User talk:Laurel Lodged: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:06, 23 January 2011

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Laurel Lodged, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Thanks, TTGL | Talk to me! 22:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks TTGL. Are you like my handler or mentor now?Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking there are no special 'buddies', but most eds. will be happy to help new Wikipedians out if you contact them on their Talk Pages. Welcome aboard and happy editing. RashersTierney (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Hi Laural! You said "I am also interested in putting up pages that are not on Wikipedia, but are of local significance." What kind of articles do you have in mind? I'd be delighted to help if they are within my expertise. Fergananim (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of starting some pages on the baronies of Ireland. Tipperary is as good a place to start as any. Perhaps showing how the baronies may have had their origins in older Gaelic chiefdoms (or may just have been Norman creations). Does this interest you? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intrigueing. Have you looked up Trícha cét? Paul MacCotter's Medieval Ireland: Territorial, Political and Economic Divisions (2008, ISBN978 1 84682 098 4) is the best single book on the subject, and covers all Ireland. Including Tipperary. I had begun in Connacht but can do a few for Tipp. What baronies would you like to start with? Fergananim (talk)

Dedicated articles on the baronies could be very interesting, rather than shoehorning them into the leads of established articles about towns and villages. They could of course be linked from these. Go for it. RashersTierney (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen the book. I'll look it up. Meanwhile, for starters, what about Eliogarty? Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thurles

Not implying that your eds. can't be incorporated somewhere in article, but not at lead. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not the lead? The lead already sets out a geographical hierarchy (country, county, town). The addition of barony merely completes the picture without violating the strict hierarchy (country, county, barony, town). Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Lead section#Relative emphasis. RashersTierney (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK But what about 3.3 Opening paragraph:The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader? In an article devoted to a geographic entity, surely an unambiguous, strict, verifiable, hierarchical definition is pre-eminant? Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about much more than 'geography' strictly defined. Its as much about history, politics, sport, commerce, personalities etc. Have a look at Irish (and other) towns of equivalent size to get a gist of what is usually located at the lead. Don't expect perfect consistency, but ideally there should be an overall compatibility. RashersTierney (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your revert at the lead, I guess I've been wasting my time here. RashersTierney (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now Rashers, there no need to get in a miff. It's just that i felt that your argument for the non-inclusion of baronies in the header didn't stack up. By the logic set out above, any article which deals with history, politics, sport, commerce, personalities etc. should have all this set forth in the header. This does not make practical sense - a header is a header, not a perfect abstract. And if it was otherwise, thenevery other article on every other Irish town would also include all of the above in their headers. But they don't. So i think that i'm entitled to stict to a strict geographical interpretation of the bare minumum for the header and then let the article take it's own direction. IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats just misinterpreting what I said (at considerable length). The lead is intended to give a succinct impression of the overall content. Having such detail on the baronies at the lead gives it undue weight. Please reconsider your current pattern of editing this and similar articles. RashersTierney (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's a mis-interpretation of what you said, more a case of bringing it to it's logical (and messy) conclusion. But for the sake of peace I've amended them. I've put most of the baronial details in the References section. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

I saw this edit, where you added "references" that actually are just footnotes or comments. While I'm not sure about the importance of the barony in which an Irish town lies (does anybody living there care or even know more than a hundred years after their abolishment?), in any case a secondary source would be better than just a footnote that isn't really verifiable by the average reader. Do you know where to find one? Huon (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They are being given entirely too much prominence in marginally related articles, as I have already pointed out here. Laurel Lodged proposed developing dedicated articles on the Baronies of Ireland, which seems to me a more constructive approach. They are no longer of sufficient importance as to appear in article leads on towns and villages. My attempts to suggest as much earlier have been largely ignored. RashersTierney (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree with the two assessments above. Firstly the unit of land called a "barony" has not been aboloshed. The barons, in the Republic of Ireland, are gone and have no place. Their titles are now purely honorific. The baronies on the other hand, still retain legal force, particularly in matters of probate and property rights. All old title deeds will usually refer to the barony. As you know, possession is nine tenths of the law. Why would you want to write off such a major fraction so glibly? Secondly, the contributions of Rashers have not been ignored. His erroneous assertions have been refuted - that's not the same thing as ignoring them. Furthermore, in the interests of peace, I proposed a sensible compromise that would reduce the header prominance of the barony while retaining the info elsewhere for those interested in pursuing it. I received no response to this proposal. It was for this reason that it was necessary to put the additional information elsewhere - the Reference section seemed most sensible. I have no objection to a new section of "Notes" being added, though it appears a touch of overkill. Lastly, I have begun my work on the Baronies of Ireland. I invite your contributions to the article "Eliogarty". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I said has been 'refuted'. Such prominence in the lead is inappropriate and nothing more than a distraction. The arcane practice of retaining the names of these former administrative districts in title deeds has no legal bearing where land boundaries are now accurately surveyed. The precise limits of the baronies are largely unknown due to movement of stream courses, ditches and other long-gone physical features. They are of some historical interest, and their study can shed light on the development of civil and ecclesiastical parishes and as a possible reference to older ownership, but lets not get carried away. RashersTierney (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like refute? Would rebut be a more accurate description? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. As a reader as much as an ed. here, I'd love to see those baronies articles developed systematically. Particularly interested in Iffa and Offa East if you and others get around to it. I'll be as supportive as I can in the work on those, but please take on board the modest request not to force them into established articles. RashersTierney (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still refuse to engage with the substantive issue. With my peace-making compromise, your original grounds of objection have largely disappeared. All that remains is to decide what to do with the explanatory note. Let's remind ourselves what is now at issue here - the insertion of 4 words ("the barony of x"). Your proposal may be modest but it is not reasonable. Your continued objections, not backed up by reasoned argument, smack more of pique than a desire to maintain encyclopediaic consistency. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is not an optional extra. If I am exhibiting 'pique', it has to do with time and effort involved in moving such a minor issue forward. RashersTierney (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for quoting the AGF. It is quite apt in the current impasse. For instance, "Many new users who lack an intuitive grasp of Wikipedia customs are gradually brought around once the logic behind them becomes more clear.". If only you would oblige by supplying the logic Rashers (now that the basis for your original objection has all but disappeared), then perhaps this new user could be brought around. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of a wider dispute - maybe we should choose a more central location for our discussion, perhaps Talk:Baronies of Ireland? Anyway, I don't think such details as the chief towns of neighbouring baronies add anything of value to a village's article, be it within the article proper or as a note. Similarly, the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 probably needn't be mentioned in every village article. Linking both to Baronies of Ireland and to the village's own barony should be sufficient. Huon (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. As regards moving to Talk:Baronies of Ireland, I can't recall ever seeing a TP that looked less like one. Whats going on there? RashersTierney (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the topic of baronies: I'm still unsure about their importance. The Baronies of Ireland article mentions that they retain some meaning for land registration and planing commissions, but that part of the article is unreferenced. It'd be nice to see some sort of secondary source explaining their importance - maybe a newspaper article, or better yet, some sort of scientific or judicial essay. Assuming their importance has been established, I don't mind mentioning them in the town and village articles, but maybe we should try and establish a broader consensus before we change all the village articles. The Ireland WikiProject may be a good place to ask for community input. Anyway I don't see the need for either the note giving the neighbouring baronies and their chief towns, or the comment about the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. If there's no objection, I'll remove those notes as irrelevant to the villages. Huon (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There is plenty of scope for these articles to be developed at their dedicated locations. RashersTierney (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there apparently were objections, I've initiated a broader debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Baronies. Anyway, Wikipedia does not accept itself as a reliable source, and making an internal link a "reference" is strongly discouraged. For now I won't edit the articles (that would probably only lead to an edit war), but I'd ask you not to introduce further such "references" - making the link a part of the article proper would be preferable. Yours, Huon (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish genealogy

