User talk:Asarlaí/Archive 1

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



Hello Superfopp! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community
Things to do

Louder Than Love

I noticed you added something about the song Gun being in 5/4. What part is that because the whole thing sounds like 4/4 to me. Nialsh 05:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The bit about "Gun" being in a 5/4 time signature was taken from the song's article (Gun) ...The speed increases for the first two verses, reaches a steady pace for the guitar solo (where the time signature changes to 4/4), then slows to the original tempo for the final verse, again in 5/4... I just added it to the Louder Than Love article along with any other interesting info I could find on the songs. I agree it may need to be checked or verified, although I didn't write the original. Superfopp 15:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Touch Me I'm Sick

do u have a source for that "grungiest" comment? i have sources for most of the other stuff, just have to put it in.. Tommy Stardust 07:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I took it from an interview with the band in December 1988, which can be found here: [1]
About half-way down the page you'll see: The grunge rock label is kind of the band's fault anyway, Steve admits. "We picked, I think, our two grungiest songs for the single," he said. That website has a lot of good Mudhoney interviews if you ever need any info. Superfopp 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Stoner rock / metal

Hi Superfopp, just to give you a bit of background on the rock / metal thing.. This debate rumbled on a while ago, with the consensus being that while the bands covered by the description in the article could be labelled "stoner rock", few could be labelled "stoner metal". As there was no appetite for a separate stoner metal article, the terms are listed as interchangeable, hence there is no need to continually repeat both terms. If you have a different opinion about this, please present it on the article talk page, where editors with an interest in this topic will be only too happy to discuss it. Cheers, Deiz talk 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: the presentation of stoner rock / metal on Wikipedia - You are treading very well trodden ground here. Practically all of the moves and redefinitions you are making have been made before and reverted, argued over etc etc. You have to get consensus for these kind of edits, or you will find yourself in a revert war and disagreements with a number of editors. Talk:Stoner rock is the place to start. Deiz talk 12:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all I should say that I'm grateful for your willingness to discuss with me these matters.
The terms "stoner rock" and "stoner metal" have indeed been used interchangeably, but in my view they are not. The "stoner genre" has two closely-related but distinct sides - a rock side and a metal side - with some bands applying these traits to rock music and some bands applying these traits to doom metal. Some bands could classed as definitely rock but definitely not metal, and vice-versa. For example compare the likes of Fatso Jetson (rock) with the likes of Acid King (metal).
In regards to my edits, my intention was simply to have the articles acknowledge fully that this music is a subgenre of both rock and metal. In the stoner rock article, although the first line mentions this, the remainder of the article does not continue the, shall we say, "neutrality". In the list of heavy metal genres article, I felt the very brief section didn't do the genre justice, and thus I attempted to represent it fully.
However, I agree that the talk page should have been used before making these edits. As there still appears to be confusion regarding terminology, I intend to discuss this in-depth at Talk:Stoner rock. Superfopp 13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Superfopp, like you I am absolutely committed to the most comprehensive and accurate coverage of stoner rock and metal on WP as possible, my intervention here stems from making similar edits and getting grief, just trying to save you some trouble and making sure we can present a united front. Creating a separate article for stoner metal shouldn't be too tricky, however the problem I found was finding reliable sources to establish that the genres are separate, and which bands are which. As Wikipedia reflects published sources rather than the opinion of its editors, this is something that needs to be addressed. As far as the more general metal genre lists go, there would be no problem creating a separate entry for stoner metal if there were separate articles. However, redefining the long-established definitions of primary and cross genre labels will take a bit more work, and proved very frustrating when I tried it last year. I instigated a full overhaul of what counted as a "core" metal genre which was a long, fortunately reasonably successful process. Stoner metal did not make the cut, along with various other genres (viking, pirate and other "metals" for example) but we ended up with a much cleaner template and some positive cooperation between editors who were usually at each others throats for one reason or another. User:Johnnyw is another dedicated stoner rock editor who will no doubt have a lot of useful ideas. I'd suggest putting together proposals for any redefinitions or creations you feel could be made and listing them at Talk:Stoner rock and we'll take it from there. I will note that I do take policy and guidelines seriously (can't completely take off the admin hat, even for stoner metal), the upside to that being that I can point out any problems we might face before taking ideas into the mainspace. Cheers, Deiz talk 14:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on PureVolume

Why did you make the claim that Purevolume is not sufficient for adding bands to Grunge Music? Bands declare what genres they fit into, and then fans cause their rank on PV to rise or fall - it's about as objective as you can get, no?

You also made your authoritative claim and then reverted my edit without even addressing me in the talk page. Please do have the discussion before you revert others' edits. Dscotese (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Doom under attack!

Well, maybe not that dramatic, but there are a lot of doom bands put up for AFD today. As another quality editor that I see on many of the same articles I was hoping you could take a look at some of the bands (many are Hellhound records) bands and chime in if you have an opinion. Please check Unorthodox (band)‎, Wretched (doom band), Asbestosdeath, Greenmachine, Earthride, Paul Chain, Iron Man (band). These were all but up by the same person. Thanks! BeastmasterGeneral 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the heads-up. I'm not familiar with all of these bands but I'll see what I can do. ___Superfopp (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for extra subheadings?

Based on that you are making this statement? The details that I wrote are important and also have been removed from the original CD! Cannibaloki (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the extra headings you added made the article cluttered. So, I simply moved the information into the main section, rather than having it as a heading. ___Superfopp (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think what you did it for the sake of the article, although I have not liked the layout. Cannibaloki (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

EW releases/reissues

I see you marked many of the versions as "reissues." I started editing some of the pages but stopped as I feel it is better to discuss this before going back and forth. Perhaps it is just symantics, but I do not consider the US and Japan versions to reissues. These come out at roughly the same time (sometimes a month or so after and sometimes before the Rise Above version). I consider the original press to be all 3 versions (usually Rise Above, Music Cartel, and JVC Victor). Check out the We Live page to see the changes I made. Let me know what you think. BeastmasterGeneral 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I agree. It seems that from Dopethrone onwards, the albums were released in the UK/US/Japan at around the same time – thus all three can be considered the "original". Thanks for pointing this out. And just to save you the bother, I've done the same for Witchcult Today :D ___Superfopp (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


I noticed your discussion with Johan Rachmaninov about unreliable sources and such. Read Talk:Crass for more info. You're not the first to have this 'luck'  Channel ®   01:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you remind him of what happened at the Bad Religion, Crass, Rancid, Anarcho punk, and Nirvana articles where he tried the same things. He continously forgets there's supposed to be consensus. Talk page discussions first, major changes later. The fact that he thinks AllMusic is unreliable is his problem, not yours. Let him find other sources if AllMusic is such a problem for him. (See also the latest warning on his Talk page about Rancid.) All the guy does is deleting peoples work, but he doesn't contribute anything himself. See also WP:TRUTH  Channel ®   21:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Extreme metal

Why revert my edit to the extreme metal template? I gave an example of folk metal as extreme. Give me three reasons how it is not extreme, or I will continue to add the genre to the template. JazzlineB (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but this should really be discussed over at Talk:Extreme metal or Template talk:Extreme metal. Folk metal should only be included if there is a consensus and sources to back it up. ~Asarlaí 00:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Digital hardcore

Hi, You removed some stylistic origins from the infobox on the Digital hardcore page, and asserted that the cited source didn't back up the claim. I've reverted that edit, and included citations from the source, on the talk page, which detail the perspective offered by the source. Please take a look at this, and if you still disagree with me, discuss it with me further on that page. I'd appreciate it if you'd didn't make any further deletions until we've talked this out. Thanks, and I appreciate the contributions you've made to Wikipedia. Aryder779 (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Drone metal

Hello again, I've resurrected the drone metal page. You may have noticed that there's a reference, to the New York Times SunnO))) article. I can add more, if you really feel that's necessary. Drone metal comes from a lineage in doom, to be sure (as the article indicates) but it has many other influences besides. Just because drone metal is a form of doom metal, that doesn't mean it needs to be relegated to a subsection to that article. Aryder779 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A proposal to create a List of sludge metal bands article

Greetings. I've seen you've contributed quite a lot to the sludge metal article so I thought you needed to know this: I've made a proposal to merge the "Sludge metal bands by style" section into a new article named List of sludge metal bands. You can find the discussion I've started here. Gothbag (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Metal

Thank you for rewording my comment about low guitar tunings :) (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

Regarding capitalization of non-English discographies

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Capitalization for the consensus. If you'd like to object to this, you are, of course, free to bring it up at the talk page yourself. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 09:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Black metal ideology

Sorry if this might of inconvenience, but I made a response on the talk page of the black metal article a few days ago. Dark Prime (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

History of Ireland

unless there is consensus, it would be preferable not to use an unfamiliar date format, regards ClemMcGann (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Template Ireland

Can you discuss why you reverted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Split_.7B.7BIreland_topics.7D.7D Gnevin (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC) It would be nice if you at least acknowledged my comments Gnevin (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying sooner. The reason I reverted your changes is because the template is meant to include info about the whole island of Ireland. If you look at the history, geography, and culture sections, they link to articles that cover the whole island. Politics is the only section that can be divided between the north and south. Besides, you should always discuss such major changes on the talk page first. ~Asarlaí 00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I opened a discussion above where more people would see it(admittedly I didn't give it a lot of time).Are you suggesting a template for ROI Ireland? Wouldn't that contain a lot of duplication? Gnevin (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think we should create a template for the Republic of Ireland. I would rather have one single template for the whole island. That would mean merging template Northern Ireland into template Ireland. Most of the info is duplicated anyway. ~Asarlaí 09:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The would make ROI/NI the only two countries with out their own template as far as I can tell Gnevin (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


'Ello there. I just reverted some of your edits on the List of black metal bands, changing UK flagicons to English ones. It occurred to me that I haven't actually seen a consensus decision on this... if the point of the flagicons is to show nationality of the bands, then the correct flag to use would of course the Union Flag. If the point is to show where a band comes from, then the situation rapidly becomes much more complicated, and for this reason I'd suggest we stick with national flags; obviously we need some form of consensus.

To be honest, I have never been convinced that the flagicons add much information to the lists (owing to people not actually knowing many national flags) and may actually contravene WP:FLAG, but that's a whole other can of worms that has been argued to death before ;-) Anyways, let me know what you reckon, and I hope I haven't stepped on any toes. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rivers of Northern Ireland

Hi, just spotted you've redirected this to Rivers of Ireland -- I have no particular POV for or against combining these lists, but is there a discussion somewhere regarding this change? I imagine it may step on a few toes... The other thing I'd mention is that the NI list had quite a large number of rivers on it; are you likely to be replicating this list within the Rivers of Ireland list? All the best, Fattonyni (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've had no response from you on this I'll have to revert the redirect of rivers of Northern Ireland to rivers of Ireland. If you have any objections to this let me know, but if a redirect is to be made then the contents of the original list should be imported, rather than removing all of the previous information. Fattonyni (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply. I was unsure if all the redlinks should be included in the Rivers of Ireland article. Nevertheless, I'll begin importing that information as soon as possible. ~Asarlaí 14:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Redlinks for lists like that are fine (which was why I reverted your redirect). They both encourage people to add pages on the missing information, and provide a fuller list. If you do redirect again (and I'm not sure you should mind you, not without a discussion as I'm sure you're well aware there is an ongoing policy debate on what Ireland refers to and merging Northern Ireland topics with Ireland topics is always contentious - you should notify the project pages first and build consensus) then you should also fix incoming links to that page to point to your new page, and be more direct in your redirect (errr ...) by redirecting to pageName#SectionName so people who do hit the redirect don't have to hunt around looking. --Blowdart | talk 14:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
A couple of things. Now it's not clear what rivers are where. I know you're trying to "unite" the island, but information has been lost in your merging and that is not good. I'd also consider adding information specifically on the Bann as the largest river in the north. Like it or not they are separate countries and right now what you are doing appears revisionist, especially when in the discussion of canals it's only limited to those in the south.--Blowdart | talk 18:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The reason I felt the two articles should be combined is that they both deal with natural geographic features (rivers) on a single geographic entity (the island of Ireland). As such, the focus should be on the island as a whole, not the political subdivisions within it. Furthermore, numerous rivers cross the border.
As far as I can see, no information has been lost. But if you see otherwise then feel free to include it again. ~Asarlaí 18:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at Rivers of Africa, a geographic entity - you can see that the countries are acknowledged. I take your point about rivers crossing the border, in fact that would be a great thing to point out. Right now it does smack of an agenda in not acknowledging it. --Blowdart | talk 18:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Africa is a continent with dozens of countries, Ireland is a small island with only two countries. However, if you feel it's necessary then I won't object. I suppose the list could be re-divided into Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Both countries, or something similar. ~Asarlaí 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe list them by the country in which they rise? I dunno. Before the merge it was clear where the rivers were, now it's not. The same would apply to loughs.--Blowdart | talk 19:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If you're concerned about 'locating them easily' then why not be even more specific than NI/ROI and use Ulster/Connacht/Leinster/Munster, or North/West/East/South coast, or something like that? Secondly, I don't see why it's necessary to be able to 'find them easily' – this article is only meant to be a simple list of rivers in Ireland. Thirdly, the article list of Irish loughs is very specific about where the loughs are located. ~Asarlaí 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Because then you have the political mess that is defining "Ulster". Of course I don't see why you merged them, rather than have a holding page which pointed to both. Again I fear there's an agenda at work, and merging Ireland and Northern Ireland articles without consensus is not a good idea. --Blowdart | talk 19:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've already explained further up why they were merged.
The solution is simple – if you want to be specific about where the rivers are located, re-divide the list into NI/ROI, or Ulster/Connacht/Leinster/Munster, or North/West/East/South coast, or something similar. ~Asarlaí 19:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes you have, but you took a unilateral decision on it, something which is downright dangerous on Ireland related articles. --Blowdart | talk 19:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that the list has been combined, I'm not even sure whether it fits on the Rivers of Ireland article -- it clutters up the page, not least with the TOC. Perhaps it would serve better on a separate reinstated List of rivers of Ireland, linked to from the Rivers of Ireland article? I'll bet there's plenty more substantial information could go into the Rivers article page to fill it out, maybe even a section of the article to explain the specifics of which major systems are important to the North and/or the South?
Then with these differences explained in the article, that could leave the list to just be an overall list, with both List of rivers of Northern Ireland and List of rivers of the Republic of Ireland linking to the same page. Thoughts? Should I actually be making this point on the Rivers of Ireland talk page instead? :-) Fattonyni (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds like a good idea – one article covering Irish rivers in general, another being simply a list of Irish rivers. However, the article would need to have a lot more information before we could consider doing that. Perhaps you should take it to the talk page anyway. ~Asarlaí 00:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Troubles infobox

Out of interest why combine the summary (which I've reverted) into "British Armed Forces"? We don't combine all the republican groups or loyalist groups, why did you think the British armed forces would be "special" in this way? --Blowdart | talk 19:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't combine the republican and loyalist groups because they very rarely worked together. I combined the British Army, Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and Territorial Army because:
-They are all part of the British Armed Forces
-It takes up less space (the infobox is a bit too big)
-The more detailed list is given further down
I see no reason why they should remain separate in the infobox. ~Asarlaí 19:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Can't see it myself. When combined you're saving a grand total of 3 lines and really is that "too big"? Heck if you were worried about size drop the map, it illustrates nothing troubles specific. --Blowdart | talk 19:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert re-instated a policy violation

I'm talking about this diff. You restored an image in violation of our WP:FUC policy. If you want that image in the article, perhaps you should make sure that it is inline with our policy. The problem is the image page does not have an individual fair use rationale for the image's use on the Black metal article (NFCC #10c to be exact). This isn't negotiable, but instead is a required of the policy, and ALL fair use images. Please understand that I have removed the image again, with no prejudice against it being re-instated, if it is no longer in violation of policy. I hope you understand, and please be more careful with how non-free images are used in articles in the future. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 23:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mid Ulster English. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Blowdart | talk 15:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Rivers of Northern Ireland

Hi. I have restored the article List of rivers of Northern Ireland - this is an integral part of the suite of geographical articles for Northern Ireland and should not be deleted or subsumed entirely in an article about rivers in Ireland, otherwise how do readers access a NI specific list. This would be a loss to the body of NI knowledge. Please do not revert. This is in line with the NI Wiki Project. Best wishes. Ardfern (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lancs map

I've just seen the map that you've added to the page on Lancashire Dialect and Accent. It would be useful to have a map, but this one only shows the Lancashire County Council area. In dialect discussion, the phrase "Lancashire dialect" usually includes places such as Wigan, Oldham, Bolton, etc. that are no longer in the LCC area. I was wondering whether an older map would be more appropriate.

