User talk:Osioni/Archive 2

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

Image:Memorial_Cross.pdf listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Memorial_Cross.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 20:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

re Daniel Joseph Sheehan[edit]

Oh, I terribly apologise; I guess I had taken leave of my senses last night, as I did not notice that section was about his brother. There are, however, some minor things I would like to pick on. Is the inclusion of the rank of lieutenant after Sheehan's name in the lead exactly necessary? If at all, it should be unbolded before his name. In regards to Michael Sheehan, the rank of brigadier general no longer existed in the British Army during the Second World War; the "general" suffix had been removed and it was simply known as "brigadier". Also, this sentence does not exactly make sense: "and was awarded the Officer Order of the British Empire OBE", and the rank of first lieutenant does not exist in the British Army; it is just lieutenant. Once again, I sincerely apologise for not paying attention and realising that section was on his brother. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

sorry to have pounced on you as I did, understand how the error occured. Have followed the hints you give, though I must say Michael Sheehan in his life-time always refered to himself as "Brigadier-General". Greetings. Osioni (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
That's okay, and your edits look good! It was between the two World Wars that the British cut off the "general" sufix from brigadier, but I'm not exactly sure when. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't generally be copying verbatim from other sources - I'm not quite clear what the copyright status of Soldiers died in the Great War is. It may fall have fallen under Crown Copyright, in which case the work is now in the public domain, and is copyright free, though we still need to be very careful with attribution. I believe though that the biographical information in it was contributed by the relevant families, in which case it may well still be under coyright, and we defintiely shouldn't be copying it. Whichever, it is generally prefereable to re-write it in a more encyclopaedic and up-to-date style so that it fits better with other articles in Wikipedia. David Underdown (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:John_Redmond.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:John_Redmond.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel I have now provided an adequate and justifiable "use rationale" for this image which I personally have in framed form. It shows no source information, other than that of its obvious age. I see other images from that period which lack source information and are not threatened with deletion, see source of File:Arthur Griffith (1871-1922).jpg, its "use rationale" is on a par with that of Redmonds. Or perhaps I have provided an incorrect tag ? Other possibility would be to reduce the image to a low resolution pixels size (see File:Kevin O'Higgins.jpg) ? Osioni (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. First, you posted a comment on my user page instead of my talk page. I reverted it. Secondly, typically, "use rationales" are for non free images. Thirdly, all images on Wikipedia regardless of applicable license are supposed to have a source. This is even related to a Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Regarding the image you linked, that image is on Commons. I typically don't deal with images already on Commons. I don't keep fully up to date on their policies regarding requiring sources.--Rockfang (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

File:618 073C.jpg[edit]

Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Padraig A. O Siochain.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. During the move I changed the name of the image to better reflect Naming Conventions policy, the article that contained the image has been updated to reflect the new name as it exists now on Commons. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:618 073C.jpg[edit]

File:618 073C.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Padraig A. O Siochain.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Padraig A. O Siochain.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Labourers' Act (Ireland) Cottage.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Labourers' Act (Ireland) Cottage.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

PMGI[edit]

Snappy suggested you might be a possible candidate in assisting me in the task of writing an article on the Postmaster General of Ireland that existed for some time mainly during the 18th century. I started it here. If you have any possible sources I would appreciate any help you can give. Some of the sources I see online are somewhat confusing regarding the recombining with the Postmaster General of England. If this might not be in your period of interest, can you suggest someone else. Cheers TIA ww2censor (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the contact. My focus is however elsewhere (nationalist period - 19th/20th century). Will keep you in mind should anything turn up. Greetings. Osioni (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but do you know anyone else who might be able to help? I'll stop watching your page for now, so if you do come up with anything, please leave me a post on my talk page. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question[edit]

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

New mailing list for Wikimedians in Ireland[edit]

Hello Osioni:

I'm delighted to announce that we've started a new Ireland Wikimedian email list, that you can join, at mail:WikimediaIE. For Wikimedians in Ireland and Wikimedians interested in events in Ireland and efforts in Ireland. It's there to to discuss meetups, partnerships with Museums and National Archives, and anything else where Wikipedia and real life intersect. --Bastique demandez 16:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A Deletion Discussion of an Irish Catholic Category[edit]

is being discussed at [1]--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC). - - have studied creator's page and discussion. All is adequately stated. Osioni (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Slump[edit]