Hi. Are the reference sections too long? Fergananim (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Black Castle, Town Park 2007.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Black Castle, Town Park 2007.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Black Castle Town Park 2007.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Black Castle Town Park 2007.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the above

This template is usually sufficient.

== Licensing ==

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

If this is not legally possible:

I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Hope this helps. RashersTierney (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin

Can you translate the inscriptions on the pediment of the following churches?

DubhEire (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To God (Deo), Best (Optimo) and Greatest (Maximo) under (sub) the protectection (invocatio) of Saint (Santa) Audoen. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To God (Deo), One (Uni) and (et) Three, under the protection of St Francis Xavier. IHS = does not mean "I have suffered" as is commonly suppoed. Instead it means "Iesus Hominum Salvator ("Jesus, Savior of men"). Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be gussing at this one, but my best effort is "Dedicated (dicatum) To God (Deo), Best (Optimo) and Greatest (Maximo) under (sub) the protectection (invocatio) of Saint (Santa) Nicholas, Bishop (episcopus) of Myra (Myrensis)" Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent thanks. I have another 1 or 2 that I will dig out. I'll put these on their respective pages. DubhEire (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub question on Eliogarty

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

File:Imperial Palace on the Palatine overlooking the Circus Maximus.JPG

Laurel? Your photo is wonderful, but it's ... on its side. Any specific reason? If not, any chance you could turn it right side up? I'm tempted to do it myself, but wanted to ask you about it first. --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that I can rotate it without "breaking " it. Feel free to rotate if you can do so safely. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just rotated it 90 degrees. That's still not straight (I tried straight, and got an empty triangle by the side of the wall in the lower right), but I think it's at least better. Agree? If not, the old version is still there in the file history on the Commons. --GRuban (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I "straightened" this image and replaced it on the two sites as File:Imperial Palace on the Palatine overlooking the Circus Maximus2.JPG Hohenloh⁺ 15:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iffa and Offa East

There were only automated edits on the talkpage and the "bot" that made the edits requested deletion. You are free to create the talkpage fresh, just edit it. There is nothing on it worth undeleting though just automated messages that are now redundant. Happy editing. Polargeo (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Info boxes

Thanks. I'm just editing/changing the infoboxes at the moment, but intend to edit them all throughout. Some need more attention that others. Scrivener-uki (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Munster is one of the civil Provinces of Ireland, although the Irish ecclesiastical provinces are based on similar boundaries. On the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference website has a map, see here, which states the names of each diocese, and in small black rectagular boxes in white lettering the name of each province. So we are both wrong. The 'Province of Cashel' is simply called that, not 'Province of Cashel and Emly' or the 'Province of Munster'. Scrivener-uki (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not place a lot of reliance of the labels on that map. Such things are often "dumbed down2 for modern eyes. I'd like to do some more research into the name. For the moment, I note that the Catholic Encyclopedia (circa 1907) describes it as follows: "At the synod of Kells, 1152, Cardinal Paparo gave a pallium to Donat O'Lonergan of Cashel, and since then his successors have ruled the ecclesiastical province of Munster". I'd place a lot of trust in this source but will dig elsewhere. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the Irish Catholic Bishop's Conference website is quite reliable and the labels on the map are correct. On the Galway, Kilmacduagh & Kilfenora page mentions "Kilfenora is in the province of Cashel but the Bishop of Galway and Kilmacduagh is its apostolic administrator." The Catholic Encyclopedia has a number of pages about the ecclesiastical provinces. The most prominent one is the Ecclesiastical Province page. The Catholic Encyclopedia also has the Cashel page which if you scroll down you'll see 'The ecclesiastical province of Cashel'. Another source A topographical dictionary of Ireland, published in 1810, mentions "Province of Armagh", or Cashel, or Dublin or Tuam throughout the book. So you'll different sources use the term "ecclesiastical province". Scrivener-uki (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm convinced :-) Cashel it is Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boornacoola

Hi Laurel, I made a few changes to the article: Bornacoola. I added that Tuam was in Ireland. It's important to mention the location of the parish in the lead. Is Bornacoola a village or townland?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Civil parishes / RE: Category for dioceses

No, I did not do the move. It didn't realise the discussion/vote was taking place. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_10#Parishes_of_Ireland. It would seem that two voted to rename, you voted to keep, plus others made comments/questions. Hardly a resounding vote for them to be moved. I'm NOT happy with it.

As you'll know, the civil parishes don't appear to exist anymore in the Republic of Ireland, I don't know about Northern Ireland. So what I've been doing is creating sub-categories in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland which puts anything to do with each RC diocese/archdiocese sub-category. So for example: in Category:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cashel and Emly has the archdiocese plus a subcategory for the parishes. In that category can in future the RC cathedral and any else to do with it. I am in the process of added pages or files to the RC diocese/archdiocese sub-categories. I then intend to do the same with sub-categories for the Church of Ireland dioceses/archdioceses. All because two editors wanted to change "Category:Parishes of County X" to "Category:Civil parishes of County X", civil parishes which belong to the past not the present. Scrivener-uki (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could try. I was thinking asking advice from User:BrownHairedGirl. She may know how revert the move or at least know how to restart the discussion again. I really do feel that "Category:Parishes of County X" was the best name for the category, which includes civil and religious parishes in one category. I did an edit earlier today to Kilcommon and Hollyford and Rearcross which is a combined ecclesiastical parish, but has never been a Civil parish. For the reason I removed the "Category:Civil parishes of County Tipperary" from that page. It the same with other religious parishes which have never been civil parishes. Scrivener-uki (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having now created those sub-categories in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland, it may be a good idea to keep them. As I said earlier, all and anything to do with the diocese/archdiocese can be added to them. Category:Dioceses of the Church of England has a number of sub-categories in which does that. Have a think about it and let me know. :) Scrivener-uki (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Clogher - 2 cathedrals