A map of pre-1974 Lancashire is an alternative. The problem there is that, as is stated in the article, the dialect of the Barrow area is almost always called Cumbrian dialect now. I'm not sure which is better. Epa101 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

AE sanctions

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. O Fenian (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bathory albums

I would like you to explain what you think you're doing to my contributions to Bathory's secound and third studio albums. You claim that my edits are unnecessary information and that I instead of bringing forth information of the albums, are reviewing them and that's no the case.

The information is not unnecessary, it's curiousa, (which means that it's pieces of information that gives the reader a deeper look into the absolute necessary information), and I've never clamed the album to be good or bad, (reviewing it), I've just explained the sound in general, what the lyrics dealt with, how well it was received by critics and quoted a critic on "The Return". If you find this wrong, you might aswell remove Allmusic's judgingsystem, (giving albums stars from 1-5, reviewing how good they find the album), of all albums on Wikipedia, since they if that's the case is giving viewers reviews to read, which is according to you all wrong.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I'd like you to explain your actions, because this is getting ridiculous.

LovedTa'Death 19:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly and most importantly, all the information you've added to these articles is unsourced. You've wrote how it was received by critics and what the lyrics are about, but haven't providided any citations. Secondly, much of the wording is akin to a personal review (for example you've described the albums with words like "brutal", "thrashing", "cruel" and "evil"). Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and consider using the talk pages before adding more info. ~Asarlaí 19:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That sounds fair, but why would you claim the information to be unessential? I now understand that you reacted to the information in the matter of me acting like a reviewer and to the lack of information. I'll change the choice of words and make a link to what source I possibly could have used, (I mostly collected all the information I've gotten in the time as a fan from different unnameable sources), fair enough? LovedTa'Death 20:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It's fine so long as everything is properly sourced and written in neutral wording. You could show us on the talk page what you've got planned and then we could sort it out before putting it in the article. ~Asarlaí 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fair, how do I send you the information? And will I have to keep sending you information as I intend to expand information on several Bathory albums in the future? LovedTa'Death 20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If you're planning major additions, just use the talk pages (for example Talk:Under the Sign of the Black Mark > new section). It's better to make sure you've got it all sorted beforehand to avoid edit wars and such. ~Asarlaí 20:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
So what I'll do is that I'll write an argument to why my piece of information should stay on Wikipedia and then post it? (I'm new to this feature) and if it works that way, will you visit the talk pages for the albums I've edited later? LovedTa'Death 10:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Map error

Hello. I like the map you added to the article on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, it has an error in that it shows the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as being part of the UKGB&I. They never were. Could you fix the map and not have them in green? I know it may not seem like it, but technically the Isle of Man and Channel Island are not, and never were, part of the United Kingdom in any incarnation. Thanks. (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll make a new map within the next couple of days. ~Asarlaí 17:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Irish Rivers article

Please don't destroy this page again. If you wish to add info then please do so using the current structure. Any further elimination of the tributary format by you will be vandalism and will be treated as such. Sarah777 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your edits are more likely to be seen as vandalism, since you removed a great deal of information without good reason. If you wish to return to the "tributary format" then discuss it on the talk page. If other editors agree to use that format again, then it should be re-implemented without removing any information. ~Asarlaí 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Superfopp, if you wish to add the pointless "List of Irish Rivers" to the "see also" section of various water related articles then please try to do so without removing the link to the excellent Rivers of Ireland article. The man who made room on Wiki made loads of it. Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I see you managed to work that out for yourself. Excellent. Better late than never as they say. Sarah777 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

About a picture

May I know, why did you remove that picture of Ireland from February_2009_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_snowfall article? -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it was over two months ago, I can't recall. You're free to include it again if you wish. ~Asarlaí 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

New Testament apocrypha

I invite you both to Talk:New Testament apocrypha and the talk page I am using so that we can talk out those issues which are part of the reasoning process that you went through in order to decide why you believe that a section of this article should have the headline "Gnostic Christian texts".

I don't know if you know this or not, but there are very many articles in this encyclopedia alone which establish the reasons as to why Gnosticism (or its near relative, Hermeticism, for that matter) is not the same religion as the New Covenant [Christianity].

If you insist upon having the article section head read "Gnostic Christian", the article which you have edited will be in direct conflict with all of the other articles which touch upon the subject of Gnosticism – factually, evidentially, and in terms of sourcing as well.

I'm just reverting you for now, but if you respond on both of the talk pages that I mentioned, you can air your concerns there and we can work out our differences over the heading. (Naturally, you can also respond here, if you like) Cheers — Talk 01:54, Monday April 13, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for changing the article section head to read "Gnostic texts" instead of "Gnostic Christian texts". Unfortunately (and I do appreciate your interest), this does not resolve the original issue of the supposedly "lost gospels", because over the years there have been a lot of POV-pushing editors here who read The DaVinci Code just one time too many, and now those people are hell-bent upon "proving to the world that the Church is hiding something" about the New Testament canon by making a lot of propagandistic, vandalizing edits in order to "reveal to the world (for the first time) the gospels that the Church has been hiding from everyone".
Please also keep in mind that the very histories of Gnosticism and Hermeticism themselves are, in fact, a shared history of efforts to distort, deny, or refute somehow the orthodox teachings of Christianity; to corrupt, deliberately misinterpret, forge, or otherwise hijack Holy Scripture itself in pursuance of furthering the beliefs of paganism; and (most importantly) an ongoing effort to whitewash and conceal all of this activity from the general public, so that no one catches on to the fact that those behind the agenda to hijack the original teachings of the Gospel possess beliefs and share a belief system that is totally incompatible with orthodox Christianity.
What this means is that if we instead label the article section "Gnostic texts", the article will not reveal to the reader either (1) the fact that people who are Gnostic were engaged, and are still engaged, in a campaign to co-opt and hijack the Bible by tricking the public into accepting their intentional misinterpretations of Scripture (and therefore destroying the Church in the process), or (2) the fact that Gnostic teachings are totally incompatible with Christian teaching.
Again, I'm just reverting you for now – and I ask you again to discuss these issues on Talk:New Testament apocrypha or the talk page that I am using. Talk 02:55, Monday April 13, 2009 (UTC)
Clearly this "conspiracy" is your own personal theory. As I'm not a theologian, a Christian or a Gnostic, I'm not prepared to debate it with you. But by changing the title to "pseudo-Christian" without any reliable sources to support that change, you are introducing bias. Maintaining a neutral point-of-view is a fundamental Wikipedia policy. I'm sure we can both agree that "Gnostic texts" is a neutral title, as it does not imply that the texts are "definitely Christian" or "definitely not Christian". ~Asarlaí 03:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Hello Superfopp. Thanks for the revision on the number of islands. Must admit I was thinking 136 was a low figure, but your amendment at least stops months of wrangling over what is an island and what is a rock. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Just so you know, when I requested a citation for the Irish name of Newtownards, it wasn't because I don't think it has an Irish name, it was solely due to the spelling changing and making sure we had a referencable spelling. I'm not one of these anti-Irish name editors that seem to crop up from time to time, just making sure what is there is referenced so there is no arguments about them. Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. I've asked the same for some Scots placenames too (when I haven't been able to find them myself). ~Asarlaí 15:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Monster Magnet in the stoner rock article

That is not name-dropping. Monster Magnet are usually considered one of the fathers of stoner rock. In the article they are treated as "another" band and Sleep appears to be more notable than Monster Magnet; Allmusic (which was already used as a source in the article) doesn't say so. Gothbag (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


There is nothing wrong with the grammar in piping the proper name of the country in which County Wicklow and County Kildare are located, to the name of the article Republic of Ireland. Piping, like this Ireland, is quite normal, and accurate, per the Irish manual of style. When you insist on linking to the current state article by its wiki article you are misleading readers and are wrong but you could link to the geographical article for the island Ireland instead. In addition I have to disagree with most of your rephrasing of most of the county introductions, especially those of Northern Ireland where the new phrasing implies that Northern Ireland comprises all the counties of the province of Ulster, which you know it does not. We need to be encyclopaedicly clear not confusing. I am sure you don't mean to mislead but casual readers will be mislead or even confused. ww2censor (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

When referring to the island and the state in the same sentence/paragraph, it's necessary to distinguish between the two. It makes no sense to write, for example "County Kildare is one of the traditional Counties of Ireland. It is located within the province of Leinster in Ireland". Readers shouldn't have to click the link to find out which entity is being referred to. However, I agree the wording needs fixed on some Ulster county articles. ~Asarlaí 04:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Irish Republic virtually ceased to exist after 7 Jan 1922

My understanding is that the Provisional Government maintained a 'dual mandate' relationship re. the Irish Republic until establishment of Free State (while progressively disestablishing some institutions such as the Republican Courts). For example it issued both an IR Emigration Permit to Denis McCullough to travel to the States in the name of the Irish Republic and also requested the issuance of a (British) passport through UK authorities to enable him to lobby support of their approach of Devoy et al. I think your edit oversimplifies their approach. Would be happy to discuss later, but must log off now. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits to WP:IECOLL

You may be interested in this edit. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Counties of Ireland articles

I note that you "restructured" the lead of every county article in order to introduce the unpiped "Republic of Ireland" description into all 26 southern counties. In the context of the ongoing dispute this is borderline disruption/edit warring. Please revert this and save me the trouble. If you want to link to Counties of Ireland put it in the "See also" section. If you need some guidance see my edits on County Roscommon. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems fair enough – so long as the introductions don't use simply "Ireland" for both the island and the state. ~Asarlaí 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Counties of Northern Ireland

Hi there. Is there any reason you've updated a lot of the maps of the counties of Northern Ireland to versions that now show the Republic of Ireland (sic) as well? This is inconsistent with the rest of the UK articles on counties which only show them within their respective countries. Canterbury Tail talk 19:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey. As far as I'm aware, the maps on the NI county articles always had shown the island only. Before my edits they were shaded green, now they're shaded red. ~Asarlaí 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Shankill Butchers

Hello and many thanks for your recent edits. I'm glad to see another hand at work. But it's impt to make the intro. to any article as substantial as possible, and the removal of the info. that the gang killed quite a number of Protestant people gives the impression that it only killed Roman Catholics. While it's clear that they were a vicious gang intent on mass murder of Catholics, that balance has to be shown. And they were members of the UVF, not linked with it, as seen by their comvictions. Moreover, the cut-throat killings were random in nature and they were involved in bombings. So I will revert most of your changes in aid of accuracy and fairness but didn't want to do so without dropping a note. Your use of "gang" is good and it should stay. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your arguments. I've rephrased some of the introduction again, without removing the mention of those things. ~Asarlaí 16:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
And to you for your prompt response! Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Modern Celts, Sport

Why did you delete my contributon on this?Ausseagull (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have me confused with someone else... ? ~Asarlaí 13:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, on 25 May someone called Superfopp undid my contriution on Modern Celts and Sport. Are you Superfopp? Anyhow, I'll try again. Ausseagull (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Super; in your new standardised intro for the "county" series of articles you use the expression "County X is located within the Provence of Munster" - is "in" not a more modern conventional use in English? (ie Cork is located in the Provence of Munster). It isn't a big issue but I note some of my changes have been reversed and this would be a daft thing to get into an edit war about.....Sarah777 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


If you Google it you will finf that rice is the form used in contemporary documents. Furthermore, your edits have left a grammatically incorrect form - it would be like saying "English" without following it with "kingdom" or "realm". ðarkuncoll 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a Google search for Old English dictionaries online. The websites [2], [3], [4] and [5] give Cynedōm/Cyningdōm/Cynerīce/Cyningrīce/Rīcedōm/Rīce as equivalent to kingdom/kindom/realm etc. Since there are so many forms that we could use, I think it's best not to use any, as it would be favouring one over the others. I don't think its grammatically wrong to say (for example) "West Saxons" without adding "kingdom" to the end. ~Asarlaí 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

See [6] for example. On its own, the word for kingdom may well have been cyningrice etc., but when combined with a nominative for a specific kingdom, such as Miercna, it is incorrect to say cyning as well (cf modern German Reich). Furthermore, the nominative form Miercna etc. is incorrect without an object - it's not like modern English. ðarkuncoll 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Flagicons re Northern Ireland

Please do not make this type of edit in the future. Regardless of contention on this subject, Wikipedia recognises Northern Ireland as being part of the United Kingdom, thus the UK flag icon is most appropriate for the above application. If you have any questions, let me know. Huntster (t@c) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand. However my edit was a genuine mistake, not vandalism. I'd assumed the policy was not to use any flag to represent Northern Ireland. ~Asarlaí 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies then. We've had a ton of problems on the Nashville page with pro-North Ireland independence folk trying to POV push. I shouldn't have made an assumption. The best option, when dealing with flag icons, is to use the national flag (in this case the UK), rather than local flags. Now, to be honest, U.S. states tend to escape this standard, simply because of the very large area and number of states involved, but the U.S. flag works fine in these cases too. Huntster (t@c) 22:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nine Years War

If you're changing the campaignbox can you change the name so that it's the same as the one in the article? ThanksJdorney (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done ~Asarlaí 18:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Much better, thank you! Jdorney (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-writing articles

Crossbarry Ambush

Hi, listen, no offense and I know you're acting in good faith, but we really need to talk about you going in re-writing articles without talking about it first. I'm talking about the Kilmichael Ambush and Crossbarry Ambush articles here in particular.

The Kilmichael thing has blown up into a bit of a pissing contest, but in fairness that is not your fault.

BUt re the Crossbarry article. I'm going to make the following changes but I want to clear it with oyu first so that we don't get into the same problems as in the Kilmichael article.

1.The intro, *Crossbarry is not a village, it's a crossroads.

  • 20 kilometres south of cork city is a relevant detail
  • a battle is a very large military engagement, Crossbarry was not this, it was a skirmish, hence "engagement" is better.

The next section is ok, I'd prefer "ascertain" to "discover" but I don't mind.

2.Combat section; lots of problems here. My preference would be to revert the whole thing.

  • Barry's calculation" v "Barry reckoned", "reckoned" is informal language and not suitable for an elcyclopedia article.
  • "sustained" v "withstand", difference in meaning. The problem was ammunition, so they couldn't sustain ie keep up a fight all day. "Withstand" means that they couldn't physically or morally fight all day. Doesn't mean the same thing.
  • "column" v "unit", more precise - this was the langauge they used. ALso, repeated use of "unit" makes tedious reading.
  • "observed" v "saw", saw means only to see, observed means saw and made a judgment
  • deletion of "taking the chance to get away" - pretty important tactical consideration.
  • "Rendevous" v "meeting", a rendevous is a pre planned military meeting, so more precise.
  • "combats" v "exchanges", combats is more precise, exchanges could mean exchanges of words, or anything.

Also, some of the chagnes seem a little pointless, eg replacing "therefore" with "thus". Why?

Anyway, if you object to any of these chagnes let me know and we'll work something out. If not I'll make those changes.Jdorney (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking the time to explain everything. I wouldn't have a problem with any of those changes. But I'd rather you change only the bits you've noted above, rather than just reverting the whole lot — unless there's something else you object to? ~Asarlaí 13:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't want to revet the whole lot, only the combat section, ok?Jdorney (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
If you're only changing those bits of the "combat" section then I'm fine with it. ~Asarlaí 15:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, done. I've made some other changes as well. If there's a problem maybe we should discuss it at the talk page there so other users can see? Anyway, hope there isn't. Jdorney (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

McMahon murders

Hi again, sorry to be making this a regular occurance, but I really don't like what you've done with the McMahon Murders intro. Could you tell me why you made those changes?Jdorney (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well... since the introduction is meant to be a summary of the article, I thought this one needed more info. I simply added some important facts that weren't mentioned before:
  • That the victims were all civilians
  • That they were aged between 15 and 50
  • The reason they were targeted (being Catholic and nationalist)
  • That many believe it was a reprisal for IRA attacks
  • That there were many similar reprisals during that era
I removed "all but one were from the McMahon family" because I didn't think it was important enough for the introduction. ~Asarlaí 14:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, well first thanks for setting out your thoughts.
Here are my problems.
  • First, the first sentence should give the principle theme of the article. So, "the macmahon murders occurred on March 24 1922" just doesn't tell the reader enough.
  • Two, the incident has never, to my knowledge, been called the "McMahon massacre". So this shouldn't be there.
  • Three the fact that they were all from the McMahon family except one is important, because it gave the incident its name and it increased the emotional impact of it as well. Wiping out all the males in one family is a particularly brutal and indiscriminate act.
  • Four, the details of the act, that they broke into the house at night and shot all the men, has been deleted and needs to go back in.
  • Five, "Many believe" is bad here. It should be the passive voice, "it is believed". Also, the previous info is much more specific, it was retaliation for the killing of two policemen the day before. This should go back in.
  • Six, The paragraph on Northern Ireland is pretty POV. These are issues that are beter addressed in the text of the article itself - as I think they already are.
  • No problem with saying the dead were Catholics and nationalists. No problem with adding the ages.
Let me know, Jdorney (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll compromise on the first five points. However, I think it's important to note that the killings were motivated by religion and politics. If we say that the victims were Catholic and nationalist, then we also have to say that the NI police were almost entirely Protestant and unionist – that's a fact. Otherwise we're only explaining half of it.
Here's my proposed intro:

The McMahon Murders occurred on 24 March 1922 in Belfast, Northern Ireland when six civilians were shot dead by members of the Ulster Special Constabulary or Royal Irish Constabulary. The policemen broke into a house at night and shot the eight males inside, seven of which belonged to the McMahon family. It is believed to have been a reprisal for the IRA’s shooting of two policemen the day before. Northern Ireland had been created ten months beforehand, and its police force was almost exclusively Protestant and unionist. In this incident (like many others) the victims were targeted because they were Catholic and nationalist.

