Hello, Claíomh Solais, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- PBS (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a new user you seem to be editing in quite a sophisticated way. It may be that you have grasped how to edit quickly, but often such editing skills indicates that an editor has edited Wikipedia before. Have you ever edited under another user name? -- PBS (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gaels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gaels, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Britain and Scotti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas MacDonagh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seán Mac Diarmada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Clarke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Standish James O'Grady, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gaelic and Castletown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-Scottish sentiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacobite. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Just to let you know that according to the agreed manual of style for Ireland related articles, we only add Gaelic names if the person actually used it in regards to themselves. If they didn't then we don't add one as this is the English Wikipedia. Please see WP:IMOS for further details. So please stop adding them to articles and revert the ones you have done. Mabuska(talk)18:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, thanks for that link. How do we deal with historical people from times when Ireland's language was majority Gaelic? For instance, in the case of somebody like Arthur Guinness, he was living in the 18th century and his family are known for their Gaelic roots, so Art Mac Aonghusa is his native name. Although obviously they allied themselves to Anglo-Irish culture. Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Art Mac Aonghusa is not his native name. That is the Gaelic equivalent of his name. His native name is Arthur Guinness as English was his native tongue if you catch my drift. It is what he called himself and is how he is referred to in academic sources and popular culture. It would be absurd to go around and add Gaelic names to English people of Gaelic descent such as Noel and Liam Gallagher, Wayne Rooney, etc. unless they themselves use one.
In regards to historical Gaels: if they have an English and Irish name then the name that is most commonly used in English is what the article is named, with the other name mentioned afterwards in the lede, for example: Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone. The reverse would be Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair.
For Gaels before the introduction of English and Anglicised names then they are usually named and start with the academic and historical name commonly used for them, which is usually Irish. For example: Áedán mac Gabráin, Donnchad mac Briain and Brandub mac Echach. If they have English/Anglicised forms them they would be mentioned afterwards. Though there are exceptions for example Brian Boru, but that would be obvious considering that is the most common name for him in use in English. The same for Niall of the Nine Hostages, though his lede starts off with the Irish form.
There is obviously a lack of consistency in Wikipedia but that is roughly how it goes which is pretty fair enough as it is WP:OR to invent Gaelic names for people who never used them. Mabuska(talk)22:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gaels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scots. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for uploading File:Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I have reverted you again. You are now on notice that your edit is disputed, so instead of just doing it again, discuss it.
As I have said in reply to you on my talk page, Conor and Conchobar are distinct names, and there is no overlap between them, so the two articles refer to distinct sets of people. Modern people with the name Conor are not called Conchobar, and medieval people with the name Conchobar are not called Conor, so a reader looking up "Conchobar" is not looking for people called Conor, and vice versa. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When creating this article, was there an actual need for it to be created? As this is the English Wikipedia people will most likely to searching for the English name of the flag as there is a Gaelic version of this site for Gaelic entries. The name "An Gal Gréine" is definitely not used in the English language as far as I know academic or otherwise and if its view-counts over time show that it is not used by viewers, it will be viable for deletion unless significance for it can be proved.
Another issue I notice is your removal of the Category:Ancient Irish dynasties, replacing it with Category:Érainn. Why? If your simply grouping them into the Érainn group fine enough however you could of put it alongside the Ancient Irish dynasties category, or more properly yet, add the Ancient Irish dynasties category to the Érainn category page seeing as they naturally fall under it as a child category. A short description of what the Érainn category page relates to would also be good to inform readers.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Linda Ervine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stormont. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Claíomh - I'm just wondering about the Template:Ulaid, you seem to have created it. Claíomh, its an excellent template with lots of useful information, do you have any references for the information in the template? More specifically, do you have any reference for the list of surnames in the section about the Conmaicne "Magh Réin - Muintir Eolais". I'm doing some research on this group. Thanks for any help you can give me. John37309 (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited O'Higgins family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kilbeg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited O'Donoghue, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cashel and Dunphy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of kings of Munster, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ormond and Desmond. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Whilst I understand the rationale behind the redirect would it not be better being kept as an article for the usage of the derogatory term 'taig', considering the bigots never spell it any other way? Or even a dedicated section in the tadhg article. Mabuska(talk)18:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the broader picture it is probably just a chapter in the name Tadhg and a standalone article would be odd. In the article on the name I've put it under a header "Taig and the Troubles" for the modern history, since that is when the most vitriolic "Kill all Taigs" usage applies to. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomond, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ó Néill and Corcomroe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Desmond. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I noticed that you removed several entries from the Turlough disambiguation page. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind this is. I have reverted it for now, but feel free to start a discussion on the talk page!
Thank you! (talk to) Gaelan('s contributions) 04:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Young Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scots. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for uploading File:Regimental Capstar of the Irish Guards.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iar Connacht, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Desmond. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I see you've been removing {{Irish rebel songs}} from a number of articles that state that they are Irish Rebel Songs. On the surface, it seems disruptive and perhaps agenda driven. Is that correct or is there something else that I'm missing? Toddst1 (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Máirtín Ó Direáin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaeldom. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Without knowing the exact year of publication, it's difficult to say whether or not the lyrics are still under copyright. When in doubt, leave it out. We can't post copyright material. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 14 Intelligence Company into Special Reconnaissance Unit. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 17:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i noticed you added a Euston Manifesto to a list of neoconservative organisations. There must be some mistake, because to the best of my knowledge and all available sources it's not an organization - it's just a manifesto, and the vast majority of the signatories self-identify as left-wing. Are you sure you have not confused them for some other group?
Hello, Claíomh Solais. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on O'Connor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://clonalis.com/oconnor-kings-of-connacht/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition to O'Connor has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Far-left politics in the United Kingdom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Thanks for uploading File:Church Mission Society.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Halò a Chlaíomh Sholais, as per Wikipedia best practices and discussion on the talk page, I've gone ahead and removed the redlinks from Template:Gaelic literature which you created. If you think that significant authors were removed, you can go over to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Literature. I invite you to create the articles (all of them are listed as "(dialect) Irish-language writer" or "Scottish Gaelic writer") and add the writers back as appropriate. Tapadh leat. Alázhlis (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alázhlis (talk • contribs)
Hi there. I've noticed that you've been adding "Irish" versions of the names of Victoria Cross recipients, some of whom aren't even Irish or born in Ireland, such as John Hogan (VC). The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles is quite clear on adding Irish-language versions of people's names. It states: "If someone used the Irish version of his or her name use that version when naming the article if it enjoys widespread usage among English speakers. If the Irish version does not enjoy widespread usage among English speakers then use the English version when naming the article. In the latter case, refer to the Irish version of the name in the first sentence of the article. An Irish version of a person's English-language name may be given in the first sentence of the lead of an article on that person if it is a well-known, commonly used name for that person. If there is no commonly used Irish version, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research. Also, the mere fact that an Irish name appears in certain sources, such as databases, is not sufficient evidence that it is commonly used."
