Jump to content

User talk:Hohenloh/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Welcome

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Wandalstouring (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Mudcat Cafe

Hi. I assume that this is the article you are referring to. I have warned the editor again and I will keep an eye on the situation. If s/he continues to insert unconstructive edits, then a block would be considered. Regards, ... discospinster talk 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have warned the vandal and will block if necessary. If vandalism continues, consider placing a warning tag on the editor's talk page. You can find the templates here: WP:WARN. ... discospinster talk 14:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: vandalism

See Help:Reverting. J.delanoygabsadds 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


Elisabeth of Bavaria

Thank you, that you correct the layout, which I destroyed yesterday. I'm very sorry for this mistake. I try to correct it, but I don't know how to do.

I added the issue in a correct table. I hope, that's ok.

I wish you a nice weekend. --AndreaMimi (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Flour bags

Thanks for that reference i've added to the article Gnevin (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Francis Johnston

Your recent edit to Francis Johnston removed the fact that he "designed" Nelson's Pillar and substituted "played a major role in designing" it. Are you sure your references confirm that? I have always seen him as being the designed rather than having participated with others. BTW, do you know who were the other people involved? ww2censor (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

ww2censor (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, but a reply this time. ww2censor (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
BTW, you really need to get in the habit of signing your posts please. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Stapleton‎

Did you really mean to delete the inline citation McCarthy, Benton (2004), p. 128 in your last edit to Michael Stapleton‎ or was it an error? No need to reply. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I had to remove the citation because the book is incorrect. On page 128 Dennis McCarthy writes for the Chapel Royal: "stuccodore, Michael Stapleton." But of course Michael Stapleton died in 1801! It was his son George who worked on the Chapel Royal, mainly 1812/1813, as is well described in Lucey's book, which I have quoted in the updated article on the Chapel Royal. I know Dennis McCarthy, and will mention this to him next time I see him!

Dennis may possibly have mixed up the names because a document that I have in my possession from Dublin Castle, and which I'm sure he used as source, by Francis Johnston, refers only to "Mr. Stapleton".Hohenloh (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for cleaning up the citations. There are so many ways of doing them, that I don't know which is the best or most recommended. I also edit Wikis in other languages, which have different guidelines again--confusing!Hohenloh (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Abject apologies

So sorry for the problems I introduced to Dublin with my use of advisor.js! Some of the specifics in the MoS occasionally escape my notice and differing hyphenation types obviously seems to be one of those areas. And this is why relying too much on automated suggestions can lead to problems. Thank you for bringing it to my attention and, again, my sincere apologies. Cheers, Pigman☿ 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Stapleton

Why did you remove a source book form Michael Stapleton with this edit? You summarised your edit as removing an orphaned reference when it was not being used as a reference but as a source. Different things. (I reply where the discussion starts, so I am watching you, for a while) ww2censor (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

was - is

Waw, I read your user page... I cannot beat that. I had a good laugh calling this a vandal edit; because when one fills the summarizing line of the edit, vandals don't do this, do they? I guess you have also a grammar source (some similar example sentences) to really prove that you're right. I have only my Dutch native language to rely upon. As you know German too (is your user name accountable for that?), I can tell you that I am aware of the different use in German and Dutch compared to English of the past tenses: has been ←→ was. But this seems different to me. Please comment (here).--RobSchop (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Malta - your recent reversion

Hi, just a heads-up - your recent reversion in this diff doesn't look like a legitimate vandalism reversion to me. In fact it looks as if you removed some useful content, and some spelling corrections. Here's the actual previous edit's diff. I'm sure it was a simple mistake, but you might want to take another look. Regards, Mcewan (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - (it was Malta, not Naples) and, fair enough, the edits you undid may have gone against previous consensus, or been wrong in some way, but I still don't think it was vandalism per WP:VANDAL. What I saw was an edit that said it was a revert of supected vandalism but didn't look like it from the diff. (I don't have an opinion about the content in question). So sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick. All the best. Mcewan (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I see the problem is continuing, but there's no discussion. I don't understand the problem, and if you raised it on the talk page I and others could contribute. It looks as if your 'opponent' is using anonymous accounts, but you should be careful of the following:
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.
Regards Mcewan (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm only trying to help out here. I realize what is going on, and find it a pity that work that has been put in by a lot of people, including myself, with considerable research and discussion, on three articles, is being negated by a single anonymous user for reasons known only to him/her self. I'm reluctant to start explanations on a discussion page because you will have already observed that this anonymous one-time user has never given a reason for any changes made, and I would not expect him/her to engage in any kind of a debate. I've made hundreds of edits to articles so far (check out my contribs) and have never until now had a problem like this, and you seem to accept the edits of an anonymous someone who has sabotaged at least two articles, so I'm sorry, but with this kind of a response, I'm not going to waste any more time on trying to maintain the integrity of these articles that you are overseeing.Hohenloh (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And your Sicily reversion

[1]

Again this doesn't look like vandalism to me. You might want to take a look at WP:ATWV. Regards Mcewan (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. Yes it does. Mcewan (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Drogheda and the far edge of "huh?"

I wander about quite a bit and recently came across people renaming the Soccer article to Association football, which got people yelling, as lots thought it should be Football, or whatever. So I was intrigued by your changing 'football' to 'soccer' in the Drogheda article. I looked at the linked team page, which uses 'football'. But then I looked at the page linked from there which titles them as "Drogheda United Football Club". (but also has news of "Monday Night Soccer") But I don't really don't know which term is used normally in Ireland, football or soccer. Is that why you keep changing back to 'soccer'? Shenme (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed on several occasions--the last comment that I recall was in the Dublin article, by an administrator who made a good argument for sticking to "soccer". We have Gaelic football in Ireland, often referred to as "football". All the newspapers in Ireland refer to the game as "soccer", as does radio and tv. That's good enough for me...Hohenloh (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cclbuilding.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, dunno how that occurred. I've provided the licence (I took the photo myself).Hohenloh

Counties of Ireland

I use Firefox for Mac and Safari and the "Politics of Northern Ireland" template dose not give me any problems. You did not describe the problem, so I have no idea what your issue is. The template sits neatly under the "Politics of the Republic of Ireland" template on the righthand side and does not reflow anything in a bad way. One might be able to put them into a table side by side if that is possible. ww2censor (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

