User talk:Shtove

Welcome, from Journalist

Welcome!

Hello, Shtove, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Journalist ^C. / ^{Holla @ me!}

Elizabeth I

Saying that Elizabeth's religious views were held only to "suit her own ambitions" is ipso facto non-neutral. The description of the manner in which the Irish insurrection of 1583 was put down is not neutral, insomuch as it paints the English as cruel and oppressive. "Appalling" is inherently not a neutral phrase. I hope that these explanations suffice; if not, we could discuss it further. -- Emsworth 00:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atilla

Damned if I remember. On the Village Pump or Reference desk, I believe someone had typo'd something, and I made a cheap pun. I occasionally do that, usually with an edit summary like "Frivolous remark" or "even less useful response". -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant Dissenters

On the precision of the term 'dissenter': yes and no. I think it's a loaded term, even without the historical connotations; it places one side rather than the other as those who dissent, seeming to imply that the thing they dissent from is the generally-accepted truth. I don't think it adds anything to the statement "[the claim] is disputed on grounds of doctrine by Protestants" to add that the Protestants are "dissenters" - the statement already says they disagree with the claim; adding that they are "dissenters" merely seems to give them a particular characterisation.

On the term 'Protestant': I, and the 'Protestant' article, think that Protestant now fairly unambiguously refers to members of the Christian movement which divided from the Roman Catholic Church at the Reformation; the third major branch of Christianity along with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm not sure I see that as particularly vague; and I think it is the case that all Protestants would dispute the Roman Catholic Church's right to sole use of the description "Catholic".

On the term "Catholic Church": ideally, yes, each article would have a single, simple, uncontroversial title. Unfortunately, the organisation referred to by this article prefers a title - "the Catholic Church" - which makes a claim which is disputed; the 'Catholic' article has a good examination of the different claims on the term Catholic. I'm sure that, for example, the Palmarian Catholic Church would also like to be called "the Catholic Church", while most if not all Protestant denominations would claim that no single denomination has the right to call itself that. I don't think it's compatible with Wikipedia policies for Wikipedia to declare that one contenter is "the Catholic Church", even if it is the largest body that claims that title. Those outside the organisation usually distinguish which particular "Catholic Church" this is by prefixing it with "Roman". Wikipedia policy on naming is:

"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."

What is specifically not mentioned is what the body itself would like to be called. It is of interest, and should be noted, that the body would prefer to be called the Catholic Church; but I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to award it that title given that a large proportion of people would dispute its right to it.

On Talk:Roman Catholic Church: I read it; I post to it; unfortunately, it's far too long and little-read. I've read most of it, but there's no consistent thread of debate, just a huge array of unconnected comments. For example, I made a proposal on there (about the Terminology section) several months ago; but I haven't yet carried it through, because, even though it received no objections on the talk page, I have no confidence that the majority of editors will have read it. Nothing ever seems to be decided there; it probably needs a purge and restart from scratch.

TSP 14:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Armada

Thank you for your note. Leicester point taken but he was back in England by 1588. I hope the article contribution is not too forthright but religion is always a problem. When it enters into a topic, an attempt to point out truths will appear unbalanced to those whose minds are set in another direction. :-) (RJP 13:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

>Your point ... should be relegated to the discussion page
I do not think so. The points of view in the Spanish and English/Dutch articles are too different/opposing to be brushed under a discussion page. I hope you will agree after you read the Tergiversaciones históricas ("historical distortions") section in the Spanish Wikipedia Armada article. I have renamed the section from "Discussion" to "Point of view". MH 20:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Legend

Hi, Shtove. My contributions to es:Leyenda negra were mainly objections. I find the article in w:es extremely POV, and I have argued with Ecelan to the point. I think the fact that the very term was developed by a conspicuous ultra-Catholic and pan-Hispanist revisionist should be clearly mentioned in the introduction, and that more attention should be paid to the usage of the term by the historians of the Franco regime, more interested in resuscitating an anachronical idea of Spanish grandeur and nobility than in historical precision. I don't think the English version is much better, unfortunately.

Nevertheless, I am no historian. I think your best bet in this regard is es:User:Cinabrium, who is far more competent on the matter than I am. He has a homepage here, he writes some mean English, and he's certainly up to the task. Best, Taragüí 13:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:Jmabel)
Thanks for your vigilance. It's a significant propaganda subject, so I'm trying to get fair Spanish input to make the article more or less accurate and balanced, in both languages (I dont' speak Spanish, and my knowledge of the subject is marginal) - hopeless perhaps, but can you assist? The end of the discussion page shows my attempts. Are the people I'm talking to the same ones you keep reverting?shtove 23:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(end copied passage)

Who knows, since the people I find myself reverting are almost uniformly editing anonymously. The comment above indicates that Taragüí would probably have objections that would go well beyond those I've raised, but in the same direction.

FWIW, I read Spanish well and write it decently. If you have specific material you want translated, I'm glad to help (though a bit busy), but I agree with Taragüí that the Spanish-language Wikipedia article won't be much help: unsurprisingly, it is even more uniformly apologist for Spain.

What the article really most needs is references and citations, so that no one has an excuse to keep throwing away large portions of it that they happen to like, selectively invoking the claim that the material is uncited. And this is a topic where I suspect that the online references will mostly be mediocre: for a controversy that raged largely in historians' journals, someone needs to do some library research.-- Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Boru

Thanks for your input and don't give up just yet :) See comments on Talk page - FrancisTyers 00:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus in Galway

The info was related to discussion on Christopher Columbus, and whether there was any evidence to support the saga that he learned about Hy Brasil in Galway. See Talk:Christopher Columbus#Signs of Land beyond the Atlantic in Galway? / Navigatio Sancti Brendani. --Red King 18:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(btw, while I'm here, it is not true to say that Protestants are Dissenters. Only Presbyterians, Quakers, Baptists (along with Catholics) are - the dissent is from acceptance of the Supremacy Act and the Book of Common Prayer. --Red King 18:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect

You can move pages with the "Move" feature :) I hope I didn't cause an edit conflict when moved it. Nice article, BTW. Alensha 23:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Paisley

No problem, the unverified info can probably be deleted, since it appears to be a very weak conspiricy theory, not even notable since its not widespread.

You might like to look over Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style and Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations for some hints on how to format references. --Barberio 02:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Basques, Milesians, Welsh and Irish...

Please accept my apologies for a delayed reply. I've been on (short) vacations, far away from computers (or even TV or newspapers -- and yes, there is a life beyond the Internet :D).

Getting back into the issue: tracing the roots of a people is usually a hard task, particularly when one does not have written documents. Modern science gives us two significant tools: genetics and linguistics. If a people is essentially an identity (common culture, common traditions, self-recognition of "belonging to"), the latter tends to be more useful than the former. But both of them can (and indeed do) give us good clues.

From linguistics, it is today generally accepted that Basque (Euskara) is an isolated language. It is believed that Euskara was part of a more extended pre-indoeuropean linguistic conglomerate (a family of languages, perhaps?) also represented by the longtime extinct Aquitanian language. The words Gascon and Basque have the same root, since the Romans called the tribes living in that area uascones- Archaelogical evidence shows that Basque ancestors were living more or less in their current settlement area, i.e. between the Adour and Ebro rivers.

From genetics, we know some interesting (and curious) things. Among all peoples, Basques have the highest prevalence of both type O blood and Rh negative factor. Basques with O- blood are 27% of the population, against a 7% average for people of European descent[*]. This fact has given grounds for some speculative theories: areas known to have been occupied by the Cro-Magnon man (as the Atlas Mountains of Morocco and the Canary Islands) show a very high incidence of Rh-, and this is often cited. together with skull features, as a proof of the Cro-Magnon origin of the Basques.

If we try to get the mythical Milesians into historical context, we could say that the legend is an account of (one of the?) indoeuropean wave(s) moving westwards. By all accounts, Milesians were Celts. Protocelts appear in Central Europe (Urnfield and Hallstadt cultures) between 1500 and 1000 BC, contemporarily with the migration of Protoitalics to Italian Peninsula, the rise of the Vedic civilization in Punjab (Northern India) and the fall of the Micenic civilization. Between 1000 and 500 BC Celtic languages spread over Central and Western Europe, and Celts reach British Isles not before the second half of the 1st millenium BC (see also Celtiberians). There is no reason to assume that those Milesians were Basques; it is however possible that they could have departed from the mouths of the Adour (today's Bayonne), coming from Celtic areas in today's Southern France.