I'd be grateful if you could remove the "Irish versions" of these subjects' names, unless, of course, that you can provide evidence that these are "well-known, commonly used name(s) for that person". Otherwise, they constitute original research.--Damac (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish slaves myth until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Royal Irish Academy.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Donald Trump–Russia dossier is currently under discretionary sanctions. See the talk-page. If you do not revert your re-addition you may be blocked in violation of
"All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The edits you made to this page are about unproven incidents relating to former members in two of the sections. The facts in both cases are publicly disputed with no court cases to resolve either. In the case of Steve Hedley he was clearly not a member at the time of the alleged assault. These links are not adding to the knowledge of the CWI or what it stands for. Vahvistus (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Far-left politics in the United Kingdom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Learn to use the talk page and don't accuse experienced editors of vandalism when they challenge the value of your sources ----SnowdedTALK22:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vladimir Mayakovsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Novodevichy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catholic Church in Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The West. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You've been adding macro calls, such as {{Catholic Church sexual abuse in Ireland}} and {{Rothschilds}} to many articles. Those aren't links. Curly brackets invoke Wikimedia macros. What are you trying to do? John Nagle (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there actually is a template called "Catholic Church sexual abuse in Ireland". I thought you were trying to add a Wikilink. OK. John Nagle (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I was really interested to come across this article while curating pages. I think a summation of the many references made in Who Is Ireland's Enemy? would be very encyclopaedic, especially of the names checked, but it would also be useful to have some overview of the chronology of the revisions and alterations. Obviously, if the original was written in 1914, then the verses referencing deaths from 1916 onwards are a later addition - were these also authored by O'Higgins too? If added by others, then that needs acknolwedging and citing. As O'Higgins died in 1963, I believe his work would be considered to be still in copyright, so unless there is evidence it was released to the public domain (including all the later revisions) then it shouldn't really be reproduced in its entirety, but only quoted in small sections. I do hope these thoughts are helpful!! Mabalu (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes, the original version from 1914 obviously didn't mention the people who were executed in 1916, but O'Higgins adopted it to include them and the anti-Treatyites who died after then. He was throughout his life on the anti-Treaty side and led Sinn Féin in the 1930s. A version has been recorded by folk group the Battering Ram/Declan Hunt in the 1960s/70s but the words themselves would be the property of O'Higgins. The last version would be from 95 years ago, so public domain by now. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abrahamic religions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Semitic religions. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please familiarise yourself with WP:LDERRY before creating any new articles mentioning "County Derry". City is Derry, county is Londonderry. Thanks, — Jon C.ॐ12:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also I regards to County Tyrone, Wikipedia procedure is to use the Anglicised form of a non-English name if there is one. In this case O'Neill and Tyrone. Mabuska(talk)13:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must point out that this edit, which well intended and not controversial in a normal manner goes against an agreed manual of style for the counties of Ireland that was agreed after much argument and discussion quite a few years ago - having said that I notice it has been largely ignored quite recently on most of the NI counties (until there now where I restored it), suggesting it mightn't be a big deal anymore. Similarly your changes to the infobox now put it out of sync with the other 31 traditional county articles. Yet I see them as improvements and would hope to see the other articles brought into line with this one especially if no-one takes issue with. Mabuska(talk)18:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can't see why people would have a problem with it. Obviously in the Free State the counties are still used for local council affairs (with the exception of Dublin), so it should be OK to get the manual of style changed. So long as it is mentioned that the counties in the North are still used as a cultural =/sporting reference point. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As @Jon C.: objects to your latest alterations to County Londonderry it should be discussed at the articles talk page for a suitable conclusion to be found and not via revert edit summaries. I pinged Jon C. in this message too and this message applies to them also, but as it is your edit that is being contested the onus is ideally on you to initiate the talk page discussion as you want the change. Mabuska(talk)16:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, and as is standard across Wikipedia, articles about places should relate to the current country/state of which they're part. Ireland as a united, independent nation no longer exists (and arguably never has), no different to the Russian Empire or Byzantium. New York's article says it's part of the US, not the former Iroquois Confederacy. — Jon C.ॐ09:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert your edit, but the reason I accepted the removal is: a) no sources; and b) the text in the article doesn't really show how they were neo-nazis - it says they were pro-monarchy and pro-orthodox church. I'm not reverting because I don't know about all the history behind it, but there SHOULD be a source, and it should discuss relevant information regarding their neo-nazi views, not other information about them. Just my thoughts. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peadorᐁT₳LKᐃ13:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, you stated in your edit summary "'narrowly' seems subjective... going to need a source for that)". You ignored the fact that in this source, which was already in the article body where the results of the primary are referenced, the sentence "The Republican contest was surprisingly competitive. Corey Stewart, a former state chairman for the Trump campaign who campaigned on preserving Confederate monuments, narrowly lost to the heavily favored Mr. Gillespie." Note the use of the word "narrowly", as well as the fact that the primary was decided by about 1% of the vote. You seem to be unhappy about my reverts of your edits where you have not provided a source. Understand that if you do find a source, the material you add can stay. That's quite different than your battleground edits where you literally removed a sentence that was well-sourced just as some sort of sick revenge angle. I'm attempting to discuss this with you, but failing that, I'll have no choice but to seek admin action on it. Doug Weller and Dr. Fleischman have already warned you about your combative behavior, so I don't think ignorance can be used as an excuse. Rockypedia (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be really careful about following me around from article to article to remove material that I've added. I fear it won't end up well for you. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're a very disruptive editor. And your talk page suggests you are repeating this pattern over a range of articles. The next step now is to refer you to an administrator to decide what needs to be done. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just what is wrong with you? If you are on some religious campaign to troll the pages of wikipedia to suit some sort of personal agenda then I suggest you stop. Now. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimrod de Rosario until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Capozzi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Thanks for uploading File:Torch Network Antifa.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