The Diocese of Clogher (Church of Ireland) is a single diocese, its not united with any other diocese(s), so it is perhaps unique in having two cathedrals, yet a single dean and chapter. There are other Church of Ireland dioceses, Derry & Raphoe, Limerick & Killaloe, Meath & Kildare, etc., which do have two or more cathedrals, but that is because they are united dioceses, each with their own cathedral with a dean and chapter. So the Church of Ireland Diocese of Limerick has a cathedral, as does the Church of Ireland Diocese of Killaloe, but they are united under one bishop. Its possible they could sometime in the future be separated. The Diocese of Connor was once united with Diocese of Down and Dromore. The Church of Ireland Diocese of Clogher is not united with any other diocese but has two cathedrals. But even if Clogher's two cathedrals did each have a separate dean and chapter, Clogher would still be perhaps unique in that it is not united with any other diocese but having two cathedrals for one diocese. Anyway, I've amended the article to match with the citation. Scrivener-uki (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin and St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin were once both diocesan cathedrals for the Diocese of Dublin and Glendalough until disestablishment of the Church of Ireland. Since 1870, St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin is the National Cathedral for the whole of the Church of Ireland. Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin is now the sole diocesan cathedral for the Diocese of Dublin and Glendalough. So although the city of Dublin has two Anglican cathedral, one is a national cathedral while the other is a diocesan cathedral. Scrivener-uki (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. But prior to 1870, one city, one diocese had two cathedrals. So Dromore would not have been unique. Anyway, this is extreme knit picking - even for me ! LL 14/05/2010

Baronets

Hi. The correct article title for a baronet is simply "John Smith". If there is the need for disambiguation "Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet" is used. If there are two or more people named Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet, the territorial designation is used, "Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet, of London" and "Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet, of Manchester". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). I'm afraid the style you have used, Sir Thomas Butler, 1st Baronet Cloughgrenan, is incorrect. There have been lots of petty squabbles over the correct title for articles on baronets, so be a little careful here. Regards, Tryde (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Butler, Viscount Thurles

I like your article on Viscount Thurles, but I have left a few constructive comments on its talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Barony of Galmoy

Hey, you inquired about the deletion of the above page. The page's only editor was User:WildBot, which leaves a tag on the talk page about links to disambiguation pages. Once the links have been fixed, the bot removes the tag, but if it's the only editor, it tags it for deletion rather than leave a blank talk page. It's nothing to be concerned about and you're more than welcome to create the page again (it's usually a good idea to add wikiproject banners to talk pages) at any time. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baronies in Lead section

Hi, I see you've been adding baronies in to the Lead section of towns in Ireland. I must disagree with putting this information in the lead, baronies are obscure medieval divisions which have been defunct for centuries. They have no legal status unlike counties. If you are going to put in baronies then you could put in the ancient Gaelic kingdoms as well. By all means, the baronies should be mentioned in the history section of the article, just not the lead, as it could give the misleading and incorrect impression that baronies have legal status in Ireland. For example, when you look at an US town it will give the County then State then Country, see White Plains, New York, all of which have current legal status. Rgds, Snappy (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the inclusion of the barony is not to give a pretended legal validity to the barony, it is to assist the reader in identifying the location. This can often be very important for the smaller entities where townlands of the same name exist in the same county: only the barony can distinguish them. So they serve a useful purpose in the descending order of geographical hierarchy which you yourself commend. You'll note that in all cases where I use it, I give the triple explanation from barony to county to state, in decreasing degrees of specificity. This is particularly useful for those readers pursuing genealogical research from overseas. In many cases, the records from Ellis Island, for example, will include the barony. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you there, baronies are really obscure, and I doubt it would be of assistance in identifying a location, more likely to confuse readers. Using barony with county and state, does imply they have a legal status. As I said, by all means mention them in the history section, where any reader who wants can find them but just not in the lead. As we don't agree on this issue, I will open a discussion on the Irish notice board, to get more views and input. Snappy (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baronies

I disagree with the following:

replacing Category:Baronies of Cork with Category:Baronies of Ireland. More specific is better.
renaming pages from XXX to "Barony of XXX" where this is not necessary for disambiguation. Consistency of name is not a requirement; WP:COMMONNAME is.
Why did you remove {{Cork-baronies}}?
Your edit summary "New category - Baronies of Ireland" is misleading.

jnestorius^(talk) 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Walter Butler of Polestown

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Edmond Butler of Polestown

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Edmond Butler of Polestown requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. De728631 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note your comment on my talk page regarding this article, and I have no wish to be in any way unhelpful; But can you demonstrate personal notability of this subject? I see that members of his family have achieved varying degrees of significance, but in wikipedia a person is not regarded as notable merely for having a notable relation. If you feel able to address this aspect let me know, and I will restore the article. If you are uncertain, may I suggest that you re-create it in a {{subpage}} in your userspace, where it can be improved at your leisure? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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.

Might as well give up now because...

message left for you on Talk:St. Audoen's Church.--173.164.42.237 (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/* Notable people */ restored Ger Corrigan as he did in fact grow up in Nenagh

Laurel,

Ger did in fact grow up in Nenagh I have a photo of him in a CBS primary school team. He was a class or two ahead of me.

This has the brothers as being born in Puckane http://www.nenaghguardian.ie/search-articles-detail.php?article=BVWAIE

Their own site confirms this http://www.corriganbrothers.com/index.html

In general I have taken the approach of including all people of note either from or with strong connections to the town or surrounding areas.

--Gramscis cousin^Talk_Stalk 08:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forced to delete it again. Their own website says that they were "Born in the rich pastures of North Tipperary and living in Limerick". This falls short of mentioning Nenagh. Other sources mention Puckane. A photograpg of mr. Corrigan in a CBS Negagh uniform may exist. Upon production of this of other proof, this deletion could be reversed. Hearsay evidence is no evidence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should not get into an edit war on this but it seems we have a differing opinion as to what criteria should be applied for inclusion on the site.

- There are few if any sources for any of the people on the list not just the Corrigan's. I favour leaving people in and collaborating to provide sources.

- Many if not all of the people listed were not by strict definition 'from' Nenagh. For example; Julian Gough was born in England lived in Knockalton but went to school in Nenagh, JD Bernal was born in Nenagh but schooled in England, Bob Tisdall was born in India and spent only some of his childhood near Dromineer but he always identified himself with Nenagh and was Honorary Patron of the local athletic club, etc. etc.

I favour a broad approach of "Notable People with Nenagh connections" this would allow the inclusion of Tisdall's fellow Olympians Hayes and McGrath both of whom were US born but are honoured as Nenagh people by a statue in the town.

As stated above in general I have taken the approach of including all people of note either from or with strong connections to the town or surrounding areas. If there is a WP on this we should comply but comply consistently across the list not just arbitrarily in relation to one part of the list.

I'm also copying this discussion to the Nenagh Talk page where I think we should continue the debate and include other contributors. My fault for starting it here - mea culpa.