On my screen the template covers the text from the counties' names. Looks terrible. My resolution is 800 x 600. I can't recall having had a display problem with Wikipedia before this. If the NI template was the same size or smaller that the RoI template, that might sort it. Or get rid of both of them - I don't see the point in having them there. Thanks Hohenloh + 00:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have done some monitor tests and it is your limited resolution that is causing you the display problems, as it is not the page's fault. 600 x 800, and 1024 x 768 to a lesser extent, will have the NI template forcing the counties list and image to be relocated. Monitors or laptop screens with 600 x 800 resolution is now rather unusual, so you are in the minority with this issue because even with most recent laptops 1280 x 800 is the standard native resolution even with 13.3" screens. Removing content because you are out of step, out of date, or not using the native resolution, is not a very good reason because I think both of these templates are valid for this article. Should you wish to discuss their inclusion any further I suggest use the talk page. Hope that explanation helps. ww2censor (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, much appreciated.Hohenloh + 19:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Arthur O'Sullivan

I just want to congratulate you on your expansion of this article. I had created a stub some time back because I was a fan of his work, but I could find out very little about him. The material on the Radio Rep is excellent and I wonder if you would consider creating a separate article on that subject. Jim Bruce (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was thinking the exact same thing as I was doing the article, and will start a stub on it this evening. I'd also like to find some pictures. I also want to check which other actors involved in the Radio Rep have articles.Hohenloh + 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Leonardscorner.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland ref?

Your edit to the current ref #15 in Ireland tidied a reference to a Forfás pdf and you added an access date. Did you actually access the reference of just change the citation templateto add a date? I can't find the referenced pdf, but maybe you can. I am working my way through the rest of the references and filling in the citations template as appropriate. What's next before we resubmit for GA? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I accessed every source to make sure it was available and relevant before updating the citation (anything that wasn't, I deleted and looked for an alternative). I tried to access it now and it's not available, nor can I find it on Forfas site. I broke off updating the citations last week as I was awaiting some books, but will try to do some more in the next couple of days - if you haven't finished them all :-) Hohenloh + 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
They must have just deleted it recently. I found an archived version at archive.org that works but is titled as 2007-2013, not 2014 but it has the correct data. I will just keep on going unless you jump in with book sources that may be better than web sources. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I added some citations this evening. They need to be brought into the citation template, which I will try to get done tomorrow. I just wanted to get the initial info into the article while I had the books at hand.Hohenloh + 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
That's great. I will leave those to you unless they appear in a section I am working on as I go from top to bottom, though I don't really want to backtrack right now. I have arrived at the Culture section where the current first reference is # 66. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed your addition of the Tim Cahill book to Ireland. Do you have page numbers for this as you did for the De Paor book? I was going to combine the two Cahill references but the page numbers may be different so I thought I would ask first. If they are the same, we can combine them by using <ref name="cah"/> for the second and any subsequent uses of the same reference. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Unfortunately I've loaned my copy of Tim Cahill's book to a friend, so it would take a few days before I'd be able to lay my hands on it. Can you provide a work-around?Hohenloh + 03:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No,, but no problem, just update it when you get the book back, or ask me to do it when you have the info. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Irish people

Hi, I noticed your edits there. Please remember to add references or else your additions are liable to be removed. Thanks for your understanding. --John (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you on about? There isn't a single ref on that page! Hohenloh + 01:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
That's true. In a week or so I will be removing the unreferenced entries and didn't want you to waste your time adding stuff merely to have it removed. If you're in any doubt, please see WP:V for details on this policy. --John (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hugh O'Flaherty

Thanks for the Cork/Kerry correction ClemMcGann (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your adding [citation needed] to articles

I don't see the point of your going through articles on Ireland to simply add [citation needed] to them. If you had read the Famine article, for example, you would have seen that there are numerous sources given for the population and the number of deaths.

I did read the article, and the numbers I saw there were for 1-1.5M, not 6M as the intro claimed. But I was unsure whether the different numbers were for different things, like direct starvation vs. starvation plus disease, etc. The number in the intro wasn't referenced, so there was no way for me to tell. I may have missed the passage arguing for 6M+ dead in the article itself, but apparently the phrase I tagged in the intro was incorrect (it's since been changed), so in the end it seems useful to have highlighted it. -- Beland (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Irish language article, what's the point of adding [citation needed] where you did? Every kid who has learned Irish in school knows that.

Apparently not, since these claims have since been removed as either disputed or incorrect. They sounded like partisan claims to me; since I am not from Ireland, I have no way to verify the claims per Wikipedia:Verifiability other than by checking against published sources. -- Beland (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also in the Irish history article: the dogs in the street know that O'Connell didn't succeed with Repeal. He died in 1847 and the Act of Union wasn't repealed until 1921! This kind of thing just makes work for other editors.Hohenloh 21:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Even more basic than that, I was looking for sources that documented that emancipation was achieved in 1829, that there was the specified condition attached, and that O'Connell later led an effort to repeal the Act of Union. The "dogs in the street" are not a reliable source - many times the "folk history" that people recite is historically incorrect, which is why I ask for verification against reliable published sources. If the facts are well known, then it should not be difficult to cite some. -- Beland (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replying to my concerns - I can now better appreciate your approach. The Irish language article had a number of issues, so the action taken wasn't as a result of your edit. Of course I must admit that what's self-evident to me as I'm Irish may not be so to non-Irish. I wish you the best of luck in your endevours. Hohenloh + 23:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

News on Sunday reverts

Greetings Hohenloh. My rationale for reverting your revert appear on the corresponding talk page - Talk:News on Sunday - a moment after you checked, but a moment before you reverted my revert. As I pointed out, it is much more in keeping with an encyclopaedic style of writing. Sure, things could be tweaked, but it wasn't really necessary to do a blanket revert to a good faith edit. Such trigger-happiness is fine and desireable for reverting vandalism, but surely not for another editor's text tightening (to use his/her words). Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cathal Brugha Barracks

Hi. Your edit to the Cathal Brugha Barracks caused some problems. Specifically, by splitting the headings without updating the text, some of the detail on the garrison history was covered in the "wrong" section. The reason the section is currently labelled as it is because it deals with the history and naming in a combined way. (Hence "history and name") If you want to split the sections, then you have to update the actual text. So that the "name" is dealt with purely in the "name" section. And the "history" content is dealt with purely in the "history" section. Otherwise a reader who jumps to the history section starts 30 years later than he should. (FYI - The history and name are hard to split without causing redundancy. Which is why I called the section "history and name" in the first place. Which, in my view, is perfectly fine for a short article. If it was a long section I could understand splitting it. But it's only 4 or 5 sentences in total anyway.) Guliolopez (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You are very quick off the mark! Thanks for alerting me to this - I'm still working on this, and the files are still open.