When I look tomorrow I expect to see my edits -- which you deleted without explanation-- restored or their removal justified. You can't just bulldoze your way through other people's work cause your editwar-ing with someone else. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Claíomh Solais, I do not enjoy making my acquaintance with you under these circumstances, but as an admin I have a few duties to fulfill--one of them is to maintain the peace. This page is full of warnings, and you have run into conflict in many places, and from what I can tell you have brought it on yourself. You have certain positions, that's fine, we all do, but they shouldn't lead to disruption. One of the areas where trouble arises is that of the BLP, and of course I deleted your St. Gallen category earlier this evening. If I find that you continue to be either unaware of or uncaring about the BLP, I will impose sanctions--most likely a topic ban which would prevent you from editing BLPs or BLP-related material. In fact, any admin can do that: the template above is warning enough. I strongly suggest that you deal with BLP matters much more carefully than you have; I also suggest that in for instance LGBT matters you focus less on your stance and more on what makes decent articles. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Gallen Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at St. Gallen Group shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am blocking you for a variety of reasons--a refusal to drop the stick, the continuation of this edit war, playing fast and loose with the BLP (mind you I'm not even throwing the book at you). It should be obvious that your edits in that article are regarded as very problematic and have no consensus, so that you would return to it in the same way is rather puzzling to me. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Consistent life ethic. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
He/she doesn't seem too horrendous, but anybody who is overly obsessed with banding about the term "stickie" as a form of abuse and doesn't salivate at the mouth a little bit while reading "stickie" Eoin Ó Murchú's vision of a Maoist-Gaelic Republic (as in "Culture and Revolution in Ireland") probably needs their house putting in order. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Coustos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanoverian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Claíomh Solais, I noticed that you recategorised and added a template to the Syd King article regarding the United Grand Lodge of England. I had a quick look and found the ref detailing his initiation into Merchant Navy Lodge No 781 (I've added this to the article). As someone who knows next to nothing about freemasonry, could you please clarify for me how UGLE is related? The article itself doesn't mention UGLE, so I'm just making sure this is relevant. Many thanks, Nzd(talk)10:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, there are lodges (equivalent to a local branch) and these in turn come under the jurisdiction of a wider Grand Lodge which organises various lodges. In the case of the lodge you mentioned, it falls under the jurisdiction of the United Grand Lodge of England. Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your instant reply! Are you aware of any notability guidelines regarding individual lodges such as this, i.e. would it be appropriate to have an article on the lodge detailing this fact? Or, as an alternative, a list of lodges that fall under the juristiction of UGLE? It might be useful for people like me who don't have this level of knowledge. Thanks again, Nzd(talk)10:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments. Firstly, most of the categorizations you performed regarding the UGLE are unreferenced. Particularly for living persons reliable sources are strictly required, but even for the deat published sources must be available. Furthermore, categories should be "essential, defining characteristics" of the people in question. Often, the articles don't mention any freemasonry, let alone a UGLE membership. Secondly, going from a membership in a specific lodge to UGLE membership seems to me to be original synthesis, for example for Oscar Wilde who was a mason for a few years, but neither the article on Wilde nor the one on the lodge he was a member of confirm that he was a member of UGLE, or even that the lodge itself was a compontent of UGLE. I'm going to revert those categorizations where the article's content doesn't confirm the category. Huon (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Claíomh Solais, and thanks for your contributions, in particular, your recent additions of freemasonry categories. I'd just like to point out WP:BIDIRECTIONAL to you. Basically, it says that articles should only transclude templates that they are linked from. The template that you have added, {{UGLE}}, is a navbox between various article relating to the United Grand Lodge of England. As such, its purpose is to provide simple cross-navigation between the articles linked in the template. Per the guideline, the template should not be routinely "slapped" onto every article more or less vaguely relating to the topic.
I will remove the template from articles that transclude it, but are not linked from it (but I will not touch the categorization).
So it is inappropriate and pointless to link to the "in Europe" article in the main Freemasonry article... it creates a link loop... anyone following the link just gets redirected to the article they were already at. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lana Lokteff, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Grayfell (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Atonmwaffen Division.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Dear Mr. Solais. Re. your edit of the Ivison Macadam page do you think that his involvement in the Round Table quarterly magazine merits being put up at the top of the entry with his principle positions? The synopsis at the beginning should surely just highlight the main positions and achievements when the subject has many?
The Round Table was, however, an international magazine (the oldest in Britain) and its main importance was that it supported the new concept of the Commonwealth, whose name for the Old Empire Dominions was incidentally the concept of Lionel Curtis - and it was not mainly involved in the support of the older concept of British Empire, as it was still known, by the time. Ivison Macadam became a member of the Moot (Editorial Board) of the journal in the 1930s.
The Round Table magazine is mentioned in the body of the Ivison Macadam entry further down correctly as one of the bodies he was involved with - it was never a movement in his day, if indeed it ever had been. I would suggest that if you want to include this edit it should refer to the Commonwealth rather than the British Empire (see the Wikipedia link that you have included to the Round Table which states that "With the entry of the United States into the First World War and the promotion of the League of Nations, the movement { I have trouble with that appellation of "movement" as I personally do not think it is correct] moderated its conception of the empire as a "Commonwealth of Nations". He was not involved with the magazine until well after the First World war beginning in the early 1930s. But surely being Chairman and Editor of the Annual Register, the world's oldest continually published reference book for 26 years, founded and originally edited by Edmund Burke, should take importance over his sitting on the editorial board of a quarterly journal? It is included among his many other activities further down in the body of the text. So is the Round Table. In other words if your entry is included in amended form, would you not agree that it surely would be more appropriate further down among his other - not principle - roles and positions where the Round Table is already mentioned?
Regardless the edit would surely be misguiding for it to read "He was also a prominent member of the Round Table movement supporting the British Empire" as this is not strictly correct, although of course they did not oppose the British Empire but wanted to see it reform, mainly originally as a bulwark fir world peace with the failure of the US to join The League of nations so it should more correctly read "...of the Round Table international quarterly journal with its interest in the Commonwealth." or some such wording? I hope you are in agreement and will happy to amend this. Many thanks for your participation. William Macadam (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Round Table was already mentioned in the Ivison Macadam article before your edit of yesterday.
Thank you for your response on my talk page. However you are mistaken the Round Table was already mentioned for the past years in the article in the Ivison Macadam entry before your one sentence addition to the opening paragraph of yesterday. There has been no change since your edit of yesterday or before it for some years and you obviously missed it below where the Round table was certainly correctly mentioned in the body of his entry. Of course I could move the Annual Register up to the opening paragraph synopsis but I think that both it and the Round Table along with the other organisations that he was involved with should more properly be in the body of the article and not included in the opening synopsis where his two established and principal life roles were described, the founding of the National Union of Students and Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs] - growing it into an internationally recognised body of expertise - are highlighted there but not detailed until in the body of the entry. Otherwise the article and any entry, I am sure you will agree, just repeats itself unnecessarily and everything he was involved in could equally be placed in there opening paragraph at the outset which is not good or established practice. As you will see from the Wikipedia entry on the Round Table it was while Ivison Macadam was on its editorial board (the Moot) involved with the Commonwealth aspect before the name the Commonwealth was formerly adopted by the Commonwealth nations post WWII. I knew a number of the editors of the round Table (Harry Hodsom, Dermot Morrah etc.) and can attest to this fact. Would you for instance think it correct writing to put the same description in the opening synopsis of former foreign minister Douglas Hurd's involvement as a member of the Round Table editorial board in his Wikipedia entry? I am sure you would not. You see what I mean?
