesn't provide sources, references or any other reliable information more than that. 83.34.110.137 (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The things that were already there are already supported by sources in the Samhain article. Whatever you put in an article's infobox, it must already be in that article, with references. Wikipedia policy is that it doesn't matter what's in other articles. Anyway, there are no mentions of "Samhain" or "Samain" in any of the articles you linked. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Done as requested my darling ;) 83.34.110.137 (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Calling people 'darling' is rude... Anyway, Asarlaí, I responded on the Samhain page. Saw your tags but this stuff is so vague, I'd actually just kick it all off and dare someone to actually produce a source. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

All sources were provided together with new bibliography, references and further reading. Please pay attention next time before undoing someone's hard work. 83.34.110.137 (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s curious that you dismiss the connection between Samhain and the Iberian Peninsula as “vague.” This raises the question: does your critique stem from genuine scholarly rigor, or could it reflect an ideological resistance to accepting that Galicia and other Iberian regions might share a broader Celtic heritage?

The celebration of Samaín in Galicia is not a modern invention but part of a long-standing cultural tradition with striking parallels to Samhain. These connections are increasingly supported by a combination of genetic studies and historical research, which point to significant links among Atlantic populations. This challenges the notion that Celtic influence is confined to Ireland and Scotland.

Your dedication to preserving the Gaelic Celtic identity is commendable, but one must ask if this cultural purism might sometimes cloud an impartial assessment of evidence. Could it be that broadening the Celtic narrative to include the Iberian Peninsula feels like a threat to the uniqueness of Gaelic heritage rather than an enriching addition to our shared understanding of Celtic traditions?

Acknowledging this wider Celtic context does not diminish the distinctiveness of Irish and Scottish culture. On the contrary, it enriches the story of a deeply interconnected Atlantic cultural sphere. I encourage you to reflect on whether your resistance is grounded in academic critique or perhaps in an emotional attachment to a narrower cultural framework. 83.34.110.137 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

You continue reverting edits on this article without providing a single explanation. Instead of working to improve the content or addressing specific parts that might be questionable, your actions suggest a reaction driven more by passion than by reason or a genuine desire to enhance Wikipedia. If you find elements lacking, consider refining or removing only what is unsupported, rather than dismissing the broader topic outright. Be cautious of letting zeal cloud your judgment—it risks undermining both your credibility and the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. 83.34.110.137 (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the article talkpage about your edits, with a full explanation of why they've been reverted. Please reply there and stop leaving these messages on my talkpage. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Date of the birth of Jesus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Autumn equinox.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)