~Asarlaí 19:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, good, we're making progress. A couple of qibbles though.
  • First. I'd prefer getting the McMahon family and catholic into the first sentence. Also there were two injured. And the ages.
  • Two. I'd prefer "their house" to "a house". It wasn't a random house, they sought out the McMahons specificially. Also if we put the McMahons into the first sentence, we can take them out the second sentence. Next, they rounded up and shot all the men in the house, so we need "all". Finally, you can't use "which" for people, you have to use "whom".
  • Three. The RIC was not mainly Protestant, strange as it may seem, it was actually majority catholic. The USC was another story. They were almost 100% protestant.
  • Four. I just dont like the way this is phrased.
So how about:

The McMahon Murders occurred on 24 March 1922 in Belfast, Northern Ireland when six Catholic civilians (all but one members of the McMahon family) were shot dead and two injured by members of the Ulster Special Constabulary (USC) or Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). The dead were aged between 15 and 50. The policemen broke into their house at night and shot all the eight males inside. It is believed to have been a reprisal for the IRA’s shooting of two policemen the day before. Northern Ireland had been created ten months beforehand. Its police forces, especially the USC, which was almost exclusively Protestant and unionist, were implicated in a number of reprisal attacks on Catholics and nationalist civilians in this period.

What do you think?Jdorney (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
That wording looks fine to me, but I hope you don't mind me moving "all but one were members of the McMahon family" down a bit, because the first line is a bit long-winded. ~Asarlaí 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Made a very small adjustment. Have a look.Jdorney (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


After all the editing disagreements we've been having, a word of thanks. For noticing the clonmult thing accidentally cut and pasted onto the Upton page. Cheers!Jdorney (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. ~Asarlaí 17:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


You are mentioned here. BigDunc 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a comment about the complaint at WP:AE#Request concerning Superfopp. It looks as though you've been reverting to force the phrase 'non-specific republican' back into the article. While this is already an example of edit warring, you also broke the 1RR restriction on 4 November, which is what the AE complaint is about. There is still time for you to undo your last change to Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997. If you do so, that may be taken into account by the admin who closes the WP:AE case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Since you have resumed editing without undoing your change or responding at WP:AE, adverse inferences may be drawn. We're waiting to hear from you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ya made the right choice, in reverting. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Germanic and Latinate equivalents in English

Hello. I undid the edit you made 17:26, 2 December 2009 due to the loss in semantic correspondence. The latinates are substantives, and therefore the Germanic equivalents should be also. I tried to preserve most of the contribution, managing to salvage "thrill", but "uplift" or "upliftedness" were difficult to work in. Leasnam (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Troubles

My apologies, I've just reverted some minor vandalism to this topic and in the process wiped out your valid edit. I'll leave the page alone to avoid any further edit conflicts and leave it to you to redo your edit. I hope this is OK with you. Trugster | Talk 22:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Knocknanuss

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. 2 lines of K303 12:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been provided for the article Newbuildings. Enjoy. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Celtic nations

Hi Superfopp, really like the table you added to Celtic nations over Christmas. It adds to the article and highlights the similarities between the two language groups. I wonder if you would mind checking the Irish and Manx entries for Wales and Brittany though, as I think they may have been transposed. Sadly, the only Celtic language I speak is Welsh. However, I think that in the Goedelic languges the words "Bheag" (Irish and Scottish Gaelic) and "Beg" (Manx), translate as Bach in Welsh, meaning small/little in English. It seems likely to me that "Little/Small Britain" would be Brittany in the sense that it isn't "Large/Great Britain". Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, very much appreciated.
The Gàidhlig "Bhreatainn Bheag", Gaeilge "Bhreatain Bheag" and Gaelg "Bretyn Beg" all translate (literally) as "Little Britain". As you rightly pointed out, the English term "Little Britain" was used to mean Brittany. However, for some reason, only in Gàidhlig is Brittany called "Little Britain". You may want to check the Gaeilge/Gàidhlig/Gaelg Wikipedias for more info. ~Asarlaí 23:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. Looks like I managed to prove the old adage - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing :) Adding the extra column (GB) makes a lot of sense. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. I'll use the same string to keep things simple. As I said in the summary, if you're leniting Breatainn > Bhreatainn, in any Celtic language the definite article is obligatory, not optional. And in front of some country names the article is always obligatory. The reason I took the line breaks out is that they, for some reason, hid part of the text (at least on my screen).

Teangannan in Gaelic only means tongues, not language per se. As the introduction says it "highlights some of the similarities and differences", cànain will just have to fall under "differences". On a linguistic note, using proper nouns to show typological similarities is not the best idea really. It sort of works here but still makes for a very odd list. Perhaps some common nouns like iasg, ceann etc should be added. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

List of mass car bombings

Thanks for your work on List of mass car bombings! Much more readable now. Balfa (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello, there. It's misleading to call the UFF "the military wing" of the UDA. The UDA is/was itself a military organization - the UFF is/was a "flag of convenience". The relationship is decidedly not analogous to that between Sinn Fein and the IRA, for example. Irvine22 (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the line is a bit blurred. Officially (ie. according to itself) the UDA was/is solely a political group. This is partly why it wasn't banned until 1992. It was/is more a militant political group than military group. However, it's well known that some UDA members carried guns and took part in attacks on Catholics/nationalists/republicans. The UFF, on the other hand, was solely a paramilitary group tasked with killing Catholics/nationalists/republicans. Moreover, the UFF is referred to as the UDA's "military wing" by many sources:
  • Wood, Ian S. Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA. Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Page 381.
  • Dillon, Martin. The Shankill butchers: the real story of cold-blooded mass murder. Routledge, 1999. Page 266.
  • Dillon, Martin. The dirty war: covert strategies and tactics used in political conflicts. Taylor & Francis, 1999. Page 279.
  • Atkins, Stephen E. Encyclopedia of modern worldwide extremists and extremist groups. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004. Page 329.
  • Kirkland, Richard. Identity parades: Northern Irish culture and dissident subjects. Liverpool University Press, 2002. Page 147.
Google Books throws up dozens of sources that say the same thing, but I don't think we need so many in the article. ~Asarlaí 04:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Wonder about the status of the Ulster Democratic Party then. Irvine22 (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the groups overlap somewhat. The UDA was/is the central group that organised everything — it was/is "officially" a political group, though some of its members took part in violence. The UFF was/is the paramilitary wing whose sole purpose was to undertake attacks on Catholics/nationalists/republicans. The UYM was/is the youth wing. The UDP was the political party whose sole purpose was to fight elections and win seats in the Assembly.
The fact is that dozens of sources say that "the UFF is the UDA's military wing". We can't go about adding our own terms — like "the UDA's subsidiary" — without sources to back it up. ~Asarlaí 04:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if not "subsidiary" how about "flag of convenience" or "cover name"? I just have this uneasy feeling that "military wing" is somehow misleading to the casual reader. Irvine22 (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather just say "UDA attacks were carried out under the name Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF)" and not qualify it. Further down we can add something like "many refer to the UFF as its military wing". ~Asarlaí 05:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
A-ite. Irvine22 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Mabuska (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you discuss this or just ignore?

Please see here and here - whilst i know you do like to not respond to things i would like you to here before we get into an edit war. These issues i think need looked at. Logaimn is not a definite source and other sources disagree with it - it might just better to have an etymology section where the Irish variations with sources can be placed rather than debatable versions in the lede. Mabuska (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact i've put forward a proposal here. Mabuska (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Cheers for your work on Drumcree conflict. It's great to see Northern Ireland pages on controversial topics getting expanded without turning into edit wars, as was almost inevitable a few years ago. --Helenalex (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. ~Asarlaí 16:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Asarlaí - and Help! I'm bamboozled re description & copyrite process for Drumcree images. They are available online at They were originally lifted from a now-defunct local newspaper in 1982 and have been reproduced (without problems) in the book "Garvaghy: A Community Under Siege (1999) - which i co-edited. I think they are important pictures and would appreciate any help. Go to [7]

Thanks, Maolcholann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maolcholann (talkcontribs) 11:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the whole copyright thing is really tricky business. I don't understand most of it either. The only pictures I've uploaded are some maps that I made myself. You'll need to know when the picture was taken, where it was first printed, where you scanned it from, and what that newspaper/book/magazine says about copyright (eg. "the pictures in this book can be re-used so long as Mr X is given credit"). I think you'd be best asking one of our Irish admins for advice — try User:BrownHairedGirl (an admin) or User:Baldeadly (not an admin but he's uploaded a lot of Troubles-related pictures). ~Asarlaí 21:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


I would like your opinion on the edits I made to the Plantation of Ulster section within the Ulster page. 15:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to put forward your arguments on Talk:Ulster. That way, everyone can pitch-in and hopefully there'll be some sort of agreement at the end. ~Asarlaí 16:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Cheers for correcting my dumbass ignorance re the :) However, I looked into the "evidence" it had of an Irish name for Carryduff and it appear to be all smoke and mirrors. Rather than revert I have discussed it on the talk page; would value your input.--feline1 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ambushes and Massacres

Nice work on the above. Are there criteria for them, as there are about half-a-dozen, all pre-1700, that I wish to add or expand. Also, do any of the following fall under this category:

Delighted you've joined us, Fergananim (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of the Northern Ireland Troubles

Hi, when u added stuff to the Timeline_of_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process article, it gave an error with some of the 'ref' tags you used.

I fixed it, BUT would u mind checking that the reference I put in is the correct one please? it's the two things with reference [50], check here: Timeline_of_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process#cite_note-c81-50

the problem was, i think, that you copied two <ref name="c81" /> tags, but not the tag that told wiki what reference c81 actually was ;)

Ta --Arkelweis (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish names for towns

While i understand that some persons may wish to see Iriah names for towns in Northern Ireland I wish to remind you that the towns here are in the United Kingdom, and not in Ireland. If you wish to include the irish names also please include the Irish Scots definitions. Otherwise leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, all settlements on the island of Ireland have their Irish names shown. The same goes for other parts of the United Kingdom:
  • settlements in Scotland have their Scots and/or Scots Gaelic names shown on Wikipedia
  • settlements in Wales have their Welsh names shown on Wikipedia
  • settlements in Mann have their Manx names shown on Wikipedia
  • settlements in Cornwall have their Cornish names shown on Wikipedia
Removing Irish names for no good reason will be treated as vandalism. ~Asarlaí 09:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hear hear. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Not every settlement has a real-world used Irish version and nor should made up versions be imposed. There is nothing wrong with using the derive tag to show where a settlement name came from but instead adding Irish versions that aren't even used in the real world, say by a local GAA team, should be avoided. Wikipedia works with facts that must be verifiable. Northern Star (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up!

Now that's what I'm talkin' about! Face-smile.svg
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Population stats in Craigavon

I see what you mean with the citation request in the Lurgan article. I had assumed that your man that put in the historical populations table was correct with his four citations, but looking into them he just linked to the home page of a lot of those sites. Where did you get the breakdown of population figures by ward? I was going to put in a citation tag on that but I thought I'd ask you here first. Also, I see you're working on the Portadown page. I was going to turn my attention to that after getting Lurgan up to GA standard. Wanna work together on Lurgan until we get GA and then we can work together on Pordydown? Thanks! --Eamonnca1 (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I found it on the NISRA website. If you enter a full postcode or street name in the search bar on the main page, it'll give you all the stats for whatever ward that postcode/street is in. Under the 'geography' section it has links to all the neighbouring wards. I'm sure there's some other way of doing it but, if you ask me, the whole layout/navigation of that site is awful.
As for the working together, I'm right behind ye.
~Asarlaí 06:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I have the answer. Head on over to Talk:Lurgan and let me know what you think. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I understood that you're an Irishman (I wish I can visit your wonderful country some time soon!), so can you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country, music and language! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

County Navboxes

Personally i couldn't care if you decide to hurry and plaster your navboxes on every Northern Ireland article to ensure that your have "majority" status. I'm placing the NI specific one on them as well. Personally i'd rather edit your tags to the new one just as you like changing article templates to impose your all-Ireland view on them. However there i believe allows us to both have our navboxes on an article page - mine is Northern Ireland specific whilst your is all-Ireland diminsion - even if only in picture and very POV colour scheme. Mabuska (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

However as Northern Ireland as a political entity comes first, mine will be placed above yours which is based on an outdated and inaccurate number of counties and on something that is only historical at best. Mabuska (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
If you don't like the current navboxes, creating a whole new series of rival navboxes isn't the way to deal with it. Threatening to paste those new navboxes beside all the old ones is even worse. On Wikipedia, we deal with problems like this by talking. ~Asarlaí 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as many of them were only added today they are hardly old. Your one to talk. I know the way i went about it wasn't the best way, however i am willing to discuss the issue in a more appropriate and better manner. Mabuska (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


I've completed your name change. Might I suggest registering and redirecting User:Asarlai here, in case users type your name into the search box not realizing the final character has an accent? Thanks, –xenotalk 12:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Loughgall Ambush: no such change without consensus

Hi Asarlaí, don't worry about the merging proposal; they need a huge consensus for such a movement, and I guess that most users agree on keeping the article separate. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Randomly titled heading, since I can't be bothered with wit today

Wikipedia today....

Since I refuse to post in a manifestly incorrectly titled thread as the one above, I'll start my own. You may want to review WP:CONLIMITED, you cannot override a global consensus to implement a local consensus, the global consensus being the one at WP:CFORK which I'd have hoped (in vain evidently!) that anyone planning on forking an article would have read and taken note of. So fix the problems you have created which are against global consensus, or I am merging the articles back until you do. You created the problems, you fix them. 2 lines of K303 14:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There was an agreement on the talk page that Loughgall Ambush should have its own article. It's fairly obvious why that is – it was a notable incident, the East Tyrone Brigade article was getting a bit too long, etc. So, if you tell me exactly what needs to be done I'm sure I can have it fixed fairly quickly. ~Asarlaí 14:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've written a fuller summary of the ambush on the East Tyrone Brigade article. ~Asarlaí 15:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Irish assessments

I've noticed you adding empty Ireland Wikiproject assessments to articles. You may want to join the assessment team and familiarise yourself with the quality and importance guidelines so you can assist the process more fully. When posting please add the normal complete template {{WikiProject Ireland}} using the following full syntax:

{{WikiProject Ireland |class = |importance = |attention = |image-needed = |needs-infobox = |listas = }}

because the one you are using is actually a redirect and we don't use it beside which what you are posting is incomplete. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi, now that Drumlough is a disambig, could you help clean up the links that now point to the disambig per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Most of them can probably be fixed by fixing {{County Down}} and {{County Antrim}} (I was going to do it myself, but I'm a little confused as both villages are listed as being in County Down). Cheers! --JaGatalk 10:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