I see that you have added "great slump" to the Anglo-Irish Trade War. The same term is used for the Great Depression in the United Kingdom - it hardly applies to both? ClemMcGann (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've seen our Economic War refered to in that context as it exacerbated the Irish depression, but if you fell it does not 'fit', then reverse it. Greetings Osioni (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, but if you have a reference then do put it back. Regards ClemMcGann (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland in WWI[edit]

I realise you created this (good) article, so I thought I'd drop you a line as I've made a few changes and overhauls recently. There is currently a discussion happening at User_talk:Rcbutcher on the future direction of the article if you're interested. I've also done a bit of expanding (and some changing it has to be said) on the National Volunteers article. Discussion welcome. Cheers, Jdorney (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Question. Well two questions actually. One. Did all the Irish war recruits join existing regiments or were new units created, like the Pals' Battalions in the rest of the New Army? I'm pretty sure there were but I'll check it out. Two, were there "Irish" units in the American, Australian or Canadian armies? If so they should get a mention.

Oh and one more thing, can you reference your recent edits re the regiments various recruits joined? I'm sure they're accurate but lets get the refs in. Cheers Jdorney (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Osioni, I'm a little confused by the paragraph from Bowman you've put into the article. What does the "Indianisation" of the 10th Division mean? Are we talking here about the dispersal of its units or the dilution of its Irish character. Not the same things. How can we condense this para and also get the facts right?.

In 1918, the 10th Division was further broken up, split between the Middle East and Western Front. Military historian Timothy Bowman points out that ‘Following the German Spring Offensive, the need for manpower on the Western Front saw the Indianisation of the 10th (Irish) Division serving in the Middle East. Effectively meant that six Irish battalions were released for service on the Western Front. It was perhaps felt, as in the case of Irish regular battalions, that the experience of the Service battalions of the 10th (Irish) Division should be spread through other formations. A second practical problem for the 10th Division to be split up was malaria. Obviously, concentrating so many men with malaria in one division could have lead to that division being unfit for action on an almost permanent basis. Lastly, bereft of political allies and in a situation where the BEF generally was facing serious manpower problems , it is not surprising that the 10th (Irish) Division was broken up, rather than other formations transferred from the Middle East to the Western Front’. [7]

Jdorney (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's still not very clear. Could you reply here so that we can work this out? Jdorney (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The previous quote from Townshend is very very vague. Bowman gives full reasons why the 10th ceased to be "Irish". It was not just a recruiting issue, other important circumstances played a role and need to be made known. I find Bowman the better of the two. Osioni (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC) +
I think this is a misunderstanding. They are talking about two separate processes, the first in 1914 and the second - referred to by Bowman, in 1918. The first occurred when the 10th Division was founded. Redmond complained in his correspondence that it was, "filled up with English" (Townshend p78) because of (apparently) sluggish recuitment.
Re the 1918 stuff; It's not the presence of the info from Bowman I'm concerned about. I just don't really understand the meaning. Is he saying that Indian units were drafted into the Division in the middle east and Irish based units sent to the Western front? If that's the case then let's just say it. Second, what's the story with the malaria? The current wording, taken out of it's orginal context, is just not very clear. Third, taken together it's still not clear what point is being made. Were the original units of the 10th Division filled up with Indians? Were Irish units moved? Were they still Irish in composition by this time anyway?Can we clarify these questions please?

Nudge, so can we clarify the quote please? Jdorney (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC) --

I've whittled it to a minimum. I feel remaining details shold be left available.Osioni (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. Jdorney (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Regiments[edit]

