User talk:Red Hurley

This user may have left Wikipedia. Red Hurley has not edited Wikipedia since 12 December 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Talk to me...don't be upset if I read and delete.

Dear RH - I appreciated the contribution to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norman_invasion_of_Ireland&oldid=250260530 and http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Norman_invasion_of_Ireland as I was following a discussion on the confusion around the origin of Costello at http://languagehat.com/costello/#comment-2627245 thank you.

Can you elaborate on the evidence/sources for this paragraph? "A baron of Hugh de Lacy, the MacCostellos (Mac Oisdealbhaigh) were one of the first Norman families in Connacht, settling in Mayo in what became the Barony of Costello, which originally included part of neighboring County Roscommon (their sixteenth-century seat was near Ballaghadereen, now in Roscommon). They were the first of the Norman invaders to adopt a Gaelic name, which marks their descent from Oisdealbh, son of the famous Gilbert de Nangle (Latin: de Angulo), who was one of the first Cambro-Norman invaders. His family, the de Angulos, obtained vast estates in Meath, where they were Barons of Navan. The family thence spread into Leinster and Connacht, where the leading family adopted the Gaelic patronymic Mac Oisdealbhaigh, as we have seen. Those in Leinster, and those in Connacht that did not adopt this form, became Nangles (de Nogla); while those in Cork became Nagles. The Waldrons (Mac Bhaildrin) are a branch of the MacCostellos in Mayo."

This is my first post to a wikipedia persons so hope I've got it in right place. Caliguspedia (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)MC[reply]

Civil war in kilkeny

Hi RH,

Re the Irish civil war confrontation in Kilkenny in May 1922, I ca't find the reference in the Dail debate to 18 killed.

Michael Hopkinson says, "There was much firing but few casualties" (Green against Green, p. 75).

Niall Harrington in the Kerry Landings says that clashes between pro and tni treatyites before June 28 had left 8 dead and 49 wounded, (p23).

Could it have been 18 casualties in Kilkenny rather than 18 killed? Cheers.

Jdorney 16:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JD,

That's why I said: "On 3 May the Dáil was informed 18 men had been killed in the fighting in Kilkenny" - not that it was true. The source of info was O'Hegarty who should have known, during the unusual crisis address by the officers to the Dáil (about page 368 I think)....

"PRESIDENT GRIFFITH: It is now for the Committee to meet and discuss their procedure. I move now the adjournment of the House until 3 o'clock on Friday, when the Committee will report to the House. The remainder of the agenda, of course, will be unchanged.

COMMANDANT O'HEGARTY: Before the House adjourns, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me again the privilege of speaking. If this Committee is going to do anything, there must be a truce between the two armies. I have a report now that there is heavy fighting going on in Kilkenny and that 18 have been killed. That is a good start—is it not? And people are sitting down here discussing whether they will compromise themselves by stopping it."

Notably the whole Dáil felt that it was credible at that time that 18 could have been killed; not that 18 were actually killed. Obviously a report had just been handed to him. Or it could have been a bluff on his part. But there it is on the Dáil record, and indeed if it was wrong it has never been corrected. Also "the two armies" - said by an army officer - says it all - i.e. "not our army and the dissidents in its ranks".

Quoting from Dáil pages is a bit cumbersome but if you search a page for keywords you will find the right place.

Your work on the page has been outstanding. My focus is on the Treaty to war period, Jan - June 1922, and I find that a lot of detail is missing from better-known history books. But I don't consider this to be WP:OR as it is in the official records. For balance, I'm planning to add Sean McEntee's comment that the Army Executive was superior to the Dáil, if it deserted the republic, as that neatly explains the exact sense of legality on the anti-treaty side. Then I'll leave it. Clearly the tragedy didn't start when the Four Courts was shelled.Red Hurley 11:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The more one reads about it, the more you realise that it was brewing for quite a long time up to June 28.

I take your point about Kilkenny. And nice work yourself on the aricle.

I'd like to re-include the reference to Collins wanting to avert civil war. It is a point that is emphasised a lot in books about the period. He seems to have been giving the anti-treaty side arms and letting them take over barracks right up until the end of June 1922, against the advice of Griffith, O'Higgins and the British. Arguably his prevarication helped the crisis to build up to the pitch it did. Also, it seems that he was trying right up to the end to re-direct IRA attention to the North. It's by no means clear what the man was really up to, and now of course we'll never know for sure.