There seem to be two Wikipedia entries one on the so called Round Table movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Table_movement). This states "With the entry of the United States into the First World War and the promotion of the League of Nations, the movement moderated its conception of the empire as a "Commonwealth of Nations".
"During the interwar period the Round Table groups continued to advocate a policy of collaboration among the Dominions of the British Empire (Canada and Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, and Southern Rhodesia) together with the United States. However, its embrace of the "Commonwealth" ethos also led it to support movements for self-government within the Empire such as the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 and the Indian reforms of 1919 and 1935."
And in the other Wikipedia entry on the Round Table magazine, which Ivison Macadam was involved with (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Round_Table:_The_Commonwealth_Journal_of_International_Affairs)
The latter states "It was initially subtitled, A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Empire. Its writers promoted Imperial Federation, a proposal to create a federated union in place of the existing British Empire."and "Post-World War II, its subtitle was altered to A Quarterly Review of British Commonwealth Affairs to reflect the changing nature of the Commonwealth. It became less a journal espousing a particular view, and more a forum to exchange opinions."[as by then the Commonwealth they had espoused was a fact]
Either way you will see regardless of its title your edit that "He was also a prominent member of the Round Table movement supporting the British Empire" is not a correct description in that during the time Ivison Macadam was involved it was advocating a "Commonwealth of Nations", which later became known as the Commonwealth. The two separate Wikipedia entries on the Round Table also clearly bear this out [[1]] and . You may have had your own misunderstanding because of its initial subtitle "A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Empire" but they are not as put strictly correct as you will see from above. You can argue the Wikipedia entries if you like with their editors but they are correct as far as the editorial stance of the magazine was during Ivison macadam's time and the concept of the Commonwealth was important to him. If you want to include that in an edit of the roundTable in the body of the entry it would be correct. I hope you have the grace to accept this.
You may also feel that this is a stylistic point as to where the Round Table is put but surely it is not. If you wish to add to the Round Table entry on the Ivison Macadam page I would appreciate if, as someone who with others did a substantial amount of careful and detailed research and work on the entry with extensive research, sources and footnotes, if you were to do any factual edits they should properly be where the Round Table is already is mentioned in the body of the entry. Your one sentence edit in the first paragraph is misleading there as to what Ivison Macadam is most noted for (and he is more noted for other things already listed in his entry below e.g. The Annual Register, The Coronation etc programs, King's College and the Macadam Building there over his involvement as a member of the editorial board of the quarterly Round Table Journal, however influential and however committed he was to it. The one sentence edit is not in its abbreviated form in the opening paragraph accurate in that context. I am sure that you can agree that would follow no correct editorial precedence there for if it did it would require all these above to be there also and I think that that gives the impression that the entry has not been as carefully and thoroughly researched as it has and any edit re the Round Table there would be misleading especially put in the context that you have put it. I trust you will agree. I do appreciate your involvment . Yours sincerely William Macadam (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Great Priory of England and Wales.png
Thanks for uploading File:Great Priory of England and Wales.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You responded to my message above There is a slight error - or probably more correctly a misleading impression - in your today's edit of Ivison Macadam page on my talk page as follows:
"I was very surprised to see the Round Table movement not already mentioned in Macadam's article at all before the edit. Certainly the activities of this network are extremely significant in world history. Their magazine did not drop the subheading "A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Empire" until after the Second World War (when the British began to pretend they were no longer an empire, going the "soft power" route). I don't see a problem with mentioning the Annual Register in the introduction as well, if you so wish. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course the Round Table was and is mentioned in the entry correctly further down.
If you go to the Round Table Magazine's page you will see that you are wrong about the magazine not dropping the subheading ""A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Empire" until after the Second World War. In fact as you will see from The Round Table's own website below that the new emphasis (after WWI) led to a change in the journal’s sub-title in 1919, to ‘A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Commonwealth’. (It became ‘A Quarterly Review of British Commonwealth Affairs’ in 1948, ‘A Quarterly Review of Commonwealth Affairs’ in 1966, and ‘The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs’ in 1983.) It also led to The Round Table‘s support for and involvement in moves towards increasing self-government in the empire— notably in connection with the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 and the Indian reforms of 1919 and 1935."
See: http://www.commonwealthroundtable.co.uk/journal/history/,
I have also been in touch today with the leading expert Dr. Alexander May of Oxford University, Research Editor (twentieth and twenty-first centuries) for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a research project of the History Faculty funded and published by Oxford University Press, who authored the Round Table, 1910-66 (available at https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:ee7ebd01-f085-44e9-917b-98d21a0f4206)
Dr. May subsequently has become the Honorary Secretary and a member of the editorial board of the Round Table Magazine.
He wrote me today that "+ the Round Tablers had largely ditched ‘empire’ for ‘Commonwealth’ in the actual articles by 1917, i.e. long before your father [Ivison Macadam] became involved."and
"I don’t think it is possible to speak of a Round Table ‘movement’ after about 1917. (+ even before, the ‘movement’ was only a ‘study movement’ – there was huge disagreement on the central question of federation let alone all the minor questions.)
So now re you happy to acknowledge that your added edit, the second sentence to Ivison Macadam entry, that "He was also a prominent member of the Round Table movement supporting the British Empire" is incorrect both as to the British Empire, as opposed to the correct Commonwealth, and to Ivison Macadam's being part of a Round Table "movement" as opposed to the correct description as a member of the editorial board of The Round Table Quarterly, which is already in the body of the entry along with his other activities. So would ‘Claoimh Solais’ (I had missed the reference) be an actual ‘sword of light’ and use the sword to kindly slash out and remove the offending sentence. Ivison Macadam's activity in this regard had already been correctly described in the entry. I am a stickler for accuracy and would appreciate you deleting your entry so I do not have to correct it.
I appreciate that Wikipedia entries may well be improved upon and improvements are welcome but it cannot be improved by erroneous edits and especially as the two Wikipedia entries on the Round Table (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Round_Table:_The_Commonwealth_Journal_of_International_Affairs) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Table_movement) indicate that your edit would not have been correct and clearly refer to the Round Table's support for the Commonwealth, quite apart from the Oxford historian who is secretary of The Round Table and the Round Table magazine's own website showing your edit is incorrect.
I hope that you are now able to agree and I look forward to you resolving this obviously inadvertent error by deleting your sentence now I have taken untold trouble to point out that it is not accurate. I hope you will take this in the spirit it is intended. I am always happy to have anyone point out any error of mine, which it is always easy to make.
