User talk:Laurel Lodged

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

St Jude's[edit]

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

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

Final warning of indefinite block[edit]

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

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

Category: Southern Levant[edit]

Hey Laurel Lodged,

I'm currently working with you and Oncenawhile on the Southern Levant Category. I see you had originally described that category, and recently changed your description to be more in line with oncenawhile's proposal. To my eyes, the new description is very vaguely worded, while the original was concrete. What was the reason for changing it? "The history, geography, archaeology, and people associated with the southern region of the Levant", which is what was originally written was clear and to the point, and I think worked really well. To go into more detail, it's important that this category, which describes an important historical region in scholarly research, be well-defined and maintained. Thanks! Drsmoo (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: It seemed to be the one that had the least controversy, although was not as thorough. Let's give it a trial for a while. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

TD categories[edit]

Hi, its a good idea to refine the TD categories by party and you have been doing. I have taken the liberty of using TDs in the name, e.g. Category:Progressive Democrats TDs instead of Teachtaí Dála. I think this is more succinct, easier to spell, easier to pronounce and follows the current convention for MPs, e.g. parent is Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom by political party and all the sub cats have MPs in the title, e.g. Category:Conservative Party (UK) MPs. Snappy (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Athletics in Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown[edit]

Category:Athletics in Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 14:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Religious leaders in New Zealand[edit]

Category:Religious leaders in New Zealand, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. gadfium 19:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Current monarchies[edit]

There was no consensus to delete Category:Current monarchies in the last deletion discussion.

Please put a link to a superseding discussion on the category's talk page so everyone knows why you emptied the category, or, if no such discussion has taken place, please:

  • Consider adding sub-categories to the category, but only if those sub-categories are true sub-categories, and
  • Restore any articles that rightfully belong in Category:Current monarchies and which are not in a sub-category back to that category.

This link from may be of some help.

If you believe the category is not needed, please nominate it for discussion, but please do the cleanup/restoration work first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not deleted it. I will consider adding true sub-categories to the category if I find any. I will restore any articles that rightfully belong in it. None of the articles that I moved fits this description; all are now diffused to their proper lowest categorical home. I already nominated it and so will not be doing so again. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Finglas (civil parish), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M50 motorway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident and his page moves[edit]

Thanks for the Chicbyaccident (talk) heads-up. It turns out he's been moving a lot mor than just the 4 pages we noticed. You can move them back too; it's too much for me to do alone and he's refusing to revert his own changes. A note from you on his talk page might help too. Can you help out? Rockypedia (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Districts of Northern Ireland, 2015-present[edit]

It is not customary to include the date name in categories of present entities as you have done in Category:Districts of Northern Ireland, 2015-present. I request that you propose this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland before proceeding any further. jnestorius(talk) 13:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Anglican and Lutheran saints[edit]

I was going to isolate pre-Reformation Anglican and Lutheran saints just in order to have a more structured discussion about them. This is not as straightforward as ancient and early medieval saints with respect to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Nearly all ancient and early medieval saints are recognized by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches so removing the denominational categories did not do any harm. But here, not all high and late medieval saints are recognized by any of the Anglican or Lutheran churches, which poses a categorization problem for articles. For example, with Anselm of Canterbury we might remove all denominational saints categories, including the Roman Catholic one, and just leave it to Christian saint. But other very similar saints who are not recognized by the Anglican and Lutheran churches, could be kept as Roman Catholic. That seems inconsistent. So I'm not saying we should keep the both Anglican and Lutheran pre-Reformation categories by all means, but at least we should think a bit about how the alternative may look like. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a high or late medieval saint not recognized by any of the Anglican or Lutheran churches? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits?[edit]

You have reverted two edits I made today on the pages Ormond (surname) and Osraige, but offered no explanation as to why. These edits specifically: [1] [2]. Why have you done this? If you don't respond promptly, I'll just redo the edits. --Hibernian (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)