I'm starting a new article, Portobello Barracks, dealing with the history of the barracks in the 19th century, and this history should lead directly into 1916 and stop there, so this is preparation for that. The reason I'm doing this is that I've got more input for the 19th century barracks in the Portobello article, but Portobello is getting too big. I want to remove most of the barracks article from Portobello.

I considered putting the 19th century Portobello Barracks info into Cathal Brugha Barracks, but thought that Cathal Brugha was fine as it was, dealing with 20th century events.

Hope this makes sense! If you see any problems with this approach please let me know - I'll hold off until you get back to me. Hohenloh + 00:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. To be honest I'm not sure that two articles is entirely appropriate. If I understand you correctly, you're proposing one article which deals with the period when the barracks was called "Portobello Barracks" and one for the period when it was called "Cathal Brugha Barracks". Correct? If this is the case, I'm not sure this as the way to go. I'm not sure there is a precedent for "splitting" an article on a building/structure based on its use/name. Take for example the Government Buildings article - it isn't split into 4 separate articles that separately deal with the periods when it was in use by the College of Science, UCD, Free State parliament and ultimately office of Taoiseach/etc. Same goes for many other buildings/structures. Not least because the name and use of a given space can be EXTREMELY transient. Whereas the bricks and mortar and "address" tend to be (by comparison) fixed. Take the Collins Barracks article. Granted I wrote this, but it follows the convention in other articles where it's periods of use and names are split out in the history section. If you want to try and do something similar (possibly on a sandbox somewhere to begin with) for the Cathal Brugha Barracks article, I'll be happy to help. Because it possibly could do with a tidy up. Mainly to ensure a little more distinction between it's use by the British, and later by the Irish. But not to the extent that they get covered in separate articles. (Because they would be 95% redundant to each other). Guliolopez (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Guliolopez on this one. The best course to take would be to use the most common name; Cathal Brugha Barracks, keep all the historical information into the same article and make Portobello Barracks a redirect. That's what is done elsewhere. Now, if the article were very long, it might be a consideration, but article length is not an issue. ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
That's no problem, I'll do as Gulio suggested. I'll also take a look at Collins Barracks. I'd like to make Cathal Brugha barracks the main article in the barracks section on Portobello, then place new historical info, and some of the existing info, on Cathal Brugha. Thanks for the advice, and if you have any more don't hesitate to get in touch. Hohenloh + 20:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Trinity College, Dublin and prestige

I'm afraid WP:V is a core policy: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Regardless of how sad times are, it's not negotiable. Autarch (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't entirely serious about that - prestige probably isn't easily verifiable. But I'm glad you got back to me as I see you have started some interesting sites. In particular I'm wondering whether you intend to expand the Huguenot cemetery site, as I've started one on St. Kevin's Cemetery, and I believe the remains of the Huguenots were removed there from the Stephan's Green site, but I've no definite information on this. Hohenloh + 20:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Move at Ireland

Hi - I noticed you were an English teacher. As an educated man, I wondered why you thought the Move was "political manoeuvering"? --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the links - I'd no idea where replacements were for them. Good to see them working again! Autarch (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Anton Sminck Van Pitloo

I don't necessarily agree with your re-naming the article as you did. I think you should have put it for discussion on the talk page first. Before creating the article I did some research in a number of languages (including Dutch) to determine the most recognizable form of his name, and the one I used was in my opinion the most used world-wide.Hohenloh 06:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi - In principle you can return the article to its original name. I 'd done some checking and thought it quite uncontroversial and assumed that the original author had a single source that happened to pick a less common alternative name.
As the text says, he was born with the name "Pitlo". In 1947 there were 154 families with the name Pitlo in the Netherlands, and none with the name "van Pitlo".
The following authoritative references prefer the following names:
- Netherlands Institute for Art History - Pitloo, Antonie Sminck (van Pitloo not given as alternative)
- Grove Art Online - Pitloo, Anton Sminck
- The Oxford Companion to Western Art - Pitloo, Antonio (van Pitloo not given as alternative)
At artnet.com, and at the Christie's, Sotheby's, and Rijksmuseum sites he is A. (Anton, Antoon, Antonie, Anthon, Anthony, Antonio, etc. etc.) Sminck Pitloo as well.
Doing a google book search (more reliable sources than general websites) with Pitloo and Sminck gave me 108 viewable results; in English 29 books had "Pitloo", 3 "van Pitloo". In the 40 Dutch, German, French and Spanish (or Portuguese) books it is always just "Pitloo"; exactly half of the 36 Italian books have "Pitloo", and the other half "van Pitloo" or "Van Pitloo". Perhaps on top of the extra "o" he sometimes added "van" to his name to emphasize his Dutchiness, just as quite a few immigrants in the US have done.
Please, feel free to move this block to the article's discussion page. Afasmit (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
BTW His date of birth is almost always given as April 21, but the NIAH, which usually studies these things thoroughly, has May 2. Perhaps they made a mistake this time; 2 May 1791 may have been when he was baptized.

Changes to Ireland (island)

