User talk:Eireabu
Saint Patrick's Day
[edit]Please stop adding that unless you can cite from reputable sources;
- previous years' funding was prevented by Unionist councillors
- who were pro-British
- which meant their motivation was anti-Irish
and can phrase it in a neutral manner.
Until you have this, we have only your opinion on the matter, which isn't good enough. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome
[edit]
|
Red Hand
[edit]I am not questioning your knowledge of the subject, because whatever knowledge you and I may have is irrelevant. What I am questioning is the information provided in the references, none of which make clear that the red hand referred to is the Red Hand of Ulster. My own researches on the subject have revealed nothing definitive. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Cúchulainn
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cúchulainn. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Cúchullain t/c 21:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your latest repeated edit to Cúchulainn, asserting that it's strange that Ulster unionists should identify with Cúchulainn, is POV. Please stop it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Eireabu. 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Red Hand 2
[edit]Reverting. Regardless of it "being uncontested" that reason doesn't hold up. The reference isn't credible, why cant you accept this? Also the "Norman flag" bit in history was AFTER its usage from the Ó'Neills
- 1) the link backed up only the statement "Red Hand of the O'Neill". 2) There is no historical evidence that the Red Hand was used by the O'Neills prior to its usage by the de Burghs of Ulster.
I've now expanded and sourced it properly. I expect you to stop removing it now using unsupportable claims as your reasoning. Just out of curiousity... anyone who even looks at medieval Irish history can easily follow the logic themselves without needing to see sources:
- The Red Hand is the symbol of Ulster, known as Ulaid in Irish - indisputable.
- Ulaid from the start of the Irish historic period until its conquest by the Normans was restricted to east of the River Bann - indisputable. West of the Bann belonged to two different over-kingdoms: the Northern Uí Néill and the Airgíalla - indisputable. All three are classified as provinces of Ireland in the 12th-century Lebor na Cert (Book of Rights) - indisputable.
- The last king of Ulaid was Ruaidrí mac Con Ulad Mac Duinn Sléibe who died in 1201 - indisputable. There was never an O'Neill king of Ulaid before this ever - indisputable.
- The O'Neills don't enter history until the year 1160, and only became the undisputed kings of Tír Eóghain in 1241. They don't style themselves as kings of Ulster until the 14th century! - indisputable.
- The first de Burgh earl of Ulster, Walter de Burgh, 1st Earl of Ulster, from which we get the flag of Ulster, was appointed in 1264! Considering the earldom at this time was eating readily into the territory of the Northern Uí Néill reaching as far west as Inishowen in Donegal, why on earth would they adopt the symbol of a non-Ulaid dynasty not long established as the pre-dominant clan amongst their own kingdom (23 years) who where on the back foot against the Normans until the Bruce invasion of Ireland? Ulaid had always held a prized position in Irish legends and mythology and as the base of the Earldom why adopt a different Irish kingdoms symbol?
- It was only thanks to the Clann Aodh Buidhe O'Neills who had worked alongside the Normans in the Earldom, and taking avantage of its collapse in the 14th-century, that Ulster came under the control of the O'Neills of Tir Eoghain, who reconstituted the Irish province of Ulaid.
There is a stark difference between popular myth that for some reason seems to pervade in modern society and what the academics think. Thankfully Wikipedia works best with academia. Mabuska (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- And sure what odds, what difference does it make at the end of the day who had it first? It ended up the symbol of the O'Neills and as was the habit of all the Ui Neill dynasts (Northern and Southern Ui Neill) throughout the medieval period, they fabricated legends and genealogies to advance their claims to supremacy. And part of my ancestry derives from Áed Allán a former king of the Northern Ui Neill as well as High King of Ireland! Then again that may be fabricated also. Mabuska (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am not questioning your own knowledge on the matter, but rather thought the original sources were rather shallow, as numerous conflicting historical references are contradictory, what is clear is the conflict of ownership of the symbol from rival Gaelic societies and I'm appreciative of your input. I have consulted respected and indeed some academic, historian friends who are well versed on the subject and coupled with my own research I will add to the article, over time, in due course. Hopefully this will be an amicable conclusion :) --Eireabu (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Mabuska, you have blanket reverted the entire, well referenced edit I made with good faith on 4 August 2017. I DON'T WANT an edit war here. As I've said, I've consulted people well versed on the matter and will continue to do so and I sincerely respect your standing on here. I could hit home with additional references myself, one after the other, over the course of time, but didn't expect to. I said previously I wanted to reach an amicable solution. Your reasoning for doing so was:
unfounded and unproven accusations of source pov from pov editor. Also removing OR synthesis