With regard to genetic kinship between Basques, Welsh and Irish, I've not found the reference here in WP. Some form of correlation is however possible, so please let me speculate a little bit about it. Today's Irish and Welsh peoples are of Celtic origin, but a lot of intermixing exists. Basques are not Celts, but a lot of intermixing with neighboring Celtic peoples (as Galicians) exists too; in fact, Basque "ethnicity" is not defined as belonging to a certain genetic heritage, but by the sharing of a common language: Euskaldunak ("the Basques") are "Euskara-speaking people". Their land, Euskal Herria, is "the land of those that speak Euskara".

I hope this (unordered) notes help. If you have any further questions, please contact me (in my Wikipedia en español talk page). Best wishes from Cinabrium 02:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

[*]BTW, my mother and most of her family are O-. I'm A+, and am alive just because I was her firstborn child. Had I been the second, Wikipedia would have had one less editor (see Rh disease).

islands Voyage

It does not link to an article yet because it has not yet been witten! But it is the name of the expedition: Google ["The Islands Voyage" expedition Azores] --Philip Baird Shearer 00:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish 16C Articles

Hi Shtove, thanks for all your good work on the tudor Ireland articles up to now. I want to have a really good set of articles on early modern Irish history here, so I've also been looking at the biographies of people from that time. The Hugh O'Neill article is coming along, which is good because it was left in really bad state until recently. Likewise the Hugh Roe O'Donnell article. How about a category people of the time eg "Tudor Irish People" or 16th century Irish people"?

I'm not happy about the Florence MacCarthy article at the moment. It seems to be far to long to me and clouded in detail, which the average reader could never absorb. I may have mentioned before that I wrote an MA thesis on this topic, so its a bit close to my heart! I am tempted to re-write this article completely, but I want to run it by you first. (Chapters of the MA can be sent by email if you are interested btw! :) )

Also, I've made some changes to Tudor re-conquest of Ireland recently. What I want is to have a thorough but fairly concise account of the main trends in English policy in Ireland and the Irish response to them. Do you think anything has been missed out? You might also like to have a look at Early Modern Ireland 1536-1691 for the same reason - is anything important missing?

Another project that I have in mind is the starting of articles on 16C battles in Ireland, including a category to contain the Nine Years War battles. I have my sights on battle of Affane, battle of Farsetmore, Siege of Smerwick Castle, battle of Clontibret, battle of Curlew Pass, battle of Moyry Pass. Help would be much appreciated. Jdorney 01:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clontibret

Very good work. I've expanded it a bit with details from McCoy's "Irish battles", but your text is still the backbone of the article. I've also added an article on the Battle of Affane, whichyou mifght like to edit. Jdorney 01:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on Affane. I would question though, whther its a good idea to quote Falls directly. For one thing, Fall' language is abit dated, for another thing, his writing usually echoes the state papers a bit too uncritically. Have most of those battle articles done now. Only Moyry and Smerwick left. Jdorney 22:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Apologies. Ok, well "espied" sounds strange to my ears anyway. Re the "rascals", I have no doubt that Fitzgerald used the term, but I think in modern terms it would mean "marauders", "looters", or "scavengers". Kerne would have done this, but also acted as scouts and skirmishers. Lennon's fairly brief account says that the Geralidines were caught in the river, I assumed this meant drowned. Fair enough. I don't really understand aht you mean about Coyne and livery. If you are asking what it means, it refers to the maintaining of private armies by Irish lords. The term itself comes from the combination of an Irish word for free quarter, coinnmheadh and the English word Livery, which means the colours or uniforms worn by a lord's retained soldiers. Jdorney 00:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carrigafoyle

Excellent work. I wikified it a bit and added a sentence. We're nearly there on the battles front now. I have notes ready on the battle of Moyry Pass and intend to start it shortly. I have no detailed info on Smerwick however. Do you? Btw, have you seen battle of Farsetmore article and battle of Curlew Pass? Your input would be appreciated. Jdorney 19:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ireland

I don't like the "story" designation either, actually. It's bugged me since I first saw it. In fact, I'm preparing (after some discussion) to attempt a condensed rewrite of the whole intro that is more "intro" and less "highlights of Irish history". When I do that, I'll do my best to throw in some verbiage that acknowledges Ireland's interactions with the continent. Dppowell 17:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Grenville - Trivia

In the Trivia section at Richard Grenville you added an anecdote about Gilbert. Does this belong under Grenville? The connection is not clear. Shouldn't it be under Gilbert, if anywhere? Also, how reputable is the source? Lambiam 09:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Boleyn

Hi,

Please, next time if you edit a page and you see that it was last edited by an anonymous someone, check if they made good edits or simple vandalism. I had to restore 72.235.103.88's deletions one by one because simply reverting them would have deleted your later additions. Thanks if you pay attention to this. Alensha 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the reference to Thomas More, it was a bit POV, I tried to NPOV it without deleting the explanation why was Anne against him. The reference to Anne as a victim was in a quote from Retha Warnicke; it's her opinion not that of WP, as it is stated. The same about the word "fetus" (baby sounds better, but we shouldn't change quoted text.) regards, Alensha 19:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Pius XII

I checked the article as you requested. It does appear that your edits have been reverted, but it appears that they were reverted by an anonymous editor, not by EffK. I may restore them. Robert McClenon 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your edits. EffK has not been editing the article in the last few days, only flaming away on the talk page. Robert McClenon 19:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More like an oil well. A distant comet causes no pollution on the Earth. Robert McClenon 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various articles

Hi, thanks for the comment. Some of my articles are related to my work. Others are related to stuff that I loved to read about in my teens. But actually many of the contributions I am most proud of are about subjects that I had never heard of before. I think that writing an article for Wikipedia does much more for me than for Wikipedia...
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curlews Pass

Looks good to me. I've put the Florence McCarthy thing on the long finger for now. Re Yom Kippur, there is no way in hell I would get involved in debates over Arab-Israeli history of any kind on wikipedia, life's too short. Jdorney 14:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dia Duit

Hi there! Delighted to meet your acquaintence, Shtove, and am very much looking forward to reading your articles. There's not many people doing much on Irish history pre-1798, so contribuitors such as yourself are invaluable. Be sure do drop me a line. Cheers! Fergananim 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Countess

Sorry, didn't notice your first message. I reverted because "the Countess" and "the Earl" are incorrect — only Dukes and Duchesses are referred to by the rank alone, with all others being "Lord X" or "Lady X". And calling her "Fitzgerald" is wrong on two counts: (1) peers and peeresses are referred to by title, not surname; and (2) her surname was "FitzGerald", not "Fitzgerald". And Irish rules are entirely the same as English rules, since the Irish Peerage was instituted entirely by England (it's not like Scotland, which developed it separately and so developed its own quirks). Proteus (Talk) 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Man with No Name

Bingham was a very interesting charecter, and I'm sure I have some notes pertaining to him somewhere. If you do have any queries concerning his activities west of the Shannon I'd be delighted to help. At the moment I'm trying to create a comprehensive list of Irish Kings and Kingdoms, then work through them biographicly. You might also find this - http://celt.ucc.ie/publishd.html - a useful resources. As my health is irregular my input varies, but don't let that stop you asking me. Cheers! Fergananim 21:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and charisma

I corrected the article charismatic authority as per your request. I do not think that a statement in the summary about Hitler's charisma is appropriate. Though it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Andries 13:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Irish debate

Hello Shtove, I know you mainly contribute on Irish historical matters, and I wondered whether you have any guidance to offer on the use of the term Anglo-Irish in the opening paragraph of WP biogs. See my query at Talk:Anglo-Irish. Thanks -- Op. Deo 20:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EffK

I don't think so. To my knowledge there are no WP articles on famous editors, are they? And he will anyway never tell. He always adhered to a "do ask, don't tell policy". Str1977 23:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offence at all. I just wanted to increase the chance of EffK not reading such suggestions. It will only lead to another rant. He will probably read it any way, but one can always try. I can assure you that he's not Schröder's ex-wife, neither Hillu nor her two predecessors. But I won't say more about it in the open because ... well, result as above. Cheers and Goodnight, Str1977 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Hi, you left a question for another user yesterday concerning the deletion of an article, and your question was deleted as well. The user did not wish to be rude, and would have answered privately if your e-mail facility had been enabled. However, you have stumbled across something confidential, concerning threats to another Wikipedian. Jimbo is aware of the situation. Hope that helps. KHM03 03:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks.--shtove 17:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Anglius

Sir, what do you mean by claiming that Irishmen taught Englishmen how to speak their own language?--Anglius 04:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)--Anglius 00:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophes

I'm interested in 15th-16th century history generally - I've made quite a few petty tweaks to some Swedish articles as well. Nothing personal! —Serein 07:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deutche Desmond

Indeed, I'm most flattered! Jdorney 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does seem to be based on the English langage article. There is now also a stub in Swedish!