Aside from all the early debate, I've been working, discussing, working, discussing. The relatively few changes I've made (none serious or harmful) I have covered on the talk page. For example - Modern Architecture is modern Ireland, and had no Northern Ireland at all, and was not at Republic of Ireland/Ireland (state). How on earth can we justify that? There is no way in the world! Science was not in Ireland (state) either - nor in NI, which is scandalous re the NI article, which clearly could use development. Times are changing, and no one is going to get hurt. If you want to revert - please use talk yourself too (it is not just up to the worker). Whatever you do, don't tell people I haven't discussed this!!!! :( --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you revert again saying I haven't discussed I will file a Civility report on you. I'm doing the work and you are behaving really badly. I haven't heard one peep from you yet - not one reply, suggestion or comment. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Hohenloh. It would be much more helpful if you could explain why the previous version is better than the version Matt created. The status quo isn't sacrosanct, so the person who prefers keeping things the way they are has as much responsibility to justify their reverts as the person making changes. Its fine to revert once, but then please go the talk page and engage the editor you just reverted. WP:BRD is a helpful read. Thanks. Rockpocket 06:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a WP:3RR warning on Matt's talk page because he has reverted basically the same text 3 times within 24 hours and is in a edit-war with you (and me earlier) which you should step away if you can. Unfortunately Matt does not discuss when you are of the opposite opinion because of his entrenched position. I have the distinct impression that Matt just wants to [[WP:OWN|own these articles based on his uncompromising views on everything to do with these moves.
The reason why the science section should not be moved complies with Matt's own justification that only Irish state matters should be in the Ireland (state) article but most of the science section is about pre-1922 scientists, so should not be removed and certainly does not belong in the state article at all. As I already noted elsewhere, if everything non-geographic should be removed, then we should put this article up for deletion because we already have a great featured article Geography of Ireland. ww2censor (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Quote: "Don't be afraid to make a revert people - you have to get involved to show you mean business. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)"
Look ww2, I discuss EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, and you have seen it and you know it. Will you just stop this I'm not discussing rubbish" I discuss, and you either ignore me, or say "no!" - but I still discuss. Ireland (island) can have flora, fauna, some forked material (history, geography etc), and the genuine cross-cultural island stuff - there is plenty it can have (see islands like Europe, Great Britain), but none of it is good enough for you as you demand it is the pre-1922 state article (with a section on Modern Architecture and other modern stuff - ahem - thrown in for completeness). THAT IS ENTIRELY YOUR OWN RULES!! You draw the 1922 differentiation - but WIkipedia does not! I disagree with you not because I'm arrogant, or because I am inflexible (I have given this countless hours of graft working for compromise - countless hours of work with people who simply say "no no no no"!). I disagree with you because you are so far from Wikipedia policy, you are slandering me from Mars. Ireland (island) is not going to list scientists - especially when Ireland (state) has none of them.
And if you quote me, put in the context. Do you have no manners? --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Irish culture deletions

You seem to be rather ruthless in your deletion of cultural people in the Republic of Ireland article. Some of those people did most of their memorable work after 1922 and even though they were born before 1922 I think you need to be more circumspect. Some of these should probably be in both articles and some, such as Jack Butler Yeats only started his career in 1920, so clearly should be included. Being a content issue, I suggest that we discuss some criteria for inclusion and exclusion on the talk page, but your personal criteria are, imho, too severe. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I was severe in this respect because after reading the article several times I saw that "Island" (ie, of Ireland) was mentioned several times, and that led me to suspect that the article contained more instances of cultural activities before 1922 than were obvious. So I deleted first of all those that were obvious (Book of Kells, etc), and then those cultural people that were born before or in the 19th century, so that a format could be established. I expected (and hoped) that someone would react to this (thanks!) so that criteria could be established.
Now, leaving aside the question of "Irishness" (as far as I'm concerned if they are born on the island of Ireland they are (with a few exceptions such as Kitchener, whose English parents were just recently arrived from England when he was born) Irish), there's the matter of whether they should be included on this page or on the Ireland page. For this page I'd consider for a start 1)anyone in the Free State involved in cultural activities from 1922 on, 2) anyone born in Ireland (Republic) involved in cultural activities from 1922, no matter where they are, 3) others who made an impact on cultural activities in the country or came to live there no matter where they were from 4) whatever you're havin' yourself. Hope this makes sense (tired, had a looonnng night).Hohenloh + 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

From Republic of Ireland

You unlock the key, to this door... by Rod Serling. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dublin

Hope you are watching the anonIP who keeps messing up the images on Dublin. I have reverted him twice and did report him the ARV but he does not seem to have been blocked even after a final vandalism warning and continued editing. I would appreciate if you keep and eye on it too. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted and also notified admin. I think he's given up...


Speedy deletion of Henry Edward Butler

A tag has been placed on Henry Edward Butler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Nuttah (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Irish people restoration

You restored a version of the article which asserts that (for example) John Lennon and Paul McCartney were Irish. Not "of Irish descent", but Irish. Will you please provide reliable sources to back up those claims? Thanks in advance, --John (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that we discussed this over a month ago. You may wish to reconsider whether the effects of your edits are a net positive to the encyclopedia we are trying to build. Personally I do not think they are. --John (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
We are all working towards the same goal. I have no doubt you are doing excellent work, and I agree with your criticism of the article in question and what I have seen of edits you have made to at least one other Irish-related article. It's just the modus operandi here that appears suspect. You are no doubt more familiar than I am on these points, but here they are:
Firstly, there is no "ownership" of an article - no one person has the right to remove it without consensus (although in this case we are discussing a re-direct, IMHO it's practically the same thing). Secondly, it is not WP policy to re-direct an article because of inaccuracies. The dubious information should be corrected or removed. Thirdly, the List format is different to your everyday article. None of the country lists I have seen have references (and as far as I'm aware, no-one else has complained of this). They are just a list of links, and the reference information is supplied in the article. And there are possibly thousands of lists out there.
Had I not been involved in other projects/articles recently I would have taken a closer look at the article in question, and am intending to do so. I'm prepared to help in any way I can to bring about an amicable solution. Hohenloh +
I too had a look around at some of these people from xx country lists and iirc I only saw one that had any references. Based on Johns criteria, all of those list should be turned into redirects. Anyway, he has a point in questioning whether people like John Lennon should be included without some reference or source but just making it a redirect is not really a good idea. ww2censor (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Hohenloh for your response. Ww2censor, these are not my personal criteria as your post implies, but those of the project. --John (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal John, really, but consistency would seem necessary, so I would have thought that you need to redirect all lists or none. ww2censor (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hohenloh, the problem here is that if all unreferenced info was removed the article would be blank. In such circumstances, and after a month had been given to regular editors like yourself to verify the information contained, it seemed better to redirect. Ww2censor, as I mentioned here I have started the same process at the other unreferenced list articles Hohenloh highlighted. What would you like to happen? We cannot suspend WP:V as it is a core policy. Please also see the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability# Lists. Feel free, either of you, to propose a better way forward. Leaving lists like these unverified is not an option I'm afraid. --John (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict). John, if you are being consistent, perhaps you would kindly indicate which other, nearly 300, lists on this page have been turned into redirects, or have been notified that they are unreferenced. Without actually going through each and every link on that page, other than few minimal references in a few lists, I can't find any that have verifiable sources per the criteria you state above. Oh wait, I just saw that Lists of Albanians has lots of "fact" tags but none of them were placed by you. I am indeed still confused, but are you just picking on List of Irish people or lists of peoples from that north-western European archipelago that have been tagged as unreferenced for now and will move on to other people after that? Good night! ww2censor (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is what a referenced list article looks like. I am quite serious in my intent to remove unverified material from this article. If that means all of it, so be it. If you want the article to be kept, please reference it. If you don't, I will remove it. --John (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Huguenot Cemetery, Dublin

Thanks for contributing the photo! Autarch (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Germany

Welcome, Hohenloh, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Germany}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

