User talk:Laurel Lodged

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


St Jude's[edit]

Hi, regarding St Judes; I searched EPPI and Google books; it looks like St Jude's was created out of St James' some time between 1861 and 1867. The OSI mapviewer's 25-inch maps are mostly from later than the 6-inch maps (1880-1910) and the 25-inch gives "St Jude's" (though I had to zoom in to the maximum to bring it up, which means you can't see all the letters at once). jnestorius(talk) 21:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. Thanks for your labours. So must all 6 townlands of St Jude's be attributed to Castleknock or only some of them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring across multiple articles and categories. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Laurel Lodged (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

It's perfectly true that I was involved in edit warring. It was a last resort and was only done in the interests of protecting pages from the destructive edits of User:Brocach who was wreaking havoc at a rate that was faster than my ability to protect the pages. It was a desperate act to stem the tide of destruction from this most obdurate of editors. He has a bad case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. He will listen to no argument that is not congruent with his own. Myself and a few other editors have engaged him in a series of parallel discussions including here, here and here. See the forced interventions of the Admin User talk:Anthony Appleyard above. In each of them it is clear that will will not listen to reason and keeps returning to the same tired arguments. The final straw for him seems to have been when a decision at WP:CFD went against him here. This touched on the same area (GAA) and involved a decision to change the name from "Tipperary hurlers" to Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers. The decision has clearly infuriated him beyond all reason as he has appealed to the closing editor (Good 'ol factory) and has been leaving whiny, hand-wringing, "O the injustice of it all" comments at every one of the articles affected by the decision. See Talk:Colm Bonnar for an example. This is unseemly and disrespectful of CFD. The subject of the edit warring has involved the same Tipperary hurlers. Having been thwarted in the above decision, he has sought to have his own way by "the back door"; he has changed the hurlers from Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary to Category:Sportspeople from County Tipperary. I assume that this is passive aggressive for a perceived slight to Tipperary GAA. On many of the edit reasons it was pointed out to him that the players status as members of "Tipperary GAA" was unaffected; all that was changing was their geographic location (i.e. from County Tipperary to the more accurate county of North Tipperary). This made no difference to him as the core of his resistance has been his obdurate refusal to acknowledge that there is any difference between the GAA governing body known as "Tipperary GAA" and the administrative county known as "County Tipperary". The nub of the CFD decision is that there is indeed a difference that needs to be disambiguated by the addition of the suffix "GAA". Brocach simply refuses to accept this decision, and in a fit of pique has rampaged through "Sportspeople from North Tipperary". :I am not so much concerned to have the block lifted as to protect the categories and their children from further wanton disruption. I should also advise that he has been joined in the destruction derby by User:Finnegas. What Brocach failed to do, Finnegas has done. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Interesting reading it may be, but WP:NOTTHEM still applies. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

  • That's one of the more interesting unblock requests I've read (I don't mean that sarcastically). Without fully understanding the history and the complexity of the issues, my initial reaction is that a better course of conduct would have been to take the problem to WP:ANI or WP:AN (depending on the action you requested), where it could have been sorted out. It doesn't seem to me that edit-warring was justified. That said, if there's someone whom you would like me to notify to make sure your comments are read, please let me know, and I will do so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
That's very considerate of you. If you could notify User:The Banner please. And take a look at his comments on the article Talk:Paudie Butler which are a mirror of my comments above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I've notified The Banner for you. At this point, I'm not interested in looking at the comments on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps that the title get you interested: What on earth are you fighting over?. To my opinion, this was one of the silliest editswars I have ever seen. With Brocach screaming for discussion on the talkpage, but not posting a letter. And in the mean time he went on changing a proper link for a redirect, and changing a valid category in a wrong one. He seemed to go bananas from the phrase "North Tipperary". Brocach should be lucky with only 48 hours block, but Laurel Lodged broke the rules too. In his case, 48 hours seem a bit harsh but lifting the block entirely is a bit too much too. The Banner talk 00:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
In fact, Laurel Lodged has fallen victim to the antics of a vandal on the rampage. The Banner talk 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I was preparing a decline rationale to this request before User:The Banner posted their message. If there are circumstances that would qualify as mitigating the edit warring I would like to see diffs showing vandalism being reverted. Tiderolls 02:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not sure how to do "diffs". But I can point you to the revision history of Category:Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers which is a synthesis of all the warring. It shows two development paths. 1 Brocach's addition of the "Sportspeopple from County Tipperary" category. My explanation was that it was already a member of "Sportspeopple from North Tipperary" which was a child of the cat "County Tipperary". As an aside, I should point out that this is a typical arrangement of the Category:County Tipperary tree structure: 1 cat each for NT and for ST report to the parent cat of Tipp. That is, no article reports to both NT and Tipp. Anyway, Brocach refused to accept this tree structure and continued to revert. 2 I realised that the cat "Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers" should not even be in the cat "Sportspeopple from North Tipperary". This moment of clarity came to me when I reviewed the article on Tony Reddin who was born in County Galway (i.e. he is from Galway) but who played hurling for his club Lorrha-Dorrha GAA which is governed by Tipperary GAA. So while it is right and proper that he be a member of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers, it is not right that he be a member of "Sportspeopple from County Tipperary"; instead he is correctly listed as a member of "Sportspeopple from County Galway". Moving from the particular to the general, I deduced that one may not assume that just because a person is a member of a GAA club that happens to be in Tipperary that all members of of that club must necessarily be from Tipperary. I wrote this in the edit commentary as "a club is not a person". Again Brocach refused to acknowedge this logic and continued to revert. It was my feeling that he would have refused to change his opinion in a talk page despite protesting loudly that it should be discussed. The war was the only effective means at my disposal to prevent wide-scale vandalism by Brocach. I doubt that the block will make him any more contrite and continue to ask for protection for the pages affected once the block is lifted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
My reaction to Laurel's detailed analysis is the same as it was before. They may be right, but on its face it requires input from other editors and additional discussion to determine how best to resolve the situation. Instinctively and even literally, I don't see how any of this qualifies as vandalism. And without being able to label it as vandalism, the argument that edit-warring is the only way to deal with it falls apart.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I will not apeal this decision any further. I entirely agree that "it requires input from other editors and additional discussion to determine how best to resolve the situation" and am happy to give it the space in which this can happen. However, I must reiterate that it is my honest assessment based on experience of user Brocach and his ilk that once the block is lifted that lip service will be paid to the debate while the wholescale revertions continue to lay waste to at least 3 schemas. I may be wrong but I fear not. So as my final word on the matter, may I again earnestly plead for protection to Category:Sportspeople from County Tipperary, Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary, Category:Sportspeople from South Tipperary, Category:Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers, Category:Loughmore-Castleiney hurlers and Category:Lorrha-Dorrha hurlers. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the request. Do you really want to protect the categories from being edited, or do you want to prevent editors from adding articles to the categories? The former makes no sense as there's been no recent disruptive editing of the cats (I only checked the first few), and I don't know how you do the latter (perhaps it's something I'm unaware of?).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I see your point. Perhaps the purpose would be best achieved by simply imposing a topic ban on all GAA related articles on both of us until a decision one way or the other had been reached at a neutral forum like WikiProject:Gaelic games or WikiProject:Ireland? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
That would be one way of at least beginning to address the issues. You could propose it at WP:AN after your block expires. That'd be a fun way to resume editing after a block. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
A topic ban would certainly help. What I doubt is who is eligible for the topic ban, so I guess the impact should be wide spread among editors. This whole story started off long ago, so a decisive action is necessary to stop all this drama. It is now going on for about a year and has strong ties to the Northern Ireland drama, as the misery started, as far as I noticed, around Derry/Derry GAA/County Londonderry. The Banner talk 19:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


Sorry, had to do it.
WP:AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Brocach ignoring discussions and blocks for POV-pushing: time for topic ban. The Banner talk 02:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand completely. Don't sweat it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Under the same heading, my counter-proposal that you be topic-banned from GAA articles for a couple of months. Brocach (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