I've tried to discuss this on the talk page for the Knights Templar (Freemasonry) page but no one has responded. Masonic pages about a particular rite or body do not include an infobox or are written as if they are their first established grand body. Those are separate subjects and if notable require separate pages. They deserve a mention of course, but they are not the subject of the article. You would have my full support in writing a Grand Priory page, but for the existing page, an infobox about a particular, even the first grand body is inappropriate. PeRshGo (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Claíomh Solais. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk22:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Your sexist language and offensive polemics have no place on Wikipedia, which is a collaborative project dedicated to creating an encyclopedia. I posted the discretionary sanctions alert above with the idea that you might need to be removed from the arena of American politics, where you have been posting stuff like this[2][3], but having seen some of the diffs provided at ANI, I now think you may need to be blocked from the entire project. This, for instance, besides being generally offensive and uncollaborative, is also an eye-popping attack on the particular user you're replying to. This is a final warning. Bishonen | talk10:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Claíomh Solais, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to inform you that The Dictator Pope, an article which you have significantly written, has just passed the GA quality. Apart from another editor's relatively minor involvement, I believe you deserve major credit for the effort. Kudos! Slightlymad14:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article. It's a very good article. Have you planned making it a GA? What happened to the loan though? Was it payed back and when? Keep up the good work. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per your contributions here and here, your personal views about Soros, the correct application of the term "left-wing", Karl Popper, etc, are all irrelevant. The talk page is for discussing an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA article. Please keep your WP:OPINIONs off the article and the article talk page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit here restores new material without consensus on a page subject to discretionary sanctions. Since your edit introduces new material and has been challenged, you need to self-revert and not restore that edit unless or until you can get consensus at the article talk page. Thanks, Neutralitytalk17:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please resist the temptation to add material which is based on slender evidence or your own interpretation of what is notable. Having insisted on using primary sources for members of Labour Friends of Israel, while being warned against the practice by several editors, you reverted. Now you have added a mention that several notable African Americans were Freemasons usually based on a passing mention in a reliable source. I have removed your edits and would not add such material myself as it adds unnecessary clutter to an article. If you must include this detail, please ensure it is better sourced than hitherto. Philip Cross (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis-Misraïm.png
Thanks for uploading File:Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis-Misraïm.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You were warned about BLP violations right above by User:Drmies. This kind of nonsense [4] where you accuse living people of being Nazi collaborators when they weren't (in fact were targeted by the Nazis), where you falsely say that someone was "a Judenrat" (sic) (at 13? I don't think it worked that way) and then say that the person was "turning tricks for Nazis". Don't restore this again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:The Dictator Pope.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I am guessing you are Irish. And if I understand correctly you are the editor who created the O'Conor-clan template for use on biographies, yes? I noticed that the template has a "personalities" section where there are number of people with Conor-related names. I have had a look at some of these names, and other than the fact that the person mentioned is pretty clearly Irish, for some of them I haven't seen anything within their articles that connects them by anything other than name to the "Conor" royal house of Ireland. The article on Daniel Connor, for example, is based on a single source written by the subject himself and mentions nothing about being associated with the Connor Clan of Ireland other than what is implied by his name. Am wondering how you chose to include these particular "Conor"-related individuals for the template (considering there must be thousands and thousands in the world and hundreds on Wikipedia), or was this meant to be just a sample of Irish people with Connor-type names? A loose noose (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got no response to the above. I understand you are blocked. I am sorry to hear that. I am going to go ahead and see if I can make some changes to this clan template. A loose noose (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
what you did go against the consensus,especially that there is still debate,what you have done goes against the consensus.Alhanuty (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Jamez42 (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely not going to fight over this, but your Edit summary about Meghan being a Protestant is rather amusing, since the source you used talks about her being Catholic. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please provide footnotes for your article, you can find out about footnotes at WP:CITE, and how to properly format them at WP:CIT. They are especially needed for quotes.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Hi, its from two books; The Global Impact of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by Esther Webman and Imperial Russia's Jewish Question, 1855-1881 by John Doyle Klier. I will have to dig these out and put the inline citations in the article. About Ernest Jouin specifically, there is actually an article about him on the French Wikipedia (and Spanish and Italian) which could probably do with being translated to the English one. Claíomh Solais (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever use "autistic" as an insult again I'll do everything possible to see you blocked indef. That is if someone doesn't block you for this. --Tarage (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs given here show a disruptive approach to talk pages relating to at least BLPs and modern politics, if not race, religion, and sexuality as well. This block is independent of whatever the consensus regarding a NOTHERE block turns out to be. You do not need community consensus to appeal this block (which, honestly, would require a topic ban from those five aforementioned topics), unlike the NOTHERE block if the community decides to support it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I do not feel there is overwhelming evidence that I have violated the basic principles laid out on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (such as pushing a single POV in mainspace... I have always advocated the NPOV be upheld in the mainspace, nor have I added original research, violated any 3RR, etc). None of the examples of disruptive editing given here are relevant to me or warrant a block: Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing I have been blocked, without proper chance to reply (I have been away today), on the supposed "evidence" of exetremely selective and out of context quoted diffs provided by User:Neutrality, for the simple fact that I open discussions on talkpages challenging content bias where it is found and seeking the opinions of others to build a community consensus to change content before just bulldozing into the mainspace as a one man effort (things which are well inline with Wikipedia guidelines). The only thing I can be genuinely accused of is a verbose pattern of speech (people cannot help their personality or how they naturally speak... or in our case type). However, I have never made personal attacks against other editors and I have not set out to disrupt Wikipedia as a project (on the contrary I have staunchly promoted upholding the NPOV in the article mainspace, even when it is upopular or where Anglocentrism and bourgeois bias is being pushed as normative). I have also contributed a lot of valuable well researched content, including GA content. I wouldn't be too fussed about restrictions on the other three topics (I don't have any interest in race and my interest in sexuality is only to the exent that it is used to POV-push Western soft-power in geopolitics), but I think it would be unjust to be topic banned from BLPs and modern politics. I have never entered into the mainspace any claims which do not reference reliable sources on BLPs and in modern politics my "sin" is that I have simply challenged, where found, bias in the mainspace which is in favour of a bourgeois and Anglo-American imperialist POV. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I only had to look at a few edits to know unblocking you would not benefit the project. My personal opinion is that you would need to agree to a topic ban as part of being unblocked. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Of course, everybody has their own POV, whether they chose to try and have it exclusively represented in the article mainspace without reliable citations and to the exclusion of all other POVs is where it would be problematic, which I don't. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in this unblock request that makes me doubt the validity of the block, but rather than decline I'll let it ride while the ANI thread is still open--a thread in which I have yet to see anyone express any support for the editor. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read the relevant ANI thread. And describing others as autistic is the least of your problems. This is not Fawlty Towers, and your Cleesian insult edit summaries are atrocious. You'd be surprised the number of editors here that are on the Spectrum, and your overall hurtfulness makes you a poor match for a collaborative project. That does not even take into account the rest of your boorish edit summaries. Think about the feedback you've received before again requesting unblock.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case, I apologise to any autists who may have taken offense at what may have been a poor choice of phrase on my part. And agree to reign in some of the more verbose summaries.