I've reverted your edits in the townlands section of the Newtownabbey, Cookstown, and Craigavon articles. Whilst we know its true and that there are sources that back up in essence what you've added, its original research to expand that to individual places. Also is there even any need for it in the articles? Many other bits of information in articles can be found by the appropraite wiki-links and i believe keeping out what looks like original research is easily achieved by linking the section to townlands where the reader can find out more about them. Mabuska (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with you Mabuska and I think you should take this to each individual talk page and not bring it here. Bjmullan (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
In the bigger towns many streets, roads, schools and housing estates are named after townlands. Hence, I think it's useful to have information on those townlands in the articles. I also think it's important to have a brief introduction rather than just a list—especially for those "not in the know". As you said, the information I added is factual (and obvious) and can be backed-up by reliable sources, so what's the problem? ~Asarlaí 13:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Bjmullan i would like a more exact reason as to why you don't agree other than you don't, you are a very ambiguous person at times lol :-)
The problem Asarlai is that it isn't backed up by reliable sources - sources talk about townlands and towns in general, not specific towns. Thats why keeping such a general statement is better in the actual townlands article and not stretched beyond what it actually states whether we know its correct or not. It is also troublesome and lacking verifiability to declare that many of the streets or estates are derived from a townland - they may have the same name as the townland they reside in or are near, but unless you have a specific source that clearly states that that town's estates and streets are then it is original research to make that statement yourself.
Also should we expand every NI settlement articles "Troubles" section to define for readers not in the know as to what it was about and who was involved? Its kept to a simple line and link as that is all thats needed and the reader can easily click the link. I've been told before that a wiki-link to the Northern Ireland article is suffice enough to inform a reader of the country an Northern Irish county belongs to (United Kingdom). So whats the problem with such a standard being used in this instance, seeing as its used elsewhere, and seeing as information like this thats already contained in another article is usually linked to rather than stated.
In regards to the Cookstown Main Street, it is original research to look at a townland map and then come to Wikipedia and state that it spreads across three townlands. A source didn't actually state so, you did and thats original research. I also feel, as i've stated before, that looking at the maps and stating the townlands that constitute a town may also breech original research rules. But this exact issue needs to be brought before the reliable sources or original research board or whichever it is.
Aside from those issue, if you are going to declare "mostly come from the Irish language", i feel that the term "commonly derived from the Irish language" should be used. They may mean the same thing, but the latter to me sounds appropriate and encyclopedic for Wikipedia.
Mabuska (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree because townlands are an uniquely Irish thing and the information on townlands can help people better connect with their past, whether it's locals looking at their town/village or people across the oceans tracing their past. Including information about townlands directly in the article enriches it. I do prefer your "commonly derived" because I also think it sounds better but when it comes to maps I don't think that it could be consider OR. Bjmullan (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
That is why we provide wikilinks to articles that go into the detail and provide a user a way to find out more. See the examples i posted above for other things that aren't expanded upon other than in their own article. The source and issues of potentially personal research is the major concerns here, and whether or not its OR needs to be decided by the appropriate methods here on Wikipedia, not you or me. I don't mean to be such a pain however DerryBoi and VintageKits gave me hell over sources, reliability, verifiability, and such stuff so its only right that i do the same - just like i pushed and pushed for a proper source that declared townlands to be of Gaelic origin - the article is better for having a proper source for it. Mabuska (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Also if we are to include a description and short history of townlands in each article's section on townlands you would have to be even in the content. If you state "mostly from the Irish language" or "commonly derived from the Irish language", you would have to state what the rest would be derived from, i.e. English, Scots, Old-Norse etc. A simple wiki-link and/or "See Also" tag is more than suffice. Mabuska (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi. Please see my latest post on the Eglinton talk page, I think it has to be resolved with just "Eglinton" and not the Irish name for the reason I gave on the talk page (my latest post). Please tell me if you have any issues with it. Thanks. WikiTome Talk 10:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Royal Arms on userboxes

I notice you've been imposing Royal coats of arms on userboxes regarding living in Scotland, origin thereof etc. and in one case changing the wording so that it no longer regarded pride of origin, as denoted in the name of the box. I'm sure it was done in good faith but out of courtesy I'm letting you know I've reverted these controversial and erroneous edits. I notice you've also done the same to similar English userboxes and would request you revert those as well, or at the very least take it to the talk pages. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Townlands lists: proposal for deletion

There is a proposal to delete townlands lists that I created and in which you showed some interest by inviting me to list them at a list page of yours, which I gladly did. You may contribute to the discussion, and defend the lists, if you wish at the discussion page. If you know of others with similar interests to ours in Irish townlands, could you please let them know? Thank you. —O'Dea 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Gaelic culture

Hi, I think some of the information you have removed from the Gaels and Scoti articles is not actually repeated elsewhere, hence my reason for adding some of it to the Gaelic Ireland article. I have provided references to Ginnel's Brehon Laws as well as to Stiubhart's work (although I see that link isn't functioning any more). I'll try to include the relevant information without removing the other sourced info. Thanks, Ben Dawid (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Folk music of Ireland

I've reverted your edits to the above article not because I disagree with them but because they are quite extensive and (as far as I can see) no notice was given and no discussion offered on the talk page. I appreciate your efforts and I (and others interested in folk music) would gladly discuss any effort to improve this article, but before making major changes there should be an opportunity for discussion. Hohenloh + 01:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand that some might disagree with the restructuring... but why remove the sourced info I added to the history section? Or the pictures? If you have no objections I'll add those back into the article. I'll also ask for opinions on my proposed restructuring, though I doubt there'll be much input. ~Asarlaí 02:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please replace the sourced info. I'll get back on the restructuring. Hohenloh + 23:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


Do not be so quick to blanket bomb the edits of others- your scattergun approach is not helpful and in error. You do seem to know your stuff on other aspects of Irish culture.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got me mixed-up with User:Arctic Night. He/she was the one who reverted your edits, see here. ~Asarlaí 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Grovelling apology and slink away -thanks --Tumadoireacht (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Samhain & Halloween edits

Clicked on Halloween discussion, one German editor Bakulan is trying to rewrite the article how he sees it (German view of having absolutely no celtic origin whatsoever) and has done so to Samhain article, and with no concensus. Having looked at edit history, you have contributed to Samhain page so i thought i'd notify you of this (if you haven't already got it on watchlist of course). --Xavier 21 (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Marlfield, Clonmel

Hi. Can you give a source for this change of name. I've never heard it used locally. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Never mind. You live and learn. RashersTierney (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please provide Edit Summaries

Greetings, liked your language box change on Great Highland Bagpipe, but disagreed with your removal of mention of other pipes pre-dating Scotland. In any case, neither edit had anything listed in the Edit Summary, like "fixed language box..." or "adding mention of [[Irish warpipe". It makes it a lot easier to track the article history with clear Edit Summaries, so using them would be great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I just wanted to query what websites you regard as reliable sources and what is recognised as proper spelling of placenames. I am speaking the changes to the edits of the "Dromintee" page. Thanks --Beirneach (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The spelling Drumintee is used by the Northern Ireland Placenames Project, the Placenames Database of Ireland ([8]) and Ordnance Survey Ireland ([9]). On Wikipedia, those are almost always seen as the most reliable. However, I don't doubt that Dromintee is used by many locals. When it comes to articles about places, usually the commonest spelling should be used in the title – see WP:IMOS for more details. ~Asarlaí 00:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I accept what you have said above, however I still object to the changes in the Irish version of the placename in old Irish. I gave a source when I made my change and your edit was incorrect and unsourced. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beirneach (talkcontribs) 17:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


Hello, I am looking to question your reasons for regarding "Illaneedan" as a historic name for the village of Islandeady. I am a member of the heritage group in our parish and I have never once come across this name and nor have any of the other heritage members. If you could reference this with some credible source(s) I would be more than happy to leave it on the page, but as it stands their is no demonstrable evidence for the existance of this placename ever in Islandeady. I would also like to know why you felt it necessary to delete the education and schools information aswell as the transport and location information. I feel it is necessary to revert a great deal of your changes, only due to the fact of their accuracy and due to the fact that important information was deleted. Jizelbeck (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Placenames Database of Ireland gives Illaneedan and Ellaneedan as older spellings for the townland of Islandeady, not the village or the parish. It can be found in the archival records here. I removed the other information because it was about the larger parish, whereas the article is only about the village. However, if you feel the info is needed then you're free to re-add it. ~Asarlaí 19:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a million for clearing that up. I will re-add the info as the page is more of a village/parish site. Thanks!

Jizelbeck (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Miami Showband

Thanks for the tweaks. When you get the chance, could you please take a look at the related article I created a few days ago: Glenanne gang. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I was getting round to it. Good job, by the way! ~Asarlaí 09:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Glenanne gang

How does Glenanne gang look now?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added some of the members. What do you think? Which others should be included? McConnell, Irwin and McLure, I think should be there. I'm going out now, so won't be able to work on it for a couple of hours.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Irish calendar

I see from the Wikiproject Ireland page that the Irish calendar article is up for deletion. Just thought I'd mention it as you've made some edits to it. Hohenloh + 14:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes

Happy New Year and thanks for all your help on Glenanne gang. It's been assessed as B Class!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Same to you :-) ~Asarlaí 20:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding the UVF

Asarlai, I asked this question over at Ref Desk Humanities, but so far, I haven't received any answers. Would you happen to know which UVF brigade commanded Omagh and the surrounding area in the 1970s? Thanks. I presume it was the Mid-Ulster brigade, but I haven't seen anything which states this as fact. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Omagh would be to far west to be covered by the Mid-Ulster UVF. Mabuska (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree Omagh is a bit far away from the Lurgan/Portadown area where the Mid-Ulster brigade were based. I recall having read in old back issues of the Belfast Newsletter there was a UVF group operating in the Tyrone/Fermanagh area and they'd been involved in a series of killings and attacks in and around the Omagh area in the mid-1970s. I am curious as to whether or not the local UVF commander may have been one of the Somerville brothers involved in the Miami Showband killings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally i don't know. Mabuska (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If I still resided in Dublin I'd take the bus into town and head over to the National Library. The old copies of the Belfast Newsletter would likely resolve the issue.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Does Peter Taylor's Loyalists cover them? Mabuska (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No, nor does he make any mention of Billy Hanna, Robin Jackson, and the Glenanne gang. The book was written before John Weir made his affadavit. He does discuss the Mid-Ulster brigade but without naming the leaders.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
We all know Billy Wright was its leader for years until he broke them off to form the LVF - its well documented. Mabuska (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find anything either, but I'll let you know if I do. ~Asarlaí 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Asarlai. Yes, Billy Wright took over Robin Jackson's command in the early 1990s when Jackson became stricken with cancer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Miami Showband killings

Hi Asarlai. I have added more info and details to the Miami Showband killings article. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're doing a great job, don't worry so much! :-P ~Asarlaí 12:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the new section and subsections I 've added to the article. It needed a background section with a brief history of both the band and the political situation in the North at the time the killings occurred.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done ~Asarlaí 16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It looks fantastic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
At least 90% of that fantasticness is thanks to you. ~Asarlaí 17:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You are being too modest, Asarlai.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Asarlai, I just nominated Miami Showband killings for GA status. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Good choice. I think it'll pass easily. ~Asarlaí 18:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope it does. You and I have done a great deal of work in improving it. Just take a look at it back in 2008! Just one long paragraph and one image.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Miami Showband killings article is now GA. Thank you for all your help on the article!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


I'm guessing you've started adding pronounciations after i started adding it to a few articles. One problem though - what is your source for them? Mine are sourced, whereas i don't see any sources for yours so are they original research or actually sourced? If they aren't then you should revert them, especially as some places have two or more pronounciations, i.e. Clougher may be "Claw-hir" but also "Cloc-er". Mabuska (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Also pronounciations should be along phonetic lines such as IPA. For example Carnlough should be along the lines of "karn'lɔx" not carn-loc and the Clough in Cloughfin, Clougher, and Cloughmills should be "klɔx". Mabuska (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a great knowledge of IPA so I added non-IPA pronunciations in the hope that someone would convert them later. Most of the pronunciations are obvious (for example we all know that lough in Irish placenames is pronounced loc) and I've also heard them being spoken. I have no idea where we would find reliable sources though. ~Asarlaí 22:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, is it MOS to use only IPA pronunciations? Most people don't have a clue how to read it :-/ ~Asarlaí 22:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Wierdly enough some of the IPA is easy enough to pronounce, but luckily when you use the {{pron-en|'klɔx}} tag, and similar ones, it provides a link to IPA where you can match the symbol to the pronounciation. Its the way pronounciations are done on Wiki despite the oddity of some symbols.
The best source is the volumes of the Places-Names of Northern Ireland created by Queens University Belfast. For every townland, town, civil parish and barony they give the pronounciation(s) used locally. Only problem is one symbol it uses isn't in the IPA, however after requesting over at the IPA board what IPA symbol matches it, i've got it sorted. It helps produce the "au" sound as you start to pronounce Upperlands etc.
However at the moment, despite the best intentions, yours are original research meaning they should be removed. Ignoring the "clock-er" type of pronounciation for Clougher, "claw-hir", can be argued as actually being "claw-her", and so without sources means they could be dubious.
The source i'm using (the one above) also delves into and lists the actual possible origin of a townlands name and so would be a far better source for the derives in NI settlement introductions than Logaimn, which almost only provides modern retro-translations or variations - which are perfect for the infobox which is for just that. Mabuska (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Can any of Places-Names of Northern Ireland be read online? If not, could you convert my pronunciations into IPA? I've added them to most Northern Ireland settlements that have ough in their spellings. ~Asarlaí 23:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately i only have volume 5, The Moyola Valley, which deals with most of Loughinsholin. If i tried to convert any that aren't in the book i have then i'm guilty of synthesis and original research. Heres the full list of volumes that they've produced. Despite the fact some of the books earlier editions came out in 1996, not all of NI seems to have been covered. Mabuska (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You see I'm worried that foreign readers are wrongly pronouncing very common or basic placename elements like lough and clough. Since those kinds of pronunciations are common knowledge in Ireland, would it be wrong for us to add IPA pronunciations to those kinds of spellings without a source? I'm thinking of WP:BLUE here. ~Asarlaí 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Pronounciations i don't think can fall under WP:BLUE due to the fact there are different ways to pronounce some places, and the fact the words we choose may not actually best represent them. You might have one way of pronouncing somewhere than i do - example being Clogher. However it would be daft of us to add in partial pronounciations, say just for the "Clough" bit but not the "er" or Clough but not mills. It would be possible to synthesis for some places, but the problem with Claw/Clock-her/hir/er is which do we choose without a source? Mabuska (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
This discussion reminds me that when I lived in Dublin I worked with a woman named Grainne. Well, some people pronounced it as Grawnya whereas others as Groanya. I always called her Grawnya (which is how she herself pronounced it!). Which is actually correct?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that both are correct. Different areas/regions will have different pronounciations of the same name and they will more than likely use the version that they know or where brought up with. Mabuska (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
She was a Dubliner, anyway. Oh, how are these names normally pronounced: Padraig and Cait?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I usually hear Padraig being pronounced "Pad-raag" and i'd assume Cait would be something like "Kate". Mabuska (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the pronunciation of Cait, but I usually hear Padraig being pronounced "Pad-rig". ~Asarlaí 22:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I've heard both for Padraig. Mabuska (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I knew a Padraig and he was called Porrig', whereas people pronounced Cait as Codge. There was a girl Siona from Clifden and people usually called her Sh-i-on-a, however her sister used Sheena.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

British English template

Hi Asarlai, would you know how to add a British English template to an article's talk page? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are the templates for British English and for Hiberno-English. ~Asarlaí 22:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have just added it to the Miami Showband talk page, seeing as the article uses British English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't already

Please consider adding your thoughts to this AfD, per your status here. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ireland settlement infoboxes

I'm attempting to make article consistent with better quality maps and adding infoboxes do those which don't have them. We use infobox settlement for main Irish cities too. If you persist in reverting me when I am also going to really cleanup these article in content too and make standard then I resign from doing the job now and 90% of the articles desperately in need of cleanup will not be edited by me and improved. I've found missing coordinates for many articles, cleaned up some sourcing and poor sentences, despammed external links but I do not have the time to put effort into this if you revert me. Every infobox should look lovely and clean like Dublin with better quality svg pin maps,,,♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Settlement is only used for the cities. Infobox Irish Place is (or should be) used for all other settlements in the Republic of Ireland. Have a look through List of towns and villages in the Republic of Ireland. Someone has wrongly added Infobox Settlement to most of the County Cork articles and I'll be bringing it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. ~Asarlaí 23:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not wrongly. I've commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


In regards to your additions to the NI baronies on those that border baronies in the Republic; whilst they are still in the article i have reworded them all to clarify that they aren't also in Northern Ireland as someone might assume as the articles all open with County Foo, Northern Ireland. Secondly i've also relocated them from the sourced sentences. Could you please resist the urge of adding information into sourced statements especially when the source doesn't back it up? The PRONI source only shows and covers NI baronies not those in the Republic, for those baronies in the Republic you should find and add a suitable source rather than gazumping another source to give it verifiability. Its also deceptive and tarnishes the work i put into sourcing all the information in the articles. Mabuska (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed

The 1969 Northern Ireland Riots article is fantastic-a definite B class or higher! The prose is superb: Fluid, readable, plenty of pertinemt details. It does need an image. Unfortunately my PC was reformatted so my scanner will have to be downloaded again. When my daughter returns home from school I'll get her to do it. I have found a wonderful image which shows a masked man hurling a petrol bomb from a Dery rooftop during the Battle of the Bogside. I'll upload it to the article as soon as I can. You're doing wonderful work here, Asarlai and you are a real asset to the encyclopedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful picture? Don't get me started lol. Before giving it a rating does the article treat the subject evenly from both sides? Mabuska (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't being political. I meant wonderful as it would greatly enhance the article. As for balance, I have just added a loyalist perspective regarding the arrival of the British Army.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I have found an even better picture which has since been added to the article. What do you think? Oh, and I found an image of James Mitchell, which I 've uploaded to the Glenanne gang article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I'm mighty impressed at the work you've done too (which is a lot more than me).
The picture is great. I'll be uploading another soon. What we really need now is an old map of west Belfast.
...It's probably best to continue this on the article's own talkpage though :-P ~Asarlaí 23:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Spurious edit summary

I noticed this edit summary at Moneyneany: (cleaned-up; added pictures; added reference for Irish name). I don't know how rewording something is exactly cleaning it up, however i feel more perturbed by the fact you claimed to have added the reference for the Irish name which you clearly did not in that edit or in that article at all, especially as i did. I would suggest against claiming other peoples additions as your own as its bad faith and using edit summaries that are more factual. Mabuska (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My summary does not in any way claim that "these references were added by me and nobody else". There was only one reference for the Irish name; I added two more. There was no picture; I added one. There was unneeded info, wordiness and unneeded links; I cleaned that up. ~Asarlaí 23:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed you did add two more sources. I hate the way Wikipedia sometimes fails to highlight every change made to an article as you can see from the edit page of yours i provided above. My apologies, however why are two more sources even needed? Is Queens not a reliable, verifiable source? Mabuska (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It is a reliable source. I just like to add Placenames NI and/or Logainm links so people can read the source online. ~Asarlaí 16:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Tullyhogue Fort

Why should there be a wikilink to the Ui Neill in the introduction? The sources testify that it was the inauguration site of the O'Neill clan not the entire extended "family" of the main cenéls that where spread across a good chunk of Ireland which that link takes the reader to. The wikilink is too vague and unspecific to be relevant to the article. O'Neill_dynasty#O.27Neills_of_Tyrone is a far more suitable and relevant wikilink to use. Mabuska (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough. O'Neill dynasty is probably a better link to use. ~Asarlaí 01:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Reavey and O'Dowd killings

Hello Asarlai, I've opened a discussion on this article's talk page regarding Anthony Reavey. Your input is needed. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Bombay street

There's a documentary on the 1969 riots and the burning of bombay street on on BBC tonight at 10.30, might be of interest and a source for the article.