Also, the reason for moving the list of regiments to the footnotes is becuase (a) too many links makes the text hard to read and (b), this is not a list of kinks, what does it add to the article at that point? Jdorney (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, kinks for you. In my view they add clarity as to what the page is all about, the engagement if Irish regiments in WWI, and the reasons. There is a lot of fill-up texts above and below which many readers will find difficult to follow, much is just repetition of content elsewhere, much just side-issues. Understandably there is still a tendency in Ireland to write Irish engagement in WWI down or out of our history. I take the view we should be fair and understanding to the lads who went out in good faith at that time, not just to help the ever highlighted "BRITISH war effort", no, a majority belived Ireland was on the verge of becoming an independent European nation (be it at first within the UK), and believed they were helping the Europe we are now part of, to remain free. There were two paths to Irish history at that time. Both justified. There is no reason to play one off against the other. No need to hide any part of either path. Osioni (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You're very sensitive Osioni. I'm well aware of your views on the War and while I don't agree with them at all, I'm not trying to hide anything. Look if you feel it's absolutely necessary to have the names of each regiment linked there then fine. Personally I don't see why they have to be listed in the text when there is an appendix already listing every unit. Jdorney (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How condensendingly nice of you. However the regiments deserve a section other than the limbo you assigned them to. I assume that was a spelling mistake --You're so very sensible Osioni. O and by the way, its rather obvious you don't agree with the war, therefore hardly the ideal editor for the article. When I saw the German and French PMs shaking hands on the WWI commemoration ceremony in Paris (telly 11/11 and papers), my thought was, yes Ireland once played an honourable role that allow those handshakes happen. N.B., there is a life outside of Wikipedia. Osioni (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
So if I don't hold the same POV as you then I shouldn't be editing the article? Right. I had no intention to be condescending but if you took it that way, well that's your prerogative I suppose.
Re my views on the war, I view it as a spectacular waste of human life, which achieved nothing. I fail to see what was honourable about Irish soldiers fighting in it. And yes, fighting on the British side. Acknowledge, yes, remember yes. Celebrate? No.
Question for you, if the French and German PMs are shaking hands at a war commemoration, are they saying, "the allies were right, how glad we are that the war was fought". Or are they saying, "what an awful calamity our ancestors got into, would that it had never happened?". If it's the latter, then why on earth is it a matter for celebration that so many young Irishmen were butchered there?
However that's just my POV and I will not be putting any of it into the article. What I will be doing is trying to write a factual and unbiased article. Hopefuly you'll be co-operating with me. Jdorney (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand your points, but firstly I see you turned my word commemoration into celebration. That is just not what it was. It was the first time that a German PM was invited to the laying of a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier. PM Ms. Merkel spoke of the power of conciliation, that has enabbled two bitter enemies to seal a German-French friendship. Sarkosy stressed that it was not victory of one over the other that was being celebrated, but a stroke of destiny put to the test, the commemoration of an experience that was as horrific for one side as for the other, and that as well 1918 failed to generate permanent peace (short extract in translation).

A big problem in Irish education is that nothing is taught about WWI, never was a question put in the Leaving cert on WWI, dept of Education policy. My brainwash was that I knew nothing of WWI leaving school. Only in the last couple of decades motoring across Europe have I come across huge cemeteries with acres of white crosses. I was shocked to wander through them and see all those Irish names written out of my country's history. From that point I began to research the background not alone as to how it all happened but as to why we in Ireland go into hiding on it. It is our country's history. That we were fighting Britain's war is the brainwash I was led to believe. It will take too much space here go into greater detail. I know all the arguments on both sides. Those who say we should have left Europe to the Germans. Then what ? -- to become a German cattle ranch (German war ministry records). Admittedly the British bungled and messed us up in every possible manner, but that is a seperate issue and must be kept out of any WWI evaluation. Thousands of Irish also served voluntarily in WWII because they believed in the need to keep Europe free from oppression (as in WWI).

I never suggested you had to have my POV to edit, I am in ways glad you sporned me to continue on the page, I actually have more important articles I need to update and improve on. All I notice is your (maybe unconscience) need to to be more concerned with negative issues. I have gone through stacks of publications on WWI when passing through London. Most prevalent is the fact that British historians in the main don't even index the Irish divisions or regiments, and we in Ireland follow suit. Why I try to put that right to an extent, and put them up front. A huge work is still to weave Irish participation into the vatious battle pages, where even when the Irish played a decicive role, British editors just leave them out. Why I react when you but the Irish regiments into limbo. That for me is playing the British game. Irish regiments are nothing to be ashamed of. The Geramns at least held their fighting quality in high regard.

