User talk:HRO'Neill

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Hugo Ricciardi O'Neill, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

O'Neill of Clanaboy, welcome to Wikipedia! The warning above I wouldn't worry much about because you haven't added anything controversial, just detail. You are well known to the public and I know you from books I own and other resources. We'll see what we can do about the tag placed in your article eventually. Teapotgeorge has simply added what he is supposed to and means no harm.

We have done our best with the article O'Neill dynasty but it could very much use your expertise. Also, Clandeboye lacks content and has no list of rulers. Certainly it is the best place to discuss the history of the dynasty in greater detail. I am not an expert in Ulster history myself and can add little.

I have done my best with the article Gaelic nobility of Ireland but please add to it or make some changes if you would like. Finally, if you have the genealogies handy some time it would be lovely to learn the parentage of Sabia O'Neill (died 1387), the wife of Eoin Bised, if it is still to be found today, which it may or may not be. The Bissett family, to whom I am unrelated, are my first Ulster project and I have not been able to discover whether she is the daughter of Aodh, Prince of Clanaboy, to whom the Bissetts were allied against the Savages at this time, or of Aodh Reahmar of Tyrone. Thank you. DinDraithou (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to José Maria O'Neill, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: José Maria O'Neill was changed by HRO'Neill (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.954166 on 2011-01-04T19:43:02+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Noémia Delgado. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Noémia Delgado was changed by HRO'Neill (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.958401 on 2011-01-04T20:03:14+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at João Pedro Torlades O'Neill, you will be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: João Pedro Torlades O'Neill was changed by HRO'Neill (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.971642 on 2011-01-04T20:13:57+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family

Generally speaking, we do not list sons or daughters (or any of the extended family) of biographies unless said inviduals are notable in themselves, or significant to the biography. Wikipedia is specifically not a genealogy database :) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, flicking through what you have added, it is best to try and write in flowing prose. Listing facts can get hard to parse and even become ungrammatical. Particularly when you start listing family it gets hard to read and is of little use to readers in such a form. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's different for royal and princely families, and generally considered acceptable as far as I can seen in Wikipedia. Even the families of British dukes and earls, or lesser, are covered in detail in Wikipedia, and the Clanaboy dynasty far outranks these, unless one or another are royal also. Have a look at Henry Somerset, 5th Duke of Beaufort and then Charles FitzGerald, 4th Duke of Leinster! Our contributor here, either O'Neill of Clanaboy himself or a representative, just has a different style, and considers the biographical details necessary, increasing notability in my opinion. Details are good. This is an internationally recognized royal family in the process of making a return to Ireland and it is important that the Irish, who are English speakers, know what they have been doing for the last few centuries. DinDraithou (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the heads up. I'm not so sure those articles are great examples :) they've not had much TLC. It was my understanding that we avoided listing insignificant children, I wasn't aware that royalty had an exception on that (is it laid out anywhere as advice? or just an accepted precedent). (It is worth pointing out that minor royalty does not appear to list children per our usual policy - example: Prince_Edward,_Earl_of_Wessex, so I am now not so sure you are correct on this) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Edward only has two children. Otherwise they're allways listed. And they both have articles, at least his son. HRO'Neill (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; he has two notable Children; and yet they are not mentioned (except for in passing in the infobox). Contrast that to a large amount of detail you're adding about the children of these royals within the biography of their parent - it just doesn't strike me as necessarily relevant. Perhaps it is better content for a list article of some description and presented in table form? Or even just a brief table in the articles. Unless there is a previous discussion that established community consensus for such content, then I disagree with it personally --Errant ^(chat!) 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Edward's children are too young to have their own longer biographies. As for the O'Neill's not all need an article for lack of massive information, but removing what we know about them is simply destructive. HRO'Neill (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, also talk to DinDraithou (talk). HRO'Neill (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Henry_the_Eighth#Marriages_and_issue and see what you think. This may be a better way to present the information you are adding? Without the extraneous detail? It seems to be the accepted practice --Errant ^(chat!) 21:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This was intended as a prompt to yourself to look into our rules in sourcing; particularly WP:V. It is good practice to list the source you are using inline using <ref></ref> tags. If you need help with that please just ask. Feedback on the above notes would be really appreciated; you obviously have a lot of content to add and I would like to help you get it in, but within the guidelines we have here :) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I apologise, I missed that you added a source on the revert :) but rather than go complain to someone else it would have been ok just to tell me I was being an idiot (nicely, of course) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allright. HRO'Neill (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of G.-M._Cupertino (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here. ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rs chen 7754 22:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sir Thomas Osborne, 5th Baronet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sir Thomas Osborne, 5th Baronet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Thomas Osborne, 5th Baronet 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. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]