--Gramscis cousin^Talk_Stalk 16:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butlers

I have to confess I developed a poorly informed dislike of the Butlers, even though I'm a descendant of the 2nd Earl of Ormond through a number of FitzGeralds and MacCarthys. This dislike was based on my thinking the Butlers were the most English lords imaginable in an Irish country. Now I like the English very much but not in that context.

So I recently looked through some of these articles and now feel quite foolish. The Butlers have more Gaelic blood in them than the FitzGeralds! No one told me! I have studied and made important use of material in The Book of the White Earl, and was unaware of its patron. All of this should be in Butler dynasty. DinDraithou (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Madness

Hi: Do not nominate Summer Madness for spam deletion again. It can be edited to reduce promotion, and most of it is not promotional but factual. Instead you can edit the article to improve it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Norman Irish dynasties

I have discovered that the FitzMaurices already have Category:Petty-Fitzmaurice family but I do not care for the title and think it should be changed to Category:FitzMaurice family. I have also created Category:De Burgh dynasty and hope you will help find as many as possible since I feel no kinship with them, although many are fine people surely. DinDraithou (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baronies detail: revsions pending outcome.

You actually went through all my contributions to revert them? How petty. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, just thorough, you reverted my change to Carrick-on-Shannon with a comment saying no changes should be until the outcome of the discussion. Then you go ahead and make changes. Why is it one rule for me and another for you? Everyone abides by the same rules, anything else is the height of hypocrisy. Snappy (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finglas

Just to let you know that I'm not reverting your edits for the sake of it, but Finglas in definitely not in Fingal, it is in the Dublin City Council (DCC) area, with the border between Fingal and DCC just north of Finglas village, just before the M50 but after the village proper. If you click on the coordinates in the article and use Google Maps, you'll see a grey dashed line indicating the Fingal / DCC border with Finglas well inside it. Snappy (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. My mistake. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castles in Tipperary?

Hi. Can you explain why you are removing various Tipperary castles from the category Category:Castles in County Tipperary? Are they not castles? Are they not in Tipperary? Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're castles and yes they're in Tipperary. Why the move? To follow through on the agreement in Wikiproject Ireland. This agreement centred on the question of the merger of the 2 Dublin categories. The decision was to not do this but to create 4 new categories for each of the admininistrative jurisdictions of the former County Dublin. By analogy, the same logic applies to the former County Tipperary. New categories and sub-categories have been created for north Tipperary and South Tipperary. I'm slowly getting around to filling these out with appropriate sub-categories. This takes time. For the moment, the castles are in the generic sub-category of "Culture in North Tipperary" etc. If there is a sufficiend population , further sub-categories of "Castles in ..." might be reasonable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See response on my talk page. To repeat: I now understand the reasoning. However "Culture in North/South Tipperary" is probably not sufficiently specific a cat to be used for categorising architectural sites. Rather than just blanket removing the existing cats I would suggest it's worth creating the North/South riding equivalents. (IE: "sufficient population" probably isn't the best deciding factor on whether/not to create. Accurate categorisation from the outset is probably the way to go. No matter how big a "population" the cat ends up having.) Guliolopez (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because such categories exist in other counties is hardly sufficient reason to impose them of all counties, is it? Like I said, I'm not averse to the creation of such categories in the future in principle. But they take time to create. All help would be gratefully received. But right now, the sparcity of the population does not warrent them (IMHO). And yes, a low population count really is a sufficiently strong reason to stop the creation of zombie categories willy-nilly. They will quite happily sit in "Culture" until/if they find a more suitable home. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Monuments in Tipp

Again, a similar question. Why is it that you've decided to remove the "National Monuments in South Tipp" category from the "National Monuments by County" parent? As with all other counties, it would seem to make sense to group the National Monument sub-cats under the parent cat. The edit summary provided seemed to relate to a subsequent change, so again the rationale is unclear. (PS. You can reply here. When I post a comment on someone's TP, I watch the page until a response is recvd). Guliolopez (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Having looked at the history I think the removal may have just been a mistake. Have restored for now. Let me know if I've got it wrong and there's an argument to remove that I'm not seeing. Guliolopez (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just got a little delete-happy. It's tiring working alone on this. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Museums in Tipp

There are several historic house museums in both North and South Tipperary, and they should be categorized as museums for these counties. This helps museum visitors find such facilities by county. It's fine to have articles in many categories, as long as they are hierarchical. Not all the National Monuments can be categorized as museums, even though they can be categorized as visitor attractions. I will put the parent category National Monuments under Visitor attractions as well. Please see the listings for other counties. The category Protected Areas is for parks, gardens, archaeological sites and similar categories, so if you have articles that belong there by these counties, please add the category by county. Thanks. Jllm06 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please stop nominating Tipperary categories for speedy deletion. You cannot unilaterally impose a North-South Tipp division without a discussion. Especially not when the All-Ireland final is on. jnestorius^(talk) 15:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the joys of wireless editing. 1 eye on the TV, the other on wiki. The debate has already happended on WikiProject Ireland. See the Split Dublin thread. There was a consensus to split it into its constituent counties. By analogy, the same authorisation is true for the 2 Tipps. Anyway, the way to appeal a speedy deletion request is to use the "hang on" function. Unilateral reversion of such a request is Sooooooooooooooooooo not proper wiki protocol. Anyway, Tipp is winning !!!!! Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that Split Dublin thread? I couldn't find it. (Unless you mean Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 19#Category:Dublin?) I haven't seen any subcategories of Category:County Dublin being deleted in the manner you have tried to do for Tipperary. Category:Fingal, Category:Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County, and Category:South Dublin County still look pretty underpopulated. jnestorius^(talk) 15:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's the one. I took the same approach with them as I'm taking with Tipp. Created Cat:Sport in X, Cat:Sport in Y, Cat:Sport in Z. Then deleted Cat:Sport in County Dublin. Nobody objected in County Dublin. Why would they? It was the consensus thing to do.