If you continue in the manner you cite in you last lines, then fine. I just dislike half truths. Look at the line I added to the 1918 recruiting figures. Why was this ommitted by somebody in the first place ?? And please don't be so pushy. There's life outside of Wikipedia. Greetings Osioni (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pushiness, unfortunately, is a habit I've recently acquired on WP from dealing with some very difficult editors. I apologise if I've come across that way.
Re WWI, I completely agree that it needs to be talked about and thoroughly remembered. It was the biggest violent loss of life in 20th century Irish history. On top of that it probably influenced immediate Irish history at the time more than has been appreciated. No doubt it's also true that it was air-brushed out of history in the "high-nationalist" period of our history. Growing up I personally was probably more aware of it than other Irish people due to the preponderance of war memorials in my own area, Rathfarnham and Terenure. There was even a war memorial in the school I went to.
What makes me angry though is the current trend to say, not only - "this is part of our history", "lets remember all these guys" but also, "they fought for a good cause", "they made a sacrifice for our freedom". Maybe there's too much old school nationalist in me but I just don't accept this. WWI was an imperialist war, I don't accept they were fighting for "freedom" and, in the final analysis, they were fighting in the British Army for the British Empire. Just my opinion. This doesn't mean I want to condemn the WWI Irish soldiers. Were they brave fighters? Good soldiers, loyal comrades? I don't doubt it. But I don't identify with their cause either.
Also, there's recently been a trend to argue that they were all motivated by Redmond's call, idealism etc. No doubt many were, but many were also motivated by poverty ("economic conscription" James Connolly called it), lack of opportunity, boredom etc -all the traditional reasons for Army recruitment.
For instance, In Padraig Yeates, "Lockout" (about the Dublin Lockout of 1913), p576-577, there's the story of the "Dockers Company" of the Dublin Fusiliers, a group who were sacked during the strike; "In 1914 agroup of ITGWU men, unable to win re-instatement on the docks, had joined the regiment en bloc. They were part of the regular army that held the line in FLanders while Kitchener's mass volunteer army was training in Britain. On 24 April 1915 they took part in an attack on Saint-Julien, near Yypres. They advanced 'in faultless order' to within a hundred yards of the village, then their line was swept away by machine gun fire. The handful who crawled back gave 'three cheers for Jim Larkin' just as if they were once more outside Liberty Hall". To me this is an appalling tragedy. No more no less. Should these guys be remembered? Absolutely. But were their deaths a good thing? No way. They were a terible waste of young lives. Jdorney (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyway that's my view. Jdorney (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Not wishing to prolong an endless exchange of personal views. The statement “I don't accept they were fighting for "freedom" and, in the final analysis, they were fighting in the British Army for the British Empire “ is the standard cliché used to discredit Irish Nationalists who would have certainly enlisted for different reasons, least of all, to fight for the Empire. Anymore than American forces fought in Europe for the Empire. The most likely reason would have been a faith in Redmond’s assurance that joining up was a patriotic duty and would be good for Ireland; or encouraged by the words of Cardinal Sheehan of Waterford, who affirmed the patriotic necessity of taking part in the conflict. ‘The war’ he wrote, ‘is not an English war alone or a French or a Belgium war. It is an Irish war to save our country from ruin and misery.’ (TheTablet, 3 April 1915). Or Cardinal Logue of Armagh who wrote of ‘the imperishable glory which Irish Catholic soldiers have won for their country.’ (Irish Catholic, 25 September 1916).
My assessment is that the implications of what would have happened had the UK stayed at home and allowed aggressive Prussian militarism to annex Europe, is the historic equation that is never taken into consideration. Perhaps a pity we didn’t experience it on our own door step. A "final analysis" would now be quite different.
All lives lost in any war are a terrible waste of life. Should our soldiers on UN peace keeping missions, some tragically killed, stay at home ? Should the despots of the world be allowed to have their way? Should child-soldiers be allowed massacre as they do ? The world is made up of those who are indifferent, and those who say, definitely not, even at the cost of lives. History is as history was and cannot be altered. I endeavour to understand events and the decisions made, in the context of the reality of those living at the time, not from a present day hindsight perspective.
Irish history was then shared UK history, our territorial regiments part of the UK regular army. INV and Redmond aside, either way Ireland would have participated in the war. Perhaps worth a reflection, as much as the view of some who believe our actions at the time cost us a divided Ireland. Millions lost their lives on the Eastern and Balkan fronts during WWI. The multitude of conflicts at home and abroad since then add to the senseless loss of lives. As does the fact that every 5 seconds an unfortunate dies of hunger, usually a child, somewhere in the world.
The Irish landscape has an abundance of war memorials of one kind or another, some even erected in recent years. When I see one, I simply reflect. As I do when I see the burnt out ruins of the "Great Houses". Living my early life in the Rathfarnham/Terenure area myself, I cannot recall any WWI memorials, perhaps in the Protestant Church or School. Other’s traditions are theirs, not mine to worry about, so long as they do not intrude. I was walked up many a time to Pearse’s St. Endas just above Rathfarnham, which I still reflect on. In April 1916 the Irish lives lost in O’Connell Street and in Hullach are for me an equally tragic loss of Irish life, as are the lives of those many who went north to enlist and fight in the second world war. Parallel paths to our history.
Some years ago I passed through Ypres in Belgium. Every summer plane loads pilgrim there from abroad and from across Europe . The Menin Gate area filled with hundreds scanning the many walls listed with thousands of names, searching for relatives with no known grave. I saw whole schools in uniform from Australia with teachers telling of the fate their great-granduncles and great-grandfathers suffered. From India Sikhs in their colourful dress doing likewise. And, as on every evening of the year since WWI (except during WWII), crowds gathered at the arched gateway, to hear a line of buglers sound the Last Post. Impressions I can’t help reflecting on. On 25 April last a German tv satellite transmitted a ceremony at Gallipoli showing the large numbers who, on their National Commemoration Day for the Battle of Gallipoli, flew in from Australia and New Zealand to commemorate countrymen who died there in defeat. Again, I could not help but reflect.
Writing in the aftermath of the unveiling of the Island of Ireland Peace Tower in 1998, Garret Fitzgerald wrote ’nationalist Ireland now has the capacity to understand and accept the points of view of both the majority and the minority of nationalists in August 1914.’ There is no longer any need to take sides.’ to identify with either Redmond or Pearse.’ Both played valid roles and can now be accepted side by side in our Irish Pantheon.’ The Irish state’, he concluded, 'has reached maturity'. (Irish Times, 14 November 1998). Osioni (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Osioni (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation[edit]