Re the British Empire, I think there should certainly be a section on early modern Ireland in it, though i don't have the energy myself at the moment. Canny's Making Ireland British is good. Another useful book for the colonisation of Ireland is "Natives and Newcomers", a collection of essays, I can't remember the name of the editor right now though.

Re ideology, there's a compilation book called "Political Ideology in Ireland 1541-1641, edited by Harman Murtagh, which is very informative. Also there's a recent, somewhat off beat bok about writing in English on Ireland in the seventeenth century by Deana Rankin titled, "Between Spenser and Swift". For Irish language responses, a good place to start is Michelle O'Riordan's, "the Gaelic Mind and the Collapse of the Gaelic world". Also Brendan O Buachala has a book in Irish whose name I can't remmeber right now.

Other books would be more specific about particlar times and events. I like Murtagh's "Tyrone's rebellion" for the background on Hugh O'Neill and the outbreak of the Nine Years War. Ciaran Brady has a provocative but interesting take on 16c Ireland in th "The Chief Governors", where he emphasises the sincerely held belief of English governors in civil "reform" in the 1500s and why this collapsed into violence. Stephen Ellis' "Tudor Ireland" has loads of minute detail, but is not great for the bigger picture in my opinion.

Hope that helps, Jdorney 11:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood

"Help appreciated. I hope you're in good health. Is your name Clint, by any chance?--"

Delighted you asked, though you might have to wait a while for me to do so as I'm still under the weather. And no it is'nt. Fergananim 14:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps ,Galway etc

Canny is still there alright, he's actually my supervisor! Hopefully he doesn't know how much time I waste on here. Re maps, I'm afraid i don't know anything about them except how to cut and paste them from other articles. Same with pictures. Jdorney 15:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Wars in Ireland

I've being doing some long-overdue edits to Edward Bruce, particularly under the headings "The Invasion of Ireland" and "Arrival and the Campaign of 1315". I began it because the original article was hopelessly wrong in many places, but am now wondering if what I am writing would be better suited as an article in its own right on the Irish Bruce wars? Fergananim 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypatia

Oy Shtove, I just always say hoo-pah-TEE-ah, which solves the whole problem!

Yo, anonymous - many thanks (I think - what was the problem?). So hard T, with emphasis. But how does Hy turn in to Hoo? Ancient Greek? Or is it Irish-whiskey pronunciation? Oy - there's a bit on the Roman pronunciation of Veni Vidi Vici talk - weeni weedi weechi - wot u fink?--shtove 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming policy

Hi, shtove. I have more than a passing interest in your favourite area. I am, however, wondering why you anglicise all the names of sixteenth century Gaelic and Gaelicised lords when, for the sake of accuracy, the standard practice in Irish Historiography (e.g. K. Simms, Mac Niocaill etal) is to use the Irish version if they were culturally Irish but the anglicised version if they were not? That practice allows for Florence McCarthy's name to be anglicised, while conveying an equally accurate role for figures such as Brian Ó Ruairc, Ulliam Nuinseann , Fiacha Mac Aodha Ó Broin, Mac Muiris Mac Gearailt, and so forth. I fear that the reality of Ireland's diversity in the sixteenth century is not conveyed with your current policy. El Gringo 01:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countess/Lady etc

Just a thought, but elsewhere when we have people correctly addressed in one form but much more famous by another we do the following.

Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry, KG, GCH, PC (18 June 1769 – 12 August 1822), known until 1821 by his courtesy title of Viscount Castlereagh

I don't know the details of the Countess in question to dispute what she may have been called incorrectly but a 'known as X' after the formal usage may be the solutionAlci12 17:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

Nine Years War/ Cogadh na Naoi mBliana

First, the use of 'rebel' to decribe the native Irish does in fact imply that Irish resistance to English rule was unusual, was exceptional. The word in this context was designed to establish English rule as the norm in society. Ciarán Brady devotes some time to discussing this in his book on Shane O Neill/Seán an Díomais and points out that it was O Neill and his struggles which represented the norm in society and, if any group had been 'rebelling', it was the English government of Ireland which was rebelling against the norm. It is a thoughtless word for a professional historian to use; an acceptance of the English view of the time as fact. Second, because Irish-born worked in the English government doesn't make it less colonial, no more than Algerian-born Pied Noir working for the French made the French government in Algeria less colonial. In fact, native-born workers are part of every colonial government and all works on colonialism and settler-colonialism incorporate them into the structure of those types of government. Third, to claim that the government was 'Irish domestic' implies that domestic Irish concerns were at its heart. With just a flicker of thought towards the English attitude towards the Gaelic world, Ireland's majority culture, this is patently untrue. The refusal to allow even Irish-born Old English head the government confirms that in English eyes the nascent Old English community was not to be trusted in government (and they were not). It was a government which was fully controlled by the English, most especially from Sussex's deputyship, and to claim it was a 'domestic Irish' government is simply ahistorical. The resistance to English policies from 1556 to 1583, and the ultimate defeat of the Old English, confirms beyond doubt English colonial control over the government. El Gringo 13:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther

I'd liked your suggestion. It set off a ... discussion. Why not stop by? --CTSWyneken 00:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And we're off again! --CTSWyneken 19:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOur opinion on a catagory dispute at Martin Luther is requested. --CTSWyneken 15:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethan Ireland biographies

Hi Shtove. I suggested the rename from Category:Elizabethan Ireland biographies to Category:Elizabethan Ireland people (or one of the alternatives I listed) as I didn't think the term 'biographies' was right in this case, because it's a self-reference to the articles, rather than actually describing the content of the articles. You can probably best see what I mean by comparing Category:People (This category is for biographical articles) with Category:Biographies (This category is for articles about books that are biographies). If there is a consensus to rename, an admin will run through the pages with a bot to make the necessary amendments, so there shouldn't be any edit implications. BTW, Ryan is the guy that added my welcome message. All the best. - Nzd (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shtove. Thanks for your message. If you'd like to contribute to the discussion, you can do so here. I will try to remember to notify category creators when suggesting renames in future. Apologies for not doing so this time. All the best. - Nzd (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Thanks for your note on my user page. I have now made it look worse, as I added one more link, and didn't know how to format it, but I think it's better to leave it like that, and hope that someone else will fix it. I've sent a message to the guy I stole the page from, so he might be able to help. It's good to see some intelligent and reasonable comments at Hitler, by the way. AnnH ♫ 11:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercator

I am afraid I don't have other maps of Ireland or Mercator. Some time ago I was collecting maps related to 17th century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What I found is here - maybe some of the sites will have the maps you are looking for.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Photo

Sure, it's GFDL so there's no restriction on its use within Wikipedia. The reason I requested something better is because it's badly scanned and due to the sunset it's not especially good for demonstrating what the islands look like. As for who took it, either me or my father, it was a long time ago and we were using the same camera, so I've forgotten. Joe D (t) 02:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockall

I've posted your Rockall photo in Spanish Armada in Ireland. Thanks. Do you have any other images that would be relevant there - ie. stormy west coast of Ireland?--Shtove 22:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! I'm heading out to sea next week and might get some pics of the north coast (can't promise stormy though! :) ), so I'll drop you a line if they're any good. Cheers. Anilocra 11:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Armada in Ireland

My compilments on a excellent article ClemMcGann 13:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re the Museum - do drop in any Saturday or Sunday - If I'm not there ask for Philip Smiley. You might also consider diving associations ClemMcGann 09:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Church in Ireland

Hi, I left a reply for you here. <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith Talk to me 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Stubs

I've added a few more stubs, and hope to have a few more done before too long. Nothing too adventerious, but hopefully of interest. Knock yourself out. Fergananim 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Armada in Ireland

My proverbial hat's off to you! GREAT WORK! I especially like the photos, as far too many wiki articles are not well served in this department. I'll begin to add in little bits here and there, especially in relation to the west coast. It is well worthy of featured article status. My only advice at present would be tighten it up, make sure all the sub-headings are in right order, and go over the opening paragrah again. The bold print looks a bit odd where it is, and I think any reference to the Desmond Rebellion should be removed to the main text. However had'nt that ended back in the early 1580's? Minor quibbles, I stress. 8/10! Fergananim 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting reading, but could you please advise how you identified the ship that was wercked in Tralee Bay. My information, from the journals of the Kerry Archaeological & Historical Society - No. 23 (1990)"The Surrender of an Armada Vessel near Tralee; an exploration of the State's Papers by Brendan G McCarthy is inconclusive on the identity of the ship but states that it is a barrk (bark, barque) between 40 and 50 tons with 24 people on board. It was a small three masted vessel and would be called a Patax or a Zabra by the Spanish.(Fenitharbour) MOC 18:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenitharbour (talk • contribs)

This is why citation is so important. The details in the article come from the Graveyard book listed in the general sources at the end of the article: written by a journalist who didn't give precise citations in his own text and didn't supply an index, so it's not easy to cite text pages throughout the article. Google it to see if you can get a copy - short book, very good read, with a solid account of the politics. Judging by my knowledge of the original state papers of the period, it also seems reliable on those details of the shipwrecks. I've done my best with this, can do no more! You seem to have a good source, so please add it. All the best.--Shtove (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countess of Desmond

She is up now. The "E" from "example" did not get cancelled out. The picture, I think, was originally in Muckross House. The Dublin Review articles on her will require MASSIVE re-writing of the article.

Smiley box

{{Smiley}} →
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
\|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\|
9	0	10	11	12	13	14	15
\|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\| \|\|
16	17	18	19	20	21
\|\| File:Cry-tpvgames.gif\|\| \|\| \|\| \|\|

Hi Shtove, In case you haven't seen it, I thought you might be interested in this Smiley box. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 18:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bare bones

I saw your comment about a bare-bones version elsewhere. Good Idea. Difficult to implement. Agathoclea 22:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler

Hi!

Yeah...I should have known better than to read an entry on the Life of Adolf Hitler on an open-edit site such as wikipedia.

There are clearly two main strands of people who use Wikipedia: 1)Those who want to achieve some form of self-glorification by seeing their name in lights. 2) Those who are thinking, 'This might be of use to someone else'.

I used to edit bits and pieces for Encyclopedia Britannica for a couple of years andI thus find all this subtle political manoeuvring very childish indeed.

Hitler was about as Christian as Ming the Merciless...and not quite as well dressed either.

To my mind there is a small clique of persons who wish to slam organisations such as the Roman Catholic Church through petty mided tactics. Although I am Catholic by birth it is not so much that which bothers me. The section on Hitler's religious beliefs on Wiki is dangerous; it seems to portray a man only half guilty of his own crimes by suggesting 'great forces' were at work to twist his mind.

I share Fest's objection to calling Hitler 'Evil' - it excuses his human actions by portraying him as being the pawn of some dark force.

But yes, I'll continue to repaste the quote I supplied from Mein Kampf indefinitely as the thrust of the existing subtleties is deeply offensive given the vast weight of material demonstrating Hitler despised christianity no less than he despised judaism.

Best,

Dave.

....and yes, I am in London!

("Baaaah!") :o) --Iamlondon 17:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westward Ho

Hi Shtove. I don't have any particular doubts that Westward Ho! offers examples of the black legend or was influenced by it. But because the BL is such a hot button topic, we should adhere quite closely to the verification and NOR policies. I would say the same about the BL article itself. Nesbit 02:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm near a university library. If you can recall the sources, I can try to look them up. Nesbit 04:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old English

Hey there, Our paths have not crossed much recently for some reason. Anyway, I have done some long overdue clean-up work on the Old English (Ireland) page. I wonder if you could have a look at it, as I'm sure you have some content of your own to add. I hope that we can rid the pae of its current cleaup status tag. I'm not really sure what to do with the second section, I don't quite get the point that whoever wrote it was trying to make. I hope all else is well. Jdorney 22:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Smerwick

Hi, I noticted a comment you made on this on another talk page. Unrelated to that comment, I set out to create a page on the Siege, and when writing the background info, it ended up as an article on the second Desmond Rebellions, with a section on Smerwick. I'm not a historian and I have left some comments on the talk page. Perhaps you could review --Rye1967 06:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have since found my comments and questions on Talk:Second Desmond Rebellion, and yes I think and article on the Siege of Smerwick would be great but I don't have acess to any more info either. Whenever it does get created it will be easy to have it replace the paragraph in the Second R article, so in the meantime, I am making all the other articles point to there.--Rye1967 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Jdorney, co-operation IS better than un-discussed deletion, which is why I didn't like his blanket revert of my work without giving a reason, so that is why I have reverted his changes on this occasion, something I don't normally do. I have given him an explanation of my reasons, and I will discuss it with him. We may be squaring off!, but I don't engage in revert wars - a waste of energy. I can see that he has made a great contribution to WP

I have just now removed one item from the list of battles - the 1581 sack of Smerwick castle. I have been in the area a few times as a youngester and although aware of the fort, have never heard of a castle (although there is a reference to the castle of Feirter in the area). None of the articles mention a battle of 1581 either. --Rye1967 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with your conclusion on the revert, but I will discuss with Jodorney, keep an eye on progress on our talk pages!! Interesting comment on the Azores massacre - as I was reading the Smerwick info, I was thinking that Rezalda (sp?) who was in the Spanish armada and was a Smerwick veteran must have been itching to have a go at the English forces again, it was many of the same guys - a cycle of revenge within a generation, as we have even seen in Northern Ireland. A time of great savagery but I wonder how much of our current-day standards we can apply when judging the behaviour.

There isnt (yet) a category of massacres, cause there were others, in other countries and those of Cromwell, and indeed on nearby Dursey Island on the Beara Peninsula --Rye1967 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16C

Hi, re pictures, I'm afraid my technical expertise is still non existent. I'm going to have to change a few things on the Old English page, after a talk with El Gringo. I have a problem with the idea of "Norman rule" in Ireland. They may have orignially come from Normandy, but Ireland was annexed by the King of England and the old English settlers below the nobility were generally English.

Re the Desmond articles, to be honest I'm not too happy with cutting the original article to make a cut and paste one. I would prefer if we left the original as it was and then worked on comprehensive one on the second rebellion if people think its necessary. The point for me is that so few people know the history and background involved that it is best to have releatively short and clear articles rather than long and detailed ones. That's what I was going for when I wrote the article in the first place. I realise that I should have discussed this first with Ryle1967 before I reverted anything though.

Jdorney 19:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions

Hi Shtove, Don't know if you've been keeping up with the 2nd Desmond Rebellion article, I've more or less re-written it in the last few days. I have two questions you might be able to help me with.

First, what do you know about the story that Fitzmaurice offered the Kingship of Ireland to the Pope's illegitimate son? It sounds a bit far fetched to me and I can't find any other reference to it. This doesn't mean its not true of course.