I've left a comment in this discussion. It must surely be clear to you all by now that edit-warring, multiple moves/requested moves and shouting matches on WP:IE, WP:IMOS, WikiProject Gaelic games and AN/I is not solving anything. I urge the three of you – Brocach, The Banner and Laurel Lodged – to put your heads together and take your dispute to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and in the meantime declare a cease-fire and stop hitting your heads off a brick wall. I am posting the identical message to each of you. Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever about the other two, I fear you are wasting your time with this one - LL *enjoys* being the enfant terrible of the Ireland-related Wikipedia. Hohenloh + 14:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
If topic-bans are ever seriously considered, I want to be able to answer the question "how have you attempted to resolve the issue with this user?" That doesn't mean I wasn't sincere, but equally it doesn't mean I was particularly hopeful. Scolaire (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ban proposal[edit]

  • FYI As someone who has previously proposed a topic ban on Laurel Lodged, you may wish to support the proposal here. Brocach (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Equally, of course, you may wish to oppose. I am only drawing your attention to the discussion. Brocach (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

We've 6 discussions on going if can you stop moving pages while this on going ? Gnevin (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Censorship of Brocach's talk page by, er, Brocach[edit]

I reserve this section for juicy examples of Brocach's many attempts to hide unsavory comments on his talkpage. Some are pleading, some (mine included) are sarcastic; all are interesting for having been consored by Brocach. For example:

  1. "After noticing Scolaire's comments at WP:ANI from 23:15 on 28 January 2013 and Laurel Lodge's comments at the same page from twenty minutes later, I looked at some of your comments on user talk pages. Comments such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are good examples of the sort of canvassing prohibited by our canvassing standards. As such, I suggest that you stop notifying people of discussions or that you begin notifying them in a neutral, nonpartisan manner; future canvassing will possibly result in a block for disruptive editing. Nyttend"
  2. Could you please stop the canvassing? Thanks. The Banner User talk:The Banner
  3. "Have you been canvassing? If so, you should stop it. It's not wiki etiquette." User:Laurel Lodged
  4. "For some background: Talk:Paudie Butler#What on earth are you fighting over?. Personally, I think mr. Brocach escaped very lightly with a block of 48 hours as he was acting as a vandal on the rampage, damaging lots of articles of Tipperary hurlers. There is no valid reason to move those articles from a correct category to a wrong category nor is there a valid reason to replace proper links to redirects. The Banner
  5. "Increasing signs of infirmity. I'm concerned that the addition to your talk page of large bold letters in the lead is a sign of nascent myopia. When added to your well documented hearing difficulties, should the two be taken as a sign of your increasing infirmity? Perhaps you've been over-working lately, reverting all those articles. Take some time out, relax, you'll feel the better of it." User:Laurel Lodged
  6. "I know you don't want to hear this... but don't move articles while the discussion is still running. I have reverted all your moves that I could revert. Everything is still under discussion so it should not be moved. Don't ignore discussion! What are you up to? Your moves are, to put it mildly, disruptive and your attitude of WP:ILLDOITMYWAYNOMATTERWHATTHECOMMUNITYWANTS is highly annoying. Don't be surprised when this behaviour brings you to AN/I! The Banner
  7. "Please can you provide the MOS that suggests that these categories should include someone who happens to have worked in a city or lived there for a short time? Thanks" Bladeboy1889 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  8. "I don't really know what your problem is and I don't give a hoot, but I'd prefer it if you refrained from calling me a 'bollix'. That would be most appreciated. Au revoir. Lorccán Duignan —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
While I doubt that anyone - anyone - is interested in Laurel Lodged's curious monitoring of another editor's talk page, anyone unbored enough to look at the context will find that, in this last instance, a sockpuppet bollix had posted a rude, if not sinister, message on my page. I don't always call bollixes bollixes to their face every time they are acting the bollix, as Laurel Lodged is hugely qualified to testify, but this one met the criteria. Brocach (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Someone is stalking my page? I'm shocked. Plus the concensus on LD's page is that he is not a sockuppet. Not that the accusation will be retracted. Provocation is never an excuse for potty mouth. Rudeness is rudeness. LD is quite correct to insist on respect being shown to fellow editors. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no doubt that this editor has socked. They are being given a 'second chance' on the basis that they may have been unaware of policy. This 'wall of shame' above, on the other hand, has no function except to antagonise another editor, and you would be well advised to bin it. RashersTierney (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. Naval Service (Ireland) "Hello Brocach, I have just protected the article for three days following a request at WP:RFPP. Please dicuss the inclusion of early ships on the article's talk page instead of reverting back and forth. Regards," De728631 (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Would it not be a good idea to stop following Brocach? Unless miracles happen, he is not going to change a bit in attitude and behaviour. So most likely the only thing to happen is that you get a stress induced stomach ulcer. Not worth it... The Banner talk 23:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

He's really welcome to follow, Banner. I find it very satisfying that he spends some of his time chez moi, and then more time here complaining about me "censoring" my own talk page by deleting items that I've read. Every minute spent in either place is a minute that spares Wikipedia from his editing. But perhaps he should head over to Achill and pray for a miracle that stops me behaving in the wholly reasonable way that I do. Brocach (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Open a discussion at WT:GAA[edit]

I believe the community has run out of patience with all the renaming, etc. Although I requested a Topic Ban, I'm happy - to a point - that it didn't come to that for you. I genuinely believe you're acting in good faith, but here's the thing you're going to find hard to believe. The most difficult WP policy/rule you need to get your head around is that of consensus, not "facts" or "truth" or whatever (although they generally are all related). You should now open a discussion at WT:GAA (as has been strongly suggested by an admin at AN/I) and cease from any more renaming or county-related editing (or face a block) until the matter has been resolved. --HighKing (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we both know that with the people who usually patrol the barren desert that is WP:GAA that the outcome of any such "discussion" would be a foregone conclusion. The merits or demerits of any proposal would be immaterial; unless it conformed to a pre-ordained national agenda, it's wrong. But you're right in one respect: only in neutral venues such as WP:CFD has it been possible to obtain a modicum of justice on occasion. Not that I wish to play the martyr, but it does speak volumes for the level of intellectual rigour on the Ireland forums. "What though the field be lost...." Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
If Brocach and Finnegas will agree to self-impossed ban on all GAA related articles for a period of 2 months, then I will too. If not, let the ANI case continue (on the arguments hopefully, not the personalities). Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume you are following the discussions at AN/I but in case you have lost it in the detail, I have asked all parties to desist, immediately, from any renaming or recategorising of articles. This applies even to correcting an article that has been amended to the 'wrong' version. The AN/I thread has grown to astonishing length with very little interest from anyone except those already engaged in the dispute. Nevertheless I will block anyone who makes further changes to these categories before a true consensus is reached, ideally at WT:GAA but frankly any venue will do! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion duly opened at WT:GAA. Brocach (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Final warning of indefinite block[edit]

Yesterday I posted this warning at AN/I that I would block anyone making further edits to change, rename or otherwise affect categorisation of GAA-related articles. You made several further edits after that time and were it not for the fact that you have not edited for some hours, I would now be blocking you. However please understand that if you make any further edits of this sort, I will block you indefinitely even if you are not actively editing (ie even if I only become aware of your edits some hours later). Note that indefinite does not mean permanent, and I or any other admin would happily unblock on an assurance from you that you will not make any further edits of that sort until a consensus is reached. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You will note the time of my peace offer above ("If Brocach and Finnegas will agree to self-impossed ban on all GAA related articles for a period of 2 months, then I will too."). I posted that immediately after reading the ANI thread. You will also note that all the GAA edits that I made were prior to the offer and prior to reading the ANI notice. So there was no intentional breech of the warning. You should also note that the peace offer was thrown back in my face. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your peace offer did not neutralise my warning not to edit further. You made further edits after I had expressly warned you and others not to do so. Please don't continue or I will block you, as I will anyone else who does the same. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
All I was saying was that at the time of the edits I was not aware of the warning. It did not appear on my talk page at the time of the edits. Frankly, I'm grateful for the respite that it will bring to the 3 of us. But I am not hopeful that either of the other 2 will get over their ICANTHEARYOU problem anytime soon. Thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the reason I didn't block you - my warning was a general one made at AN/I and I accept that you hadn't seen it. If you and everyone else can now simply cease fire until the terms of an armistice are agreed, nobody need be blocked or banned and we can all get back to writing the encyclopaedia. Good luck! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Templetouhy (civil parish) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Moyne
Templetuohy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Moyne