Hi Osioni

Over he last few days I have undone a lot of edits in which you have added or removed categories from articles, and recategorised categories themselves.

I noticed today that you had undone some of my changes, and I wanted to explain why I have reverted them again.

Firstly, you added the Category:Irish Nationalist Movement to a lot of articles and categories, many of which were completely inappropriate. Here are some examples out of many:

I'm sorry that this will all come across as very critical of you, but I can't see any way of setting all this out without appearing critical. The reason for doing it is that I am now very concerned that your categorisation and recategorisation of articles is doing serious damage to the category system, and it has taken a lot of work to undo some of the damage. So please may I ask you to stop further categorisation edits? I'm sure that your category-related edits are well-intentioned, but they are not having good effects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


I’ve taken time to give thought to the issues. Firstly I am sorry for having had you explain your moves in such detail, was really unnecessary. I accept your authority on categories. In some cases I thought I had overlooked pages when I made what appeared to be a reversal with a second edit (something I wouldn’t dare do without checking it out) not noticing that you were close on my heels and had reverted my original edit. Pity we couldn’t have sorted out the disparities in two minutes over a pot of tea.
I originally created the categ. Nat. politicians in good faith to accommodate a distinction between "real" nationalist politicians who on the one hand were active in land reform or the home rule movement, from those many general politicians (some not nationals) who on the other hand were not nationalist activists, returned short term, or simply through some internal IPP arrangement. I am opposed to calling all IPP MPs automatically 'Irish nationalist' politicians.
Now that the pages have been whittled down to 34, it is unlikely anyone takes on the task of re-instating the deleted pages. Therefore simply de-populate the rest. Two will remain, the non-MPs Andrew Kettle and James Daly (and others of a kind who may follow). I am against having them disappear into an uncategorized limbo. Either they stay or we create a category Ir. Nat. activists? The present categ. should definitely remain a parent category because readers would normally begin a search under the term ‘nationalist politicians’ rather than under one of its sub-categories.
Regarding the categ. Nationalist Movement, I accept it could cover other areas than the period we are talking about. My case for upholding the category rests on the fact that it categorizes a significant inter-related period of nationalist history covering land reform and the constitutional home rule movement, supported by its many pages. A suggestion would be to move the categ to Ir. Nat. Movement (1860-1918). Not intending to divert attention, but there are other "Movement" category/pages where focus is just on one singular aspect of, for example, republicanism, whereas categ. Nationalist Movement relates to a whole eventful period of Irish nationalism.Osioni (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:351 568 1 i.jpg[edit]