Second, the info about 200 Spaniards being massacred near Naas. Likewise, I can't find any mention of this either. I'm mainly using Colm Lennon's 16th century Ireland as a source. I also have some notes from state papers on the final stage of the rebellion from my Florence MacCarthy notes and a couple of journal articles. Anyway, can you confirm that this actually happened, and when and where it happened?

Cheers, Jdorney 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the nephew thing. That makes a lot more sense.

Re the Naas question, the only reference to it I can find is in the History of County Kildare article here on wp. I find it rather odd that 200 Spanish soldiers (and I'm not sure Fitzmaurice had that many to start with) marched from Smerwick to Naas in 1579 and stayed there until 1580 when they were massacred. Apart from the lack of references, it just doesn't make sense. Why not stay in Munster in the heartland of the revolt? Would the English have left them alone for a year within 20 miles of Dublin? Doubtful. If they left in July 1580 to help Baltinglass aand O'Byrne, that would be a different story of course.

It does seem though, that there were a load of executions of Palesmen in Naas in 1581, executed for their involvement with Baltinglass. See http://www.catholicapologetics.net/pers_3.htm#Under%20Queen%20Elizabeth. In fact, it seems like there was a lot of Catholic martyrs during the Desmond Rebellions, mostly in the Old English community, something I was only vaguely aware of before. Maybe the article should refelct this?

How do you feel the Second Desmond Rebellion article is looking in general?

Hope you had a good feed incidentally! You do references like this ^[1]. You have to have a

^ some book P 32

at the bottom of the page to see the footnote.

All the best, Jdorney 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorley Boy

Thank you for drawing my attention to this page, which seems to me to be a sober and commendable piece of work. I have only a couple of minor quibbles. I think it more accurate to say that Sorley extended and deepened MacDonnell power in Ulster rather than created it as such. In this regard, his role within Clan Iain Mor as a whole is worth some greater elaboration. I intend to write an article on the 1565 Battle of Glentasie in the very near future, which I hope will clarify some of these issues. I will let you know as soon as it is up and running. Regards. Rcpaterson 22:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Glentasie now stands. Regards, Rcpaterson 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'British Isles'(again) redirect vote

Requested move on the terminology page needs your vote, Shtove. El Gringo 19:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bruce-the Marriage that never was.

That was a typo-it should have read 'posthumous'-after death. The point arises from the rather curious wording about his possible marriage in the article itself. Thank you for the reminder; I intend to rewrite this page very soon now. Regards. Rcpaterson 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[the typo referred to above was, 'posthumpus marriage'.]--Shtove 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lee

I fixed all the links that linked to Thomas Lee the army captain so that they would link to that article and am creatinga disambiguation page for Thomas Lee so that it clears up confusion about who is who. Dinosaur puppy 23:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Looking throught the links I have found other Thomas Lee's who might be quite notable as well, one is even a billionaire. Dinosaur puppy 23:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruithin

Heya Shtove, Yeah, you are probably correct about the toning down. Work away on that. The Adamson stuff is seriously hardline loyalist material (even though Adamson himself is in the UUP). His creation of an ethnic Cruithin identity as a basis for modern loyalism has gained some followers here in the shape of Mal/Setanta and others. Ethnic identities are just so idiotic, especially given the numerous alternatives for basing an identity upon. El Gringo 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you didn't make assumptions on my behalf thank you. Also, if you had read any of Adamson's work, you would notice that he specifically suggests that it highlights a common identity. However, from your edits it is evident that you have not read any of it, as you don't appear to know the most basic information about it.

As for "has gained some followers here" - I had heard of Adamson decades ago, before Wikipedia was a twinkle in Jimbo's eye you know!

Once again, so as there is no confusion - I am not loyalist. When I notice a loyalist contributing regularly to Wikipedia, I'll be sure to point them out to you (shouldn't be too hard to recognise though). --Mal 03:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vikings

Change it if you will to something better than my edit. They ruled a few coastal towns with great success, destroyed thousands of manuscripts and treasured works of art, and never did rule the Gaelic culture. MelForbes 00:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moyry Pass

Very strange one. Yes, we wrote this article together, as can clearly be seen from the history page. And the talk page. I don't know what's up, but in the short term I'm going to revert it and see what happens. Jdorney 21:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done. Seems to have worked.

Just looked over the Nine Years War battle articles. We probably should expand the battle of the Yellow Ford article, this was one of the first I wrote on wikipedia and I went for brevity and clarity over content. the battle of Kinsale article we should re-write completely imo. The article as it stands is very poor for an event of such importance in Irish history. For sources, I have access to the battle of Kinsale (ed Hiram Morgan), Irish battles (Hayes McCoy) and 16th century Ireland (Colm Lennon). What do you reckon?

Jdorney 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to have a go at Kinsale first, at some point in the next week. Jdorney 19:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated feedback

I just gave the article a read. First and foremost I will say that it is well written. The hardest part about assessing articles sometimes is telling people that an article they have devoted much time to is terribly written. Not the case here. I made a short list of things that I think ned improvement. As always, they are just one mans opinion so take them for what they are worth:

Use of the term "was in train" in the intro? No idea what it means or what it is tryig to imply.
I would suggest expanding the intro a little to include why the Spanish Armada was invading England (part of the greater Anglo-Spanish War) and generally what caused them to wreck.
There need to be in-line citations throughout the article, especially where people are quoted. I am assuming that the majority of the info came from the 2 books listed. Take a look at Corinthian War as a good example of how to properly cite and refernce.
I would repostion the Clew's Bay photo so it does not break the page up in such a strange way as it currently does.

Overall it is an excellent article and with just a few changes could easily stand for GA Status. Hope this helps and if you need anything else please let me know.--Looper5920 22:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page of American Psycho

I liked your comment on the talk page of American Psycho. Snot wank — I will always remember that neologism. If only I could think of such creative designations for university feminists. Rintrah 09:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me using it. :) Rintrah 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler's prig.

Here it it is:

'...A prig is a believer in red tape; that is, he exalts the method above the work done. A prig, like the Pharisee, says: "God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are"—except that he often substitutes Self for God. A prig is one who works out his paltry accounts to the last farthing, while his millionaire neighbour lets accounts take care of themselves. A prig expects others to square themselves to his very inadequate measuring rod, and condemns them with confidence if they do not. A prig is wise beyond his years in all things that do not matter. A prig cracks nuts with a steamhammer: that is, calls in the first principles of morality to decide whether he may, or must, do something of as little importance as drinking a glass of beer. On the whole, one may, perhaps, say that all his different characteristics come from the combination, in varying proportions, of three things—the desire to do his duty, the belief that he knows better than other people, and blindness to the difference in value between different things.'

(I've met Wikipedians like that.)

Burchard's third edition, needless to say, drops the whole entry. My favourite moment from the first edition is the obscure:

Foam, froth: '...One demands of foam that it be white; froth may be of what colour it pleases. Froth may be scum, but foam, though it may become scum, ceases to be foam in the process.'

qp10qp 22:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should, of course have said 'Burchfield'. {Must have been some Freudian admixture with your word for him.) By the way, I've looked you up and realised I've read lots of your articles, using parts of them for an immense history of Ireland I've compiled for my own reference in Word. Very, very interesting and useful; thank you. qp10qp 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Armada

Hi. Maybe just dive in amd make the edit - I'm a little fuzzy on the subject matter and don't want to mess up the article. Cheers. -- No Guru 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted paragraph

Yeah I deleted it because it was historically incorrect. It even discreditted the accepted historical facts! I replaced it with more factual information. Sorry if it doubles up.

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 04:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Davies

Thanks for your feedback! I find it very helpful. Do you see any other places in the article that could specifically use improvement? Any suggestions or information would be warmly welcomed. Thanks! Drewpy181 20:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)drewpy181[reply]

Re:New film (Sacred Evil)

Hi! The film Sacred Evil has been released in India. I could not find a website of the movie. However, there are reviews (here and here) and also news items (here and here). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanitas

Its an interesting debate, but unfortunately, one I know nothing at all about. Seems to me though that if Agricola had invaded Ireland then someone would have recorded it. Regards, Jdorney 12:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Psycho

Hi.