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


I’m asking about a change you made to Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke changing Orpen’s information that Vikings established the towns of Wexford, Waterford and Dublin. I understand that Orpen’s first two volumes (this came from Vol. I) were not as well received in Ireland as elsewhere. So is the change to “Norse-Irish” more a nationalistic historical viewpoint? Is this possibly an issue for some reason? Is it the grouping of these three towns? My understanding of Norse-Irish would be the generations after the Viking settlers (after the Viking settlers had intermarried with the Irish). Or, taken differently, did it mean both Vikings and Irish adventurers together settled these towns? I‘m concerned that this is breaking the source citation (Orpen is cited for this sentence and in my notes he did say Vikings). My understanding is that Norse-Irish and Vikings are not actually synonyms and if so we’re changing the meaning of the sentence. I was tempted to return it to Orpen's version but wanted to understand why the change. I'd appreciate anything you could tell me. Thanks Bearpatch (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi BP. I hadn't considered that it would be a departure from the literal wording of the source. I was more concerned with the accuracy of it. By the late 12th century, it seemed a bit clumsy and artificial to refer to the cities as "Viking". This conjures up images of slash 'n' burn, cow-horn-helmeted marauders instead of relatively civilised urban dwellers. It was also too exclsionary. The reality is that much intermarriage with the natives had taken place by then. So while the Norse stock would still have predominated, it would be more accurate to speak of a Norse-Irish population. They were independant city states owing no tribute to Norway (or Denmark as the case may be). If anything, the tribute was payable to the Gaelic noblity surrounding the cities. So no, it's not a nationalistic "thing". If such an interpretation requires the ditching of the Orpen quote, then that's propably best. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Laurel. It’s not the literal wording but the paraphrasing, as long as the meaning of his information is maintained. They didn’t have horns but otherwise your depiction isn’t far off. But that wasn’t quite all they were. Taken in the context of their time, the Viking explorers were remarkable seamen, battle-hardened warriors, and their leaders proved themselves very capable of governing conquered territories. So the word “Vikings” is hardly a pejorative in this context. But the point is maintaining accuracy as to who first settled these towns. Orpen wrote it was Vikings. So it’s not exclusionary if it’s accurate and we have well respected source to verify that it is. Further, under History in the article Wexford it states: “The town was founded by the Vikings in about 800 AD. They named it Veisafjǫrðr, inlet of the mud flats and the name has changed only slightly into its present form.” The Waterford article says: “Viking raiders first established a settlement near Waterford in 853.” Then the Dublin article also has: “Originally founded as a Viking settlement…” So either you need to change all four articles, or return this one to match the information in the other three. But, you are absolutely correct as to who lived there “after” the towns were first established. So we’re talking about almost the same thing, just differing somewhat in when each became the most accurate description. Typically the first towns were almost certainly Viking camps that became towns. So returning it to Vikings then perhaps adding an alpha note explaining further would be appropriate. Either one should have a source citation. By nationalistic I only meant by current Irish scholars (if you knew), not that the towns were colonies of another principality. What I was thinking was something like this:

a. ^ The Viking settlers soon intermarried with the Irish natives so the population within a generation would more correctly be called Norse-Irish. They were independent towns not subject to Scandinavian rulers.
b. ^ Aline was born well before her father married Eve (Aoife), daughter of Dermot. That both she and her unnamed sister were illegitimate is indicated by the fact that neither inherited anything from their father's great holdings. See: Cokayne, CP, X, Appendix H, 103

If you agree, I can change the wording of Orpen’s statement back to Vikings and add the alpha note (or you can). You can then edit the note and find a supporting source citation (if you don’t mind). I can look for one also. That is, unless you have a different suggestion. Thanks Bearpatch (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

OK BP, Please go ahead with the note. It's a timing issue as you say. The towns were originally exclusively Viking but evolved to become Norse-Irish. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Media in Ireland[edit]


Just a quick courtesy note to say that I mentioned you in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 26#Category:Media_in_Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Walter de Lacy[edit]

You edited the article Maud de Braose to remove the description "6th Baron Lacy" from Walter saying "not 6th baron". Yet the Dictionary of National Biography [[1]] explicitly gives him that description. What do you base your decision on? Doug (at Wiki) 22:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Because his father was the 1st Lord of Meath. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
That's true. But that does not alter the fact that he was 6th Baron Lacy. I wondered why you changed the article and said "not 6th baron". Doug (at Wiki) 23:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
If the title does not derive from his Irish lands but his English lands, that would still only make him the 5th baron. In any case, the Lordship of Meath was a superior title and so that should have precedence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
He was 6th baron. The line goes from Hugh (d1068) through his sons Roger (2nd baron) and Hugh (3rd); his nephew Gilbert (4th), son Hugh (5th), son Walter (6th). I don't know why you think the feudal lordship of Meath is superior and would take precedence over a barony.Doug (at Wiki) 00:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
OK - I lost count somewhere. He is the 6th (English). Re precedence: the Lordship of Meath was a liberty with royal rights. He was king in all but name in his liberty. He had the power to create baronies. This surpasses the privileges of a barony. One who gives is greater than one who receives. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. It was really just the "not 6th baron" that perplexed me. The change in the Maud de Braose page is not significant to the article really and I now agree that Lord of Meath is a better descriptor for Walter. Doug (at Wiki) 21:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sportspeople from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown[edit]

Category:Sportspeople from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ooops! I goofed while using WP:Twinkle. I meant to speedy this one, and have corrected my mistake: it is now listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Lordship of Meath[edit]

I've had a look and, where my areas of interest overlap with this article, everything looks OK. A good new addition for Wikipedia. Well done. Doug (at Wiki) 22:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Lordship of Meath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Alton, Kells, Devlin and Maurice FitzGerald

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Down GAA Senior Football Championship[edit]

Hello Laurel Lodged. At this moment there is a request at WP:RM/TR to move the above article to Down Senior Football Championship. The rationale given is "Matching title and it's the only one in Category:Senior Gaelic football county championships that's like this." From a quick look at WT:GAA it seems that this move would be consistent with previous discussions. Do you have any objection to an admin going ahead with this move? If so you might leave a comment at WP:RM/TR. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

None. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

County Meath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Meath
Kells, County Meath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Norman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Church Fathers[edit]

I have responded to you on my talk page.--File Éireann 22:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I have elaborated further on my talk page now.--File Éireann 22:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Pontefract de Lacys' family tree[edit]

Hi, I noticed your edits. I will accept them if you can supply a reference or two. In the absence of anything to back up your claim I have reverted the page to its previous state. Please do not change the content unless you can back your changes up with good references. Jodosma (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

County Names[edit]

Hey Laurel, I was about to revert your reverts but I can't find any previous discussions. Perhaps (Obviously?) I was mistaken that this topic was previous discussed. I've posted the question at WP:IRELAND talk page, please contribute your point of view. --HighKing (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:History of Christianity[edit]

You need to take your disputes there (and anywhere else) to the Talk page, rather than continually edit war. Consider this a warning, as I could have easily just have given you both a block for edit warring instead of fully protecting the page. Steven Walling • talk 18:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Irish counties - proposed topic ban[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --RA (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Laurel[edit]