The consensus was not to merge Dublin City with County Dublin. That's not the same thing at all. Category:Sport in County Dublin is not deleted. jnestorius^(talk) 16:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if other uses agree to subcategorise some categories, the County Tipperary category will still exist as a supercategory of both North and South. jnestorius^(talk) 15:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The cats for both North and South Tipp retain the super cat of Tipp. More importantly, we're beating the Kilkenny Cats. :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the "Towns and villages of Tipperary" will exist as a supercategory of "Towns and villages of North Tipperary", and so on. Replacing "Rivers of Tipperary" with "Geography of South Tipperary" is unacceptable deletion of information. jnestorius^(talk) 15:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully disagree. There is no loss of info. The categories are retained in North and South Tipp respectively. There is no need for these categories to report to a similarly named category in County Tipp. Such a category could have only 2 entries: Cat:Religion inNorth Tpp and Cat:Religion in South Tipp. That would indeed be fatuous. It is sufficient that that overall Cat:North Tipp and Cat:South Tipp reports to Cat:County Tipp. Theonly categories that should sensibly remain in Cat:County Tipp are those that inextricably linked to the former county as a whole. That is, it would be virtualy impossible to extricate North or South Tipp from them. Nor should such an attempt even be made. But for all other categories, particularly those with explicit geographical roots, the complete break can and should be made. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Geography of South Tipperary" is not the same as "Rivers of South Tipperary". You have not even created the necessary subcategories before removing the supercategory. There is loss of info. You are welcome to respectfully disagree, but you are not welcome to unilaterally remove everything from the category you dislike and then nominate it for speedy deletion. That is just sneaky. You have not established any consensus. I still haven't found the discussion about Dublin you referred to, but if it doesn't mention Tipperary then you are not entitled to draw any inferences, and if it does you don't need a speedy tag in any case. jnestorius^(talk) 16:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 14 pages in Cat:Geo in North Tipp and 11 pages in Cat:Geo in Sou Tipp. Are you seriously proposing that such few pages warrents further sub-division? Are you seriously suggesting that any user, by looking at those pages would not be able to find the word "River X" and conclude that it's probably a river? Or would not be able to find the word "Mountain YX" and conclude that it's probably a mountain? Please, give readers some credit. It's not like it's the sweeping steppes of Russia. It's a small county: let's get proportionate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Category:Rivers of the Republic of Ireland with subcats by county. The Tipperary cat is now empty. jnestorius^(talk) 16:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deservedly so. I object to such straitjackets. No editor has the right to impose these national level categories just because he has a higher glorious plan. It should always be on a case basis. If the county has no categories to fill a potential sub-category, then there's no point in imposing such a burden on the county. THe questionshould always be is there info loss. As I've asserted above, in the case of Cat:Geo in North Tipp, no such loss exists. A slavish adherance to national categories is inapropriate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the categories under speedy deletion criterion C1 because they are empty and have been tagged with a {{db-c1}} for more than 4 days. Policywise, Laurel Lodged's tags are correct. Jnestorius, if you still feel there is a need for the categories, you may recreate them, but be sure to populate them, otherwise, they will only be deleted again. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel, I think you should start a discussion about this before going any further. You recently reverted two edits of mine to the North/South Tipperary categories and the reason you gave was that "The point is to empty as much of Tipp as possible so that North Tipp can assume its place". You seem to have made this decision without consulting anyone and, as you can see, there are editors who are against it. I suggest you take the matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. ~Asarlaí 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that I'm acting unilaterally. As mentioned above, I assume that the consensus decision on the 4 Dublin County Councils authorises me to undertake the same actions for the 2 Tipperary County Councils which are in exactly the same situation. I agree with the earlier editor who notes that the sub-categories of the new Dublin cats are poorly populated. I should point out that I complained loudly about the word effort that would be required to give effect to the concensus decision, knowing right well that it be a slow and painful exercise. I got nothing but the deaf ear from all concerned. So instead of complaining about poor populations, go and do something positive - shift a page from Dublin to Fingal. Lastly, Fastily above supports my interpretation of policy. I see no reason to take the matter elsewhere and hope that other editors wil not engage in forum shopping. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how many users do you think have implicitly endorsed your course of action? Reading back over that Dublin discussion, Scrivener-uki proposed creating subcategories, and you seem to have abandoned your initial merge proposal and supported this. Nobody suggested deleting categories; Peterkingiron explicitly mentions preserving the supercategory. I'm not sure which other contributors you assume agree with your putative consensus; most comments were made before Scrivener-uki had made the suggestion. I note that Mike Selinker concluded "The result of the discussion was: no consensus". In any case, nobody mentioned deleting categories, and two users have now explicitly opposed this. jnestorius^(talk) 17:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the unilaterally-deleted Tipperary categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butler arms

Hey, I am hoping you can find an image of the Butler arms. Trying to make it pretty, I've got some others up at Irish nobility now, but yours are missing. I looked around but could not find them in any article. Obviously this would help Butler dynasty too. DinDraithou (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not a Butler. But I have spent some time looking for their arms with no luck so far. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They probably won't be colored, but I'm sure the arms of the Ormonds can be found in any number of old books at archive.org, for example in various editions of Burke's and similar sources. Once downloaded, you can open whichever pdf in Adobe, grab the image, then paste it into another program to make the file, then upload that to Wikimedia. Alternatively Google books will make the image file for you, but it will be lower quality. DinDraithou (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK will try that approach. Meanwhile Up Tipp ! Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porta Asinaria Facade from within the city walls.JPG

Another way that a file can qualify for speedy deletion under criterion F2 is if it's an image description page for an image on Commons. In situations such as this, there was an image description page for an image that didn't exist on Wikipedia. Before I deleted it, the page had nothing except a category; that's inappropriate for images that are on Commons. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: New categories for the 4 Dublin administrations

Thanks for letting me know about splitting Dublin. I've decided not to get involved in all anymore. I do find the categories and sub-categories so confusing and hard to follow. :) Scrivener-uki (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiberno-Norman

I have moved the material to Talk:Hiberno-Norman for now. It just saw the strife continuing forever. Do you think we should rename this to Hiberno-Norman nobility, considering what the article already discusses? Then we could establish some interdependence between the two articles and also with Peerage of Ireland. What do you think? DinDraithou (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The old reverse take-over trick, eh? It's just crazy enough to work. Still, I can't help but feel that you would benefit from "Communication Skills 101" class. At the risk of pot calling kettle black (I'm no stranger to "bold" moves either and I use bold in the Hiberno-English sense of the word), some advance sign posting of intentions would go a long way to avoid conflicts before they even start. Tedious, I know, but sometimes more efficient in a wider social setting such as this hive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do to you? Not only was that person making vague allegations but he was also messing up the article with bad copy-editing of my stuff and crazy over-sectioning. Then he starts using the talk page to lecture me and point to his further lecturing of me on my talk page, this after pulling some near canvassing on two other talk pages I know about. It would be great if he and that other guy knew anything about anything but they don't. They're just there trying to look special. So never mind, Laurel. I don't need you. DinDraithou (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal issue with you DD. I was just offering some friendly advice based on bitter personal experience. It's yours to take or to leave. You may well be right about the others 2 editors but that's not the point. There's no point in winning the intellectual battle if you end up losing the communication war. Your personal style was starting to come between you and some good articles. No man is an island, as the poet says, so it's no harm to invest a little time in communicating the grand plan. It's time well spent in the long run. Peace be with you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've now said there, Laurel, there really is no point. Those two guys, who are lightweights, won't be going for the sources and probably won't even stick around for long. I know for sure Finn, who is a good scholar, won't stay interested. He never does for long. I bothered to visit you because you are genuinely interested. DinDraithou (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