'Peter Berresford Ellis' is a highly respected English historian and a HEAVILY researched article from a department in University College Dublin was more than appropriate as a reference, considering the article itself contained many references of its own contained within. I could have reverted your own obscure references again from 'Clogher Historical Society' early 2000's pamphlet, which could quite rightly be deemed entirely POV, on top of being recent 'theories', as I have yet to see them backed up from elsewhere. I hope it isn't a play, or indeed an abuse of power due to your standing on Wikipedia, over someone not so versed or accolade accredited such as myself, without valid, concise reasons for your reverts. Again these additions to the article from yourself with your referenced sources, are in itself rather suspect and I'm sure over time others will agree with me on this. I don't want it to come to a conclusion were an appropriate neutral administrator should step in, but if need be i'll contact one. Eireabu (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Mabuska, you have blanket reverted the entire, well referenced edit I made with good faith on 4 August 2017. I DON'T WANT an edit war here. As I've said, I've consulted people well versed on the matter and will continue to do so and I sincerely respect your standing on here. I could hit home with additional references myself, one after the other, over the course of time, but didn't expect to. I said previously I wanted to reach an amicable solution. Your reasoning for doing so was:
Red Hand of Ulster
[edit]I've protected this page in order to prevent this edit war resulting in blocks. Edit summaries are no place to discuss edits, take it to the talk page please. I notice there is no attempt to discuss this on the articles talk page. Please use it for this purpose. Canterbury Tail talk 21:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Canterbury Tail. I have tried to find an amicable solution and stick to the guidelines, rather than an edit war here on this Talk page. I thought I was doing the proper things, so apologies if I wasn't. It seems the user Mabuska has an hidden agenda, namely being for the removal of anything new that resembles Gaelic heritage on the symbol, you only have to check the history. I've included references (and could have included more) from a distinguished English historian and one indeed from an article published by The University College of Dublin. All removed. I know I haven't the accolades nor the editing history, that shouldn't allow others with these accolades to edit with dubious references and clear POV and get away with it. What is baffling is that now after the protection Mabuskas clear POV edits and dubious theories have remained and his removals of all that were included by myself have remained. What can be done about this? Eireabu (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Editing history has nothing to do with this do don't worry about that, I have no favour to either side in this. I have however watched this slowly brewing back and forth for over a month now and finally decided to step in. The traditional Wikipedia approach is Bold, Revert, Discuss (WP:BRD). If you make an edit and someone else reverts that edit then you take it to the talk page and get a consensus rather than edit back and forth in what has become a slow play editing war. Now I don't want anyone blocked, anyone with anything on their editing record which is why I've protected the article for a month in the hopes some real discussion can be had on the talk page of the article (not in edit summaries or tucked away on people's individual talk pages) that can arrive at a consensus. I'm only concerned here about the stability of the article and the appearance of it to any reader who comes across it. Piece of advice though, don't accuse other editors of having a hidden agenda, it destroys your position. Comment purely on edits, never on the editors. Canterbury Tail talk 02:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Canterbury Tail. I truly trust your judgement on this issue and believe indeed you're sincere in stating that you have no favour to either side in the edits. What I was merely pointing out was only after Mabuska had made his edits, for which I had quite clear contention to; and backed up the reasoning here on my own talk page (when i should have did it on the main talk) that the article was immediately protected, enshrining Mabuskas edits with the dubious POV's as stated above, which is a shame. From now on I will take it to the appropriate talk page in the future if this were to happen and yes I will learn from this mistake, again apologies, I have been registered 9 years now and despite this, i'm still learning and considered to be quite the amateur. Taking it to the talk page after all these reverts has only made me feel that the very same could happen, as the previous references were very much adequate, hence me stating of the user having a hidden agenda previously, for which there was no malicious intent. I'm not intending to destroy my position in stating that, but was quite aware of the users previous requests for control on other articles from an Irish nationalist leaning on your own talk page when I debated taking the questioning there, I was looking for a bit of support from yourself, that I seen requests from Mabuska that could be perceived to defending Unionism and a Unionist perspective, rightly or wrongly, it should matter not. The removal on the page of my edits and references which were showing the Gaelic heritage on the symbol speaks volumes in this case. Proper, clear, concise, informative references were given where it was due and appropriate edits were made accordingly, despite the error on my part with proper synthesis. If a meeting half way approach were doable from yourself in at least restoring some of my previous well sourced edits?, before the matter is discussed on the Talk page, at least there is proper ground work to start on, that can be amicably accepted by all. Leaving everything there at present only has one victor which is unfortunate against the impartiality of Wikipedia. Eireabu (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- I initiated a talk page discussion at the articles talk page before your latest response here where I outline amongst other things, the problem with your recent additions and how they fell foul of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The current version is in no way a victory and still needs more work, but it is better than what was there beforehand and any neutral editor would probably think so as well. Have you even looked at it properly yet to judge? But your claims of POV and hidden agendas did not help build good faith. Also an editors political view, whether real or perceived, should have nothing to do with this and bringing it up in the first places makes me feel that this is influencing you, whether that is true or not.
- But to ask...