I'll let the Irish edits stay, if and only if you help me convert over to Roman Catholic dioceses of Great Britain (which is what it was before it got trashed). Up to you. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Alice de Lacy - I have a question for you[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Laurel Lodged. You have new messages at Talk:Alice de Lacy, 3rd Countess of Lincoln.
Message added 22:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roman religion[edit]

Hi, Laurel. I appreciate your interest in Roman religion, but could I suggest that you review the standard periodization for Roman historical eras? See Roman Republic and Roman Empire. This is in reference to your edit at Quintus Valerius Soranus. But I'm also concerned about all the categorizing you're doing regarding Roman religion. I can't recall seeing your name in edit histories on these topics, and you seem to have some misconceptions. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

For instance, Marcus Licinius Crassus (quaestor) was a pontifex, meaning he belonged to the College of Pontiffs: he was not Pontifex Maximus. Not every garden-variety pontifex was a Pontifex Maximus. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Cynwolfe. I'm OK with the standard periodization. Quintus Valerius Soranus was just a hotcat fat-finger incident. I take your point about the Pontifex Maximus, though - that's an error. Thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Great! I've been incredibly irritable lately, so I hope I didn't sound too cranky. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Current Church of Ireland dioceses in Ireland[edit]

Category:Current Church of Ireland dioceses in Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bishops of Ardagh or Clonmacnoise[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Bishops of Ardagh or Clonmacnoise requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. GSK 21:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


hi , your saying there are 37 counties in Ireland {republic and northern ] when there are only 32 .Fingal,South Dublin north Tipperary are administrative counties,what are basically , divisions of counties what act together to run the county .i hope to be helpful so pretty please stop saying they are counties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupolevjet (talkcontribs) 21:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read Counties of Ireland and the linked Acts of the Oireachtas to uncover the reason for your errors. Then kindly stop edit warring. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Current bishoprics in Ireland[edit]

Category:Current bishoprics in Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roman Catholic Diocese of Cloyne 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:
  • ireland/new-bishop-of-cloyne-ordained-in-cobh-cathedral-582716.html</ref> The [cathedral]] church of the diocese is [[[[Cobh Cathedral|St Colman’s Cathedral]].
  • together with the kingdoms of Fermoy and Imokilly, came to make up the new diocese of Cloyne.<ref>[Jefferies H. A., ''Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society'', Vol. LXXXIX, No.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Michael Neary (bishop)[edit]

Hi. I have reverted your move of Michael Neary (bishop) to Michael Neary (archbishop) as it is against our naming conventions WP:BISHOP. I hope you won't mind. DBD 22:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Tzirallum 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:
  • [[Category:4th century in the Roman Empire]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


I have reverted this edit you made - I don't think this is how categorization works on Wikipedia. There's no implication of "ownership". StAnselm (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's an implication of ownership. The possessive case is used. Philip no more belonged to the RC church than he did to the EO church. No such names existed at the time. At least the Lutheran category name is more honest as it says that they are listed in the litany of saints honoured by Lutherans. It's possible that the RC and EO categories need to be renamed in like manner. As they currently stand, their name leaves them open to ownership charges. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we're going to need a centralised discussion on this - I see you've posted it on both the article talk pages. Would you consider raising this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints? StAnselm (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Whatever the case it is just disruptive to remove a few individuals from huge categories because you dislike the name of the category. Surely you can see that? You are just causing work for editors reverting you. Use WP:CFD if you want to change the name, but I would check the previous history of the categories there carefully before you do. Johnbod (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Those comments are unjustified on two fronts. Firstly, I immediately implemented StAnselm's suggestion to centralise the discussion. Secondly, the edits were undertaken boldly, because it was the right thing to do and not on a personal whim. If you think that Philip or Mary belongs exclusively to the RC denomination or to the whatever-you're-having-yourself denomination, as opposed to "The Church" in general, feel free to make those points at the centralised discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

I'm going to recommend a topic ban on you from editing Roman Catholic pages. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Be sure to mention your attempt to suborn me at #24 above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I assume that this follows from your contributions at the Category:Irish bishops talk page. There you trotted out your usual argument that " Pre-reformation is just a weasel term to avoid using the word, 'Roman Catholic.'". As usual, nobody supported it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I will comment that Laurel's contention is correct that both the Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic Church regard the pre-reformation bishops as theri forebears. This applies equally to pre-reformation bishops in England. Since there were no non-Catholic bishops at that time calling them RC is redundant. I do not think that the contention that "no one supported it" can refer to a full CFD discussion, as now in progress. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

AN discussion[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban.2C_some_doubt_about_edits_being_allowed NE Ent 11:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

CFD 22 Sept: New scheme for Bishops in Ireland}[edit]

You may like to look back at your nomination: I have added something to it as to former bishoprics. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Laurel Lodged. You have new messages at Scrivener-uki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Laurel Lodged. You have new messages at Scrivener-uki's talk page.
Message added 10:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Saint Timothy[edit]

Hi. Following your and BDD's comment I have changed to (biblical figure) consistent with other articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

William C. Skurla[edit]

Skurla is a Byzantine Catholic bishop and does not belong in Roman Catholic categories, but the Eastern Catholic parallel hierarchy. Elizium23 (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

He is not of the Latin Rite, that's true, but he is in full communion with the Holy See, therefore he is in the (Roman) Csatholic Church. No? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes and no. Eastern Catholics do not typically self-identify as Roman Catholic because they all have a different adjective or two to attach and identify their particular Church. I have typically objected to categories containing the name "Roman Catholic" which lump in Eastern Catholics as well. I would certainly object if new category structures are created that do not preserve the distinctions that already exist. Elizium23 (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
So is some higher category needed that embraces both in acknowledging their common communion? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Category:Catholic bishops contains them all. Elizium23 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I went up and down a few trees with William; none of then finished with Category:Catholic bishops. There is a gap somewhere that needs to be filled. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
American Eastern Catholic bishops -> Eastern Catholic bishops by nationality -> Eastern Catholic bishops -> Catholic bishops. Elizium23 (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback - re: Cal S. P. Rome[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Laurel Lodged. You have new messages at Scrivener-uki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category for Irish vicars apostolic[edit]

What do you think about a Category:Vicars Apostolic of Ireland? I don't think there should be categories for vicars apostolic of each Irish diocese since some of them only have one or two vicars apostolic and wouldn't be worth the while. But I think having a general category for the Irish vicars apostolic placed together would be useful; in the same way Category:Vicars Apostolic of England and Wales and Category:Vicars Apostolic of Scotland keeps those vicars apostolic together. – Scrivener-uki (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Would support it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Multiple CFD nominations[edit]

Hi, when you nominate multiple categories in a single CFD discussion, please use the extra parameter to link to the section heading on the CFD page. See e.g. Template:CFD for instructions. I have fixed the link at Category:Former United Methodist bishops for you. Kind regards – Fayenatic London 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic clergy in America[edit]

Category:Roman Catholic clergy in America, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Saint Timothy[edit]

Hi, you may want to change your reason for opposing as the RM destination has changed, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Categorisation of Anglican priests: RFC as followup to CFD[edit]

You contributed to the debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 2#Category:English_Anglican_priests, which I have closed today as "no consensus". (This notice is being sent all participants in that debate.)