I see that you moved South West Trains to South West Trains, UK saying that it needed disambiguation but did not make a disambiguation page. I can't see any other articles called "South West Trains" so I can't see the need for the disambiguation. If there was a major railway in another country also called "South West Trains" then disambiguation would make sense but I am not aware of any, unless you are aware of the need for such an article and intending to make an article of that type soon, I think it would be better to move the article back. What do you think? --DanielRigal (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this, and have moved the page back to South West Trains. You say "The title is too generic. Needs disambig", but that isn't a reason to add a disambiguator. It may be generic, but it is the actual name of the train company and is not shared by any other entity with a Wikipedia page. The company is not called "South West Trains, UK". If it did need disambiguation - if another organisation called South West Trains needed a WP page - then this would be in brackets, not after a comma: comma disambiguations are for locations only. See Southern Railway (Great Britain) and Southern Railway (U.S.). Thanks. PamD (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, that comma disambiguations are for locations only, can you explain to me why the examples cited above are not read instead as "Southern Railway, Great Britain" and "Southern Railway, U.S."? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I meant that comma disambiguations are used to disambiguate locations (Leeds, Kent), rather than in cases like the railways where the things being disambiguated are not locations but railway companies, with location being used to disambiguate them. I hope that's clearer? See also WP:NCDAB. PamD (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Glengall and Baron Cahir

I don't agree with your edits concerning these two titles. There is a system in place for peerage articles. When a peer holds a number of subsidiary titles these articles are redirects to the substantive title. For instance, Wodehouse Baronets and Baron Wodehouse are redirects to Earl of Kimberley. What you must must have done was to cut-and-paste material from the Glengall article to the Cahir article and then nominate the Glengall article for deletion (for some reason I can't possibly understand - we have articles for all peerage titles, either as redirects or proper articles). I hope you can explain how you've been reasoning? I think the solution is that the Glengall article and its edit history is restored (and I have already asked an administrator to do this) and the material from Baron Cahir incorporated into this article. The Cahir article is not as straightforward as for example Baron Wodehouse as there were an earlier creation of the barony for the same family. There are two options: 1) to keep the Baron Cahir article, with info on the first barony and then with a link to Earl of Glengall for the second barony; or 2) Baron Cahir becomes a redirect to Earl of Glengall, which will then also have info on the earlier barony. The latter is my preferred solution. Regards, Tryde (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. In summary, I'd favour the second option. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican City

Hi, I notice you have removed Category:Monarchies of Europe from Vatican City. According to the article text (Vatican City#Government) "The politics of Vatican City takes place in an absolute elective monarchy" while the article Politics of Vatican City says "The Politics of Vatican City takes place in a framework of an absolute theocratic monarchy" I've reverted the edit. Kiore (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Laurel Lodged. You have new messages at Kiore's talk page.
Message added 18:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

CfD comment

You commented at this discussion. I just posed a question about your opposition there since I think you are not opposed but are supporting a rename to a much better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Non Trinitarianism

Category:Non Trinitarianism, which you created, has been nominated for 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. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Impolite"

I did go to the discussion page first. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then you decided to revert anyway? Wouldn't the polite thing be to get agreement on the Discussion page before engaging in potential edit wars? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely—because you are way off base with this categorization. It's not just a mistake of extending logic beyond how the term is used in the real world—Mormons, JWs and Unifications would probably be offended to have their beliefs placed in this category. The whole point of Mormonism is that they reject all the post New Testament creeds and councils.

I suspect that when you are dealing with a topic as fraught with controversy over the centuries as this one, the "polite" thing to do would be to hold back on re-applying the category when it's been removed by an editor until there emerges a consensus that the category does indeed belong. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is your own logic that is way off. See Discussion page on Unification Church. The categories refer to those groups as Christian, which is how they describe themselves. The categories meerly sub-define or ringfence that description. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using "logic"—I'm referring to the real world and the way terminology is actually used in real life. It's all WP:OR based on your own system of logic. That's not the way the terminology is used in the real world. You're inventing your own "ringfence" that doesn't reflect any actual usage in the real world. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I create the pages Non-Chalcedonianism or Antitrinitarianism? No I did not. How then can it be my OR? If you have an issue with the terms, take it up on their discussion pages. Leave the categories out of it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are applying a definition of "Non-Chalcedonianism" that is based on your own logic, not based on what is says in reliable sources. That's a case of original research. You're not even applying the term as it is currently defined in the (unsourced) WP article Non-Chalcedonianism, which says exactly what I have been saying all along—it is "the view(s) of those churches that accepted the First Council of Ephesus of 431, but, for varying reasons, did not accept allegiance to the Council of Chalcedon following it in 451."

I think it might be a good idea if you become somewhat more familiar with Wikipedia policies and procedures before you go all-out in accusing others of character flaws when what they are doing is fixing your obvious mistakes that violate WP politicies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had you read the next paragraph of the article Non-Chalcedonianism you'd have seen how it also covers "Non-Ephesine" doctrines (i.e. Anti Trinitarianism). No additional application is involved. Nothing more than sets within sets. Once again, I invite you to point out even one church that is non Chalcedonian that is not also non Trinitarian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh). I can tell I'm not getting through to you. You don't seem to realise that we can't categorize things using a system that is not reflected by how reliable sources refers to things. There are not realiable sources that refer to Mormonism, the JWs, or the Unification Church as "non-Chalcedonian", or even "non Chalcedonian". This is not about your logic system. It's about reliable sources.

(By the way, you didn't ask me before to name a church that is non-Chalcedonian and not non-Trinitarian. You asked me to name a church that "accepts Chalcedon while rejecting Ephesus". These are not asking for the same thing, because one who accepts Chalcedon is not "non Chalcedonian". It seems that you, if any one, is the person whose logic is slightly muddled. Or you just forgot what you actually asked before) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see goalposts shifting. First I was guilty of "a mistake of extending logic ". That has not worked out. Now the ground is shifting to "reliable sources". That charge is equally invalid. And I'll accept the name of any church under either question. BTW, I deleted the offending remarks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed you were familiar with WP:RS and WP:V, which are foundational to Wikipedia. I think I was wrong to make that assumption. I'm not interested in playing your little question-and-answer game, but if you refuse to respect WP:V and WP:RS in these regards, I'm going to have to take this issue for resolution by the broader community. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jehovah's Witnesses. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're invited

Based on your interest in Irish history, genealogy, and nobility, you may find these 2 articles and debates interesting. Both articles are related, need to be improved, and might benefit from your insight.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Martin_O'Donnell

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vice_Great_Seneschal_of_Ireland

ReidarM (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your additions to the Isabel de Clare, 4th Countess of Pembroke article. The information on her brother Gilbert is very helpful. The ordinals for medieval nobility are very confusing. We must adhere to the sources despite evidence which shows otherwise, as in the case of Gilbert. Being a minor, however, would not have debarred him of succeeding to the earldom de jure upon his father's death, so he could rightfully be called Earl of Pembroke.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victimology categories CfD

Hi. You recently participated in the ongoing Partial list of victimology categories CfD. I recently posted a renaming proposal in that CfD and I would appreciate receiving your feedback at Partial list of victimology categories CfD. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victims of political repressions CFDs

You participated in a 2010 DEC 13 CFD about victims of political repression. A follow-up nomination to that discussion has begun here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub types

If you want to add a stub type to an article, the way to do it is by adding the appropriate stub tag, and not by directly adding the stub category, as you did here, which I have reverted. This is explained in Category:Christian theology stubs and in every other stub category page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church of Ireland dioceses

Why did you remove Category:Church of Ireland dioceses from Category:Anglican dioceses?