Jdorney 11:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I don't think he knew himself. By May 1922 it had got out of control of any one person. He did of course want to avert civil war. The economy was in ruins, the volunteers had no jobs to go to, nobody wanted to invest in Ireland until the political situation was clearer. A lesson, if ever needed, that military people have to stand aside when peace breaks out...Red Hurley 12:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Kelly

Thanks for the work on the article, but can you have a look at my comments on the talk page please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Irishmen

No problem, always glad to help. As for the anon's edits, I was not sure of the factual accuracy, but the lack of refs made me curious and suspicious. Feel free to revert. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Flight of the Earls

I wanted to thank you for the fine work you have done on this article recently. It has been on my watchlist for quite some time, and I had every intention of having a go at it, but simply had not found the time. Now, I see I do not have to. It was a mess before you worked on it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. As for the name, yeah... that's why I chose it! Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partition of Ireland: Revision in 1998

The problem is that there was no revision to partition in 1998. Neither the Belfast agreement nor the 19th Ammendment changed it in any way. I suppose we could have something called "Constitutional acceptance". I'll try that. --Red King (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constitooshinal? :) --Red King (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a problem to you and me, but not to majorities of the electorates in NI and here in the south.Red Hurley (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

HI there!!! Thanks for creating the hospital article but please remember you must add references to confirm new articles and you should categorize them like I have added -e.g Category:Hospitals in Ireland. Happy editing and hope you enjoy being a wikipedian ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I intended to do so. You're quick!Red Hurley (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Irish Law

Hi RH,

Do you have a reference for the case referred to regarding customary fishing rights in Tyrconnnell? I am interested as it relates to an outside research project I am going, but had not heard of this case before.

Cheers,

DZ

Davidzukovny (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Plumpudding.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Plumpudding.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

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 [[ Talk:Image:Plumpudding.jpg|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. Eubulides (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck but I happen to be an Irish wikipedian.Red Hurley (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 8 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sylvester O'Halloran, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim (☎) 19:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Mellowes

The second e is dropped and says often spelt Mellowes. Could that be because it is the correct spelling? 22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which is right (whoever you are) - just that I've seen both spellings. There must be a source somewhere of how he spelt it. Until then we can paraphrase Hamlet - an E, or not an E?Red Hurley (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poland bio prodded articles

Per your vote here: be bold, see if any has been deleted/redirected, and feel free to restore them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunmanway again

Hi RH,

I completely understand if you find this topic distasteful but in the interests of consensus, your thoughts are again welcome in the ongoing discussion on the talk page. I'm trying to avoid it turning into an edit war and the issues are as much about format and editing as content. Dunmanway Massacre.Jdorney (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War guerrilla phase

Hi (once again) Red,

Getting away from the unseemly quarrel that is the Dunmanway Massacre article, I have finally expanded the sections of the guerrilla phase of the Irish Civil War. Your thoughts are welcome as we discussed this once before and I know this is an area you are interested in.

Incidentally, it might be possible to have a civil discussion of the Dunmanway article again sometime soon as a beligerent user who will remain nameless seems to have been banned. Regards Jdorney (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partition of Ireland

Re.: On the Boundary commission part I've changed this big mistake - 'The report of the Commission (and thus the terms of the agreement) has yet officially to be made public:" - in fact the agreement was made public about an hour after it was made (and the agreement meant that the Commission and its report were no longer needed). See this.Red Hurley (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see you have confused publication of the agreement concerning the border with publication of the Boundary Commission's report....Not the same thing! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse long absence - the terms of the agreement were made public, the original text was vague or wrong, and those terms meant that thereafter the report had no functional use. As I recall it suggested that some 100,000 of the 6-counties' 350,000 nationalists would be included in the IFS, so it was always going to be a matter of percentages of percentages.Red Hurley (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:JJolybust1930.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JJolybust1930.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be Template:PD-Ireland but I can't find where to put it on the page.Red Hurley (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Sheppard7bustGeoRussell.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sheppard7bustGeoRussell.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As above, 1926+70=1996 and I am living in 2009, so Template:PD-Ireland.Red Hurley (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, Red Hurley. You have new messages at Tameamseo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Irish Brigade

Ok, I accept that the Connolly Column was not a brigade, but casual visitors may not have the information to be able to make an informed search. They need to know that there were two Irish contingents, and be pointed towards the other one. Accordingly, I have reinstated the for-see template, but reworded it to avoid the word Brigade. I hope that you will accept this compromise. --Red King (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern (and I suppose it could be regarded as POV) is to reflect the fact that there was a significant anti-fascist Irish presence as well as the more well-known pro-fascist. That is why I think it belongs as a for/see rather than a see also, that it is a direct contrast rather than a vaguely related item.