  • The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
  • Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
  • We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks you can do. Please remove completed tasks from the list.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Agathoclea (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Donncha Ó Dulaing

Hi Hohenloh. Is it right that Donncha Ó Dulaing was appointed the County Heritage Officer for Dublin in 2000? I found that fact on the web, but I disregarded it as being another Donncha Ó Dulaing. Can you clarify? Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It does appear to be a different Donncha Ó Dulaing. Might be his son.Hohenloh 02:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Setanta Cup

Hi, I would like you to read about the Setanta Cup before you alter any more text about wether or not football is played officially in Irish cross-border competition, which it has been for years with the top clubs either side of the border. ~ R.T.G 18:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the Setanta Cup and I stated the reason for my revert. You're quite entitled to re-edit your contribution to make it more readable.Hohenloh 18:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It was so small an edit, if it is factual and you have time to alter it at all, not correcting it where you found it lacked sense, I may be accusing you of being counter productive, in fairness. Hopefully you will explain it because I have gone over it twice now. ~ R.T.G 23:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Football could be added in that place but the rewording needs a lot more work. Sorry for bothering you. ~ R.T.G 15:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

pantomime v. mime

hello. thanks for correcting me on that. however, i'm wondering if it might more appropriate for there to be a more specific category for actors and performers, like 'Pantomime artists' rather than just placing them in the general 'Pantomime' category. --emerson7 22:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I'll take a look at this again later in the week, if no-one else has addressed it in the meantime. Cheers. Hohenloh + 02:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that covers some of what I'm looking for - the rest would be a rough guide of which links are easy to translate, like the Morris report one - that required just a change of domain, but I suppose that would be a matter of trial and error, with some guidance from Google. Thanks again. Autarch (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What!!!!!

Where do you get 1975 from? They shot Seamus Costello in 1977! They killed Hugh O'Halloran in 1979!! So why 1975???? O Fenian (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, then set it at 1979.
Who says they stopped then? O Fenian (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Ireland

Not my edits, but a tad surprised at your reverts on History of the Jews in Ireland
It would be unusual to have references in a list of wiki links, such as *Brian MacCaba
There might be a case for a reference for the Wannsee Conference, however the article here includes the infamous page File:WannseeList.jpg
Regards ClemMcGann (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I oversaw Brian MacCaba - I meant only to revert the Wannsee Conference item, with the request for a reference, not simply to Jews in Ireland being mentioned, but to the fact that they were to be killed. I recall reading somewhere that there was some controversy about what actually transpired at this meeting, which BTW appears to have been very short. I'll fix shortly - thanks for pulling me up on this! Hohenloh 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Happiness ClemMcGann (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

New Ireland Wikimedia email list

Hi Hohenloh:

I'm pleased to announce that we've started a new Ireland Wikimedian email list, that you can join, at mail:WikimediaIE. For Wikimedians in Ireland and Wikimedians interested in events in Ireland and efforts in Ireland. It's there to to discuss meetups, partnerships with Museums and National Archives, and anything else where Wikipedia and real life intersect.  :) --Bastique demandez 21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Cclbuilding.jpg

Hey, I've been working on migrating licenses from GFDL to Creative Commons, and I noticed your image contained the words "public domain" even though the template licensed it as GFDL. I removed the "public domain" text to clarify, as I don't think that's what you meant. If you really want to release it to public domain (and understand what that means) feel free to change the template from {{GFDL-self}} to {{PD-self}}. --RabidDeity (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. Thanks.23:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In case you've not seen this...

always nice to graffiti the front page once in a while. Nominations go here, where i took the liberty of nominating Hamilton Deane... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Hohenloh + 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard H. Geoghegan

I see you added an entry for Richard Henry Geoghegan to the list of notable Geoghegans on the Geoghegan page about a year ago. You might be interested to know that I recently created an article on Richard H. Geoghegan (my first contribution to Wikipedia). I've added a link to it from the Geoghegan page. —Pied-a-mer (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hamilton Deane

Updated DYK query On July 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hamilton Deane, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hohenloh + 14:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Russian-church-haroldsx.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Russian-church-haroldsx.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

O'Connell of Derrynane pedigree

Hi. Glad you removed what I forgot to remove. Regarding their pedigree as understood in the 19th century, we can at least say that it is not commonly changed even if it is less frequently mentioned today. Occasionally we hear about the supposed O'Connells of the more geographically appropriate Eóganacht Locha Léin or Corcu Duibne, but then we have to wonder where the tradition really started. Being descended from Dáire Cerbba was still an important matter for some and may not have been completely forgotten by a group of Uí Fidgenti exiles and their few dependents. Then we have the mention in the annals of the Uí Fidgenti being driven into County Kerry, apparently at the same time or before some began showing up in County Cork and elsewhere. So a good case can still be made and it at least has to be mentioned in the O'Connells of Derrynane article. Cheers. DinDraithou (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Russian-church-haroldsx.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Russian-church-haroldsx.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Meet-up in Dublin

Hi, just to inform you... There could be a meet-up on 6th october 2009 in Dublin... See here Interested ? --Abena1 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

we could meet earlier that day - I have emailed you my phone number - regards - ClemMcGann (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to inform you. Don't have mobileaccess in Dublin. But internet, unexpected.... Will be at millenium spice on 6 pm. --Abena1 (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Kingstown Lifeboat Disaster

Thanks, in advance, for the picture ClemMcGann (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Adelaide Hospital

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Adelaide Hospital, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://indigo.ie/~arhc/arhchx.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adelaide Hospital

A tag has been placed on Adelaide Hospital requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. 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 as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — 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 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 that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AeonicOmega(Watcha say?) 23:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

On Raglan Road revert

Why have you undone the addition of a stub tag on this article without an edit summary? The article currently consists of four short paragraphs, containing a total of nine sentences. For one of Kavanagh's defining works, this is evidently within stub territory. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Old English Cemetery, Livorno translation check please

I have translated the italian page into the english one here. I waited more than a week but it seems nobody checked it. I'd like someone to check it please so we can also remove the tag at the top of the page. Thank you much. Madmats (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The translated text needs a bit of work. I have started with the intro, and will continue when I find the time, if someone else hasn't intervened in the meantime. I have placed a translation tag on the article for this purpose. If you need any feedback, please don't hesitate to get in touch. Hohenloh + 15:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hohenloh. You have new messages at RashersTierney's talk page.
Message added 19:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RashersTierney (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Commemoration