Rgds Jdorney (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It was a good show and I think we could use it to back-up some things. It should be on BBC iPlayer. ~Asarlaí 18:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

UFF/UDA edits

Do you have consensus for these edits? --John (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Which edits are you referring to? ~Asarlaí 17:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The many edits you have been making that switch UFF for UDA. --John (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I need a consensus for that. I should note that I haven't changed every mention of UFF to UDA; I've only done so where it was needed. It's a well-established fact that UFF is a covername used by the UDA when it wished to claim responsibility for attacks or other actions. This is explained further (with sources to support it) at Ulster Defence Association. ~Asarlaí 18:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I see this used as a source, which is pretty good as sources go. On the other hand, the article says "some" regard this as a cover name for the UDA, which sounds like there may be other opinions on the matter. Meantime, why not raise this centrally and see if you can get a consensus for it. If it's as straightforward as you suggest, that shouldn't be a problem. --John (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll go over my changes again and deal with them case-by-case. ~Asarlaí 00:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Getting a broader consensus in a central location would be better. Mabuska (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Asarlai, why not move this discussion over to Talk:Ulster Defence Association?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't sound rude, but I suggest you look through the edits I've made today (10th March) one-by-one. I haven't simply changed every mention of UFF to UDA, I've dealt with it case-by-case. In some cases I've re-added UFF. Where changes have been made, I've backed them with reliable sources. ~Asarlaí 12:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
No, you are not being rude at all. The UFF/UDA labels are indeed very tricky, especially when the name was not officially used until 1973, yet the UDA death squads had begun killing people in 1972. These squads became known as the UFF, but as you say that was just a covername used by the UDA to avoid being proscribed by the government. I ran into this difficulty when I created the Davy Payne article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Asarlai, check this YouTube video clip out. This shows that the UDA themselves admit that the UDA and UFF are indeed one and the same:[10]--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL...what a song. Are you sure you got the URL right? I can't find the bit you're talking about. ~Asarlaí 15:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's the right clip. The title says UDA and UFF and seeing that the clip was obviously uploaded by a supporter, it indicates that they themselves consider UDA and UFF interchangeable. Oh, do you think the guy in the Wombles anorak is Davy Payne? I think I recognise Glenn Barr as the blond guy being addressed by the commander (Andy Tyrie?). Isn't that young man with the long hair smoking a cigarette scary-looking?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

St Patrick's Day

Hi. It's usually the accepted practice that when your edit is reverted in an article you take the matter to the talk page. You do not revert the revert. It's called bold, Revert, Discuss. Please revert your change again and discuss on the article talk page.

In response to what your edit and summary said; "Church Of England" does not equate to "Protestant" (particularly for a chiefly Irish holiday), and "Calendar of saints" does not strictly equate to "religious holiday". Do you have any examples you can give (or cite) that demonstrate St Patrick's Day being celebrated in a religious manner by Protestants? Are these significant and widespread enough to merit mention in the article lead?

Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

St Patrick's Day is a feast day in the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and Luthern churches. The Anglican Communion and Lutheran churches are Protestant. I've added that to the infobox along with links to the calendars. There are services held in Church of Ireland (Anglican Communion) churches on St Patrick's Day: see for example [11] and [12]. ~Asarlaí 15:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
That looks good. I suppose I've learned something today :) My only other concern would where it says that the Protestant observation of the day followed that which was originally Catholic. Naturally, the Catholic Church is older and everything Protestant originated out of the Catholic. But I think what it says implies that adoption of St Patrick's Day by Protestants is something aside from, or later than, that. In which case, would it be better for the lead to summarise that it is a Christian religious holiday, with greater significance to the Catholic Church, and leave its origins to a later section? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point. How about we simply say which churches observe St Patrick's Day? For example: "It is observed by the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion (especially the Church of Ireland), the Eastern Orthodox Church and Lutherans. It became an official feast day in the early 17th century". ~Asarlaí 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done. ~Asarlaí 22:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Farmleigh transl source

Hi. Do we have a source/cite for this? I can't find any, and the Placenames Commission doesn't list a translation for Farmleigh. Guliolopez (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Irish name is given in the translations of Farmleigh Avenue, Farmleigh Close and Farmleigh Park. It's also given here. ~Asarlaí 23:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


The IC only became the RIC after the '67 Rising. Gestur (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I thought you'd removed the "Royal" accidentally. I'll add it back, but remember to use edit summaries for such changes. ~Asarlaí 02:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. Gestur (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Please assume good faith. Why do you think I actually bothered discussing it with the Irish project in the first place? Because the articles need cleanup and I was intent on helping them and making them consistent. The project had there chance to update the template and I have repeatedly asked what the problem was with the updated one. The situation had grown stale and progress is being impeded. There is really no reason why you need the template, given that the main Irish cities use info box settlement anyway and that I clearly ilustrated that the old template could be switched in articles whilst losing no information. I gave you a big chance to work with me and the comments made by one of your wiki project destroyed all hopes of that. You just don't mess me about like that. If certain members of your project really wanted to improve the articles and make them consistent as much as I do then they'd have been quick to respond with exactly what they wanted and made sure that Stephen implemented it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replied to your deletion proposal here. ~Asarlaí 18:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Ideally UK and India would use standard too, but they are coded in a highly complex way which would make overhauling them extremely difficult. India at least is in a standardish appearance, UK place boxes are horrible I think in appearance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Armagh, Lisburn & Newry - City Status

Hi, please explain who still regards the above cities as towns even though they have all recently been awarded city status? --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Northern Ireland Statistics & Research Agency: see here and here for example. ~Asarlaí 21:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


I re-jigged your edits to Craig (given name). The source has the name coming from Scottish Gaelic specifically. I'm not saying it doesn't come from the other languages, the lone source we have just doesn't mention any others. The article shouldn't make it seem like the English name comes from Irish, Manx, or Welsh words, unless we've got a reference for it. Right? I don't think there's any harm in mentioning cognates of the SG word; I just think it's misleading to make it seem like these cognates are actual (or possible) origins of the name.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland: country / state

My inclination is to agree with the use of country unless in the very unlikely case it can be proven to be contentious as you claim, Asarlaí. As I remarked earlier, in fairness the previous discussions all related to development and use of the parochial and now deprecated IPI infobox, which made the use of "country" somewhat more problematic. You and a few others decided "state" was the least controversial word, but that was because you were developing an infobox that would be used only for the island, with its split sovereignty of the UK and Ireland. The UK itself gets bogged down over what to call its constituent parts, but there is no such question for the Republic, it is a country. {{Infobox settlement}} is used worldwide, as it is intended to be. Your concerns are more associated with the differences within the United Kingdom and how they relate to Ireland. My initial sense was that "state" lessens the sovereignty a bit in the eyes of some, and certainly would among potential American readers who otherwise always call Ireland a "country". The discussion you cite was superseded by the deletion result for the template you were discussing. Therefore, I will continue to use "country" in the infobox and pipe the word to Sovereign state. The use of "state" is unnecessarily ambiguous when "country" is proper and correct. Sswonk (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'v started a discussion here. ~Asarlaí 08:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Celtic languages

You appear to have started an edit war at Celtic Languages (flags again). I reverted BRD and you are suppposed to then discuss the matter at the talk page, but you just reverted again. Is there a reason for this? WizOfOz (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not "starting an edit war", that's reverting a very obvious mistake. Irish is not spoken only in the Republic of Ireland. It's also spoken by many in Northern Ireland. It's the native language of the whole iland. The whole iland doesn't hav an official flag either. ~Asarlaí 16:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
But according to the Welsh section that language is spoken elsewhere also, so why single out Irish? Anyway, it's only a mistake in your opinion and the correct protocol is not to revert but to discuss. WizOfOz (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Start a discussion on the talkpage and I'll add my opinions ther. ~Asarlaí 16:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Will do. WizOfOz (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


Go raibh maith agat as an bhotun sin agam a cheartu. Thanks for catching my muzziness on the Drumcree article. SeoMac (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes to template:massacres

I noticed that you added List of events named massacres to {{massacres}}. I just wanted to let you know that this list will probably be phased out, mostly due to the fact that there are probably more than 10,000 articles about massacres, and it is not practical to have it all on one list. I am not taking the AfD route for various reasons, including that it contains a valuable edit history and valuable references that are useful in creating its successors. Shaliya waya (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the list should be divided-up by sovereign state. However, I thought it might be useful to hav that link on the template until the main article is deleted. ~Asarlaí 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate all the work you have contributed toward the project of creating these lists. The ultimate goal is not only to list the massacres, but to provide brief descriptions with one or more source each, using the page List of events named massacres as a model. The addition of each article on a massacre to such a list is a huge undertaking, which involves listing it, as well as adding the "list of" page to the see also section of that massacre, and making other appropriate updates. Shaliya waya (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Whilst it does make sense to provide modern variants of characters such as Nemed and Bres, should you not include a source along with them? Mabuska (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be adding the sources soon. ~Asarlaí 12:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Falls Curfew

I've just read this article you've had a big hand in. Considering how emotive and potentially politically charged this article could be I find it well written and reasonably concise. Well done, please keep up the good work. Ozdaren (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ~Asarlaí 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks...

... for all the hard work you're doing ensuring NI-related articles adhere to a NPOV by featuring both regional languages rather than just the one (and the same goes for the Welsh translations on Welsh articles, etc). It's much appreciated. Keep it up. JonChappleTalk 22:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I wish the Scots and Ulster-Scots folk (or should I say fowk) would agree on a single orthografy tho. They seem to be changing their minds all the time! ~Asarlaí 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The leid does seem to evolving quite a rate. The sources you've provided from 2008 look almost English, but those from last year, with their "männystries" an aw, are something else entirely! JonChappleTalk 22:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The erlier spellings ar very odd indeed (diacritics galore) but the recent spellings look more like the Scots you'd find in Scotland. No offense to whoever chose the spellings...but I think at the beginning they wer trying to make Ulster-Scots look like an independent language (separat from both English and Scots). Thankfully they seem to hav "toned it down" a bit :-p
~Asarlaí 22:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, my mistake. I was thinking it was getting more elaborate as time goes on, but it appears to be just the opposite. That's a shame; I'm a sucker for diacritics! JonChappleTalk 12:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Another thought: do you think we should make the Irish names smaller in the county infoboxes? I can't help but feel at the moment that where there's a few Ullans translations and they've been made smaller, they look secondary to the Irish name. I know it wasn't your intention, but perhaps it might be an idea to format both names the same for NPOV purposes. JonChappleTalk 15:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I made them smaller is becaus (usually) ther's more than one spelling and so they take-up more space than the Irish name. Wher ther's only two Ulster Scots spellings, I'll make them the same size as the Irish spelling. However, I think it'd be sensible to leav the Ulster Scots spellings small on County Londonderry. ~Asarlaí 18:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. Thanks. JonChappleTalk 18:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Me again. Can I ask why it's in any way more neutral to refer to the Ulster Scots language as the Ulster Scots dialects? A quick Google indicates that Wikipedia seems to the be the only place to use that term, which is bordering on original research, whilst "Ulster Scots langauge" has a slew of results from the official bodies, BBC, etc. The page was originally at Ulster Scots language; do you know why it was moved? I know it's open for debate whether it's a dialect of language, but I'd say it's much less neutral for Wiki to decide it's a dialect. Best, JonChappleTalk 09:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm saying it's more neutral to call it simply "Ulster Scots" in other articles. If we call it "the Ulster Scots language" we would appear to be taking sides in the debate. ~Asarlaí 10:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
In that case the article shouldn't be at Ulster Scots dialects then. That's a POV in itself. JonChappleTalk 16:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
If you think the title should be changed then you should start a debate on the talkpage. ~Asarlaí 16:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing up the Braniel page, it needed it. Sorry about the parliamentary map, couldn't find a map that located the Braniel itself, I live in the Roddens part of the Braniel so im trying my best to keep things to the rules of wiki and im new so it doesn't help, if im doing stuff really wrong message me on my wall please or on the articles discussion. Cheers User:EastBelfastBoy 19:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Siaradwyr y Gymraeg

I'm ashamed to admit it, but I'm so inexpert at SVG manipulations that I wouldn't know where to begin colour coding File:Wales location map.svg for the Welsh-speaking population (and you're right, it is clearly a superior map). A user called VermillionBird seems to have done the SVG conversion on File:Siaradwyr y Gymraeg ym Mhrif Ardaloedd Cymru2a.svg. I certainly didn't, though I do at least know how to fix the mismatched colour in the code if you'd like me to. (Two censuses have also gone by since the original... Maybe it's time for a whole new map instead.) Q·L·1968 23:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the error when I added the SVG map to Welsh language. I think I'll just revert to the original for the time being.
If two censuses hav been held since the map was made then it probably would be a good idea to make a new one. Maybe VermillionBird would be able to help with the color-coding? ~Asarlaí 13:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Connacht

Hello Asarlaí. I really like the map you've created at List of kings of Connacht. However, I think you've made Mide too small and Leinster too big. You may want to swap much of north-western Leinster into Mide, as I think Leinster swallowed up a great deal of the latter after the 1169-71 invasion. To the best of my knowledge, Leinster was divided into North and South at the time, and essentially consisted of the territories of Uí Cheinnselaigh and Uí Dúnlainge. Not an exact science, I know, but thanks very much for the addition! Fergananim (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who made the maps, I just added them to some articles.
I think the user you'r looking for is ZyMOS (Commons profile).
Thanks anyway tho, you seem very nice :-p
~Asarlaí 13:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Irish: official names


Please don't use condescending statements like:

"Ros Dumhach is the only official name. The anglicized spelling Rosdoagh and English name Rossport have no official status."

We are all adults here. This is the English wikipedia. This isn't a government website. Governments change and so do their policies. This is not a legal dictionary.

We use the common names of things (not neccessarily the 'official name') - see here.

