User talk:Mabuska/Archive 42014/January

GOCE 2013 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95 Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Saw his and taught of you

"The continent Ireland is on is the continent of Europe. It is on the far western side of Europe in the North Atlantic Ocean. Ireland is divided into two parts, Northern Island which is still part of Great Britain, and the Republic of Ireland.", hope they dont change it before you get to actually see this :) Murry1975 (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Lol, thanks! It's still there and by heck whoever posted that is clueless. Then again suppossedly Great Britain is more than one island, which depending on ho you read it sounds like it's classifying Ireland as part of GB lol. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"Ireland shares an island with Great Britain and Scotland, and as such is not on a continent, but is considered to be a country in Europe", I hope these people dont start editing on here anytime soon!! Murry1975 (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm beyond words after seeing that one. Joey Essex must have been answering people's questions. Imagine the edit-wars and idiotic arguing that could unleash if they persisted on forcing such edits - doesn't bare joking about lol Mabuska ^(talk) 20:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And on an unrelated note, about this edit, as far as I can make out its like the lines of the North-American camp-style, "one time at Gaeltacht camp I stuffed a shilleagh...." . I will try to root something about it, from the interweb, PS I wont ask Jeeves.... Murry1975 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I know however that tag addition was in response to the previous editor changing no inhabitants to two inhabitants. Previous and current statements were both unsourced anyways. Though yes definitely do not ask Jeeves! Mabuska ^(talk) 18:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

On a curious note, I wouldn't want to think where they shoved that blackthorn lol Mabuska ^(talk) 18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cenél Fearadhaigh - Mac Cathmhaoil Progenitor: Donnchadh Mac Cathmail

Hi I was trying to find your source for having Donnchadh Mac Cathmail as Progenitor (could have been someone else who added it too but hopefully you can help)…at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_clans_in_Ulster#Cen.C3.A9l_Fearadhaigh I compiled a page on Mac Cathmhaoil - McCaul (linked to there) but from what I saw Raghnall MacCathmhaoil seems to have been the first person who used the name as a surname?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCaul#Family_Tree or perhaps you are referring to "9.Donachar, 10. Cathmhaoil, …" who gave birth to Cathmhaoil there is also a Donnchadh Mac Cathmail listed in " 1238, Flaithbertach Mac Cathmail, arch-chief of Cenel-Feradhaigh, crown of championship and generosity of the Gaidhil and arch-chief, moreover, of Clann-Conghaile and Ui-Cennfhoda in Tir-Manach, was killed by Donnchadh Mac Cathmail, his own kinsman, in treachery" could this be the one your referring to… that all i could find online at least!

All names on the page are primarily sourced from Robert Bell's "The Book of Ulster Surnames", 1988, The Black Staff Press. Page 140 states: "The first of the name on record (in the Annals of Ulster) was Donnchadh Mac Cathmail, slain in 1180.". Mabuska ^(talk) 23:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I've decided to use my source to help expand the lede of the McCaul article, as well as standardising the formating of it. I would propose that the article be moved to MacCowell as it is cited in the source as being the closest Anglicisation of this Irish name. McCaul could then become an automatic redirect? As MacCowell is cited as such, it should be given priority, or at least equal priority with McCaul. In fact the article itself even states: "(translated mostly as MacCawell)" so it seems apparent it should be.

Seeing as the book doesn't state that the first of the name to be recorded was the progenitor, I moved the information in the Ulster clans article to the "Extras" bit. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

One real problem in the article is the use of quite out-dated sources and sources known for their being quite dubious and incorrect at times such as John O'Hart and MacLysaght. Also in regards to lineages, they should not be taken as 100% fact, there are always other contradicting given elsewhere for Irish clans and they where all doctored by Irish monks to create a common ancestry for the different clans and septs. That's not to say that many don't share a common ancestry, but there was a lot of doctoring. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Maps of interest to Clandeboye and the north of Ireland clans ,might be good added graphics in Clandeboye et other articles ref from @pkthinks1 http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/541688.html http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/541689.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.78.52 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the links, pretty cool maps, especially the first one! The only thing would be sorting out the copyright to see if they can be used on Wikipedia legally. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited McCaul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page O'Neill (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) 12:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sir Walter Coppinger may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Sir Walter Coppinger was the eldest son of [James Coppinger, and the great grandson of Stephen Coppinger who was the first representative of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Irish parliament