The Annual National Commemoration Services for those lost on Irish Ships during the Emergency and all Lost at Sea, will be held at 11.30 am on Sunday 22nd November 2009 starting in City Quay Church, Wreaths will be laid at the Irish Seaman's National Memorial, Refreshments in the Church Hall. After a break for lunch the company will reassemble for Evensong at 3.15 pm St. Patrick's Cathedral. ClemMcGann (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Clem, thanks for the heads-up. Hohenloh + 11:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DNB referencing

You added the {{DNB}} template with this diff to English Cemetery, Naples. I'm working to provide referencing for all DNB material at Wikisource, as part of s:Wikisource:WikiProject DNB. Could you let me know which article(s) are relevant? Charles Matthews (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Background or family information relating to the following:

William, Lord Brabazon, 11th Earl of Meath
Maria (Mary) Beauclerk Countess of Coventry
Marguerite Gardiner, Lady Blessington
Elizabeth Craven, Princess Berkeley and Margravine of Brandenburg-Ansbach
Hope this helps Hohenloh + 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, added to s:Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Data capture and the correspoding articles will be created some day. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by 192.12.88.2

I noticed your page was vandalised along with three others by the above editor. I reverted any vandalism that hadn't been and warned the editor responsible for each of the vandalism cases. This particular anonymous account was blocked in September and November for vandalism. I've also contacted an editor who had blocked this anonymous editor before. Hopefully this is the end of this piece of vandalism.Autarch (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kuru has blocked this anonymous user - will keep an eye out for similar vandalism just in case.Autarch (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Eamon Martin

I don't see this page as an obvious hoax; perhaps you could try AFD? Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that's the correct procedure, I'm willing to do this. I did research the relevant literature dealing with the period and other than membership of the Fianna in 1916 on the Internet, could find nothing to substantiate the claims made in the article, and followed the instructions in Wikipedia Help. Also, this person is not mentioned in the dictionary of Irish Biography, Longford's life of De Valera, Coogan's history of the IRA, history of the Irish Civil War or in any other book I've looked up on the period. The alternative might be to remove everything other than the Fianna membership? Hohenloh + 22:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Düsseldorfer Automobil- und Motorsport-Club 05

I've translated a german article and I need a proofreader.

I am grateful for any feedback indeed. THX, bzw. VIELEN DANK --Pitlane02 (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I did the proofread and added some links suitable for the English-language Wikipedia, corrected grammar, etc. If you have any queries please don't hesitate to get in touch.Hohenloh + 17:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish Traditional Music

Thanks for the message Hohenloh. It wasn't meant to be vandalism. If I can explain - like a lot of the rest of this article (and others on trad) the guy in question is basically using Wikipedia for self-promotion. He has i) no standing within the traditional music community and ii) has not even a single video on youtube or tracks on his myspace of Irish trad. Funny though, that although you need a source to verify information on some articles, he can list himself here as a pioneer of the five-string banjo without any problem. Oh well, nothing's perfect! Hairycakelynam (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Butting in, hope no-one minds. This is the sort of issue that really should be discussed at article Talk Pages. That is what they're for. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I played with him at the Willy Clancy festival in Clare last year and at a couple of other venues and can verify that he can play Irish tunes well on the 5-string banjo, and he has written a book on the subject, which added to his ability as a great 5-string banjo player per se (in a number of genres, not just Bluegrass - you have to hear him play!) I feel entitles him to a mention. A number of American 5-string banjo players have experimented with Irish music, but he has actually made the effort to study the music and move to Ireland. BTW, I don't have any commercial interest in promoting him or anyone else - just explaining what's out there and hoping folks enjoy the music. Regards, Hohenloh + 20:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Na Ceithre Cúirteanna

Can you provide references for the usage of na Ceithre Chúirt on the Four Courts page? Any official usage of na Ceithre Chúirt strikes me as bad translation lacking research. Jamesnp (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have provided a reference showing the use of both translations in a document from the Supreme Court web-site. Both translations are used by many organizations. On a related point, it's debatable whether an article on grammar would suffice as a reference: the content of Wikipedia articles have to be verifiable, not grammatically correct. Further, the paragraph in the PDF file deals with the historical use of the singular/plural form of the noun, and clearly states that "na Ceithre Chúirt" is, in fact, the more correct term ("níos cirte de réir rialacha na teanga anois"). Hohenloh + 14:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


File source problem with File:Remnants of an army2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Remnants of an army2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Honorific

Perhaps you are correct. The guideline I was referring to is MOS:HONORIFIC which seems to allow the inline use of "Sir". However, WP:AT does not mention the issue. I would personally lean towards not allowing the use of "Sir" in other than a redirect if it is commonly used, however, my personal inclinations are hardly grounds to move a page without discussion first. I stand corrected. Supertouch (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A glance through the pages of Wikipedia show that there are only five men to be found on this website with "Sir" prefixed to their names, from Isaac Newton to Elton John, and in each case that "Sir" is only in redirect page leading to the actual article for each individual where their names are found without this honorific title. Supertouch (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand how there can be only five (for example, for Charles: Sir Charles Douglas; Sir Charles Sedley, 5th Baronet; Sir Charles Trevelyan, 3rd Baronet; Sir Charles Monro; Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet; Sir Charles Raymond Burrell; Sir Charles Knowles, 1st Baronet; Sir Charles Madden, 1st Baronet; Sir Charles Fergusson; Sir James Fergusson; Sir Charles Nicholson, 2nd Baronet; Sir Charles Johnston; Sir Charles Ross, 9th Baronet; Sir Charles Knowles, 1st Baronet, etc., etc.) or am I missing something here?
I'm not particularly pushed whether the Sir should remain or not. In most references to him that I have found he is referred to as Sir Philip, and that's the reason I named the article as I did. If anything in the MoS precludes this, that's fine by me (perhaps the appendage 1st Baronet should be added, as seems to be the rule). The MoS mentions consensus. I am appreciative of the effort you have gone to to check this out and I'll try to get more information on this matter from the projects of which I'm a member. Hohenloh + 01:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how I missed all of those names, is there a disambiguation page? Supertouch (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope - that's just a few I found by random. Hohenloh + 02:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I actually just found this particular instance discussed explicitly at WP:NCBRITPEER: "Titles of Knighthood such as Sir and Dame usually need not be included in the article title..." From what I recall, MOS discussed inline use unless one contradicts the other. Supertouch (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention - I'll check it (tomorrow, bed-time now). Hohenloh +

Assessments & GPO edit

Yesterday I happened to notice some of your created/edited articles in the latest Irish assessment quality log. Not to be overly critical but I think you are over-assessing them as B-class when they are really no more than C-class articles. I don't know if you are aware of the Ireland WikiProject's assessment department guidelines that we use. I am referring to Manor of Glasnevin, Manor of Kilmainham, Liberty of Thomas Court and Donore, etc. With the quanity of Irish article you work on you may want to join the project by adding you name to the members' list if you are interested.