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:351 568 3 i.jpg[edit]

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:526 979 i.jpg[edit]

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:618 074A.jpg[edit]

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. How the conflicting tags came about is beyond me. The replacement tags "PD-Ireland" and "PD-UKGov" used on similar images should hopefully resolve the issue. Osioni (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Tom Kettle.jpg[edit]

Do you recall where File:Tom Kettle.jpg came from originally? Absent an author, it's hardly realistic to claim that the copyright expired in Ireland where the term is 70 years PMA. And "if the author is unknown or pseudonymous" means more than "I don't know who the author was". It could be PD in the US if it was published before 1923, but again some sort of provenance is needed to determine that. Commons will only keep this image it if it is PD in Ireland and ideally in the US too. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) P.S. The same is true of File:618 074A.jpg and perhaps other images you have uploaded. Unless you know it was originally published in the Cork Free Press and that no author was named, it isn't PD in Ireland although it certainly is in the US since it was published before 1923.

The Tom Kettle image was published in his book "Ways of War" (1917) published posthumously by his wife Mary Kettle. The image shows him when called to the bar as a barrister in 1905, so the image is really PD-old. Admittedly I may have overlooked mentioning this, but it was previously tagged as a candidate for the Wikimedia by someone else a while back (see history), and I just followed it through.
As far as the AFIL image from the Cork Free Press is concerned, this was definitely published in the newspaper issued 30 July 1910 (will be shortly PD-old). It can be verified in the archives of the Cork City Library. I happen to have an original copy of the sheet (full newspaper size), which shows no author or copywrite markings whatsoever. It was a populary framed image at the time, from where my copy originates. The name was printed underneath, but I re-designed it to the top. I think the tag {Non-free newspaper image} could well be added, but I do not understand when you say it isn't PD in Ireland, when File:firstdail.jpg is.
Osioni (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The AFIL one then should be PD in the US and in Ireland too as if it was published with no author's name in sight it should be fair to say it was corporate, so 70 years from publication. That should be fine for Commons. The Tim Kettle? We have a tag for that: {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. People can then upload it to Commons if they like but it shouldn't get deleted from here just in case it gets deleted from Commons. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Os1.jpg[edit]

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC). Thank you for making the point. I think the conflict issue has now been clarified. Osioni (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

separator[edit]

Hi, please remember to include a separator when adding entries to a template. Both your recent edits to the Template:Ireland newspapers omitted this. Rgds, Snappy (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Dd rotated.jpg[edit]

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you for pointing this out. Trust it is now clarified. Osioni (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Memorial Garden Cross.jpg[edit]

Quick sourcing clarifcation, Is the named author listed yourself?

I wanted to be sure BEFORE the image got move to Commons.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. No, the author Patrick Hugh Lynch gave me permission to use it in the article. If need be, please advise on licencing, thanks. Osioni (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:COPYREQ which details how to get a copyright holder that is NOT yourself to confirm the licensing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Image uploads[edit]

To Commons.svg

Thank you for uploading free images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'file' namespace from the drop down box (or see [6]). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC).
OK, thank you, will give it my attention Osioni (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:351 568-6 i.jpg[edit]

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC) --- I think it's now fixed, thanks. Osioni (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Blighted prose[edit]

Hi - I was not "trying to hide" the fact that the blight was widespread across Europe. What I did was remove a phraseology that made that sound like an "excuse" - your new wording is much better. Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC) . . . . . .Thanks Sarah, I was a little on edge that you might delete me also !! Greetings Osioni (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:618 074C.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:618 074C.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC). Have updated Summary and licencing and permitted myself to remove the template. Trusting everything is now in order. Greetings Osioni (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: ROI[edit]

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

User page edit[edit]