Do you think we have done a decent job of American Psycho? I have edited it so much, I hardly know if I am improving it anymore. It will remain submerged in B-class status until it gets more references. Rintrah 14:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I have also had the same concerns, but they were numbed when I editied it too much. You are right about repetition; I have tried to improve the Rampage section in others ways, but have not properly addressed this. I do not like the Symbolism section much either; it is I who originally tagged it. Everything could be made more succinct, as you say. I think I most improved the article by deleting large parts of it some time ago.

Thank you for helping. Rintrah 01:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you review the article again? I have reduced the annoying content in the Themes and Symbolism section — particularly all the reader speculation which really belongs to a fan forum. I and a few others cleaned up the Rampage section more — you might still need to check that it is accurate. As far as I can tell, the article is succinct, or almost so. What it is most lacking, quite clearly, is references. I might eventually add these myself, if I can, since no one else seems to take on this challenge. Rintrah 17:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year categories

Many years are subcategorised by country: see Category:Years in Ireland for other years. Tim! 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Epic Barnstar
		I noticed your excedingly careful and edits on Queen Elizabeth I, which are exceptional. Good work and keep it up! --lov e laughterlife♥^talk? 22:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Ussher

Hi, thanks for your message. Categorisation is all a bit of a how-long-is-a-piece-of-string question. My thought is that though Ussher did receive some public notice for his disputations while young, there was a lot of it about at that time, and I think that if he had been run over by a Dublin Corporation ox cart in 1603, very few people would have heard of him now; however, that cannot be said at a later stage in his life. So, I would put him down as a notable Jacobean and Carolingian person (such categories son't seem to exist); just to have him as a notable Elizabethan could be a bit misleading and cause people to misplace him. However, you know, whatever. MAG1 11:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles etymology

Hi Shtove,

Thanks for the support. I've definately be sucked in and y g/f's patience will wear thin soon. RE: "you won't get a knockout, just a draw on points" - this is why I prefer watching amateur boxing. Better three short clean rounds that everyone can walk away from with pride than twelve long bloody ones demanding a loser.

Regards, --sony-youth^talk 08:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, the article looks good. I've made a slight amendment to the effect that Albion is sometimes still used in English, often in a poetical sense. TharkunColl 09:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin the Chosen

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your query. Gavin the Chosen's history is somewhat convoluted. He went through several usernames, some admitted and some not, a thousand warnings, dozens of pleas by e-mail, various informal mentoring arrangements, and an ArbCom case. Nothing worked and we had to part company. There's no specific diff I can give you, but you could check out his talk page history, and the case here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Thomas Butler, 3rd Earl of Ormonde; Thomas McCarthy (poet); Dirty protest; Beara Peninsula; Patrick Harte; Repeal (Ireland); Tom Hales; Hugh Dancy; Anthony Browne; George Carew; Arthur Grey, 14th Baron Grey de Wilton; Arthur Chichester, 3rd Earl of Donegall; Piaras Feiritéar; Great Irish Famine (1740-1741); Battle of Kilrush; William Pery, 3rd Earl of Limerick; Blanket protest; Valentine Browne, 4th Earl of Kenmare; Dunluce Castle

Cleanup: Ancient Order of Hibernians; Margret of Thormond; Murrough O'Brien, 1st Marquess of Thomond
Merge: Provisional Sinn Féin; Hiberno-Scottish mission; List of United States disasters by death toll
Add Sources: Éamon de Valera; Richard Og de Burgh, 2nd Earl of Ulster; Aran Islands
Wikify: Anglo Irish Bank; Agarose gel electrophoresis; Association of Ideas
Expand: Mary Rose; Sieges of Galway; Culture of Ulster

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hi Shtove, Sorry I didn't get back to you about the Naas thing. As you may have noticed I've been distracted by other things. I swore when I started editing wikipedia that I wouldn't edit articles on the north and troubles if at all possible, but now I find myself embroiled in all the horrible pov disputes that I knew were inevitable. Anyway. Any ideas for improvements of the calmer waters of early modern Ireland? Jdorney 10:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly enough, reason does eventually prevail even in NI articles if you are persistent enough. And ban enough people. But several years of my life are now missing as a result.

To be honest, I really don't know anything about the siege of Smerwick beyond what is already in the Second Desmond Rebellion article. Nor would I know where to look apart from going to the state papers. I got on ok with NC, but alas I didn't stay the course in what I was doing in NUIG, for a number of reasons. I'm now away from the academic world again, for now at least.

Jdorney 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way, did you see the Irish Times correspondance about the siege of Smerwick? There was a debate about whether Walter Raleigh was present and whether civilians were killed there. The balance seems to have come down in favour of the version of events on wikipedia. Jdorney 09:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inebriated editing

Greetings! In response to [1], no, actually I don't think I've ever seen it discussed on a page here. (Perhaps it needs to be? Not sure what the right spot would be.) I doubt if I'd win the sobriety prize myself, LOL. Love Durova's essays, by the way--she's good. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandal target

I was looking at this [2], and wondered why you were the one to get it in the neck from that "jerk". Just curious.--Shtove 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes... that was a good one. Still not sure how I got so much attention from that vandal, but they've left me in peace since. All in a days work! :-) Hiberniantears 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typos on my user page

lol. Thanks. --sony-youth^talk 10:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the mediation cabal on the term Volunteer is ending in two days.

The mediation process is ending in two days - you have two days to have you final say and 1. show any proof that Volunteer is a rank and 2. leave your final vote in coming to a consensus here. Thank you.--Vintagekits 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priggy-things

I would wholeheartedly concur that this should not just be a dry dictionary article. Quite apart from the fact that a large majority of WP editors are guilty of this sin (is it a virtue?), Priggishness has formed a large part of the thought of the last two centuries' politics in the west. Whether through Whiggishness, where I believe the term has a partial root or by Toryism is insignificant. God save the prigs! One point however, I'm not sure how to disagree with the movement of the article. Can you help? Sorry decidedly pink and not in control there! Brendandh 01:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see its talk page for deets. I think I may've responded to you in more of a "talk gently to the newbies" over-explanatory tone than was actually warranted now that I look at your hist. here. No offense intended! Anyway, it's a cool template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Let me know what you think of this 1347 in Ireland; am I going into too much depth, wandering too much from other Year's in style? Fergananim 17:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler's prig

You were kind enough to copy Fowler's prig definition for me a while back User talk:Shtove#Fowler's prig. I pasted it into Prig, which may be set for deletion or transfer to Wiktionary. Any ideas on how to keep it here? I'd like to think WP has time for this definition, especially when the current editors of Fowler's don't.--Shtove 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to respond to this before, but I've been up to my ears in an FAC. Anyway, betimes I've dropped in on Prig and lobbed a couple of literary spanners into the works there, which I hope will do the job. Do not hesitate to contact me if anyone again dares impugn the encyclopediacicity (eh?) of that page, because I still have Jane Austen on the subs' bench. qp10qp 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 22:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography 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. Mocko13 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloody Question

In the Talk page for Elizabeth I, you wrote, "...William Cecil's Bloody Question - designed to put suspects on the spot - forced the faithful to deny their faith in order to affirm their allegiance to the Crown." I cannot find reference to that on Cecil's page, nor on others where I might have expected it. Could you elaborate? I'd love to find the actual text of that question. Thanks, Kevin/Last1in 13:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Raleigh

I felt that we were misleading by describing the establishment of the Roanoke Colony, and then leaving out teh fact that it failed, especially the basic aspects of that failure. As it was, I felt it was implying that once established, things went well, and of course, they did not. Many WP readers do not get past the lead section, which is supposed to summarize the article enough to make them want to read more. Thoughts? Mark Vaoverland 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dated cleanup tags

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 12:13 21 March 2007 (GMT).