I'm concerned by your remarks about the CC article: as you may have noticed, I have not edited it significantly, if at all. I have no primary sources: wikipedia is all I have. I came to it from an article I read somewhere about Peadar O'Donnell – it was the first time I had heard of yet another IRA split in the 30s, which is interesting. The split, as you probably already know, was between the left-wingers who wanted to support international anti-fascism and the holy maries who wanted to stay with bourgeois nationalism. How history repeats itself! I would gladly work to improve the CC article if I could. --Red King (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Red Hurley. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 02:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You're welcome. ww2censor (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Red Hurley. You have new messages at Tameamseo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jonah Barrington

you know alot about him?--SexonfireKOL2010 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC) --SexonfireKOL2010 21:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC) (this comment was previously unsigned by, User:SexonfireKOL2010[reply]

I've read 2 of his books. I'm trying to sort out Jonah Barrington (disambiguation) if you can help tidy it up.Red Hurley (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll see what I could do. --SexonfireKOL2010 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Van Morrison: No Surrender

At the article about the book Van Morrison: No Surrender, I see you have added unsourced info about a WP:BLP. I would prefer that this not be in the article, and most certainly not if unsourced, and especially not if unsourced about a WP:BLP. Perhaps you could discuss at the article's talk page? Cirt (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Theobald Burke

On January 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Theobald Burke, 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, quick check ) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laudabiliter

The fact that it is a historic controversy has no bearing on the fact that the references used in the article are hopelessly outdated. If you can think of a better way to indicate that fact to readers and editors please go ahead, but removing the tag without replacement or resolution isn't helping anyone. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the debate itself is outdated, but some people might seek it out so IMHO better to have it in there - or maybe on a separate linked article? Lots of sources in wiki are outdated, see Creationism.Red Hurley (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree, the fact that lots of dead geezers spent ages arguing about it should be in the article, but that's background rather than the main thing. Oddly enough Saint Patrick (and Saint Columba) have exactly the opposite problem. They have nothing about dead geezers claiming that they were really Church of Ireland/Church of Scotland guys rather than [Roman] Catholics. All very strange! It might not be entirely a thing of the past either. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there was still some of this stuff going on at places like Bob Jones University or that bible college where Paisley senior got his doctorate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding text from the 1317 remonstrance on the talk page, in hopes that D48 will come to see that everyone thought there was a bull.Red Hurley (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Executions

Seems fine. But what was the significance of the second order?

Jdorney (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was an extension of the categories, including new offences such as wearing stolen Free State uniforms; it's all in the debate.Red Hurley (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Red Hurley. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment.
Message added 15:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No one seem to be looking at the assessment page, including me. Sorry for delay. ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden

Hi Red Hurley,

You're right, Joe Biden is one of us and he should be on the page. I can't post comments on the Irish American talk page because I signed up for a mediation on some content on the article and one of the provisions is that we don't edit while we're working out the thing. But, sure put Joe up there. He's definitely an Irish American.Malke 2010 21:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Morning. Thanks for your comments here. --RA (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I understood that you're an Irishman (I wish I can visit your wonderful country some time soon!), so you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country, music and language! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bon día, Capsot, I have visited your beautiful country 4 or 5 times.Red Hurley (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bon dia, hey I see you know some things in Catalan, I hope you enjoyed visiting there, I wish I can go to Ireland some day, I'm in love with all your traditions and music. Many thanks for your support, if you ever need something just let me know I'll be glad to help the best I can. Take care and have a nice day and week, slán agat, Capsot (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC). Don't forget the template somewhere![reply]