Hi Osioni

I think you edited an article on my user page by mistake. Here is a link to the article I think you were looking for:- Irish military diaspora. Thanks--MFIrelandTalk 12:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

You asked for considerable and that is what you got. Best wishes,Skreen (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert O'Connor (Irish soldier)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Robert O'Connor (Irish soldier) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Martin Joseph Sheehan[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Martin Joseph Sheehan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Needs substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Martin Joseph Sheehan for deletion[edit]

The article Martin Joseph Sheehan is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Joseph Sheehan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SummerPhD (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for a 'redirect'[edit]

Hello there, Explicit, regarding your deletion of Daniel Joseph Sheehan, the reason being understood in principle, however as I the original author was not informed at the outset of the intended deletion on my talk page, I was unable to ask for a "Redirect" as was decided in the case of his brother Martin Joseph Sheehan, to their father D. D. Sheehan. Can you arrange this, or whom should I post my request to? Thank you for your help. Greetings, Osioni (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done, I restored the contents and redirected the article to D. D. Sheehan. — ξxplicit 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Many thanks !! Osioni (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Royal shaking[edit]

"The Queen visited...Cashel...where...Michael Browne, welcomed her and shook her hand." All the action occurred in the past and is described by verbs in the past tense, including shook, not "shakes". I have changed "shakes" to "shook" once again; I hope this explains why. — O'Dea (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the change is that it quotes exactly the phrase used in the Irish Independent, link given: ........shakes her hand !!!, so why not leave it that way? The phrase is both past and present, and sounds and reads better (shook reads odd). Suggest you revert to shakes again since other papers also state "Mayor shakes hands with the Queen". Have they all got it wrong? Greets Osioni (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
[I moved your comment here as a courtesy to keep the discussion intact in one place so it will be easy to follow the conversation.]
It is common newspaper practice to use the present tense of verbs in headlines, but the past tense is used in the body of the narrative. This is explained in discussions of the subject online (example1, example2, example3), and here is a detailed academic paper exploring this very subject.
The phrase "shook her hand" was also used by news reports of the encounter between the monarch and the republican (example 4; example 5; example 6).
All the verbs in the Queen's visit article are in the past tense; please verify this for yourself. Also, encyclopaedias are written to higher standards of correctness than journalism, which adopts a looser style and often plays fast-and-loose with the language. Because encyclopaedias are educational, they are written in formal English.
Shook is the past tense of shake and I do not understand why you regard it as odd; it simply is. You can verify it in the dictionary. If you search for the phrase "he shook her hand" in Google, you get nearly 10,000,000 examples of its use in the search results, which indicates that many people do not find it odd at all.
The Sinn Féin Mayor of Cashel, Michael Browne, himself used the past tense when he described the event. He was reported as follows by The Cork Examiner, "I just shook hands with her," he said. "I just said to her 'welcome to Cashel Your Majesty and I hope you enjoy your stay'. Michael Browne used the past tense twice: "shook" and "said". This is correct grammar.
May I offer some advice about your coding of citations, please? Typically, you write something like, "retrieved from the Irish Independent". The way citations work is to name the publication after the name of the article cited, then the date of the publication of the article. If there is no easily identifiable publication date in the article, then the retrieval date is used, in this format: Retrieved: 2011-05-23.
So, if an article is cited, the footnote looks like this: Queen leaves Ireland after historic four-day State visit Irish Times, 2011-05-20.
But if another source was cited where the date of the article was unknown, it looks like this: The royal family leaving Kingstown (Dún Laoghaire) by carriage (1911) RTÉ Libraries and Archives. Retrieved: 2011-05-17.
So, one of your citations looks like this, Queen visits Cashel: Sinn Féin Mayor's greeting a highlight retrieved from The Nationalist.ie
Since this article shows its publication date, properly coded, it would look like this: Queen visits Cashel: Sinn Féin Mayor’s greeting a highlight The Nationalist, 2011-05-25.
Many of the citations in the references section of the Queen's Visit article have been coded incorrectly by various editors because both dates appear in the citations, the publication date and the retrieval date. The publication date is much more important than the retrieval date, and the latter is only used if the former is absent.
I hope this is helpful. You can read more about recommended citation styles in Wikipedia Help. — O'Dea (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)