Apart from the disagreement in that particular case, there seemed to be no broader agreement on how to categorise of Anglican priests. So I have opened a Requests for Comments discussion about it, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#RFC:_Categorisation_of_Anglican_priests, where your contribution would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Rollback of miscategorization[edit]

See here This is for clergy by a perspective, not a denomination. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Say what? What on earth is "clergy by a perspective"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect.[edit]

1. I never said the writers are Turkish -- I said the writers are Assyrians/Syriacs that were born in/and or lived in the area corresponding to modern-day Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talkcontribs) 21:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback 2[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Laurel Lodged. You have new messages at Danbarnesdavies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Laurel Lodged. You have new messages at Danbarnesdavies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Laurel Lodged. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_5#Category:Non-ordained_ecclesiastical_officers.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
And again. – Fayenatic London 11:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Littlepace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ongar (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) 09:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello- regarding the variant of Christianity practiced in Ireland; prior to the Gregorian Reforms which swept 12th century Ireland in the years leading up to the Norman Invasion, the liturgical rites of the Irish were Orthodox; as the Irish weren't yet "Roman Catholic" in the same sense that they are today. The calendar, and overall character of Irish Christianity (as well as that of neighboring Anglo-Saxon England before the Normans) was essentially Orthodox. You posed the question "Greek Orthodox? In Dark Ages Ireland? I think not." You're historically mistaken; and very much so at that. No, it wasn't Greek- it was Irish. But it was Orthodox, similar the Greeks. ("Orthodox" is not a synonym for "Greek".) Linguistically it was Latin and Middle Irish. And Ireland never underwent a so-called "Dark Age" because Ireland was never a Roman province which was overran by pagan Germanic hordes. The Irish never experienced a "Dark Age" where the lights of Christianity were extinguished. Please stop meddling with the Kingdom of Ossory page and leave it to the experts.

For further reading about how the nature of Irish Christianity went from being Orthodox to Roman Catholic, please read about the four reforming synods of Cashel 1, Rath Brasail, Kells-Mellifont, and Cashel 2. Between 1100 and 1200, Irish Christianity was irrevocably altered and the great age of Irish monasticism was supplanted by a newly Romanized structure with direct papal oversight through legates. New Continental monastic orders were imported and a majority of the Irish bishops were replaced by Norman bishops. Effectively then, Ireland had become a province of the Roman Church as never before, and had lost her spiritual independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @ Please spare us your Orthodox propaganda. What you call "Orthodoxy" was essentially the Greek-rite being practiced in the former Eastern Roman Empire. Ireland was Christianized by followers from the Latin-Rite Church. Gregorian reforms did crack down on the Irish practice of Christianity, as many newly-converted often fell into syncretism rather than uphold doctrinal norms. Any belief that the "Roman Catholic Church" was imposed on the Irish in the Middle Ages is nonsense designed to subvert the Catholicity of white people. Finally, the "Dark Age" refers to a period where a lack of centralized government hindered academic and commercial growth. It's by no means a black and white phenomenon, but earlier historians found that the order reflected in historical records fell apart with the Roman Empire.
I haven't been stalking any of Laurel Lodged's edits, but if they've attracted your ire they must be doing a decent job. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Chris. Saved me the bother of a long reply. If he's such an "expert", why has be not registered? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have registered; before these comments were written. Laurel, you are wrong, and by a long shot. You espouse the popularly held view of a Roman Catholic; not that of an impartial academic. While the Irish were not Eastern-Rite, they were entirely Orthodox in dogma. Ireland shared many remarkable points of contact with the Roman East, more so than any other Western nation. This has been pointed out clearly since the last century. Additionally, Ireland wasn't under papal authority until the Gregorian Reforms, which also brought new doctrines, new Frankish nuances of theology and new waves of Western monasticism with it. The four great reforming synods of the 12th century changed Ireland completely. Again and again. "Orthodox" does not mean "Eastern", "Greek" or anything else but "Orthodox". The entire West was once Orthodox, Latin-Rites, Gaulish-Rites and all. The Irish were certainly "Orthodox" in the strictest sense. The doctrinal changes which gradually appeared in the West were foreign to Irish insular Christianity, which bore the unusually heavy stamp of monasticism as practiced in the East. (I can't believe this requires explanation here. Please take at least one course in Christian history before you start erasing edits.) Additionally, its constantly shown that the pagan syncretism often perceived in Ireland is false. Please read the prologue to the Calendar of Oengus.

This page on Ossory is rife with incorrect dates, and overall requires serious editing. Names need to be standardized in Irish and there is considerable conflation on this page between the kingdom of Ossory and its rulers with the See of Ossory. The two are not one, despite very close borders.

Also, you say there is no evidence for the Osraige being kings of Leinster. During his life, Cerbhall MacDunlange was second only to his in-law Mael Sechnaill the Ard Ri among the provincial kings. It was during his rule Osraige broke away from Eoghannact Munster and began to dominate the political life of southern Ireland untill his death in 888. Donnchadh Mac Giolla Phádraig, successfully conquered neighboring Leinster in 1033 and ruled it until his death in 1039. Prior to Diarmait Mac Murchada's return, the Osraige had devastated the Laigan and enjoy power of Leinster in MacMurchada's absence.

But where the evidence is entirely lacking is in the claim that the Osraige were ever kings of Munster or Corcu Loidge. They were never kings over Munster, and while the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland claim they were kings of Corcu Loidge, it was the reverse in actuality. Please read Joan Radner's famous doctoral dissertation on this subject.

You don't add any expertise to this page Laurel Lodge; you just delete what you don't agree with. Please stop reducing the modern scholarship of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ri Osraige (talkcontribs) 03:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

    • I also would like to ask why you keep undoing my edits when you are not sure about the information you're deleting. In addition to your dispute regarding Orthodoxy as discussed above, you undid a number of my date and spelling corrections, and undid a bit of the information regarding the king lists. But then you gave this reason:

"not sure about the other points, but the imposition of Orthodoxy is definitely wrong".

If you're unsure about information, why would you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ri Osraige (talkcontribs) 22:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiple issues here. In summary, be polite, assume good faith, no original research and back up your claims with verifiable sources. You'd be surprised by know much more about Eastern Orthodoxy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Orthdoxy The Church in Ireland has been orthodox from Patricks's time to the present time. It is orthodox with a small "c"; it has never been orthodox with a capital "C". Or does Ri Osraige mean to assert that the Western Church is not orthodox? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been polite, but I must admit, you're disputing long-established history. First, Osraige as a kingdom existed from the second century (c.150 AD), which is supported in the annals, but you reverted to an odd sixth century date. (This may be near the date the Osraige freed themselves from Corcu Loidge rule, or confusion with the See of Ossory, which is not the political unit of the kingdom.) Secondly, it is well known that some kings of Osraige ruled Leinster. Yet you say this is not supported? Have you read the annals? Before Cearbhall mac Dungal in the ninth century, Osraige was counted as part of Munster, but no Osraige king was ever a king of Munster or Corcu Loidge. Again, read the annals. Theyre available online from Cork Uni.

Now, as to Orthodoxy. The big O (not C) or small o is no distinction, because the word means the same thing either way. You must understand, "Orthodox" does not mean "Greek"; although Ireland had more in common with Greece and Egypt than they do now. The Church in Ireland was orthodox (or Orthodox) from St. Patrick's time until the twelfth century. The entire West slowly drifted away from orthodox christianity towards an ever-more altered version, what the world and scholars now call Roman Catholicism. There are so many differences however, that it would take paragraphs to explain here. Suffice it to say, that in the 1100's there were 4 major synods in Ireland which in total changed the Irish Church forever. (Cashel 1, Rath Brasail, Kells-Mellifont, and Cashel 2). Read what happened therein. After that, combined with the Norman invasion, utterly changed Irish Christianity from its orthodox form into its medieval roman catholic form much much more like the rest of the West. Ri Osraige (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Small o If you have verifiable sources about Osraige from 150 AD, their kingship of over-kingdoms etc, feel free to use them. Wiki works that way. It does not work by editors making original research, even if that research happens to be true. As for the Big O, that is clearly your own POV that is not widely supported. Both Western and Eastern traditions claim to be orthodox. Neither admits to a falling away from orthodoxy. To insert a break in the timeline supports a minority view at best. The 12th century synods reformed structures and abolished certain abuses; no new teaching was introduced. There was no departure from orthodoxy in those synods. You will have a struggle to find sources that say otherwise. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Right; as I was discussing with Slazenger I am entirely new to editing and have no idea yet how to cite; but since my degree focued on the Osraige people, I figured I could improve the article's accuracy as I learned to cite here. Again, the majority of my sources are the annals or Irish geneologies. If you were acquainted with them, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I have no original research of my own here. 150 AD is a rounded number taken from the estimated flourit of Oengus Osrithe, namesake and founder of the kingdom. Its quite frustrating to see you delete what is considered longstanding fact by Irish historians as the basics regarding the establishment of Osraige. Why 549 AD? That's a random year.