I am working on developing a personal blog to keep the political commentary there, rather than meandering too much on talkpages here (I have never entered such information into the mainspace, as I have said, maintaining a NPOV there and seeking collaborative input), if others feel that would avoid potential disruption.
I would be willing to potentially take part in the suggested ban on specific topic areas, so long as it isn't simply a stitch up based on politicised/imperialist POVs of others (asking for neutrality within articles which suffer from accentuated Anglocentric POV is not trolling or disruptive activity). What is the exact process for this topic ban and do users get a chance to at least put their side up for consideration before a topic ban comes into play? Thanks Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also you seem to have a large misunderstanding here. Right now, you are indefinitely blocked. Several people have told you that they would unblock you if you accept the topic bans. You don't get unblocked and then negotiate which bans apply and which don't. They are a requirement, not a suggestion. There is no public comment. There are no sides. Either you take the topic bans or you stay blocked. And that's if the community doesn't decide to block you, which they kind of already did. I don't see a single vote against, so... the fact that anyone is even offering to unblock you for those topic bans is quite generous on their part as they would be taking heat for unblocking someone the community has determined to be not here to build an encyclopedia. Tread lightly. --Tarage (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I agree to take part in a topic ban, which was set forward by admins @Ian.thomson: and 331dot as a condition for unblocking and agree to refrain from what may be construed as distruptive editing. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I would really like specific affirmations about the disruptive editing that will not recur. I particularly would like an affirmation of understanding of incivilty, how not to refer to one's colleagues and what not to put in edit summaries. Also, I think "construed" is pretty weaselly, and that's an inadvertent insult to weasels.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will also need an affirmation that the user will no longer use Wikipedia as a soapbox for there political views. Wikipedia is not their blog. And an apology to everyone he has insulted. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said I have now created a personal blog for political views to be expressed more appropriately there rather than on Wikipedia talks and agree to reign in more verbose discourse generally (whether in edit summaries, or elsewhere). I have read Wikipedia:Civility and agree to follow its principles. And apologise to whomever it may concern. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian. I have only seen the Irish concerns like this if there are other areas of concern I support those additional editing restrictions also, after six months of ok editing those restrictions can be relaxed. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we set out a clear list of specific areas to be restricted from editing for such a time period, so that I know exactly which areas I am restricted from and do not accidentally edit them? I edit a lot of pre-modern/geographical/linguistic articles relating to Ireland and haven't had anybody complain about disruption there. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support under strict conditions (with TBAN in place) per WP:ROPE. Like others, I was outraged by some of the editor's comments (as evidenced by my final warning above), but the editor has now acknowledged the problem with his editing, has confirmed reading the policies and has promised to work collaboratively. Considering that quite a few of their contributions actually added to this project and that we can always reblock if disruption continues, I see no convincing reason (other than our outrage) to decline the rope at this stage. — kashmīrīTALK19:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to TBAN, considering the locus of areas of dispute I have seen, all of politics and sexuality are topics I would prefer to see part of any editing restriction. These are broad, but the nature of past disputes are on generic grounds that would be likely to carry over into almost any article in these areas. I am neutral on whether an unblock is worthwhile at the current time. --Fæ (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock, swapping from neutral. I am changing my view after looking again at the relevant ANI thread. There is a huge amount of ghastly evidence there, and picking out a couple related to sexuality that must be part of any future topic ban. It must disappoint anyone that appreciates WP:5P that it took so long to block this user. I still believe that this talk page should stay unrestricted for communication, so long as it is not a vehicle for repeating the disruptive material. --Fæ (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Can we address this, please? It has been a few weeks and I have agreed to edit inline with all of the Wikipedia policies specified by the blocking and previously reviewing admins, which they set down as the terms to comply with for unblocking. The majority of the community who commented (even people I have disagreed with) supported unblocking but with topic restrictions to which I have agreed. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
For those of us not keeping notes, and to make sure you understand what's expected of you, please list the topics covering your WP:TBAN. Someone said there were five? Regardless, spell them out so that there is no confusion. (Obviously this explanation would be an exception to the topic ban, per WP:BANEX) Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed-- please spell out the TBAN as you understand it. That way we all know what the unblock conditions are-- or at least link to them if they are already listed somewhere. For me, the biggest issue was the horrid rudeness and incivility. That certainly needs a clear understanding that a repeat will lead to an instantaneous block. I won't decline the unblock as I can't remember if I've already done so and feel involved because of the "autism" crack, anyway. Come to think of it, if there's an apology lying around for the general rudeness and particularly the autism, please point to it. If not, please make one. You've no idea how badly that rankles someone who actually has autism. Frankly, I don't see anyone who partook in the ANI discussion unblocking any time soon, but we will see.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand it, the blocking admin User:Ian.thomson suggested two core topic ban areas;
BLPs - biographies of living persons
Modern politics - current political affairs
In addition to this he suggested possibly extending it to three others;
Race - I don't edit or have any interest in articles about race anyway
Religion - Rarely edit religious articles and haven't really had any problems in this area (perhaps Ian could specify what this one is in relation to?)
Sexuality - articles pertaining to controversies surrounding human sexuality (with a particular focus on BLPs).