It seems the user Mabuska has an hidden agenda, namely being for the removal of anything new that resembles Gaelic heritage on the symbol
- where do you get this misplaced idea from? Is your perceived view of me as being a unionist making you think I am thus anti-Gaelic as that is a stereotype portrayed by some in recent times? I explain the problems with your recent additions at the article talk page where it has absolutely nothing to do with Gaelic heritage. But where am I removing anything that "resembles Gaelic heritage on the symbol"? No-one doubts that it is a symbol routed in Gaelic Ireland's past (maybe even before that but that is only speculation). It is not my fault that the first actual historical documentation of it is its use by the de Burgh's. Indeed when looking through the vast multitude of sources I have on Irish medieval history very few make any mention of the Red Hand or such symbols. Though just to clarify, I feel with some conviction that your objections are entirely based on a perceived irrefutable right of the O'Neills and that no other Irish family can have a possible claim to it! (I have information to add from the 17th-century controversy on this matter). - Also
I've consulted people well versed on the matter and will continue to do so
- this is not how Wikipedia works. It works with reliable and verifiable sources, not what people you feel are well versed on the matter think. Mabuska (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)- @Mabuska Just to add a little point here, that you have referred to in the admin section- that I have failed to adequately respond to this article. Point being, I'm not quick to edit and I'll only contribute to the article when I have the time and means to and yes despite what you think, I do appreciate your new edits; and as I said previously I want us to work amicably for the betterment of the article and why not?. I wasn't impressed with the silly accusations on the admin page either, for which I hope they get banned if it's true and stop! Eireabu (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your condemnation of their actions, however there is reasonable suspicion of a link and it must be stated. The sheer coincidence of their comment in comparison to your own is just too much to ignore. I also do appreciate you wanting to work amicably for the betterment of the article but your edits, comments, and lack of responses to even simple questions amongst other things does not help paint that picture for me. That and your claims of consulting "people well versed on the matter" who are in "universal agreement with me in this issue with those in consultation" despite the sheer amount of evidence provided otherwise also doesn't help build faith. But alas, there is still more that needs done to the article. Mabuska (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Mabuska Just to add a little point here, that you have referred to in the admin section- that I have failed to adequately respond to this article. Point being, I'm not quick to edit and I'll only contribute to the article when I have the time and means to and yes despite what you think, I do appreciate your new edits; and as I said previously I want us to work amicably for the betterment of the article and why not?. I wasn't impressed with the silly accusations on the admin page either, for which I hope they get banned if it's true and stop! Eireabu (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Canterbury Tail. I truly trust your judgement on this issue and believe indeed you're sincere in stating that you have no favour to either side in the edits. What I was merely pointing out was only after Mabuska had made his edits, for which I had quite clear contention to; and backed up the reasoning here on my own talk page (when i should have did it on the main talk) that the article was immediately protected, enshrining Mabuskas edits with the dubious POV's as stated above, which is a shame. From now on I will take it to the appropriate talk page in the future if this were to happen and yes I will learn from this mistake, again apologies, I have been registered 9 years now and despite this, i'm still learning and considered to be quite the amateur. Taking it to the talk page after all these reverts has only made me feel that the very same could happen, as the previous references were very much adequate, hence me stating of the user having a hidden agenda previously, for which there was no malicious intent. I'm not intending to destroy my position in stating that, but was quite aware of the users previous requests for control on other articles from an Irish nationalist leaning on your own talk page when I debated taking the questioning there, I was looking for a bit of support from yourself, that I seen requests from Mabuska that could be perceived to defending Unionism and a Unionist perspective, rightly or wrongly, it should matter not. The removal on the page of my edits and references which were showing the Gaelic heritage on the symbol speaks volumes in this case. Proper, clear, concise, informative references were given where it was due and appropriate edits were made accordingly, despite the error on my part with proper synthesis. If a meeting half way approach were doable from yourself in at least restoring some of my previous well sourced edits?, before the matter is discussed on the Talk page, at least there is proper ground work to start on, that can be amicably accepted by all. Leaving everything there at present only has one victor which is unfortunate against the impartiality of Wikipedia. Eireabu (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Editing history has nothing to do with this do don't worry about that, I have no favour to either side in this. I have however watched this slowly brewing back and forth for over a month now and finally decided to step in. The traditional Wikipedia approach is Bold, Revert, Discuss (WP:BRD). If you make an edit and someone else reverts that edit then you take it to the talk page and get a consensus rather than edit back and forth in what has become a slow play editing war. Now I don't want anyone blocked, anyone with anything on their editing record which is why I've protected the article for a month in the hopes some real discussion can be had on the talk page of the article (not in edit summaries or tucked away on people's individual talk pages) that can arrive at a consensus. I'm only concerned here about the stability of the article and the appearance of it to any reader who comes across it. Piece of advice though, don't accuse other editors of having a hidden agenda, it destroys your position. Comment purely on edits, never on the editors. Canterbury Tail talk 02:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Canterbury Tail. I have tried to find an amicable solution and stick to the guidelines, rather than an edit war here on this Talk page. I thought I was doing the proper things, so apologies if I wasn't. It seems the user Mabuska has an hidden agenda, namely being for the removal of anything new that resembles Gaelic heritage on the symbol, you only have to check the history. I've included references (and could have included more) from a distinguished English historian and one indeed from an article published by The University College of Dublin. All removed. I know I haven't the accolades nor the editing history, that shouldn't allow others with these accolades to edit with dubious references and clear POV and get away with it. What is baffling is that now after the protection Mabuskas clear POV edits and dubious theories have remained and his removals of all that were included by myself have remained. What can be done about this? Eireabu (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
ANI
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Eireabu. 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)