Also, you're incorrect to say that no new teaching was introduced into Ireland in the 12th cent. Many new forms of Western monasticism which do not predate the Great Schism between East and West only arrived in Ireland in the 1100's. Papal authority directly overseening Ireland was only established in the 1100's. Papal appointment of the newly created Irish archpishoprics and the arrival of legates from Rome only occured then. The age of stricter asceticism as practiced in Ireland's golden period came to an end in the 1100's. We have no word yet on Irish eucharist, but it was likely unleavened from this point on as occurred in the West- who used to have leavened bread. Diocesean borders were better established and all the norms of Gregorian Europe, including an over-emphasis of Augustinian theology was implimented. It was in short a Romanization of Ireland like never before. And in all the ways the West grew away from the consistency of the East was to befound from this point on, in Ireland. No, the West is not now orthodox, and that is hardly a minority scholastic position. Ri Osraige (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

To repeat, I'm happy for you to include any / all annalistic references that point to the dates you indicate. Some contra-indicated sources might also be useful in the interests of balance. Monasticism, archbishoprics, diocesan borders etc all fall under the heading of structure, as I wrote above. Structure has nothing to do with doctrine or right teaching. Was Gregorian Europe unorthodox? Who says so? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Was Gregorian Europe unorthodox? Certainly. A comparison with pre-Gregorian Europe says so. First and foremost, Papal power and prestige increased in the West as never before, even demanding supremacy over the other four patriarchates, in a new unilateral way. Historians now recognise a power structure between Roman and the Franks which mutually benefited the other. The new Filioquism was a Frankish agenda under Charlemagne. Yet despite the efforts of some popes including Leo, the Filioque stuck around even though it was not originally in the Creed. The East never adopted it because they thought it incorrect. While Roman eucharistic bread at some point became unleavened, Purgatory arose, a newer teaching out of the writings of Augustine; along with God being viewed in the West as distant and not imperative, as seen originally. Western anthropology saw man's role on earth increasingly in a pessimistic way, instead of optimistically as originally. Under the guise of piety, new and novel forms of monasticism sprung up in the West only after the Great Schism- and that does deal directly with theology and not hierarchy. This never occurred in the East; things remained unchanged; Greek remained the language of theology and the Empire remained intact and dealt with iconoclastic heresies victoriously. Understand that the Gregorian Reforms were just that- Reforms. Of structure and theology. It was the first movement of what grew to be many Western efforts at church reform, which culminated in the Protestant Reformation of the 1500-1600's, and some could say, is still going on today. Nobody saw it at the time however; especially your average peasant farmer. But the Gregorian Reforms were the West's most concerted effort to change Christianity. Ireland was targeted by Rome as a competitor in authority- the Irish had strongly evangelized NW Europe in the centuries after the barbarian invasions, and as such held international esteem as disciplined and learned ascetics. Papal legates present at the Synod of Kells-Mellifont issued pallia to Ireland's four archbishops, and as never before Rome was at Ireland's spiritual helm. Prior to this, orthodox England was invaded by the Frankish Normans who had been blessed to invade a Christian neighbor with a banner from the Pope. Writers from the time mention the astonishment and sadness of the Christian Saxons to see a papal banner in front of their beardless invaders from Normandy. Within a century, Pope Adrian V, the only ever English Pope would issue Laudibiliter, a papal bull giving all the world's islands (including Ireland) to England. When the Normans were invited to Ireland, they quickly supplanted native Irish bishops and priests and handed big decisions to Canterbury. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued “Unam Sanctam,” perhaps the most famous summary of papal claims made during the Middle Ages. Boniface not only demanded spiritual obedience to the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church, but claimed authority over all secular governments. Later, increasing theological changes continued within Roman Catholicism including calendar reform, increasing legalism within theological understanding, a weakening on the rules of Fasting, Popes calling for crusades which even killed other Christians in the East and sacked Constantinople, even more monastic inventions, Limbo, new rules on the canonizations of saints, indulgences, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception and much much more. All of the above mentioned items are new theological developments within Roman Catholicism which were unheard of in the West before 1054.

Today, Orthodoxy still maintains the original way of early Christianity, just as Ireland had before the Gregorian Reforms reached the island. Theologically speaking, Osraige between the coming of Patrick and the 12th century was Orthodox, as what we now call "Roman Catholicism" hadn't developed yet, and hadn't yet arrived.

Ri Osraige (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ri Osraige: Given enough rope you hang yourself. You couldn't just stick to the subject at hand but you fell into your anti-Catholic bias. As I said, I've heard this rant before, and from an Orthodox priest no less. Bias is a horrible thing and it will color everything you touch. I've dealt with long-winded partisans like you. They came with their arguments but no sources; beliefs but no consensus. Wikipedia is not for you. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Chris Troutman: History is history. Christian beliefs and practices changed in the West. This page is not where citations are needed. But neither what I've said is untrue nor is this bias. This is the march of history. Sorry it happened that way. It would appear your dispute is not with me, or my statements, but your own bias against how changes in the West occurred. My MA is European History with a special focus on Christian history and a published thesis on Ossory between 300 and 1600 AD. I became "long-winded" with Laurel because she disputed every fact known about the dates of Ossorian history and her own Roman Catholic bias. Sometimes explanation is needed for those who clearly haven't read the sources. (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Ri Osraige (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Chris Troutman Also, if you disagree with a particular statement, you could opt to discuss where I've misunderstood history. Instead, you waive it away as "bias". Anyone can dismiss something and not discuss it. You've contributed nothing to this discussion but a revelation of your own bias. Wikipedia is not for you, sir. I took the time to write to Laurel and explain why I view history as such, so being "long-winded" only displays my ability to engage and explain. You Chris, only dismiss, insult, and leave. Not helpful. Ri Osraige (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ri Osraige (talkcontribs) 18:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Ri Osraige (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I request that this discussion move off my personal page to the [Catholicism project] instead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Much appreciate your input on the Ireland project talk page on the "formula" for settlements/parishes on wikipedia. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Your vote call on non-Trinitarianism[edit]

Hello, and thanks for the vote call on the issue of nontrinitarianism versus non-Trinitarianism; it was not my intention to seem rude by not voting, but instead, I had given up on the matter and did not have the page on my watchlist, which was a mistake. I have just noticed the vote call, and I voted (as a symbolic gesture at this point). I appreciate very much what you did in that debate. All the best... Dontreader (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Castleknock (barony), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ongar (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) 08:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Non-Irish bishops in Ireland[edit]

Category:Non-Irish bishops in Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dublin 15, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashtown (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) 08:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Refusal to accept consensus. You may want to comment. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


I can see that the only way to deal with this is a topic ban on him from civil parish articles. We've made it crystal clear that we're not claiming villages are equal to civil parishes but he keeps saying we are and introducing "errors" simply because cannot accept including them within the same article which is just silly. He comes across as extremely arrogant and inflexible basing his assumptions purely on what some parish priest said to him and ignoring the wealth of coverage historically. The parish priest may be right that civil parishes have little meaning today and may seem "nonsense" today but they're notable for Irish history on wikipedia above all and it makes sense to document them in the same articles as the village they're centred around inwhich the history will go hand in hand. You can see why this individual has caused me such annoyance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've also had experience of his intractability and "I can't hear you" attitude on GAA topics. I feel your pain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kilfenora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ordinary (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) 08:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule[edit]


Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Two cathedrals dedicated to saints Fachtna/Fachanan[edit]

I've noticed there are two cathedrals dedicated to saints Fachanan/Fachtna (of Kilfenora) and Fachtna/Fachanan (of Rosscarbery); one cathedral in Kilfenora, County Clare (see: Kilfenora#Kilfenora_Cathedral) and the other in Rosscarbery, County Cork (see: Cathedral Church of St. Fachtna). With each saint being known as either Fachtna or Fachanan, the problem is how to title each cathedral? There isn't an article for Kilfenora Cathedral, just a section about it in the Kilfenora article, which could be turned into a separate article. The cathedral in Rosscarbery does have any article, which should be renamed to disambiguate it from the one in Kilfenora. However, I'm not sure how to title the article(s). If the Kilfenora Cathedral article was created should it be titled "Kilfenora Cathedral", "St Fachtna's or St Fachanan's Cathedral, Kilfenora", or "Cathedral Church of St Fachtna or St Fachanan, Kilfenora"? With the cathedral in Rosscarbery is more awkward due the Diocese of Ross, not Diocese of Rosscarbery, so should the cathedral article titled "Ross or Rosscarbery Cathedral", "St Fachtna's or St Fachanan's Cathedral, Rosscarbery or Ross", or "Cathedral Church of St Fachtna or St Fachanan, Rosscarbery or Ross"? Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Dysart and Ruan[edit]

I took the spelling from the Killaloe diocese site. See also [2] and [3]. But Clare County Library spells it Dysert. Feel free to move. It obviously is a Catholic parish. If you look at this page, down at the bottom, Clare County Library says "RUAN parish comprises the old parishes of Dysert and Ruan." So although the legal name of the civil parish may "Ruan", I think it is reasonable to say that Dysart and Ruan is a civil parish as well as a Catholic parish. Same place, same history. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

They are two independent civil parishes. They are also a united RC parish. I think it's best to put the RC into both of the civil parishes. If you don't mind, I'll rename this. Thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I really thing the civil parishes were merged some time before 1837. See Lewis 1837 p. 595. He says Dysert, or Dysart, is the parish formerly called Dysert O'Dea, with the subdivisions of Inagh and Ruan, and describes one parish with police stations at Dysert and Ruan. The Clare County Library entry for Ruan Parish does not give Lewis 1837 or Gazetteer 1845 entries. It gives entries in these sources for all other parishes. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that Lewis may have been talking about RC divisions. Both Logainm and the ancient OSI maps have 2 parishes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Both Lewis and the Gazetteer describe parishes as agreed by the state and the established Church of Ireland. They mention the "RC Divisions" but only as an aside. The parishes they describe were both civil and Church of Ireland, but the distinction was immaterial. There was some discussion about whether the Church of Ireland should be allowed to redefine parish boundaries to adapt to clerical needs, since that messed up census statistics and various statutes and regulations. When the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1871 the problem was solved. The civil parish definitions were cast in stone and the two churches could do what they wanted with their own definitions.
So at some time in the past Dysert and Ruan were separate, but some time before 1837 they were combined in one Church of Ireland parish, and at some time they were combined in one Catholic parish. Whether they were ever officially combined in one civil parish is perhaps slightly academic. A civil parish is mostly just a well-defined set of townlands.
If a reader searches for "Ruan", they most likely want the village but may want the Catholic parish or just possibly the civil parish. If they search for "Dysart", or maybe "Dysert", they most likely want the Catholic parish, or just possibly the civil parish. I am inclined to have one article for Ruan, the village, and another for "Dysart and Ruan", the parish, that describes the catholic parish and the two former civil parishes, mentions they were united but fudges the issue of just how united that was. Titles like Dysert (parish) or Ruan (parish) can redirect into the Dysart and Ruan article. Three articles would be excessive. These are very small rural areas.
Discussion is boring. Maybe we should have an edit war instead. Just kidding. I don't feel passionately about the naming or the way the information is arranged into articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It's never good to type at 1am. Reading your Lewis link above, it says that Dysert is a parish in the barony of Inchiquin. It says nothing about a united parish. It also mentions that it "comprehends the sub divisions of Inagh and Ruan". I take that to mean that the poor vicar was obliged to combine the revenues of 3 parishes in order to eak out a living. That's entirely possible but it does not invalidate the position of each of the 3 as parishes in their own right. The RC only had to combine 2 parishes to make a reasonable living. So I'd be inclined to have three articles: 1 each for Ruan, Dysert and and Inagh. Let Ruan lead with the village and mention the combined RC and CoI arrangements. Let Dysert lead with the civil parish and mention the combined RC and CoI arrangements. What do you think? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This one is an anomaly. It is worth looking at the full description of the Church of Ireland parish from Lewis:

The parish is in the diocese of Killaloe : the rectory forms part of the union and corps of the prebend of Rath, and the vicarage, part of the union of Kilneboy. The tithes amount to £250. 13. 9., of which £165. 1. 23/4. is payable to the rector, £83. 17. 11. to the vicar, and £1. 14. 71/4. to the prebendary of Tomgraney. There is a glebe of one plantation acre. In the R. C. divisions its northern and middle portions form the union or district of Dysert ; and the south-western portion (Inagh) gives name to a district, which also includes the parish of Kilnemona. In the former district are the chapels of Dysert and Ruan, and in the latter, those of Inch and Kilnemona.

The Church of Ireland generally did not mess with parish boundaries, but assigned their priests to unions that included several parishes. But in this case, they seem to have combined Dysert/Ruan into a district called Dysert, then combined that with Inagh into one parish, called Dysert. But both the rector and the vicar had other parishes. Confusing.

My concern is with forking and reader convenience. If there are overlapping articles they will tend to evolve in different directions, and if there are many small articles the reader will have to hop around. So my preference would be to leave Inagh separate, leave Ruan as a village, and put all the parish content (e.g. ruins, lakes, townlands) into the Dysart and Ruan article, which can have sections on the different components. The alternative, which I think you prefer, would be to strip the Dysart and Ruan article down to the minimum (e.g. very little geography, just a church organization unit) and put the parish content into articles on Dysart (being very careful with Lewis as a source) and on Ruan. I don't like that much, because the village of Ruan seems rather distinct from the civil parish, which is much larger, and I think the Catholic parish is more significant to most people. Not sure. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I share your concern with forking and reader convenience. The more I read about the parishes of Inchiquin, the more problematic it becomes. Basically the land was too poor to support clergy. It's a wonder that it was ever capable of doing so. There appears to be 4 civil parishes involved. In the CoI, they became a union of 1 parish. In the RC, they became a union of 2 parishes. Unless you were going to rename the Dysert and Ruan article to "Dysert, Ruan, Inagh and Kilnamona", I don't see how it could with proper fairness address the complexities involved. Again, my preference is to stick to the relatively stable legal entities (the 4 civil parishes) giving each its own article which would always give preference in the lead to the village (if any) and have a separate section on the ecclesiastical parishes and their denominational complexities, mergers and de-mergers. Only the civil one affords the stability; the others are too transitory. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I am o.k. with that. I would say it is important to remove most of the geography, ruins, townlands etc. from the Catholic parish article, and put them in the civil parish articles to avoid duplication. The civil parish gets the geography and early history. The GAA does seem to belong at the Catholic parish level. When a Catholic parish covers the same area as one civil parish, one article should be enough. Villages are iffy. A large village in a small parish by the same name probably makes sense as one article. The parish is just the village and surrounding fields. But if the parish is extensive, like Ruan, it is a bit awkward.
My guess is the vicar mostly lived on the potatoes he grew in his one-acre glebe, and made his rounds of the parishes in his charge on foot. It makes me cold, tired and hungry just thinking about it, but I suppose that was the way life was and people accepted it.
A minor note: Lewis tends to use "e" or "o" where modern sources use "a" or "ua", as in Kilneboy, Tomgraney, Kilnemona. I suspect the spelling was brought into line with the Gaelic after independence. Just a guess. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Tubber, County Clare[edit]

See this travel book for a description of the village. It is informal and straggles along the road between the two counties. The townland of Tubber is in Galway, but a satellite / street view shows the center of the village where the church is, in Clare, at 52°59′24″N 8°53′39″W / 52.99004°N 8.89419°W / 52.99004; -8.89419.