You initially placed it in the Category:Anglican dioceses in Europe, but then removed that too. Why?

I have just added reinstated Category:Anglican dioceses in Europe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Category:Church of Ireland dioceses is a child of Category:Dioceses in the United Kingdom and a child of Category:Religious sees in Ireland. Each of these is in turn a child of Category:Dioceses in Europe. So there is no loss of information and no duplication of categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were looking at the wrong parent categ

Category:Dioceses in the United Kingdom and a child of Category:Religious sees in Ireland are not children of Category:Anglican dioceses in Europe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPON again

I have reverted the guidance which which you added to the headnote in Category:Church of Ireland dioceses.

Per WP:EPON, the eponymous articles on the dioceses should indeed be added to Category:Church of Ireland dioceses, so I will add them there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The additionalal instructions were added om November 20. My question at WikiProject Ireland was only raised on December 12th. Your interpretation of EPON was added that same day. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPON is a longstanding guideline. I understand that you may have acted in good faith while being unaware of it, but it's a pity that when it was drawn to your attention you didn't go back to tidy up this sort of glitch, rather than leaving to others to check your contribs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish abortion providers

Why did you remove Category:Irish abortion providers from Category:Abortion in Ireland?

It was done in this edit on 31 October, which I have just reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it contained only 1 article and that article was not about an Irish national. If the category had been "American abortion providers who pracrticed in Ireland", then it might have had some validity. Laurel Lodged (talk)

If thought that the article was miscategorised, you may have had grounds for recategorising the article. But the category was correctly parented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see that you removed Mamie Cadden from Category:Irish abortion providers. After examining the article, I have reverted that because:

Mamie Cadden spent the whole of her career in Ireland, having lived there from age 4 until her death, and AFAICS was Ireland's best-known abortionist. The category does not restrict itself to citizens, and it is misleading to exclude her from the category.
Your edit summary asserts "the article states tat she was a citizen of USA" ... but AFAICS the article does not actually say anything explicit about her citizenship. Since she was born in the USA, she was presumably eligible for American citizenship, but she returned to Ireland aged 4, and having been born to Irish parents, so she also meets the current criteria for automatically having Irish citizenship. I am not sure what criteria aware to citizenship of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the 1890s, but if the British Nationality Act 1772 applied then she was a UK citizen (History of British nationality law is a little unclear on this period). As in point 1, though, citizenship is a misleading legalism in this case.

I am quite concerned about what you did here, which seems about as inappropriate as removing Erskine Childers from Category:Executed Irish people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re point 1. Many people spend many years in Ireland, but that does not make them Irish. So domicile would not qualify for inclusion. She may have been Ireland's best-known abortionist but the category does not define itself as "Well known abortionists operating in Ireland". No information is presented in the article to say that she tok out Irish citizenship. The possibilility that she may have had a legal right to do so is not the same thing as saying she actully exercised that right. Nor does the article anywhewre assert that she exercised that right. In the absence of such verifiable citations, the prudent thing to do is to assume that no such exercise of potential rights took place. To do otherwise would introduce OR. Re point 2, anybody born in the USA at that time was automatically a US citizen. This reqires no assumptions or OR. If you are unsure "what criteria aware to citizenship" then you should act accordingly, that is, do nothing. When your level of certainty improves, feel free to intervene and revert(preferably backed by verifiable sources). Meantime, the correct course of action is for you to revert your reversion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel, categories are not statements of the law; they are a navigational device to allow readers to find articles related to a topic. The question of her citizenship and domicile are not relevant unless we are in a law case, which we are not.

Cadden spent the whole of her life in Ireland, apart from the first four years, before she was even old enough to go to school. She was raised in Ireland, educated in Ireland, trained as a midwife in Ireland, and practised in Ireland. Forensic analysis of the colour of her passport may be fun, and if you want to research that you can referenced material to the article ... but that issue does nothing to help readers to find articles, which is the purpose of any category.

A reader looking for Irish abortionists would not expect to have look through a list of Americans to find her, and the guidance is clear: WP:CAT says "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject"

If you want a source, the RTE documentary on Cadden describes her as Irish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not me gov. Find another scapegoat. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not scapegoating anybody. There are lots of messages on this talk page from other editors who have been concerned at what's happened, and I don't see any sign of a desire to perescute you.

I'm just trying to undo some of the many errors you have made in categorisation, and to try to help you avoid these problems in future. It's a pity that you seem rather hostile to this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take on board that the special attention that has been lately lavished on me is for my own good. Meanwhile, the Childers thing is not down to me - I went back over the edits of many months and failed to find my name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that Childers had been removed from the category; I was just pointing out that by the mistaken logic you applied to Cadden would apply much strongly to Childers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV and bluster

I'm sorry, but I'm getting just a little fed up with your POV, bluster and in general intimidatory approach to editing Wikipedia articles, not to mention personal attacks which you have made on me and other editors in the past. I suggest you go back and read up what Wikipedia is all about, then take some time out to reflect, before continuing. Hohenloh⁺ 13:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how no other editor seems to endorse your POV. There has been only 1 other editor who has suggested a compromise between our positions and that compromise was largely agreeable to me. And you're not shy when it comes to intimidatory editing either. You never did come back with a proper justification for the Civil Parishes categories, despite your own magnus opus of bluster. And funnily enough, no other editor has reverted their exclusions. Did it occur to you that the problem might lie with you and your POV? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Hohenloh's comment above. Laurel Lodged, you need to work with other editors not against them. Scrivener-uki (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been looking at the substance of the disagreement between Hohenloh and Laurel Lodgded, which appears to center on the addition by Laurel Lodged of an overview section to various Church of Ireland dioceses; the two edited most recently are Diocese of Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh and Diocese of Tuam, Killala and Achonry.

Three points strike me:

When two editors disagree about the neutrality of the article, the {{npov}} tag should not be removed while that dispute remains active
I am not sure whether I share the NPOV concerns expressed by Hohenloh, but they are clearly not frivolous, and should be discussed
The disputed text appears to have been applied as a boilerplate paragraph to every article on a CoI diocese. If the material is appropriate, it should be kept in one article, and not replicated across a dozen of them.