I hope you're doing fine. Thanks again! If you ever need something from me, just let me know, I'll be real glad to help the best I can, take care! Capsot (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ern Malley / Ernie O'Malley

I'm baffled why you added Ernie O'Malley in the "See also" section of Ern Malley. What's the connection? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you know where EM's name came from.Red Hurley (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither article mentions the connection you suggest. The article on Ern Malley mentions a completely different origin of that name. Unless you find some sources for your claim, I suggest you revert your edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1941 Dublin Bombing

Given your work on this issue, you might be interested in a lecture [1]. Unfortunately, I'll be abroad. Regards - ClemMcGann (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Red Hurley (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make it? How was it?

re the G2 article, should I convert it to html, then the site search box could search it? - 81.32.74.186 (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly no, but thanks anyway.Red Hurley (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art Bollix

Howya, greetings from (an ex-farmer) Cork. Look, I'd be willing to keep and help out if you went the art speak route. Its the title more than anything that I object to, I just dont think in itself it warrants a page. Art speak is real enough though, sadly. Matthew Collings has a lot to say on this if you can track down some of his early '00 books. Ceoil (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does if you are interested in art, and I happen to be a collector, and first heard art bollocks as a phrase from a salesman in Sotheby's London in 2000. It could be renamed, but I always write in good faith, and your description of my work as "fuckology" on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts goes way beyond WP:CIV, even if you are from Cork. I would never describe someone's genuine point of view as fuckology. People are different and have differing points of view.Red Hurley (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fuckology thing was low, and I struck it. Who are you collecting? I follow the market myself. Ceoil (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the way back to 1000-BC Irish ( one or two) to 1930s German expressionists. I am bona fide and would like to see arguments in favour of using AB as well as the more visible contrarians. It is an interesting and contemporary subject that we all should know more about, IMHO.Red Hurley (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are no longer arguing. Ceoil (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in burying the hatchet? I would be interested in working on an article on Artspeak. Sorry we got off to a bad start. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No hatchet exists, let's do that based on the sensible AB article afd comments.Red Hurley (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community restrictions

The article United Ireland, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are:

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related.
- Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first. Thank you.

O Fenian (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Coppinger

Nomination of article name for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AfD discussion title until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

The article had been previously deleted as she was not notable. Exiledone (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That deletion was right at the time; however, becoming an MEP is notable.Red Hurley (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Coppinger's page

Hey, there are a number of significant inaccuracies on Ruth Coppinger's page in relation to her being an MEP (which is not the case). I've removed all inaccuracies and outlined my reasons here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ruth_Coppinger BOZG (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esat Mobile Phone Licence Scandal

Hi! Since you participated in this merge proposal which was put in an AfD, and therefore was procedurally closed, your input would be appreciated for an actual merge discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ruth Coppinger for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ruth Coppinger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Coppinger (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Curragh

I noticed your recent edit to Curragh adding a citation. I reedited it with a fully completed citation template that provides space for all the available details from the source. Perhaps you will consider using it in future if you don't usually use it, however, I usually find it necessary to manually add some details, even though I use a Firefox webcite addon. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Ireland_category_norms

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Ireland_category_norms. KarlB (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your comment on STiki Talkpage

hi, Thanks for your comment on Wikipedia_talk:STiki. But I am afraid you came to the wrong place. please note that STiki talk page is not the right place to inform about content dispute or problematic users. Please use WP:DRN for content dispute or WP:ANI to report user issues to get your concerns addressed. regards--Ðℬig XЯaɣ 12:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:ANI
– Ðℬig XЯaɣ 13:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question!

Could you explain ,please!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freshford%2C_County_Kilkenny&diff=495203875&oldid=495173898

Your recent posting – in the past hour: please talk to me about it? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. When you recently edited Hugh O'Reilly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Charles I (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romanzo criminale – La serie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sky TV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Art Bollocks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Art Bollocks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Bollocks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 07:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:JJolybust1930.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:JJolybust1930.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 page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. 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) 20:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Events happening in Dublin

Hi! As you tagged yourself as being in Ireland, I hope you don't mind me reaching out. We know have a recognised Wikimedia Community Ireland User Group and we have been running workshops and other events in Dublin and beyond. In case you are interested our next event will be this Saturday in Collins Barracks, you can find the details here. Smirkybec (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mickopedia for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickopedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]