Your recent edit to the GPO added a reference to the Postmasters General of Ireland, an article I am actively working on at User:Ww2censor/PMGI, but the source you added does not verify these two individuals attending the foundation stone laying, just that they held the post at that time. Where did you get that info about their attendance? Keep up the good work working on some of the more unusual Irish articles. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologize if I've been too hasty in the assessment. The way I work is that when I've got the sources at hand and I'm in working mode I try to get as much writing as possible done, then later proof-read and polish. So I'll check everything I've done recently.
As regards the GPO, my source was Picture of Dublin, which I've now added, with page number, and the book is online in PDR
Thanks for the feedback and I look forward to any further comments you may have.Hohenloh + 03:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No real problem with the assessments but I thought they were rather generous and might reassess unless you get to them first. Thanks for the GPO source; I never found that book when looking for PMGI information. I will see what else it contains. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I have seen your name on articles that you have started or edited, and that I have also edited or created. It would appear we may have similar interests perhaps. Anyway, I just wanted to say hello and if you have any tips for me or any articles that you need a hand with. --DubhEire (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks! I saw your name too, and I'd first like to ask you where you get the co-ordinates from. I use Earthtools.org, but it seems to provide only the decimal format, not the minutes and seconds of an arc that I'd prefer. At the moment I'm creating articles for the following:
  • Each of the Dublin city civil parishes (about 13 out of 19 or so done so far - each article to contain sections on the church, cemetery, parish and notable parishioners)
  • Each of the Dublin Liberties (5 done, the others are of minor importance). Also need to create a category for the Dublin Liberties.
  • Each of the Dublin hospitals of the 19th century (about 6 left to do) and the prominent doctors and surgeons in these
  • Re-writing The Liberties article, which was in a really bad state, but I wanted to complete the individual Liberties articles first to ensure I had references, background material, etc.
If you're interested, I could send you a list of the articles I've created (106 so far) or just the Dublin ones. Regards, Hohenloh + 18:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I get the coords using Google Maps by right clicking on where you want for coords for and then select What's here?. I then check them with the other map providers before I commit, i.e. bing and yahoo. Earthtools.org is using google maps, but it is rounding to 4 decimal places, which I have seen as being what should be put on the article as excessive decimal places, etc. Google gives you 6 decimals, for example The Spire in Dublin's city centre is 53.349802,-6.26026 using What's here. You may know that you need to take the absolute values of the coords, so -6.26026 is 6.26026 and put that in for the coords in the article. If you want minutes and seconds, you can convert in Excel with a few simple steps. So using 6.26026, you have 6 as the degrees, then .26026 * 60 = 15.6156 or 15 minutes, then .6156 * 60 = 36.936 or 36 seconds. This makes 6.26026 equal to 6°15′36″. There is some precision lost on the locating this point back to the map where the Spire is a good example of this. So you could say 36.9 seconds and that will look good. I hope that is helpful.

Perhaps you could list your articles that you are intersted in on your user page, along with those that you have created. I have seen people do that and it can be interesting. I think I will do that myself.
As regards churches and hospitals, I am interested in those too, but it is lower on my list at the moment. I am interested in things local to me along the South East of Dublin. I have been out taking pictures and will be hitting the city centre shortly.
If there is anything else I can help with, please let me know and if you are stuck for a photo for your articles, I can try too.
DubhEire (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
A quick question for either or both of you. Is there any tutorial that would cover the info above re using co-ordinates? There are many occasions when I would have liked to apply them to various articles, but seem to get tied up in knots. Or is it just something that geotaggers and other regular users of GPS info. have from outside Wikipedia? I have also started to take photos with the intention of uploading to Commons and applying to articles. All seems a bit daunting. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I found this tutorial useful WikiProject Geographical coordinates. I should say that I found Bing Bird's Eye view a good check, but their Bird's Eye pictures mapped to coord is off in quite a few places, but it is good for reference points to be sure you have dropped the point right. I just put the coords at the end of the article or in the infobox if it is there. I use this at the end of the article coord|53.349802|N|6.26026|W|type:landmark_region:IE|display=title enclosed in double curly brackets {} . You can change display=title to display=inline if you want to show other points in the article, i.e. other buildings in a large complex or battle sites or something like that.
Then go to this list for articles that need tagging Ireland articles missing geocoordinate data
I'm sure in due time an agreed format will be made and a bot will come along a format the coords in decimals or degrees, mins, secs.
Also, there is a discussion to be had about coords for articles where the actual building doesn't exist anymore and something else is there. These coords make the articles appear in the Google Maps Wikipedia layer and also in some iPhone applications. The time lag to appear in those external databases appears to be in months, rather than overnight or weekly.
DubhEire (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The WikiProject link was just what I was hoping for. Many thanks for reply. Lots to absorb and hope to soon be in a position to take up your suggestion of getting stuck in. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, very interesting, and as Rashers says lots to absorb. I've a few photos to put up of buildings, including churches, in the Liberties. Would like a photo of what's left of Church of St. Nicholas Within and St. Luke's Church, Dublin on the Coombe, also the Widow's House there and the portico of Coombe Hospital. I'll arrange a list of articles I'm working on on my user page, divided into geographic area and subject if possible, 'cos I do a lot of German and Italian stuff as well. Regards, Hohenloh + 01:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I got most of those pictures today. I forgot about the Coombe, ah well. Hope that helps. DubhEire (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Good work! BTW, I've been using http://tools.freeside.sk/geolocator/geolocator.html for obtaining the coordinates and it works a charm! Hohenloh + 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Adminship

After your comment on the whole orphan issue, I looked at some of your contributions, and I was impressed with your quiet dedication over the past few years, especially the coordinate missing edits, which I've helped with as well.