The Guardian

Thanks. Mr. Scott had let me know that I should expect it, and our discussion had ended on good terms, so I was expecting it to be generally favourable. I found it really remarkable both that he so quickly "got" how Wikipedia should work, and how much he liked our freely licensed fan-based photography that I found for the article before it became so common to make questionable fair use claims on promotional pictures. It's nice to see Wikipedia getting some favourable comments from the subject of one of our articles! Jkelly 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Wanderer

my reasoning: i thought the line on sorley's name was too long, and some of it had little relevance to him. what i thought was key in the line wass his gaelic name, meaning in english, and how the name has been anglicized. i thought, the fact Somhairle is a gaelicized version of Sumarliði, an old norse by-name meaning summer-wanderer, is pretty irrelevant to the article. Celtus 07:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fenian Swine

Thanks for your vote.--Play Brian Moore 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Idiotic mistake"

It said "U.S" instead of "U.S." I've been working on those mistakes lately. --Jordan Elder talk 16:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gio 33

The guy has been making bad-faith edits by refusing to compromise, has made false 3RR reports against me and is now accusing me of being someone in Hungary. He did a stupid thing so I was told him he was stupid. John Smith's 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better to say he lacks wisdom, then. John Smith's 20:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me he was behind that? John Smith's 20:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I was kidding. I don't let the actions of a few people make me "bitter". Their own actions influence how I treat them. John Smith's 21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?

I don't get it. Hughsheehy 09:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scots, Attacotti and Deisi

Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers. Fergananim 14:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo Spanish War

You can do whatever you want at this respect.... but I think that at the beginning I didn't introduce any kind of NPOV, nevertheless you answered me with a NPOV (there were more tentative of invasion that failed by "adverse weather" of course.... what's that? ). You can visit Mousehole or Penzance and then you can have an idea about what happened there.…..the summer of 1595 (there disembarked 400 men (so called "Tercios Viejos") “ even though they had not intended such a landing initially“ but the important is they were professional soldiers, with a broad fighting experience gained in Flandes for many years... but anyway there were two documents, one wrote by the English militia Captain, which said that they have to forsake the village because it was not possible to fight against them, and the other wrote by the captain Mesquida of "Los Tercios" that says "they are not organized to fight,this work is easy...) so don’t try to minimize…

but I think that this is not the subject of the discussion... for long time the English media have tried to shell the defeat of the "Armada Invencible" as a big thing that underwent to the end of the Spanish empire and the beginning of the English one, which is completely false, (otherwise England had colonized America, but they couldn’t because the Spaniards ruled the sea, and after that were the Dutchs. ;-).

what I try to explain (at the beginning from a neutral point of view ) is that the Anglo-Spanish war was the beginning of the Spanish empire..... and that this war was finally won by "The Kingdom of Castilla” it paid the war" (not Spain.. Spain was created laterly... and by the way the flag that you put is the old Castilla’s flag)...

So what do you say about NPOV? .. up to now I have read quite a lot, and even from the British Army what I have read is from NPOV…. But if you study in deep the pace treaty “signed in London, you realize who obtained the best conditions…. My friend”… there is a book wrote by a guy of oxford that you should read… and is called “ Ten muddles about the Armada invencible” to begin with....

By the way the core of the Spanish Armada was Intact after the first encounter, this core was called “The dozen Apostles, 12 galeons ” which were anchored in Santander in 1589…. The presence of these ships in Santander made to change the plan of Drake of attacking Santander and he decided to go to La Coruña… (where by the way there is a very important party that commemorate this battle in which the English were repelled, they performance the battle on the streets……)

If you want to say the true, me too…..

About neutral or subjetive points of view,...

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography 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. BetacommandBot 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crown of the United Kingdom

I'm afraid you're wrong there: there are no separate Crowns of England and Scotland, not since the Act of Union of 1707. Elizabeth is not Elizabeth II of England and I of Scotland, but Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Slac speak up! 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Recent assessments

I often didnt leave comments because I would have thought that the improvements needed to further the article are rather obvious. Many, if not all, of the articles I rated as Start articles have very few sources, if any at all. Another improvement would general expansion, as many of the Start articles were only a few paragraphs. As for the Stu articles, they're usually only a few lines long and just need more information and with approproate sources to support it - • The Giant Puffin • 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article just needs sources to verify the information in it, preferably using the {{cite}} method - • The Giant Puffin • 20:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Von Neumann

One of the problems that we have with maintaining the article John von Neumann is connection of content with references. Might it be possible for you to include references relevant to the recent addition you made to the article? I have seen this material as well but, do not immediately have it at hand, and you probably do. Thanks. William R. Buckley 21:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter
Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007

Project News

The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.

Member News

Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia

New Members

Congratulations to our 225 new members

From the Editors

The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)

We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.

This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page

New irc channel

Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:

#wikipedia-en-bio

Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.

Contributors to this Issue

Psychless (talk · contribs)
Phoenix 15 (talk · contribs)

Complete To Do List

Write an article
Expand an article about:

Improve an article by:

Review an article

Romano Volta •

Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle •

Answer requests for comments
Work on the Portal

Portal:Biography

Assess an article

Assessment Progress

Biography articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Core	Other	???	Total
FA	35	1,633		1,668
FL		204		204
A	1	131		132
GA	41	8,363		8,404
B	97	40,200		40,297
C	33	168,321		168,354
Start	2	761,756		761,758
Stub	1	1,033,734	1	1,033,736
List		8,143		8,143
Category	2	346,017		346,019
Disambig		8,164		8,164
File		31,980		31,980
Project		216		216
Redirect	3	45,833		45,836
Template		20,631		20,631
NA		480		480
Assessed	215	2,475,806	1	2,476,022
Unassessed		24,586		24,586
Total	215	2,500,392	1	2,500,608
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 10,822,451			Ω = 5.37

We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 16:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

Re

Apparently I saw the "remarkable account" wording and placed the template without much thought. My mistake. Thanks (and I reverted it) jj137 (Talk) 00:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Surprise Draw

You have won the Irish Wikipedians surprise draw!! Just leave a message on my talk page to receive the prize of USD 1,000,000 or EUR 638,442.37 or GBP 505,871.414 Markreidyhp 07:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maguire

I'm looking for something that backsup this statement "Cuchonnacht, who departed Ireland for the continent with Tyrone during the Flight of the Earls in 1607, dying at Genoa in August 1608"

Do you know where I could find this?

Can you add to the pages of Hugh Maguire?

Pingu (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments appreciated

At Talk:Derogatory_use_of_"Byzantine"#Merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinborough Valentine

Hi Shtove

On your Thomas Lee page you mention he married Kinborough Valentine in 1595.

I have a Kinborough Valentine that married Robert Pipho.

Can you give me a pointer where you found this please? I am doing research into the VALENTINE family.

Regards Brendan bdixon at ucd dot ie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.65.144 (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. It's probably in the old DNB - you can get that online, or a uni library may still have it on the shelf. No idea whether the new DNB confirms that information. I've come across Robert Pipho, but don't have much information on him - he got into some lawsuits over property and there was a bit of violence involved, but I don't recall who was on the other side of the dispute.--Shtove (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas White

Thanks for the improvements to the Nicholas White article. But where did you get the detail about his son's suicide? Nwhyte (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the state papers ireland, but I don't think the calendar prints the full text. As far as I recall the son took a "strong purgative". Will get back to you with the full reference. Actually, I shouldn't put it in the article without that ref, but since I read it for myself I thought I'd share it!Shtove (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decapitation in Humphrey Gilbert article

If, as you say, the original reference to the custom of decapitation in Gaelic culture is 'spot on' can you supply the evidence for it? Oz MH (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Oz_MH[reply]

The standard books on 16thC Ireland refer often to the Irish beheading of slain enemies, but it's hard to find a reference because the practice isn't listed in the indexes. Nothing on google except this reference to 'dicheannu' (para 3):

http://www.irelandseye.com/aarticles/culture/talk/irishguide/histir.shtm

The English reciprocated the practice - John Perrot hung the market cross of Kilmallock with the heads of slain rebels, there is an account of supplicant rebels in Munster having to walk an avenue lined with severed heads to reach the English commnader's tent, plus Derricke's the Image of Ireland has a print of English soldiers returning from battle with rebel heads stuck on their sword points. The English also paid head-silver in return for the delivery of rebel heads. And of course it was common in the towns to see the heads of executed traitors stuck on spikes.