See the diocese page, "Tubber (Kilkeedy). Located in North Clare ... Tubber is the only parish in Killaloe diocese where the boundaries have stayed exactly as they were in medieval times. The ancient name of the parish, Kilkeedy ..." It is incorrect to say "The parish is part of the ecclesiastical parish of Tubber (Kilkeedy)". It is not part: it is the whole. The boundaries of the Catholic parish are exactly the same as the civil parish. One article is surely enough for both. I think the lead should start Tubber (Kilkeedy) is a civil and Catholic parish" since the Catholic parish name is the more likely search term. Will you object if I move to Tubber (Kilkeedy), the name used by the diocese? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hold off a second while I think about this. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is wrong to say "The parish is part of the ecclesiastical parish of Tubber (Kilkeedy)". It should probably say that "The boundaries of Kilkeedy civil parish has been co-extensive with the boundaries of the Established Church and the Roman Catholic Church since the Middle Ages. Currently, the Roman Catholic Church prefers to use the name "Tubber (Kilkeedy)" in identifying the parish." Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the map shows St Michael's in Clare. That's why I took the name Tubber out. Tuber is clearly in County Galway. At most, this is a Killaloe, County Clare/Ballina, County Tipperary situation where the two are supposedly a single entity, joined by a bridge. However, their articles name the correct county. I'm nervous of using unofficial sources. It smacks of WP:OR. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Tober just means "well". There are a few of them in Ireland. I started Tubber, County Offaly. Tubberclare is in Westmeath. The Clare/Galway Tubber village is obviously one place. I don't care about it. The parish in Clare is called Tubber (Kilkeedy). I think the article should have that name. It has the advantage of combining new and old forms, so a redirect from either "Tubber" or "Kilkeedy" does not give the reader a jarring result. I have taken that approach with a number of other parishes where the diocese gives a parish name like Newvillage (Oldparish), and the new and old parishes are exactly the same in extent. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I can live with the name change and the article as it now stands. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You've been warned before over edit-warring over Catholic pages[edit]

Do you wish to repeat the process? Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been warned more times than me. Why don't you take it to the talk page.
I already have. Catholic pages should reflect Catholic teachings. Altering Catholic pages to push your personal POV will not work here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Never stops you from altering Catholic pages to push your personal POV. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Irish noble women[edit]

Category:Irish noble women, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Strange edits?[edit]

Hi, I wonder if you could check out edits being made by to articles such as Ian Paisley, Jr., William McCrea (politician) and others. There seems to be an agenda to the edits (removing references to Northern Ireland and replacing them with United Kingdom references). I have to log off now and go to work. Many thanks. Denisarona (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, just to let you know that User:Scolaire seems to have dealt with the problem. Regards Denisarona (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert Religious leaders of the Roman Empire[edit]

Hi Laurel, we have a misunderstanding here. The issue is not which time period the page refers to, but instead the issue is which religion the page refers to.

The page content now only mentions leader of ancient Roman religion, doesn't it? But after your revert it is now categorized to religion in general, i.e. to all religions in the Roman empire and I don't think that should be the case. Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

But of course it's about a time period. The Western Roman Empire only existed from the time of Augustus until 476AD. The Category:Ancient Roman religion is wider as it covers 3 periods of time: the Kingdom of Rome, the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. It is therefore an an inappropriate parent for this category. I agree that it should report to a "religion" category. However, that "religion" category should be a specific time and place - the Roman Empire. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Which raises the question, what has priority in this case? Time is largely a non-defining characteristic for the Greco-Roman religions. So it's more important to categorise towards the right religion than towards the right time, I'd say. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I sort of agree that "Time is largely a non-defining characteristic for the Greco-Roman religions". However, this category is not about religions in general but religious people in particular. A person exists in only one time period and usually only a couple of places. So it's Bishop X of city Y. There are other category trees for specific religions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Laurel, there's only a couple of articles of these priests of Ancient Roman Religion available anyway. Why would you care? Categorization of people by time is only useful when there are lots of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
That's not a question that one Wikipedian ought to ask another. There are priests, augurs, vestal virgins - more grades than even Lutheranism can boast! It's sufficient. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, it's perfectly fine with me if more articles are about to appear about these type of people. The question for now is, are you going to split everything between Roman Republic and Roman Empire? Because if you're not going to create similar categories for the Republic, the creation of separate Empire categories still doesn't make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not necessary for me to create Category:Religious leaders of the Roman Republic as it already exists. It's part of the usual division of ancient Roman history into three periods. See also Category:Religious leaders of Ancient Rome. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert Christians in the Roman Empire[edit]

Hi Laurel, the other revert is even less understandable to me. You've changed it back to Ante-Nicene christians, while a considerable amount (if not the majority) of these christians is definitely Post-Nicene. Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You should have read the reversion comments. The category that I deleted "Category:Ancient Christian saints" does not exist. Why point to a non-existent category? It was deleted because of the Feb CFD decision. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I see, you made the change at a different place in the article! Still, it's a bit odd to point a 'See also' to an Ante-Nicene category, while many of these people are Post-Nicene, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
It would work better if another category was created called "Category:Post-Nicene Christians of the Roman Empire". Meanwhile, it's good enough for a "See also" reference. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Never-ending discussion?[edit]

Dear Laurel, I don't know how to make the following syntax work, so it'll remain red, but anyway, on Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 31#How to proceed from here I suggested a way out in our discussion. It seems like we just don't understand each other, I really regret that this happens and I would definitely want to avoid that this grows into some kind of personal animosity, so that's why I made the suggestion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I saw it but was too tired to respond. I accept that you are acting in good faith. However I think that your logic gets a little muddled sometimes. I'll reply tomorrow. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Take your time, since I'm not sure if I'll have internet access in the coming week. And even if I'll have access, I won't be online often anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm back now, so shall I fill in a form? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems the right thing to do. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Staplestown 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:
  • Park''' is located in the neighbouring [[Civil parishes in Ireland|civil parish]] of [[Donadea (civil parish|Donadea]]. The forest is managed by the state forestry agency, [[Coillte]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Baron Dunboyne 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:
  • in Dunboyne, along with the rectory of Dunboyne, its tithes and other ecclesiastical revenues.<ref>[ Dunboyne parish history</ref> In the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donadea (June 16)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
APerson (talk!) 22:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Category:Christianity under the Roman Empire". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 June 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Donadea was accepted[edit]

Donadea, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Category:Christianity under the Roman Empire, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

What's the next step? Apparently we have third opinion, request for comment, request for subject-specific help and a request to a noticeboard as possibilities. Personally, I think the latter makes the most sense. Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of "unncessary diffusion"[edit]

When I undid St. Timothy I hadn't realised that the parent category had been sub-divided. I don't believe that Category:New Testament people as a whole needs diffusion. I just don't have the energy to continually fight these misguided attempts to do so. While sorting people by the bit of the New Testament they get a mention in sounds like a good idea initially, maturer reflection shows that it leads to an unhelpful proliferation of categories. Taking Timothy as an example, he's mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, several Pauline epistles, and Hebrews. A category for each of these on the bottom of his article, in addition to the 14 other categories he's already in, is too many. And under the current scheme what does one do with Jesus? Add another 27 categories to his article? I'm cross-posting this to Marco's talk page as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Types of Christian faiths or beliefs[edit]


Category:Types of Christian faiths or beliefs has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.