You've made a lot of comments regarding Jewishness and Anti-Semitism, which touches on both race and religion. One could try to frame it as purely political, but everyone else would be inclined to disagree. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. While the topic of the history of anti-semitism is a controversial subject area in general, I'm not sure that my actual edits in relation to that subject are particularly controversial or violate any of Wikipedia's policies in regards to disruptive editing. For instance, I created the article Jacob Brafman, which uses academic sources about his activities and also suggested on the Protocols of Zion talkpage that we, like the French Wikipedia, correctly attribute the authorship to the Okhrana rather than the vague "unknown." Is using a reliable source from a Jewish community newspaper to mention in Meghan Markle's article that her ex-husband was an American Jewish guy a violation of any Wikipedia policy or disruptive in any way? However, if avoiding editing this topic area is what is meant by "race and religion", then that is OK with me and I will agree not to edit those articles. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for further clarification, under the terms outlined above, for non-controversial BLPs for example, if I submitted content for creation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions, which are then assessed by other uses, without editing the article itself, is this allowed under the topic ban or best advised against while this is in place? Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If unblocked I would agree to having this user topic banned from Ireland related articles amongst other specific areas. An editor whose name is meant to mean "Sword of Light" you are not. Mabuska(talk)22:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He appeared to claim that he wished to "purge" the supporters of Tony Blair. Now that I have clicked on the link, I have realised that it leads to a parody video. I may have been a bit overzealous in requesting the deletion of the page on those grounds. However, his user page does seem to exist for the singular purpose of promoting his political views. ―GregoriusII09:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the obvious intention is to use a User page to troll other contributors, then the usage fails to meet WP:SOAPBOX, the WMF terms of use, in particular "You support a civil environment and do not harass other users." and several other policies, guidelines and terms. The links could be removed, but deletion seems a lot easier, leaving the use free to create a new page without these problems. --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on User:Claíomh Solais, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ―GregoriusII09:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Susmuffin, even though the page has now been deleted by RHaworth, speedy deletion of the userpage had already been declined by Drmies, so it was no longer eligible for speedy. Why did you renominate it as an attack page when you admitted above that it wasn't one? Also, in what way was it eligible for G11? —DoRD (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just dumping my 2c here but I looked at the page like 10 hours ago and I wasn't seeing any attack either..... maybe it should be undeleted ?, Susmuffin would be more than welcome to take it to ANI. –Davey2010Talk12:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did ping him to this in the hopes that he'll comment here, but on second thought, I'll go mention it on his talk as well. —DoRD (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I will admit that I probably should have nominated this for a normal deletion. I am still familiarising myself with the rules. Secondly, the user that responded to me in the above nomination caused my to change my mind with regards to the nature of the page, as they referred to the some of content of this user page as being clearly intended to troll other users. Thirdly, I thought that the purpose of the user page was to advertise an idea: "My politics are better than yours." A user page that based around that idea is not productive for the project, at least in my mind. ―SusmuffinTalk16:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before restoring the user page, it would be sensible if the undeleting admin could explain how the page benefits the encyclopaedia. In the light of the various views given above about the nature and intent of the page, and the long term pattern of behaviour that has resulted in a block, it seems logical to consider the page an intrinsic part of the disruptive pattern of edits that led to the block and should be seen to be avoided in future should the account be unblocked. --Fæ (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are no rules against having political userboxes (in fact there are many Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics). There are also people who have inspirational quotes from people they admire on their pages and use humour on their userpage. How does your own, or anybodies userpage benefit Wikipedia? Why is quoting Winston Churchill or Ghandi OK, but quoting Che Guevara is "trolling"? And to "Susmuffin", no, nothing on my page is intended to "troll" any other Wikipedia user. Can you give me a list of names of Wikipedia users who are being "attacked" on my userpage? There isn't a single one. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I would not have deleted the page, Fæ presented a better argument that the user page is connected to the pattern of disruptive behavior. A user with no history of such behavior could have the same material on their user page and face no issues. I'm not saying that I completely agree with that, but that's closer to a policy based reason. Anyone besides Claíomh Solais who wants to make this about politics should stay away from this entire issue because they're not approaching it neutrally and only likely to exacerbate it unnecessarily. Claíomh Solais is advised to avoid making it about politics either, as that will most likely either WP:BOOMERANG (i.e. everyone's going to see it as evidence that you're WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia but advocate your own views, regardless of what they are) or at least be interpreted as a sign that you don't understand what the block is about (which would be required to successfully appeal it). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to removing links to the guy's silly YouTube videos the page might be acceptable. But he is indefinitely blocked so why should he be allowed a user page? — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 13:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have deleted per G10 if it had not already been declined. However, I did not follow the links and do not/did not know their provenance. Not to say I think it should be restored as it seemed to serve a nothere agenda. Perhaps not recreating that content should go into the unblock conditions.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the parties that was affected, I would still rather keep talk page access open for appeals and discussion. Cutting off all on-wiki communication is a means to suppress issues rather than resolving them in good faith. --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoVaticana 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. — kashmīrīTALK10:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: thanks, the user talk page message is generated automatically when an article is tagged with {{not English}}. I will strike it here and move it to the correct editor's talk page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Curb Safe Charmer: You should never tag articles automatically without checking their history first. In many cases the problem you see in the current version can be cured by simply reverting to an earlier version, as well as avoiding problems such as this one. Also, when I tag an article using Twinkle the creator of the article does not get automatically notified. It is likely that I have set a preference for that, rather than it being the default; if so I probably did that precisely to avoid this kind of problem. However, whether it's the default or not, if your settings cause a warning to be posted automatically then you should not use Twinkle tagging unless you have first checked that the creator of the article is the right editor to warn. The principle is simple: it is your responsibility to ensure that all edits you make are valid, whether those edits are made using an automated tool or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: thanks. Understood. I have investigated further, and can see that when an editor selects {{not English}} in Twinkle, it prompts them for the language (if known), notify article creator - ticked by default, List this article at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English (PNT) - ticked by default, and a box for additional comments to post at PNT. I was going too fast and didn't notice that the Spanish text wasn't added by the creator of the article. I can't see a way to change those defaults. Anyway, I will know for next time to check the page history. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Great Priory of England and Wales.png
Thanks for uploading File:Great Priory of England and Wales.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Apologies for the late response. Well, I was told I could be unblocked if I agreed to the terms (which I have) and then another admin Yamla asked me to wait for a few months, which I now have, so, we'll see. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Church Mission Society.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I was blocked in June 2018 by @Ian.thomson: and agreed to all of the guidelines set forward for unblocking, a majority of people supported the unblocking as well, but for some reason he did not directly address the request after I agreed to terms and it was subsequently, as a matter of procedure closed by User:Yamla with a view to requesting at a later date. As it is now (late) November 2018 and I didn't try to evade the block or anything like that, I believe there has been sufficient time passed for moving on and unblocking to now be accepted. As I stated at the time, I had apologied to anybody I had (inadvertently) offended and agreed to abide by Wikipedia's terms and policies. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The reference in the edit from the Galway Advertiser specifically named the landowners whom the eviction was enacted for in their article about the incident. Given that the Wikipedia article itself is very light on references and the Galway Advertiser article did indeed make discussing the landowners responsible for the eviction absolutely central to the topic, I didn't understand why you or anybody would want to remove reliable information, or how the relevance could be missed from the external link. If you felt my reaction rude or inpolite, then I apologise. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The old "sorry if anyone was offended" shtick is not a real apology. If you cannot at least attempt to recognize why your comments were insulting and disruptive, you haven't taken responsibility for your actions. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do recognise in hindsight why some people were offended (especially in regards to the autism thing), which is why I issued an apology to the specific parties who were offended by it at the time. However, I didn't maliciously intend to personally insult any other editor, it was an ill-considered or ignorant choice of words, yes. Other than apologising and agreeing not to do it again, I don't really get what more I'm expected to do. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) For the record, I don't think we've ever interacted. But as a point of order, no, you don't have to grovel and absolutely no-one should expect it. But, yes, an understanding and acknowledgment of the behaviour and the circumstances that led to the block is certainly encouraged :) best of luck, ——SerialNumber5412921:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're done treating Wikipedia like 4chan, own up to your past behavior. You said you apologise to whomever it may concern and that seems like the best you're willing to provide. That's perfunctory to the point of being insulting. If this is the highest level of responsibility you can demonstrate, I don't believe unblocking you will be beneficial to the project.