But that doesn't provide the necessary reference for the article, so the comment should remain out. Shtove (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What standard books? Your 'dícheannu' is a Celtic folktale motif and refers to Irish Mythology not 16th century Ireland. At best it is relevant to ancient heroic society. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that the Irish practiced decapitation of their enemies. You say: 'the English reciprocated the practice'. Again, what is the evidence? Oz MH (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my dicheannu - just the only remotely relevant reference I could find online.

There's plenty of evidence for both sides practising this, but I don't have specific references to add to the article, so the assertion shouldn't be included. Wikipedia 101. No argument with you on that.

Here's a well known image of English soldiers returning from battle with heads on sword points:

http://www.lib.ed.ac.uk/about/bgallery/Gallery/researchcoll/pages/bg0057_jpg.htm

The rest of what I said is commonly known, and the state papers are full of descriptions but you'd have to dig around because the index doesn't help. Shtove (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC) [edit: I pasted the wrong link - the original is kind of funny!][reply]

The 'dícheannu' is entirely irrelevant. 'The rest of what I said is commonly known' - no. it is not! 'The state papers are full of descriptions' - no, they are not! There is evidence of the English forces decapitating Irish heads - you've supplied some of it yourself - but there is none to show that the Irish did it. You say you will not argue the point because the evidence is not easily accessed. I am familiar with the state papers and I know of no mention of the Irish decapitating heads. It is not good enough to imply that you cannot be bothered to find the references and leave your original assertion in place. I ask you again to substantiate it by giving references.Oz MH (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shtove, nice to hear from you again. To be honest I don't recall ever seeing a reference to the Irish cutting off heads in this period. THis is not to say they didn't do it - they may have - but I've never seen any reference to it that I recall. Gilbert and co seem to have done it specifically as terrorising tactic. Jdorney (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falls was without doubt a man of his time and place and influenced by all kinds of colonial assumptions, I would say. However, it did occur to me after I'd sent you that message that after the battle of Curlew Pass, O'Donnell had the head of his adversary cut off and presented at a besieged castle to terrify them into surrender. So there may well be more examples. Jdorney (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earls of Desmond: numbering

Hi shtove, I see a few years back (6 years ago this month, gasp) you opened up debate (at Talk:Gerald FitzGerald, 15th Earl of Desmond) on renumbering some of the Earls of Desmond according to the published sources available. I've gone through some of the public domain sources that have become available since and created a proposal (or three) on how the numbering might be changed, it'd be great if you could take a look and see what your preferred option would be.

The discussion is over on Talk:Earl_of_Desmond. KerryMuso (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at your link. I don't drop in much anymore, so coincidence I did it today.Shtove (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Geoffrey Fenton may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Category:17th-century English

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Fenton Shtove (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Essex in Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queens County (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) 08:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Essex in Ireland may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

The campaign had already suffered a blow on the death in January of Sir [[Richard Bingham], a veteran commander of the Irish wars. He had led 5,000 troops from England, but

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Essex in Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kilkenny City. 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) 10:32, 11 July 2014 (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) 13:09, 23 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) 13:33, 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]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Shtove. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Shtove. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

Hi. Based on your recent comments on Talk:Elizabeth I of England, I thought that you might be interested in this discussion. I'll be glad if you share your opinions. Keivan.f^Talk 18:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Shtove. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

I've asked you to do this before, and I'll repeat it. Please fix your signature so it has the required active links that take us to your user page, talk page, etc. I have fixed it before for you several times, but you should do this yourself. Do it in your "preferences". Failure to do so is a breach of our guidelines to act collaboratively. We should make things easier for each other, not harder. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there is some code that's screwing up your page, forcing the text to get smaller and smaller as one goes down the page, making it harder to read. That should be fixed as this isn't exclusively your page; it belongs to the community and should be easy to read for everyone. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lol

Thanks for the laugh. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sun isn't where you think it is, my friend. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Blount

1) The term "ruthless" is WP:WEASEL and not in the linked too article. 2) The whole sentence states that the war was ended due to the "ruthless scorched-earth" policy. This is inherently wrong. It played a part but the surrender and defection of O'Neill's allies over the preceeding years amongst other factors such as Kinsale and the Crown's Irish allies played just as big a role in the outcome of the war. 3) The way it is now worded is more than sufficient for an article that is not about the war, leaving the actual article on the war to detail it.

I hope you will not revert it again without actually looking at the detail of what was being said and implied in the article before my initial change.

Kind regards, Mabuska ^(talk) 11:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note you went ahead and reverted it anyways regardless of the preceding comment which you didn't bother to respond too and with no justifiable reason for your revert. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"undid revision that removed factual description of strategy" - one aspect of his strategy that was given WP:UNDUE weight. I've vastly expanded and improved the section with more details of Mountjoy's campaign in Ulster that involved him. Yes his scorched earth policy was an aspect but it was not the only aspect of his strategy or why O'Neill surrendered. Please try to keep a neutral point of view in such articles. In any regards the mention of his mass burning of crops is still there but in more context.Mabuska ^(talk) 16:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hi, please go to Special:Preferences, scroll down to "Signature" and uncheck "Treat the above as wiki markup". Wikipedia signatures have to include a link to your user or talk page. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nestingum has been accepted

Nestingum, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deleted edits on August_Kekulé

Regarding my recent deletion that you reverted on Kekule: "This is likely an example of the exercise of a particular imaginative state, involving homospatial and janusian processes, followed by stepwise logical thinking.^[1]"

I do not think that one persons speculation on the reasons behind someone dreaming could be regarded as encyclopedic content. These are somewhat cryptic and tangential to the story so I felt they did not belong. Since you appear to be the author of these edits it is somewhat conflicted of you to revert mine. I am happy to leave it to a third party to decide. NeedsGlasses (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rothenberg, Albert (1995). "Creative Cognitive Processes in Kekulé's Discovery of the Structure of the Benzene Molecule". The American Journal of Psychology. 108 (3): 419–438. doi:10.2307/1422898. ISSN 0002-9556. JSTOR 1422898.

Earls of Desmond: numbering (again)

Dear Shtove. I have moved Earl 15 -> 14 and earl 14 -> 13. I found that there was no 13 I saw the numbering in ODNB and just did. I had not seen the discussion on the Gerald FitzGerald tqlk page. Please forgive me for not having discussed this with you before. I will slowly work through the mentions of Gerald FitzGeral, 15th Earl of Desmond. There are 75 of these. Best reqards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Homospatial process

Hello, Shtove. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Homospatial process, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irony

I assume that all your comments about us being a propaganda outfit as just satire (such as [[3]]). I would advise you to stop as others might see it (if it were to continue) as a violation of wp:soap or wp:not or (even) wp:npa and might decide to report you. I assume they are not as you appear to be an experienced editor and so must be fully aware that that comments (and some others) violate policy, and thus is meant as humour. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not, not satire. Does your reference to "us" include me? Do what you like. Shtove (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and personal attacks

You appear to be engaged in edit warring at Talk:Rania Khalek with [4][5][6]. Please read and understand our policy on edit warring. Further, two of those diffs contain personal attacks in violation of our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Continuing to violate either of these policies will very likely result in you being blocked. I strongly encourage you to read the policies and reconsider your actions. You may consider this a final warning. If you have questions, let me know. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to make a personal attack on an account run by a collective, ie. Philip Cross. Shtove (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Your edit to Pope John XXII has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit contained the basic information from the source - it wasn't possible to simplify it further. Please explain how this is not fair use. Shtove (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The material that I removed was 60 words copied verbatim from a copyright web page elsewhere on the Internet. The text you copied contained enough creativity to qualify for copyright protection (it waas not a basic statement of facts). Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about?

You wrote this comment:

Oh no - you've arrived from the Steele Dossier mess! Shtove (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's that about? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's open tolerance of propaganda from such editors invites that kind of comment. Shtove (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial topics alert....post-1992 politics of the United State

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] some book P 32

[2] Rothenberg, Albert (1995). "Creative Cognitive Processes in Kekulé's Discovery of the Structure of the Benzene Molecule". The American Journal of Psychology. 108 (3): 419–438. doi:10.2307/1422898. ISSN 0002-9556. JSTOR 1422898.

[1]

[1]