I done a quick edit then got back and done one to add more. Revert if you feel I made a mistake on it. Murry1975 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have also chased the 50+ pages effected by this disambiguation page, leaving one that I cant change. Murry1975 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are good, no probs with them. Turned out someone a few months ago changed the redirect from what it went to, when it should be a disamg page. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Blackwater

Hello Mabuska, re:your message of Jan/ 24 2014 in respect of your removal of my information regarding an occurrence in my home village in 1976. This was a relevant posting as it was an important historic event in the locale. Your assertion that it constitutes 'vandalism' could do with a little clarification, it seems you removed as it does not meet with your subjective criteria. It is worth while, again, pointing out that since this is a recorded fact it cannot fall foul of the POV criteria you appear to attribute to it, equally so with certain of my previous edits which have been fully checked with appropriate sources prior to addition. I should equally appreciate were you to refrain from threats regarding 're-posting' as this appears to suggest an hostility, for personal reasons, to promotion of fact over suppression of same. You have failed to respond to previous contact on this matter. Please organise the re-posting of these facts as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macaedha (talk • contribs) 16:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've moved your comment to a new section rather than having it in a unrelated section. In regards to previous contact on this matter, I have only just realised from looking at your contribution history that you posted a message directly into my archives. Point 4 above does state: "Also please don't add new comments into the archives. Post them here.". As you posted it directly into the archives I got no notification of your message.

In regards to the article Blackwater:

• [1] this edit violates the long-time agreed established manual of style for Ireland related articles which states that for places in Northern Ireland, only add the Irish derivation of the place in the lede if it derives from Irish. The modern Irish name goes into the infobox. Blackwater derives from English thus "Portmór" does not go into the lede, instead it goes into the infobox as it does. If it derived from Portmór it would be known as Portmore not Blackwater. Also you have added this in before and had it removed. Though you where never given a proper reason by Jon C. for it.
• This edit is still in the article. I moved it into its own section in the article. I also added a citation needed tag as you have provided no evidence to back the statement up. Please see WP:VERIFY. But it is still there, it has not been removed so there are no "facts" to immediately restore.
• On the related article River Blackwater, Ulster, I removed this due to it being unsourced and dubious and appeared to be original research. Note the Irish name that the river used to be known as in the article is sourced.

Now in regards to the minor caution template I issued on your page was not in regards to those edits on the Blackwater article. I never stated what article as it reflected edits you have made on several articles over the years that went uncautioned for. This confusion is my fault for not taking the WP:BURDEN to list each edit that the caution covered. For your benefit these edits are:

• In the Belfast article you removed the Ulster-Scots name for Belfast from the infobox, and removed the agreed terminology in regards to stated "on the island of Ireland".
• Again in the Belfast article where removing the fact that Belfast is the capital of Northern Ireland.
• Unsourced addition here where you allege the UVF were behind an attack, which was questioned and reverted.
• This edit can be constituted as vandalism and POV pushing in the form of trying to make the murder of the person seem possibly justified by claiming that they are a "part time UDR" man when the source clearly states that they where a "civilian". You changed a sourced statement to state something false, even though due to the amount of entries on the article the sources are at the bottom of the article. WP:BURDEN falls on you to dig deeper.
• This is also a blatant piece of POV as you purposely removed the fact the town is in Northern Ireland and replaced it and the link to simply Ireland. This can also be construed as vandalism.
• Removal once again of Northern Ireland and replacing it with the island.
• In all technicality] the church was not taken over by the Church of Ireland. It passed from one denomination to the other when all but two Irish bishops voted to break from Rome and follow the Anglican communion.
• This edit is a blatant breech of WP:VERIFY and can be regarded as libelous. The fact it was an undercover British spy also adds to the potential POV matter of it.
• Removal of this statement which clarified that it was on about the island not the country.

These edits can all be easily construed as showing an Irish nationalist POV and can easily constitute vandalism and thus the caution template was justified to show that the edits have not gone unnoticed. Importantly it is only a caution and no action will come from it, yet it is customary to caution an editor to help prevent further behaviour of this sort. Continuation of this behaviour howevver after having been cautioned would mean firmer warnings which may lead to a block.

If you have anymore questions then please ask. I'm sorry for the confusion for not specifying exactly the problematic edits at the start. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. add a source for your claim about the attack otherwise it will be liable to being deleted in the near future for being unsourced. Also coming from the place or being present does not satisfy WP:VERIFY and only gives credit to claims of WP:OR. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)