Thanks. Djegan (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that statement is condesending; it's a statement of fact. Surely readers should be made aware of that fact somwher on the page? Furthermore, I'v put it in an inconspicuous place (as a footnote of the infobox), not in the very first line of the article.
You can re-add the English/anglicized names to the infobox if you like, but they should appear below the Irish name since they hav no official standing. The format should be:
official_name=Ros Dumhach
~Asarlaí 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have missed my point. WP:ON makes it clear that common names should be used before official names. Lets keep on the example we have, lets look at some 'hits':
Ros Dumhach (7,220 hits)
Rosdoagh (4,260 hits)
Rossport (1,430,000 hits)
We aren't here to 'go against the grain' or present personal preferences. We certainly aren't here to be a promoter of government or parliamentary preferences. WP:IMOS may provide more detail. This is th English wiki. Djegan (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This may be the English Wiki but that doesn't mean we should hide the facts. The fact is that the English/anglicized names of Gaeltacht villages have no official standing. All I'm doing is ensuring that this is made clear by:
  • Adding a footnote to the infobox (which is an inconspicuous place)
  • Making the Irish name appear first in the infobox and lede
The Irish names still only appear twice in the whole article: the infobox and lede. The English/anglicized names ar still the ones that ar used everywher else.
Also, the IMOS refers to article titles. I'm not asking for these articles to be renamed, just making it clear that the Irish name is the official one. ~Asarlaí 21:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate maps

It's not clear to me why you have added 2 or 3 duplicate maps to Shetland island infoboxes - they provided no genuine additional detail or information that I can see. Ben MacDui 18:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

They show the islands' locations much clearer than the Scotland locator map does. ~Asarlaí 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
So you think the red dot for e.g. Fair Isle on one map provides more information than the red dot on the existing one? Hardly. Ben MacDui 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair Isle isn't a good example, but generally the maps show the locations much more clearly. In most cases, the red dot appears much bigger than the island. For examle, compare the two maps for Fetlar or the Out Skerries. ~Asarlaí 18:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Village

Just be aware that there are such things as Urban villages and the term "village" is WP:COMMONly used to refer to places within Dublin. --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Lough Melvin

Out of curiousity the source provided for the Irish for Lough Melvin doesn't provide any evidence that it is derived from Irish and may be a translation from the English into Irish - hence why i altered the lede to state that it was also called that in the Republic. I don't see exactly how Meilbhe would translate directly into Melvin. Melva or something similar yeah, but Melvin? Sounds possbly like a plantation naming. Mabuska (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You do know it really feels like synthesis to use the full translation from Logainm as if it is the origin of a placename when it only provides modern trnaslations of place names. That is factally incorrect as how on earth does sliabh sound like the derivation for mountain? Mabuska (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the loch is named Lough Melvin rather than Lake Melvin or Melvin's Lake points to an Irish origin. On the shore of the loch ther is a townland named Edenvella, from Éadan Mheilbhe meaning "hill-brow of Meilbhe" (look it up on Logainm). I hav no idea how the -n got ther, but stranger things hav happend to Irish names (see Upperlands for example).
You'r right tho, we don't hav any sources (yet) confirming that the name comes from Irish. Until then, I think the best solution is to write "Lough Melvin (Irish: Loch Meilbhe)..." as most of the loch is on the Co Leitrim side of the border.
As for Belmore Mountain, how about we write "Belmore Mountain (from Irish: Béal Mór)" and keep Sliabh Bhéal Mór for the infobox?
~Asarlaí 19:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
As most of it is in the Republic, the (Irish: Loch Meilbhe) would make sense, however when we debated the IMoS on place names, we never thought how to deal with geographical features such as this. Believe it or not it is possible to get Upperlands out of Áth an Phoirt Leathain, though going by how fast some of the people around that area speak i'm not surprised it got anglicised into Upperlands which doesn't sound very Irish origin at all.
In regards to Belmore Mountain that's what i had before you reverted it as quite simply only the Belmore bit is derived from Irish. I left the infobox alone as thats for modern translations of places. Thats how i was treating the articles which contained names derived from English and Irish - only providing the derivation of the Irish bit which is still technically correct according to IMoS i think. Mabuska (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Can i go and makes these changes? Mabuska (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Which changes? ~Asarlaí 21:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Changes that mean only providing the derivation of the Irish part of a placename, i.e. Belmore Mountain (from Irish: Béal Mór) whilst keeping the modern translation, i.e. Sliabh Bhéal Mór in the infobox. Makes more sense than suggesting that mountain is an anglicisation of sliabh, which is actually slieve, i.e. Slieve Gallion. Mabuska (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
By all means! (silly me, I thought it had alredy been done). ~Asarlaí 15:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


Asarlaí, whilst I've no problem with the changes you've just made at Flags of country subdivisions, I can't help but notice that you'd never edited it before now and I don't think it's the first time this has happened. Have you been trawling through my contributions? JonCTalk 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

While that's a very polite question, why did you name this section "Hounding" which is anything but? Also - it's pretty common to check out other people's contributions and it doesn't constitute hounding. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
You're right, in retrospect it wasn't the best idea. I'm not suggesting Asarlaí is following me around. Have changed it. JonCTalk 12:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I just happend to take a gander at your contribs and noticed that edit. I hav Irish Republic on my watchlist and, as you'v been posting a lot of comments on it's talkpage, you'v been showing-up on my watchlist a lot too. ~Asarlaí 12:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Righty-ho, no probs. I fear the Irish Republic mess could drag on a little while longer yet. JonCTalk 12:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you

for your excellent additions and tweaks on the 1991 Cappagh killings article. The image looks good as well. I have been wanting to do this article ever since I started editing the Billy Wright article. This morning, as you can see, I finially got round to it. Alas, whilst editing, we had a freak power outage and my PC went black!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No thank you for your amazing work on loyalism-related articles. It's hit after hit after hit! Keep it up. ~Asarlaí 09:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. I have been occupied with expanding the Billy Wright article, otherwise the Cappagh article would have been created before now. Regarding Cappagh, I believe Wright carried it out as a test to see if he had the capacity to succeed Robin Jackson as brigadier of the Mid-Ulster UVF. This sounds like a dumb question but would you happen to know if the gunmen were masked and whether or not the bar was full?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I wouldn't know. Try serching Google Books and Google News arcives for "Cappagh killings", "Cappagh shootings", "Cappagh 1991", a.s.f. ~Asarlaí 13:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


"linked to river mouth as this is obviously what is meant - rather than the mouth of a cave, for example"

I'd call it the entrance of a cave lol ;-)

Mabuska (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Heheheh. ~Asarlaí 14:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
In regards to Muiríoch, we're supposed to provide the English meaning of the Irish deriviation, no? Even the NIPIP posters state its anglicised as Murry, so i don't see why we still have to use the Irish name for the English meaning especially seeing as this isn't a historical figure who is more commonly known in history sources by their Irish name. So in that respect, it should state Murry as that is the English for Muiríoch. Mabuska (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I see wher you'r coming from, but the database says that the man's own name was Muiríoch and that Murry is merely an anglicization. Seeing as he livd before the 1600s and was named Muiríoch it seems highly likely that he was an Irish speaker. Saying it was named after a Murry would be like saying Stewartstown was named after a Stiubhart. ~Asarlaí 01:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
We are providing the English meaning of the Irish. The derivation which is the original Irish is already given in the tag prior to the English meaning of it. In English, the name is Murry. The Stewartstown anology doesn't work seeing as if we were providing the English translation of the name it'd still be Stewart. Stuibhart would make sense in the Gaelic wiki if used derives (obviously with English and Gaelic the other way around). Mabuska (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, seeing as the source uses it then I gess that's fair enuf. ~Asarlaí 03:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
There are several sources which simply give the English for it. Mabuska (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

1989 Jonesborough Ambush

Hi Asarlaí. When you get the time would you mind taking a look at my latest article: 1989 Jonesborough ambush? It hasn't been completed yet, however.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I will indeed. It's looking good so far. I gess it was only a matter of time before sumone startd an article on this; it's been in the news here a lot over the past few weeks. You'll find lots of good sources (news articles) on Google News, the UTV News site and the BBC News site. This site is also good for Troubles-related news. ~Asarlaí 09:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The political neutrality of that site Asarlaí came into question the minute i seen the phrase "saoirse32", so even if its good for Troubles-related news, its neutrality would definately have to be in question. Mabuska (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The name might suggest a republican propaganda machine, but it's really just a collection of news articles related to the Troubles and political goings-on in Ireland. Nearly all of the 'blog posts' are just stories (thankfully with links) from the BBC and UTV or from Irish and British newspapers (no matter their allegience). It does focus on stories related to Irish republicanizm/nationalizm but it's no Saoirse Irish Freedom or An Phoblacht :-p ~Asarlaí 10:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
True. It does provide good links to reliable sources. The more I read about the Breen-Buchanan killings, one realises the extent of corruption and collusion. One couldn't trust anybody! What a kettle of stinking, rotten fish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your changes to the article look good. I hadn't realised some of my sentences were so verbose. I have found more startling info which I've since added to the article. It's about a death threat a Guard received about Buchanan (whom he regarded as a friend). Apparently the Garda officer never informed (his friend) Buchanan about the threat lest he should feel he wasn't welcomed down south!!! I tell you, the old cliché is spot on: with certain friends one never needs enemies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I like to make sure things ar always as straightforward as they can be. Often it helps just to use plain Anglo-Saxon words insted of Latin/Greek ones (e.g. midway rather than equidistant). The article is alredy well-written tho, so I hadn't much to change.
It's a kwer story. The bit that really struck me was the claim that the officers may hav been shot by British agents within the IRA. It shows just how dirty a war it really was. ~Asarlaí 15:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I think Kevin Fulton's version is the correct one. They were going to interrogate the officers. One of the gunmen (or more) was an agent, and terrified the men would reveal his identity under torture shot them dead. That's why Breen waved the hankie, hoping was gunman was indeed an agent. Personally I think Breen had a pistol which the IRA stole along with his other stuff. No RUC officer as high-ranking as he would dare cross south Armagh without one. The gunman who shot them instead of taking them for a grilling had to have been pretty high-ranking himself to disobey an order.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Great photos

The photos you uploaded to the Glenanne gang article look good!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgotten merge proposal

I've accidently stumbled upon your proposal. Do you mind going forth with it? I have begun a series of mergers in this field, discussed here.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Scots and Gaelic names on railway station articles

Hi, please join in the discussion at WT:TIS#Scots and Gaelic names on railway station articles. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't add any more Gaelic or Scots names using this or this as sources. These do not seem like reliable sources for adding information about what settlements are actually called. These seem like inappropriate edits. I intend to revert them. Do you have any objection? --John (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't plan on adding more, but what makes them unreliable sources? ~Asarlaí 04:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for saying you would not add more. These sites don't seem like reliable sources for asserting that the Gaelic and Scots versions are actually used enough to make them worthy of mention in our articles. If this is the best quality of source available for the information, to me that is a red flag that the information is not notable enough for inclusion. --John (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
In my experience ther ar lots of Wikipedians who see Gaelic and Scots placenames as worthy of inclusion. For Gaelic names especially, I think you'll get a lot of flak for trying to remove them without a consensus (for example from the Scottish Gaelic taskforce).
I don't see why tens and tens of Gaelic/Scots names should be removed just becauz they arn't used as much as the English names. On Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland articles, Irish names ar included on every one of them even if most of the residents speak English. The same goes for Welsh placenames on Wales articles, Cornish placenames on Cornwall articles, Manx placenames on Mann articles, a.s.f.
Furthermore, ther ar lots of Scotland articles wher the Gaelic/Scots names ar included without a source. Do you plan to remove all of those too?
Ainmean-Àite na h-Alba is "the national advisory partnership for Gaelic place-names in Scotland" and has been "working with Ordnance Survey, local councils, roads authorities and other public bodies since 2000 to provide Gaelic names for maps and signs". The Scots names mostly come from Billy Kay’s The Scots Map and Guide/Cairte in the Scots Leid, published by MMA Maps.
~Asarlaí 04:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I am Scottish and I am very sympathetic to the preservation of our two national languages. However I think it is a leap to gratuitously, by default, including versions of a name which has never been used historically and is not used presently. What would be the point of that? Some parts of Scotland have used English (or a dialect of it) for such a long time now that to add a Gaelic name on a 2011 entry in an English-language resource where there are no reliable sources for its use look like advocacy. As you know, WP:V is a primary test for inclusion here. Thanks for pointing me to the Scottish Gaelic taskforce; I'll definitely drop a note there before doing anything major, as you should have done before making these mass additions. Did you? --John (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be very little agreement within Scots writings about spelling - see the many articles in the Scots Wikipedia and this example from The Scots Parliament Records which has 3 different spellings of Milngavie, none of which match the one on the English WP article, which is also different from Joan Blaeu's Atlas of Scotland. In short, my advice is keep it simple, where there is any debate, link through to the Scots or Gaelic WP's. I do agree with user:John about not encouraging those make up Scots or Gaelic names where they have never existed or been used, or who fall into the trap of using word variants that differ the most from English because they must be the "most Scots". At the same time, it's great that you're adding to some articles where the relevent history and usage exist. Wikiwayman (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue of how widely used a placename is hardly makes AAA a reliable or unreliable source in itself. They are the de-facto source of placenames for public sectors bodies in Scotland as of... oh, some time in 2010/11 and they employ placename specialists to research the forms they publish or provide to bodies. Ergo they're a reliable source, barring typos. Where have you spotted an invented name? Akerbeltz (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Without wanting to get into a debate, I have an issue with "Mulguy". Milngavie is a mill, it could be a mulle, but only in East Scotland. Search this resource for "Mill". Any of the spellings from historical Scots texts referred to above would be preferable. I propose that to end the debate, I'll put a couple of lines in the Milngavie history section with all the Scots variants (including the Mulguy one). Wikiwayman (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
When you're removing the Gaelic and Scots names from railway station articles, could you please leave the Gaelic name if it was already there prior to your previous edits, as this usually means that the Gaelic name is actually displayed on the station signs. Two examples are Garelochhead railway station and Haymarket railway station - both those stations have Gaelic names on their signs. Thanks. –Signalhead < T > 18:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, thank you

I see the nice additions you made to the Bayardo Bar attack article. Would you happen to know who actually put the bomb inside the pub? Clarke or Hamilton? McFarlane drove the car, but I cannort find out which one of the two fired the gun and who planted the bomb.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have seen on various blogs that Hamilton planted the bomb; unfortunately, they are not RS.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Chlorane Bar attack

The 5 June 1976 UVF attack on the Chlorane Bar in Belfast City Centre has been largely ignored by academics and journalists. It is said that members of the Shankill Butchers as well as senior members of the UVF carried it out. Three Catholics and two Protestants were killed. I would like to create an article on it but I cannot find much info. Strangely , 10 days after the gun attack, the pub was blown up but I haven't been able to discover who did the bombing. Would you know anything about it? Regarding "Mr F", I'm uncertain as to whether naming him as the UVF's head buck cat violates BLP (even if the dogs in the street all know his identity!).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Martin Dillon's The Shankill Butchers describes the attack in great detail. You can read most of it on Google Books. I found eight results on Google Books, but I havn't found eny contemporary news articles yet. Ther wer' a number of similar UVF attacks during the mid-'70s that caused more casualties (May '74 attack on the Rose & Crown, April '75 attack on the Strand Bar, July '76 attack on the Ramble Inn); you might be able to find more info on those. ~Asarlaí 14:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the attack on the Rose & Crown gained a lot of publicity. I had a friend whose dad was injured in that attack. Alas, there isn't much about it on Internet. As for the Dillon book, most of the pages are unavailable at the moment. The Chlorane Bar attack was probably in retaliation for Kingsmill as it appears the Catholic customers were separated from the Protestants, and shot, yet two Protestants were also killed. Basher Bates was one of the gunmen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The HET Report on Miami Showband killings

The team undermined its own investigation by insisting that the soldier with the English accent was Lurgan-born James McDowell. It was McDowell to whom the soldier issued all his instructions!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy 2012, Asarlaí! Thanks for all your improvements on the Troubles articles!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne. Same to you. ~Asarlaí 17:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I created a dispute resolution involving you on the noticeboard at [13] Seamus48 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Abercorn bombing

Hi Asarlaí. Regarding the IRA sources which admitted the PIRA carried out the attack, I'm afraid Ed Moloney wasn't very forthcoming in his book. He does not elaborate on who they were nor does he allude to their rank, battalion, etc. I had hoped to create an article on the 1974 "Rose and Crown" pub bombing, but there is nothing written about the attack other than giving the bare statistics and the fact that a canister bomb was thrown inside the pub. From the tidbits I can gather, it appears that the East Belfast UVF carried out the attack. Moloney even drops hints that David Ervine was involved.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Syrian uprising edits

Just wanted to mention i find your edits and additions to the 2011-2012 Syrian uprising related articles as highly contributing, please continue your good work.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Same to you. ~Asarlaí 18:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

My latest article

I think you might be intested in the new article I created this afternoon: 1972 and 1973 Dublin bombings. I'm afraid its in its embryonic stages so has very little text at the moment. Feel free to add to it. I won't be working on it again until tomorrow.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Athlone, Victoria, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. and Newry, Victoria and Tullamore, New South Wales. It is likely these places are named after the places in Ireland - but you can't just assume. You need a reliable source stating that. They could just as easily been named after someone or something that was itself named after the Irish place. Cheers. Mattinbgn (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this user knows how to contribute to this project, at least I had good experience with Asarlaí. --217/83 11:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Norman "Mooch" Kerr

Thanks for adding the info on Norman Kerr from McKittrick's book. Now here is someone who's been completely overlooked by journalists which is strange seeing as he was a local celebrity of sorts and involved with the music scene albeit as a DJ rather than performer. Additionally, the shooting came shortly after the Buskhill attack. What's really unsettling is his uncanny resemblance to Fran O'Toole.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary on Lough Corrib

Sorry Asarlaí, when I put in the edit summary I made a typo, aas was meant to be as per WP:IRE-IRL. Just realised my mistake, wasnt calling you anything or refering to you in anyway. Got to watch them fingers. Sorry about that. Murry1975 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. ~Asarlaí 18:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep clumsy person alert, would love to know where the rest of what I typed went... And hows take care. Murry1975 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Great work!