Please can you both assume good faith here, and maintain civility? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church categories

I have just reverted several of your edits:

this edit to Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ireland.
It's quite clearly an all-Ireland category: its three sub-categories are Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Ireland, Category:Roman Catholic churches in Northern Ireland, Category:Roman Catholic churches in the Republic of Ireland ... so it should be parented in an all-Ireland category, not in a Republic of Ireland category
this edit where you removed Category:Church of Ireland Parishes and Churches from Category:Churches in Ireland, where it clearly belongs, along with Category:Cathedrals in Ireland, Category:Presbyterian Churches in Ireland and Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ireland
this series of edits, the end result of which was to remove Category:Anglican cathedrals in Ireland from Category:Church of Ireland Parishes and Churches (where it clearly belongs, since a cathedral church is a type of church) ... and place it in both Category:Cathedrals by denomination (superfluous, because it's already a sub-cat of Category:Anglican cathedrals in Europe: see Category:Cathedrals by denomination→Category:Anglican cathedrals→Category:Anglican cathedrals in Europe) and Category:Cathedrals by country (superfluous, because it's already in Category:Cathedrals in Ireland, which is a subcat of Category:Cathedrals by country)

Your disruption of categories has been going on for too long: see all the other documented miscategorisations on this talk page, as well as all the categories which you emptied out-of-process. Please stop this now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re point 1: I disagree that Roman Catholic cathedrals in Ireland is a national category. A cathedral is just a subset of churches in general. As such, the children of that category, Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland and Roman Catholic cathedrals in Northern Ireland fit quite naturally into the paraent categories of Roman Catholic churches in the Republic of Ireland and Roman Catholic churches in Northern Ireland respectively. But since you don't agree with this logic, I'll raise it at Cfd. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm getting fed up with you assuming that my edits are motivated by a desire to be disruptive. Edits nited in 1 to 3 above are not "miscategorisations": they are simply categorisations with which you happen to disagree. I think that you should take your own advice posted above -"Please can you....assume good faith here, and maintain civility". Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel, I really have to wonder whether you read what I wrote before you replied ... because you show no sign of having done so.

You say that "Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland and Roman Catholic cathedrals in Northern Ireland fit quite naturally into the paraent categories of Roman Catholic churches in the Republic of Ireland and Roman Catholic churches in Northern Ireland respectively" ... and I quite agree. I have not sought to remove them from those parent categories, and would oppose any attempt to do. Try 'reading what I wrote before you reply.

You may be fed up with being asked to desist from disruptive editing of categories ... and if so, then the best thing would be to recognise that you views on categorisation repeatedly fail to achieve consensus, and to seek consensus before making such changes, rather than complaining when you are rebuked afterwards. It's not just me who disagrees with you: there have been numerous discussions with others, both on this talk page and at WT:IE, and at CFD, where your actions or proposals have been rejected.

I can well accept that an editor acting in good faith can do things with disruptive effect without having a disruptive intent ... but a good faith editor would take note of the fact that their ideas were repeatedly challenged and rejected by consensus, and start trying to seek consensus beforehand. If you don't want be perceived as deliberately disruptive, then you know what to do: ask first, rather than complaining when you are reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-Chalcedonianism

You are incorrectly adding non-Trinitarian groups and categories here. Non-Chalcedonians are trinitarian. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omaha

The Category:Omaha is related to Omaha people, not Omaha, Nebraska. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offers withdrawn. The way the rationale was worded, I took it that the main article was indeed "Omaha, Nebraska". Apologies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of Antoninus and Faustina

Thanks. When reading through thousands of articles and fixing a bunch of date errors, I guess it is easy to miss obvious things while skimming. When I reread the article, I don't think any of the modern year categories are right, so I just dropped it. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of government ministers of Ireland

I don't know why you removed a bunch of lists from Category:Lists of government ministers of Ireland, but I will now restore them. All those articles contained embedded list of govt ministers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop categorisation, now

Laurel, I have just noticed to that you removed both Tánaiste and Taoiseach from Category:Irish Government Category:Irish Government (edited [1] and [2])

I don't know what you were trying to do, but since the Tánaiste and Taoiseach are the most senior members of the Irish govt, this was clearly daft. The fact that eponymous categories for these two posts also exist does not justify their removal from Category:Irish Government, because WP:EPON clearly says in bold type that "an article should not be excluded from any set category on the grounds that its eponymous category is made a "subcategory" of that category."

WP:EPON's rule on this has been pointed out you several times in the last month or two, so I can only presume that you did this because you either chose to ignore WP:EPON, or were trying to depopulate Category:Irish Government prior to a CFD discussion which you created at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_22#Category:Irish_Government.

Whichever it was, enough is enough.

Your destructive recategorisation and decategorisation has proceeded for months. Repeated warnings of the problems caused have been ignored, and I now find that after a break from categories earlier this month you are back doing more damage to the category system. This is highly disruptive, and causes a big waste of time for the editors who

So: please now stop:

Recategorising articles (to include: adding an article to a category, removing an article from a category, or altering its sort key)
Creating new categories
Editing existing pages in the category namespace

You may of course comment in CFD discussions, or on the talk pages of articles and categories.

Unless you explicitly agree to the restrictions outlined above, I will open a discussion on their enforcement as a community ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 482: / Line 482: @@
 I don't know why you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20110122224904&limit=11&target=Laurel+Lodged removed] a bunch of lists from [[:Category:Lists of government ministers of Ireland]], but I will now restore them. All those articles contained embedded list of govt ministers. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 23:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
+== Please stop categorisation, now ==
+Laurel, I have just noticed to that you removed both [[Tánaiste]] and [[Taoiseach]] from [[:Category:Irish Government]]  [[:Category:Irish Government]] (edited [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C3%A1naiste&diff=409382115&oldid=409373020] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taoiseach&diff=409382248&oldid=408727943])
+I don't know what you were trying to do, but since the [[Tánaiste]] and [[Taoiseach]] are the most senior members of the Irish govt, this was clearly daft.  The fact that eponymous categories for these two posts also exist does ''not'' justify their removal from [[:Category:Irish Government]], because [[WP:EPON]] clearly says in bold type that "an article should not be excluded from any set category on the grounds that its eponymous category is made a "subcategory" of that category."
+[[WP:EPON]]'s rule on this has been pointed out you several times in the last month or two, so I can only presume that you did this because you either chose to ignore [[WP:EPON]], or were trying to depopulate [[:Category:Irish Government]]  prior to a CFD discussion which you created at [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_22#Category:Irish_Government]].
+Whichever it was, enough is enough.
+Your destructive recategorisation and decategorisation has proceeded for months.  Repeated warnings of the problems caused have been ignored, and I now find that after a break from categories earlier this month you are back doing more damage to the category system. This is highly disruptive, and causes a big waste of time for the editors who
+So: please now stop:
+# Recategorising articles (to include: adding an article to a category, removing an article from a category, or altering its sort key)
+# Creating new categories
+# Editing existing pages in the category namespace
+You may of course comment in CFD discussions, or on the talk pages of articles and categories.
+Unless you explicitly agree to the restrictions outlined above, I will open a discussion on their enforcement as a community ban. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 00:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)