Nobody cares about a hollow apology. We don't even care that much about an apology at all, we are interested in a demonstration that you understand the problem enough to avoid it in the future. These pseudo-apologies suggest you don't think other people should've been offended by your comments. Blaming other people is just another way to avoid taking responsibility for your actions.
You said I'm not sure that my actual edits in relation to that subject are particularly controversial... regarding anti-Semitism. You have accused George Soros of being a Nazi collaborator as a child. If you sincerely cannot see why this is controversial, I question your competence to edit Wikipedia at all. If you can see why this is controversial, but said this anyway, you're not acting in good faith. What am I missing here? Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's article on George Soros in the "Early life and education" specifically states that he worked with the collaborationist Judenrat organisation (its still there now in the second paragraph). We use as a reference The New Republic. I raised on the talkpage a content issue, asking why we are putting somebody in a category of Holocaust survivor, when in our own article we describe them as working with Axis collaborationist groups, which actually enabled the Holocaust? I specifically went to the talkpage first to try and seek consensus for a change to the article for this, rather than simply changing it myself.
Your beef appears to be not anything that I was actually blocked for, but a personal difference of opinion on completely legitimate and within Wikipedia guidelines content questions. On the subject of anti-semitism, other editors (including Jewish ones) have noted my "appropriate and constructive" work on Wikipedia articles about that subject. So that poisonous insinuation is obviously farcical.
I admitted to some past incidences of incivility/curtness/rudeness, however you would like to describe it and directly apologised to the people personally effected at the time. I understand that it is outside of Wikipedia guidelines, fully recognise that and how it could be disruptive in collaborative efforts and agreed not to do it again. Attempting to bring into disrepute my actual article mainspace contributions, where there is no evidence of wrong-doing, is completely inappropriate and off topic. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am speaking about my experiences trying to work with you, and the topics I am knowledgeable about which you have edited. Why wouldn't I talk about these things?
There are a lot of reasons you were blocked, and you've only barely acknowledged some of them while ignoring the rest. A passing comment on a talk page doesn't prove your behavior hasn't been disruptive, and even if a Jewish person said a specific edit wasn't anti-Semitic, well, so what? That proves nothing, and gives the impression you're trying to change the topic.
Your "direct apology" appears to be a single sentence buried in this talk page which you keep citing as some sort of reusable get-out-of-jail card. Regardless, I don't care about that, I care about you acknowledging the problem. Not acknowledging that other people disagree with you, but an acknowledgement of why your behavior got you blocked in the first place.
If your behavior is disruptive on talk pages, it's disruptive on Wikipedia. Your comments have been anti-Semitic, misogynistic, homophobic, homophobic and misogynistic, and more besides. As far as I can tell, you haven't acknowledged any of this. Instead, you've given a very weak, very vague mention of some past incidences of incivility/curtness/rudeness. You've had months to think about this and this is the best you can do? It doesn't seem like you're taking this seriously, so why should anybody else? You're not a new editor, you should know how Wikipedia works by now. The ANI post had a lot of evidence (after a previous final warning) and you've hand-waved all of that. If you cannot acknowledge why this behavior is disruptive, I do not believe unblocking you would help improve the project, even with topic bans. Grayfell (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't blocked for any of those cherry picked difffs, so this is completely off topic difference of opinion. Again, you can't actually provide evidence of anti-semitic editing.... I can provide examples of where I have worked on articles about anti-semitism in a constructive way, such as creating the Jacob Brafman article, or work on the Protocols of Zion article (which was acknowleged by three other editors on the talk). So your, frankly slanderous inference, is based on the above regarding George Soros? Doesn't cut it. I don't endorse any form of racism, period.
Wikipedia as a project has a specific NPOV policy that covers all articles, it isn't here to promote Westerncentric bourgeois liberal social views on matters of human sexuality and gender. Editors are allowed to raise on talkpages legitimate content issues to try and work in a collaborative way with others who have a difference of opinion to resolve questions of bias in articles, especially if reliable references are provided to that end. Admittedly, in the past, I raised issues in a more verbose way than I should given policies on civility and disruption and I fully recognise how that isn't helpful or could even unnecessarily offend other editors. Being bourgeois and Anglocentric isn't a pre-requisite to being a Wikipedian, however. Claíomh Solais (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is also an cooperation-project. Your aggressive behaviour here is not exactly a positive to get you unblocked. And your rant just above makes clear that there is something seriously wrong with your idea of neutrality. The Bannertalk12:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The banner: May I remind you that you do not have any exclusive rights at another editor's talk page? What you term "aggressive" could quite easily be seen as a response to the continual badgering they have faced from the moment they appealed; in a cynical mood, one might almost see it as an attempt to provoke CS. Now, I suggest that you voluntarily leave this page and allow an uninvolved admin to weigh the merits of the request in their own time. They really do not need your assistance. ——SerialNumber5412913:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I am seeing an apology above, also I am quote sure The Banner can sort out any outstanding issues between them and CS without external help. (2) I disagree that the edit summary was "disruptive". It was not. Moreover, I see nothiong wrong with that edit itself, as the added information was correctly sourced. Actually, Jamez42 should have discussed the discrepancy on the Talk page instead of reverting correctly sourced information. — kashmīrīTALK20:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:CelticCongress.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Bnei Baruch.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Atonmwaffen Division.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Church Mission Society.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rothschild loans to the Holy See 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. Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Scholars Group 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. Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimrod de Rosario (2nd nomination) 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. Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Seachtain na Gaeilge.png
Thanks for uploading File:Seachtain na Gaeilge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Foras na Gaeilge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Údarás na Gaeltachta.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, Claíomh Solais. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tumblar House, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thanks for uploading File:Republican Network for Unity.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Bòrd na Gàidhlig.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Template:Gaddafi backed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. PanchoS (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm. Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 14 Intelligence Company into Special Reconnaissance Unit. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., 
Your addition to O'Connor has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 25. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 25.. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Template:Freemasonry in the Americas has been nominated for merging with Template:Freemasonry in Europe. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