The Battle at Springmartin article looks fantastic after all your additions. I added an infobox this morning. How does it look? I wasn't sure what to put regards strength etc. According to Lost Lives, John Pedlow was shot by the British Army, however CAIN says the IRA killed him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne, and thanks for all your help. I think the article's looking great. I couldn't hav' done it without Google Books tho, as sadly I don't yet own a copy of Lost Lives or any of the others.
The area seems to hav' changed an awful lot since 1972 so I'd be interest'd in seeing some pictures of how it lookt back then. Maybe we could put one in the article. ~Asarlaí 17:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thanks to your efforts the article is looking really good. I like your rewording of the lead. British Army did need to be mentioned as a combatant in the opening sentence. I was also thinking about an image of the area from the early 1970s-or better yet actual photos of the clashes. I haven't been able to locate any, alas. I'll ask over on Belfast Forum if there are any pictures of Springmartin Road c. 1972. That's a great site, BTW. It's got fantastic old photos.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


I suggest you read the WP:IMOS. "Official names" are irrelevant, we use the English language name as the article title and introductory title. Information on official names isn't required either. --Kiand (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Englished names are used as the article titles and introductory titles on Lettermore/Lettermullan. Nothing in my edit goes against IMOS, which I've read thoroughly.
It's important to note that the official name is different to the Englished one. The same is done for towns and cities in other countries on Wikipedia, so why not Ireland? ~Asarlaí 19:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The English language name goes first in the introduction, and elsewhere. The article "Munich" doesn't start with "München", there are no double standards here. The need for an explanatory note in the infobox is questionable. --Kiand (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the English name goes first in the lede, but the official name goes in the "official name" field of the infobox. You'll notice that the Munich infobox has München at the top.
It's important to note somewhere that the official name is different to the English name. I don't mind where it is, just as long as it's somewhere in the article. ~Asarlaí 20:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Map of War of Independence

Hi, I like the maps you've been adding of engagements/incidents in the War of Indpendence.

I wonder if it would be possible to make one map mapping all the engagements to show the geographic distribution of the conflict?

And even doing the same for civil war down the line.

All the best,

Jdorney (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This is probably something you should take to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I'm sure ther'd be a lot of debate about what to include, what not to include, wording, a.s.f. ~Asarlaí 15:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Well we just need dots on the map for the incidents in the campaign box to be honest. Jdorney (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You mean a map like this for the main page, right? I'm sure I could do that. All I need is the co-ordinates and a bit of free time to put it together. ~Asarlaí 21:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yup. If you could it'd be great. Jdorney (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I just spent a while putting the map together with Template:Location map many. I added most of the engagements/incidents from the campaign box – 21 locations in all. But then I realized that Location map many only allows 9 locations. So, either we pick the 9 most noteworthy or we make a new map using Template:Location map+, which allows any number of locations but is more time consuming.

The map I made using Location map many
Asarlaí/Archive 1 is located in island of Ireland
Seltan Hill
Seltan Hill

~Asarlaí 14:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tory Island

Hi Asarlaí, thanks for your changes to Tory/Toraigh and for clearing up that the name is officially "Torraigh" as it's a Gaeltacht. A couple of things, though: I think Toraigh should still be in italics as it's not English, and I also haven't found any sources referring to the island simply as "Tory", without the "Island" (although maybe that's because it's nigh-on impossible to just google "Tory" and not get Cameron and chums). Cheers, JonC 23:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


I've posted some references at Talk:Derry that shows both "Doire" and "Daire" are referenced in scholarly sources. Can you take a look and maybe we can get a consensus as to any changes we can make to the article. --HighKing (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Londonderry Port

Hi Asarlaí. Don't you think it's sensible to put an "also known as Londonderry" sort of qualifier in this article so people won't wonder why it isn't called Derry Port? As far as I can tell, WP:LDERRY doesn't prohibit it. JonC 21:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The gideline says that only Derry should be used for the city, so I'd assume Derry (legally Londonderry) would go agenst that. Including County Londonderry in the lede might do the job..? You could bring it to the talkpage and see what other editors think. ~Asarlaí 22:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll try something with County Londonderry, but if that's opposed I'll take to talk. Thanks, JonC 08:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Category, attacks on places of worship:

Hi there, just wondering what the criteria for this category is? Is it articles related to the attacks on places of worship, or just whenever a place of worship happens to be part of the collateral damage as some of the articles appear to be? Koncorde (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's for articles about events wher' places of worship wer' targeted. If a city was bombed and churches just so happen'd to be damaged, that doesn't count. Which articles do you refer to? ~Asarlaí 18:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The Tulsa race riot one for instance. Churches were burned, but it's not really a feature of the article it seems, nor is there any significant discussion of the event of attacking those churches (i.e. were they targets themselves, or just burnt down because they were in close proximity?). I can see the stretch with Drogheda (although the category is really quite unspecific in its reference to the whole siege rather than the relevant actual attack), but the Malabar Rebellion doesn't make any effort to note attacks on any places of worship beyond seizure of records from a mosque. Koncorde (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right, the Tulsa riot and Malabar Rebellion shouldn't hav' been added. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll remove them from the category. ~Asarlaí 19:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. You should add a header to the category explaining its inclusion / exclusion for any future editors benefit as it's not currently clear. Koncorde (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


Why do you think that your spelling of "Cloghy" should be the title of the page? My edit was correct. Everyone from there uses the spelling "Cloughey". From where did you derive your apparent authority on the matter? Surely the most common spelling should be used as the spelling in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaselaw (talkcontribs) 01:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I found ~125,000 Google hits for "Cloghy", compared to ~93,900 hits for "Cloughey". Per Wikipedia gidelines, "Cloghy" should be the name of the page but "Cloughey" can be given as another spelling in the lede.
Furthermore, "Cloghy" is the spelling uzed by the Northern Ireland Placename Project (link) and the Placenames Database of Ireland (link).
Your edit also removed the co-ordinates, the link to the Dutch version of the article, and the category Category:Villages in County Down. ~Asarlaí 01:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Please check - on Google search I get ~25,400 results for "Cloghy" and ~93,700 for "Cloughey". Also when searching for Cloghy Google search asks "Did you mean: Cloughey?"
"Cloghy" is used by but this organization seems to be focused on a historical and Gaelic spelling of place names.
The spelling used by everyone living there for many years and the more common spelling is "Cloughey" and this should therefore be the one used. See -,,,
I apologize for the editing errors, as I'm sure you are aware, I'm new to this. Weaselaw (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you would get a very positive response if you were able to help move the page to the modern/most common spelling on the page title as I am aware that it causes frustration amidst people in the village when spelt "Cloghy". You're expertize in editing and clear history of meaningful contribution would be a great boon to the people there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaselaw (talkcontribs) 06:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Burning of Cork City

If you intend making radical changes, it would be better to discuss in advance at the article TP, rather than presenting a 'fait accompli'. The topic is, obviously, 'sensitive'. RashersTierney (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd also suggest avoiding making very subjective wording changes to sensitive articles such as you did here. The ensuing edit-war due to changing "killed" to "summarily executed" resulted in 6 editors being topic-banned for at least 3 months. Mabuska (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


Some of TomoK12's edits also violated WP:RETAIN. Thank for reverting. ༆ (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of wars in Great Britain

Hi, I'm Go Phightins!. Asarlaí, thanks for creating List of wars in Great Britain!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Your new page, though it is a list, has no sources

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Your thoughts are requested

I’ve started a move request to change the title of the article Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant to Al-Nusra, per WP:commonname. Your input is appreciated. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


With regards to the 'Edit War' on Donaghcloney, at the moment, I have no hard evidence. I am sorry I am unable to provide you with any, but I can provide you with:

1) Living in Donaghcloney, my postal address says: County Armagh. I live on the Lurgan side of the Lagan in Donaghcloney, and on the Banbridge side, postal addresses are County Down.

2) The NIFRS (NI Fire and rescue service) obviously have to keep maps on every settlement. According to their maps and records, Donaghcloney is officially listed as being in County Armagh.

I hope we can resolve this argument soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability. If you put something into an article and it's challenged by someone else, you should support it with reliable, published sources.
All of the sources I put into the article show that Donaghcloney village is in County Down only. The Northern Ireland Place-name Project says that it's in the parish of Donaghcloney, the barony of Iveagh Lower, and the county of Down. This map from Ordnance Survey Ireland shows that the County Armagh border (the black dotted line to the west) is miles away from Donaghcloney. If you search for maps of County Down and County Armagh on Google Images you'll see that they also show Donaghcloney in County Down.
Your postal address might say County Armagh because your nearest post town is Craigavon, which is in County Armagh.
~Asarlaí 21:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Have to agree with you there. Donaghcloney is very firmly in Co Down but has an Armagh postcode because of its proximity to Craigavon. "Barony of Iveagh" is a big clue. There's no Iveagh land in Co Armagh. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Goidelic languages

You commented this recent edit with "the origin of Gaelic in Scotland is disputed - this wording is more neutral and accurate". I don't have any particular bone to pick, but the text that was there described a long-held view (whether misguided or not). Don't you think it would be a good idea to put a little something on the talk page to explain your motivation better? ☸ Moilleadóir 04:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've added two lines explaining both the traditional view and alternative view. ~Asarlaí 15:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Irish Munros

Hi Asarlaí. Thank you so much for helping with the new articles on the Irish Munros. I have a question about The Big Gun though. says its the 5th highest peak in Kerry and 46th in Ireland as a whole. You amended that to 10th highest in Ireland, which seems much more plausible (after all there are only 13 Irish Munros or Furths). But where in the reference does it confirm that? And can we trust at all?! Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll find the ranking for The Big Gun by clicking the "more detail" button on the right, underneath "rating". MountainViews recently switched to a new layout. I'm not sure how Peakery came up with those rankings. I don't think we should use them, as they don't make much sense and are contradicted by more trustworthy sources. ~Asarlaí 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A few questions

I'm new to this so I'm not even sure that I am using this 'talk section correctly.

I want to know why there was an edit done to the page I contributed to on the Black and Tans. I had typed out a quote from an original source to support the fact that the term 'Black and Tan' was customarily applied to all the provisional recruits who were sent in to Ireland during the War of Independence. I thought that actually putting in and quoting an original source was the best way to demonstrate this.

Also in the article the history of Home Rule was mentioned - and if that is going to be mentioned I consider it important to know the entire history of the HR bill - going back to 1886. The generation that lived through it - and reacted to its suspension in 1914 - had had the experience of seeing it fail many times prior to that. The 1914 suspension should not be viewed as an innocuous brief setback without this further historiographical context.

Thanks. I hope I have this in the correct place. BealBoru (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I took the quote out of the lede because it was too long. It's okay to put quotes in the lede, but not quotes as long as that. See WP:LEDE. The section "Conduct in Ireland" might be a better place for it. Also, make sure you include all the important details when adding references. For example, when referencing a book you must include the writer's name, the year it was publisht, the publisher and the page number. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Template:Citation. ~Asarlaí 16:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have gone back in and replaced the quote in the 'Conduct in Ireland' section as you suggested. As regards sourcing and paging. I have included the page numbers when I have quoted from hard copy book sources. My Bulmer Hobson ref in on my Kindle - and I am unable to supply an exact page number for those references as Kindle does not give these. BealBoru (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


Please don't take England out of the lead in Cornwall articles as there is long standing consensus for its use on Cornwall articles, and please don't link United Kingdom (WP:OVERLINK. --Bob Re-born (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Changes to the Syrian civil war infobox

A few editors added Israel and other parties to the infobox without any consensus whatsoever. This is completely against Wikipedia policies. Can you please remove it? I think I might have already used my revert for the day. (The page is now subject to sanctions).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Loyalism

Asarlaí, please stop reverting edits to this page. Several users have either removed or objected to the inclusion of that section and you are the only one who has supported it. You have plugged identical text on three separate pages. In addition to the policy pages on NPOV and undue weight I linked to the essay WP:ROC which explains further:

Use summary style

Main page: Wikipedia:Summary style

Wikipedia articles should be written in summary style, providing an overview of their subject. This overview may touch upon several related topics or subtopics, but any details not immediately relevant to the primary topic should be moved into other articles, linking to them if appropriate. If coverage of a subtopic grows to the point where it overshadows the main subject (or digresses too far from it), it may be appropriate to spin it off into a sub-article.

Article scope

Articles on very general subjects should serve as an introduction to the entire subject, and avoid going into detail on topics for which more specific articles exist. Articles on very specific subjects can treat their subject in depth.

Plus WP:COATRACK which is particularly relevant in explaining my concerns:

A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there. The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack – the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. However, a largely critical article about a subject that really is discredited is not covered by WP:COATRACK; see the policies laid out at WP:FRINGE for more information.

The Flea


This sort of case begins with facts about one main topic (perhaps a specific type of flea), then launches into more sub-topics (still dealing with fleas, but on a much broader scale) about which the writer has prepared way too much information, and may make occasional tangential reconnections (hopefully) to the original main topic (that specific type of flea) in an attempt to hide the coatracking. The "Flea" may be something correct but misplaced as in this example, or nationalistic propaganda, or simply irrelevant trivia about which nobody but the writer cares.

I've explained my position in terms of both common sense and policy. I don't feel you have justified yours beyond "I want it there". If you can't take on board the views of others I can do little else except take it to dispute resolution.--Shipyard Special (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for input from other editors at WikiProject Ireland. With only the two of us involved in the discussion it'll go nowhere.
The only editor who has sought the removal of this section is you. Another editor made an account solely to remove it, then suspiciously vanished after spending only two days on Wikipedia. I've explained my position: loyalist paramilitarism is a big part of loyalism, and loyalist collusion with the security forces was a big part of that. You say that security force collusion with loyalists is not related to loyalism, yet you haven't shown us how. I don't feel you have justified yourself beyond "I don't want it there". Maybe the section could be trimmed, but nixing it altogether (which you've been doing) is just hiding the truth. It would be like nixing all mentions of the Provisional IRA Arms Trial from the Provisional IRA article. Furthermore, we shouldn't nix it just because the other sections are poorly developed. Don't just sit there, develop them! I've already begun to develop the lede, the paramilitaries section and the fraternities section. ~Asarlaí 14:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
"Suspiciously vanished"? If you are implying that either myself or someone else is operating a sockpuppet, get it investigated instead of casting innuendo. Also, several IPs have removed the section before, all reverted by you. As for "hiding the truth", that can hardly be said to apply since, as I have repeatedly noted, you have cut n' pasted identical text into several other articles. I don't object to a brief, well-sourced mention of collusion, but not a sprawling multi-paragraph cut n' paste on a subject to which it is only tenuously connected. And since you bring up the comparison, the Arms Trial gets one paragraph of 62 words on the PIRA page. Collusion gets over 700 on Ulster Loyalism (plus same on The Troubles and Operation Banner). As for my approach to editing, I will set my own priorities. Unfortunately certain editors seem to regard the loyalist articles as their own fiefdom of which they have taken ownership.--Shipyard Special (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather we keep this discussion in the one place, i.e. Talk:Ulster loyalism. Thanks. ~Asarlaí 18:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Springmartin

Asarlai, when you get the time please e-mail me at I have discovered some interesting info regarding the Battle of Springmartin. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail on 7 April. Did you not get it? ~Asarlaí 23:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I must have overlooked it. I'll check now. Thanks Asarlai.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Checked and double-checked but never got it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it went into your junk folder and got deleted automatically. I'll send it again. ~Asarlaí 17:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition of spelling reform

Hi Asarlaí,

I noticed your revert yesterday on English-language spelling reform, concerning what counts as spelling reform. I've added a section about this on the talk page, here.


Throughme (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Project assessments

I notice that you are removing project class assessment ratings from articles without letting anyone know about it. It is somewhat disruptive because no one knows about the removal so they could reassess the article. I think it would be far more productive and more likely to get results if you were to request a reassessment at one of the projects related to the article, or ask one of the project's members to do so. I just happened upon some of them when reviewing the Irish assessment table for a completely different reason. WikiProject Ireland has a formal assessment request area at: WP:IE/A#Requesting an assessment though I seem to be the only one active there at this time, or just post me a list and I'll look at them for you. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

UDR and collusion

Information icon Hello, I'm SonofSetanta. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Operation Banner seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

In addition to this you have broken the WP:1RR ruling on a Troubles related article. You have done this twice in a 36 hour period. This entitles you to an immediate sanction from administrators. In this instance I do not intend to raise a complaint but instead will contact a sysop who will guide you and make his own decision. In the interim I have posted the missing templates at the top of the talk page and suggest you read them and become familiar with the implications of them. Which, in all honesty, you should have been already if you are editing articles on the Troubles.