I think your input would be valuable on policy related discussions. Even though you and I may disagree on some of these, I've been very impressed by your approach, and hope you might think about commenting there. See you around. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've been concentrating on firstly finding my way round Wikipedia and then contributing to a number of projects that IMHO needed more input. I'd be happy to take a look at what you have in mind and would appreciate pointers. Regards, Hohenloh + 19:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP Ireland in the Signpost

Hi Hohenloh. WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Ireland for a Signpost article to be published March 15. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? -Mabeenot (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sure. What do I need to do? Hohenloh + 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, feel free to share this with them. Thanks for participating in this WikiProject Report. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

James Whitelaw

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of James Whitelaw, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.libraryireland.com/biography/RevJamesWhitelaw.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Mariners' Church

Thanks for the article. I'm a little too close to it myself. The windows have just been repaired, cleaned, etc - have a look : http://pbckt.com/sE.zBs - Do you want to visit it again? - regards - ClemMcGann (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to pop out there again, sometime after Easter. Pictures look good, hope it will open this year? Hohenloh + 12:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Wot was rong with wl of Commandant in the Irish Army??? ClemMcGann (talk)
opening scheduled for Sept 2010 ClemMcGann (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
website for external link: [2] ClemMcGann (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Oooops! I just meant to rv that one edit, didn't mean to take your edit out as well! Sorry - I've replaced it (things like this always happen at embarrassing moments...) Hohenloh + 12:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I will have the dimensions in a few days. Then: File:MarinersChurchRepairs.JPG ; Now: File:MarinersChurchTwo.jpg ClemMcGann (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Music of Ireland

That's fine, I just inserted them because they added time-depth to the subject. Hopefully someone can come up with a practical use for them. Pre-17th century Irish music badly need investigation. Fergananim (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - good work. Hohenloh + 15:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

St Audoen's

I put a link to St Audoen's Catholic Church, Dublin in the lead of St. Audoen's Church. Please feel free to move it if you see fit. Also someone requested that there should be a disambiguation page. Do you think that is required? I think we should look at naming all churches (at least Dublin) with a standard naming convention. There are a few subtle differences like St or St. or Saint for a start. DubhEire (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd edit the intro - the juxteposition of two similarly-named churches might prove confusing for the general reader, and there is no indication there that St. Audoen's is Church of Ireland. I think a DAB page would be no harm - just a matter of what to call it. I'd welcome a naming convention, and would suggest some common information in the church articles, ie, which sections should be included. I've been concentrating on old churches, so historical information preponderates, perhaps to the detriment of other information. FWIW, these are the church articles I've created (in the English-language Wikipedia): St. Kevin's Church, Harrington Street, Dublin, Mariners' Church, Dún Laoghaire, St. Mary del Dam, St. Thomas's Church, Dublin]], St. Mark's Church, Dublin, Church of St. Nicholas Within, Church of St. Nicholas Without, Dublin, St. Luke's Church, Dublin, St. Michael's Church, Dublin, St. Andrew's Church, Andrew St., Dublin, St. Peter's Church, Aungier Street, Dublin, St. Bride's Church, Dublin, St. Andrew's Church, Westland Row, Dublin, Church of St. John the Evangelist, Dublin, St. George's Church, Dublin, St. James' Church and Cemetery, John's Lane Church, Drumcondra Church, St. Mary's Abbey, Dublin, St. Kevin's Church, Camden Row, Dublin, St. Catherine's Church, Dublin, St Werburgh's Church, Dublin, St. Audoen's Church. I'd welcome further ideas/suggestions on this and with this in mind will take a look at church articles in other countries. Hohenloh + 16:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a good list. I agree with your naming convention. I have come across a few Saint blah. I would prefer it to be "St." and you have named all of yours that way. I think the name of the church followed by where it is to be good, where being street or city is fine. I should rename any Saint something to "St." that I have been looking at. I don't see it as a problem considering the good job the move tool does. I am using Wikipedia Beta so I just found where the move button is. DubhEire (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lark Camp

I am trying to bring the Lark Camp page up to the standards that you request and you keep erasing my work. Please either give exacting advice or leave the page unchanged. The page was started by Matthew Richards and turned over to me to work on. I am trying very hard to make it accurate. Thanks for your help. [[User:# Mickiezekley]] (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2010 (PST)Mickiezekley (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been reverting the removal of tags on this article. I'll help edit the site to bring it up to Wikipedia standards over the next couple of days. Hohenloh + 14:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Mickiezekley (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Hohenloh. You have new messages at Sabrebd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Hohenloh. You have new messages at UpstateNYer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers' Society building

I got this photo today. I will load it to commons shortly. DubhEire (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers' Society building
A bit too sunny today for photos, but I'm sure it will do for now.DubhEire (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. I finally got the article created: The Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers' Society. This is just a start - I'll add further details shortly. Hohenloh + 15:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Colm Ó Lochlainn

They are two different people. I don't understand why they should be merged. Fergananim (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah hell - really? Okay, let's merge them .... how do we do that??? Fergananim (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It's been merged, just needs a little clean-up. Hohenloh + 00:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oldtimer Festival

I've translated a new german article and I need again a proofreader.

I am grateful for any feedback indeed. THX, bzw. VIELEN DANK again --Pitlane02 (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

HI, I was away for a few days. I'll take a look at it shortly. Hohenloh + 16:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Dun Laoghaire Oratory

Since you said that you would welcome suggestions for church articles. My I suggest the Dun Laoghaire Oratory. [3] Bring a good camera with you. Its tiny Its magnificent ClemMcGann (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is an excellent little gem. DubhEire (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
and rarely open. I once heard that it was not in favour because it commemorated Irish soldiers in WWI. don't know if that's true, but hopefully we have matured since then ClemMcGann (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that it was built just after WWI in the grounds of the old Dominican Sisters and all the detail was pretty much done between 1920 and 1936 by Sister Mary Concepta Lynch who was a trained Celtic artist. I have yet to see visit but I am planning to do that soon as it would appear to be something that must be seen. DubhEire (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

An other Question about correct wording

I've an other question to a native speaker...

In the article Düsseldorfer Automobil- und Motorsport-Club 05 is the sentence:

The Düsseldorfer Automobil- und Motorsport-Club 05 e. V. (im ADAC) is the local club of the ADAC (German automobile club).

My Question:

This motor sport club is a small part of the big ADAC. Is the wording "...is THE local club..." correct, or is the wording "...is A local club..." better???? --Pitlane02 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, if there is only one local club in the area referred to, then THE is correct. If there is more than one club in the area referred to, then A is correct (or also, if you do not wish to refer to a specific area). Here we are dealing specifically with one club, and referencing the area of Düsseldorf, so I'd say THE. Hohenloh + 18:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Perfect! In Düsseldorf are more than one motor sport clubs, organized in the ADAC, I've corrected the sentence. Thanks again. --Pitlane02 (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hohenloh/Archive_1&oldid=1142466888"