Your editing style is a familiar one and it isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. The encyclopedia has firm rules regarding the neutrality of articles and the article at Operation Banner fails many of them as it is a blatant attempt at creating an anti-British article. The section is question regarding Collusion and in particular the Ulster Defence Regiment is too long and too details for such a comprehensive overview of a British Army operation which went on for approximately 35 years. The place for accusations against 7th (City of Belfast) Battalion, 10th (City of Belfast) Battalion and 7th/10th (City of Belfast) Battalion is on their respective articles where there is more room to explore individual accusations leaving the Op Banner page with just a taster and an inline reference.

I welcome anyone who has the knowledge and skill to edit Troubles related articles in a neutral style. Thus far I am not convinced you are prepared to do that. I respectfully suggest to you that, in future, you do not apply your own opinions to articles on Wikipedia but instead adopt a collegiate and WP:NPOV approach. In doing so you will find me, and many like me, to be supportive and enthusiastic editing partners. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see my reply here. ~Asarlaí 13:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have replied to you at the same location: here. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to appreciate your edits. Correct me if I'm wrong but you do seem to be republican in style but I think you're getting to grips with the Wikipedia way of doing things. Have you considered joining the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration? The project has Irish editors with different backgrounds who are dedicated to editing Irish history fairly and without POV. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't get put off because I appear to disagree with some of the content you edit in or when I revert you. I have firm views, as I'm sure you do. My editing style is very influenced by the need to avoid POV. I won't countenance it in any way shape or form and will do anything I can to eradicate it from any article I choose to work on. I'm not perfect however, none of us are. I make mistakes and sometimes I'm too quick on the "revert" click. The only way to get past any issues is to discuss and there are plenty of talk pages out there to do so. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you give me your opinion on this please? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW - I saw you quoting from Ryder - do you have the book? Just asking so I'll know in the future if we can refer simultaneously to it. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No I don't own the book but I was able to read chunks of it on Google Books. ~Asarlaí 21:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah I see. It's worth having Asarlaí, although hard to get now. Potter's "Testimony to Courage" is a more complete and recent history though and very worth having on your bookshelves. You've got to bear in mind though that Potter was a Major (adjutant of 3 UDR) in the regiment so his opinions will always be pro-UDR. There are a few battalion specific histories but AFAIK only one still in print which is "Echo Company" by Ronnie Gamble, all about 5 UDR - very useful, lots of ancillary history in it too. You can read it online at but you can also get a free copy of it through the Coleraine library service, or I can put you directly in touch with the author and he'll send one out to you. He gets money from the National Lottery fund to provide free copies of his books. There are three military histories and you can have them all for nothing.
I'm not trying to convert you into a UDR man btw. I've as many books on Irish and republican history as I have on military history. It's one of my passions. Only by understanding where both sides in the conflict were coming from can we understand the conflict. That's my view anyway. SonofSetanta (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, and thanks for the link. ~Asarlaí 23:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


Asarlaí you may not like the new section but it is reffed with much more up to date sources than previously used which is what has changed its tone. Rather than being anti-nationalist propaganda it counters nationalist/republican propaganda from the period to the present day. As explained on the talk page the paragraph you deleted was a well sourced comparison vis-a-vis the 1920's USC and their successors. As explained before you cannot simply have the nationalist/republican view on an article. As this type of propaganda has now been exposed as just that it needs to be removed from all Troubles articles and the reason why given, i.e that it is "an ideological imperative" not a truth. As Luken has acted very inappropriately I am seeking advice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring. You may wish to comment there too although no complaint is raised against you. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


Asarlai, how do I restore chunks of text as well as a whole section that was removred from the Miami Showband killings by SonofSentanta while I was away? It's a GA article which took me and another editor months to write and polish into shape. This had to happen just when I had decided to return to Wikipedia full-time. Now Im thinking of retiring completely from the project.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Jeanne, I can tell you how to restore the text but wouldn't it be prudent to look at the reasons why I deleted it? I've left you a comment on your talk page as regards this. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Have you read the peer reviews as well as the comments by the actual GA reviewer? They all thought the page was worthy of GA class; in fact, some even suggested it was worthy of a FAC.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It's good to hav you back Jeanne. You're one of the best editors I know; if you left it'd be a huge loss to Wikipedia. Many editors would agree with me on that.
As you can see from the discussions above, myself and SonofSetanta hav had a lot of disagreements lately. I've re-added a lot of what he removed but also left a lot of his changes untoucht. See my post on the article's talkpage.
Also, I sent you an e-mail about two weeks ago but it might hav went to your junk folder. ~Asarlaí 15:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Asarlaí my edits on the Miami Showband page were all in good faith. There's no reason for them to be otherwise. I don't like over wordiness, that's all. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Asarlai for the praise and re-adding the removed text about the attack on the two Gaelic football fans. It's pertinent to the article. SonofSetanta has indeed made excellent additions to both the Robin Jackson and Billy Hanna pages, however he should be careful about removing text on the basis of "I don't like it".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you back Jeanne! Simply select a previous version of the article and click edit and then copy and paste what you want from it into the latest version. Mabuska (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks but I'm not so sure being back is a positive thing. Everytime I go away for the summer I return to a broiling cauldron of contention. SonofSentanta, I think the Miami Showband article looks fine the way it is. I am assuming my opinion counts for something.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


...I'm asking for too much? [14] (also, have your own creepy smile, haha!) --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


You do know we are not meant to add comments into articles even with the comment html. Though the statement is easily sourceable and I will do it later. Though off the top of my head, many Catholics where planted in the barony of Strabane. Exact numbers aren't needed as we are also only stating some not a lot. Some estimates of Gaelic speaking Scots is upto 50% of them which should be mentioned as that is a lot.. Mabuska (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Warrington Bomb BBC Documentary

Thank you for your comments on my removal of "Englishmen" from the possible suspects in the Warrington Bomb. Neither of the cources you cite supports that. The Warrington Guardian story you cite [1] merely states that the IRA authorised such operatives in the past. Neither the BBC nor the Warrington Guardian speculate as to the identity of the bombers, much less their ethnicity, only that Red Action (a political grouping active in the North of England and whose makeup doubtless reflects the diverse ethnic makeup of that area) may have been responsible. To specify a distinct ethnic (as opposed to civic) group is somewhat inflammatory and unsupported by the sources you cite. (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The documentary does speculate that the bombers may hav been Englishmen. The first line of the Warrington Guardian article is this: "A documentary to be shown tonight, Monday, will ask whether a rogue IRA unit made up of Englishmen could be responsible for the Warrington bombings". You can watch the full documentary on YouTube – Wikipedia won't let me link to it, so search for "Who bombed Warrington?". At 1m5s the narrator says "These men are probably the bombers, but could they hav been Englishmen? A rogue IRA active service unit?". At 17m15s he says "They [the police] had no comment on the possibility that the Bridge Street bombing could hav been carried out by a rogue IRA unit comprised of unknown Englishmen". ~Asarlaí 15:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the previous poster. The inclusion of essentially groundless (merely two sentences of speculation on a regional news report supprted by no police source). and inflammatory, verging on racist, speculation has no place in an encyclopaedia. The IRA admitted they planted the bomb. They said the police ignored a warning. The police denied this. The documentary posed a question that no-one answered. We may as well put in a National Enquirer headline reading "Is Elvis on the moon?" as speculation. All we know is that the IRA said they planted the bomb. (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Troubles

Thanks for yr refinements to The Troubles page. A couple of quick comments about the usage issue:

I'm not sure that "especially in Belfast" is really accurate, in reference to the 1920s. It seems to have had wider usage in common parlance, including the Easter Rising events in Dublin and elsewhere, as well as the Civil War in 1922-23.

Also, "reappeared in 1969" sort of implies that the term had faded into disuse prior to then, which isn't quite true. It had remained in general usage to refer to the 1920s events - there are plenty of citations for that. Rather than reappearing, it was sort of "repurposed" in 1969, to its present usage.

These are definitely rather arcane nuances, but I thought they might bear some clarification in the light of yr edits. Cheers! jxm (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I've changed "The term re-appeared in 1969 to describe the worsening violence" to "In 1969, the term began to be used to describe the worsening violence". I've also removed the "especially in Belfast" bit. In the 1920s, the term "Troubles" does seem to hav been used to refer to the conflict in general. However, many modern writers tend to use it only when referring to the sectarian violence in Belfast at that time – see for example Alan Parksinson's Belfast's Unholy War: The Troubles of the 1920s and Joe Baker's The McMahon Family Murders and the Belfast Troubles 1920-1922. Maybe that could be noted in the article. ~Asarlaí 22:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Its been quite a long time, but I seem to remember coming across the phrase "the troubles/these troubles", informally referring to the events of the 1500s in Ireland. Perhaps the phrase has some antiquity in Ireland? Fergananim (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A question regarding names of dead

Hi Asarlai, I was wondering if it would be possible to include a list of all the British soldiers killed in Operation Banner? The reason I ask is that I saw am online forum where people were complaining that Wikipedia didn't have lists for the soldiers killed yet there is a complete passenger's list for the Titanic. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you again Jeanne.
Well, there's alredy a list of all 700+ British military casualties at CAIN (and indeed other websites), so I don't see a need to make another list here. I think it'd lead to lots of wrangling over neutrality, the circumstances of deaths, inclusion critera, and so on. Also, we'd probably hav to make a list for each of the other combatants too (the RUC, the IRA, the UVF, asf) and for the civilians.
That's just my take on it. If you want to know what others think you could ask on Talk:Operation Banner or on one of the WikiProjects. ~Asarlaí 18:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Asarlai. I'll ask on Op Banner's talk page and see what the consensus is.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Gaelic Ireland

Thank you for your contribution, and supporting my own edits. I hope the quotes I left on the talk-page will help in the discussion. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange edits?

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) 12:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, just to let you know that User:Scolaire seems to have dealt with the problem. Regards Denisarona (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Jean McConville

I note your edit of 02:08, 3 May 2014‎ on the article Murder of Jean McConville, in which you purposefully removed the text associated with the intervention of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. This is key in the evidence trail, and removing under the edit summary "clean-up" is personally miscreant. I have hence reinserted the text. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It was removed because the information is inaccurate and taken from an opinion piece ("Sinn Fein should never be able to escape Jean McConville's ghost").
That opinion piece says "The lord chief justice, Robert Carswell, ruled that in this one instance the government should break the policy commonly known as NCND (neither confirm nor deny) and reveal any secret service dealings that had taken place with Mrs McConville. There were none".
It doesn't mention a "government investigation", but it does go on to talk about the Ombudsman's report. On pages 12–14 of the Ombudsman's report, it mentions Carswell saying the NCND rule could be broken in some cases. But Carswell was talking about Freddie Scappaticci, not Jean McConville. It was the Ombudsman herself who said the government should break the NCND rule for McConville. ~Asarlaí 16:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The home (Tuam)

Hi. Sorry about the edit conflict. I tried to fix it as per edit summary. Sorry if I did not do so properly. Just curious -- did you intent intend to rv the following (non-consecutive) quotes? Just asking in case my edit conflict screwup caused something to be lost.

On behalf of the Irish Daily Mail, a private company surveyed the site with ground-penetrating radar. It found two unnatural structures, one box-shaped, and recommended minor excavations as the next step in the investigation.[2]

Corless claimed the matter had "been widely misrepresented" in the media and her own statements had been misquoted.[3] The local police stated that there was no need for a police investigation: “These are historical burials going back to famine times. There is no suggestion of any impropriety and ... there is no confirmation from any source that there are between 750 and 800 bodies present."[4]

Yours, Quis separabit? 17:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: Someone has already addressed part of the above, so you may need to re-review. Quis separabit? 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be sorted now. Thanks. ~Asarlaí 00:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

British Isles

Using this "other parts of the British-Irish Isles" phrase. Unfortunately it's not encyclopedic and shouldn't be used. It read fine before and after. Murry1975 (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Christian Terrorism

You are mentioned on the talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you should move your recent comments to a new section at the bottom of the talk page, otherwise they may not be noticed. TFD (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Five Techniques

Hi. A comment on the enhanced int. talk page you might like to remark on. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 21:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


The comment with your edit to the ize/ise section of American and British English spelling differences was "surely the main point is that Oxford recommends it", which I take to be a question.

My answer is, not entirely. Personally, I think that -ize is not an Americanism and that -ise is actually from French is much more interesting than that the OED recommends what is correct. And I also think it’s important to put the interesting stuff as close to the fore as possible, especially when the subject is as inherently dull as spelling and grammar are: not unimportant, just dull.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 09:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User: Thank you.

I am notifying you simply as I make reference to your thanks over my revert of the IP at Military Reaction Force. Mabuska (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're interested...

I have set up a new ptoject. Would you like to join? Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Northern Ireland Troubles. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Lough Erne

I noticed that the reference to the previous name of Lough Erne was removed from the history section, i.e Lough Sairaer/Saimer. I thought that this might be an important piece of information. Youngbohemian 12:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've re-added it. Asarlaí 14:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Satanic Warmaster and NSBM

Could you please take a look at the Satanic Warmaster article? The band is notable for being supposedly associated with the National Socialist black metal scene, and has been accused using Nazi themes in its music. I've tried to include some mentions of this in the article, but another editor keeps reverting, stating that including any mention of these allegations violates BLP policy. Could you take a look at this article? I feel that even with the NSBM discussion aside, the article has serious neutrality issues. This particular editor seems to have taken ownership, adapting or deleting content as they see fit. Thanks, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Northern Ireland Troubles

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Campaignbox Northern Ireland Troubles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


I agree with Justice007 that the original bit you added about soul cakes was undue but your recent edits seemed okay. Hopefully we have a stable article now.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 01:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

‎Requesting guidance


It seems you have been working on culture related some articles too. I am requesting your kind guidance for change of name of one article. When I started working on a new article recently, presently named Poles in mythology actual article name was some thing different, actually due to some misunderstandings some one changed name of the article to Poles in mythology. Matter of the fact is I wanted to cover cultural aspects and festive celebrations as an umbrella article and wanted to have historical mythological, worships wherever concerned as a small part of the main article.

Poles in mythology is altogether a different subject when I am doing research and writing cultural aspects of festive celebrations are also coming up simultaneously and I am coming to a conclusion that for covering cultural aspects of festive celebrations of 'pole' we need to have a separate umbrella article altogether so we will not have more confusions and misunderstandings. Either we need to change present article name or split and create a new cultural aspect related article.

Please let me know your openion and if you are positive to my suggessions what should be the new articles name ? In fact you can join in discussion at Talk:Poles_in_mythology#Change_of_article_name

Looking forward to your kind guidance

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed redirect to Disappeared (Northern Ireland)

I noticed you performed several redirects while an active discussion on this was taking place [15]. Could you explain why you performed these redirects? It also appears that you simply redirected, causing the article content themselves to be deleted (as they content was not moved). As a result I have reverted your redirect, restoring it to its stable, and pre-discussion state. Thanks for your feedback on this matter. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, Tiggerjay, I didn't see that discussion until now. I redirected the articles to The Disappeared and copied over the details that weren't already on that page.
I think they should be merged into The Disappeared for three reasons. Firstly, neither of these men are notable in their own right; they're known only as being one of the Disappeared. Secondly, the articles are very short and not much else can be added to them (they're permastubs). Lastly, if we have articles for these three, for fairness sake we'd also need to have articles for the other Disappeared. However, aside from Jean McConville and Robert Nairac, none are notable enough to warrant their own articles. ~Asarlaí 19:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Likely true... and probably where it should end up. Lets have the RM wrap up first, and then move on towards the merge... How about you take a moment and share your thoughts on the requested move discussion. Thanks! Tiggerjay (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Orange on St. Patrick's Day

Hi Asarlaí. While I agree that the commentary regarding orange on St. Patrick's Day needs some work, I don't think it should be obliterated completely, as there's ample sourcing for it. I started a discussion on the talk page, I would appreciate your input there, and maybe even a proposal for how the wording should go regarding orange. Thanks! Rockypedia (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


Can you give me a hand with a situation. These diffes ([16], [17]) show what kind of edits an IP has been making lately to the Chronology of Continuity Irish Republican Army actions. I don't want to violate 1RR so could you tell me if it's vandalism or if it has any validity. Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^ "Ground Penetrating Radar reveals two 'anomalies' beneath Tuam Home site", Irish Mail on Sunday, 8 June 2014.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference it1823393 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYT_inquiry was invoked but never defined (see the help page).