User talk:Shtove

Welcome!

Hello, Shtove, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Journalist ^C. / ^{Holla @ me!}

Saying that Elizabeth's religious views were held only to "suit her own ambitions" is ipso facto non-neutral. The description of the manner in which the Irish insurrection of 1583 was put down is not neutral, insomuch as it paints the English as cruel and oppressive. "Appalling" is inherently not a neutral phrase. I hope that these explanations suffice; if not, we could discuss it further. -- Emsworth 00:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damned if I remember. On the Village Pump or Reference desk, I believe someone had typo'd something, and I made a cheap pun. I occasionally do that, usually with an edit summary like "Frivolous remark" or "even less useful response". -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the precision of the term 'dissenter': yes and no. I think it's a loaded term, even without the historical connotations; it places one side rather than the other as those who dissent, seeming to imply that the thing they dissent from is the generally-accepted truth. I don't think it adds anything to the statement "[the claim] is disputed on grounds of doctrine by Protestants" to add that the Protestants are "dissenters" - the statement already says they disagree with the claim; adding that they are "dissenters" merely seems to give them a particular characterisation.

On the term 'Protestant': I, and the 'Protestant' article, think that Protestant now fairly unambiguously refers to members of the Christian movement which divided from the Roman Catholic Church at the Reformation; the third major branch of Christianity along with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm not sure I see that as particularly vague; and I think it is the case that all Protestants would dispute the Roman Catholic Church's right to sole use of the description "Catholic".

On the term "Catholic Church": ideally, yes, each article would have a single, simple, uncontroversial title. Unfortunately, the organisation referred to by this article prefers a title - "the Catholic Church" - which makes a claim which is disputed; the 'Catholic' article has a good examination of the different claims on the term Catholic. I'm sure that, for example, the Palmarian Catholic Church would also like to be called "the Catholic Church", while most if not all Protestant denominations would claim that no single denomination has the right to call itself that. I don't think it's compatible with Wikipedia policies for Wikipedia to declare that one contenter is "the Catholic Church", even if it is the largest body that claims that title. Those outside the organisation usually distinguish which particular "Catholic Church" this is by prefixing it with "Roman". Wikipedia policy on naming is:

"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."

What is specifically not mentioned is what the body itself would like to be called. It is of interest, and should be noted, that the body would prefer to be called the Catholic Church; but I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to award it that title given that a large proportion of people would dispute its right to it.

On Talk:Roman Catholic Church: I read it; I post to it; unfortunately, it's far too long and little-read. I've read most of it, but there's no consistent thread of debate, just a huge array of unconnected comments. For example, I made a proposal on there (about the Terminology section) several months ago; but I haven't yet carried it through, because, even though it received no objections on the talk page, I have no confidence that the majority of editors will have read it. Nothing ever seems to be decided there; it probably needs a purge and restart from scratch.

TSP 14:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. Leicester point taken but he was back in England by 1588. I hope the article contribution is not too forthright but religion is always a problem. When it enters into a topic, an attempt to point out truths will appear unbalanced to those whose minds are set in another direction. :-) (RJP 13:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

>Your point ... should be relegated to the discussion page
I do not think so. The points of view in the Spanish and English/Dutch articles are too different/opposing to be brushed under a discussion page. I hope you will agree after you read the Tergiversaciones históricas ("historical distortions") section in the Spanish Wikipedia Armada article. I have renamed the section from "Discussion" to "Point of view". MH 20:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shtove. My contributions to es:Leyenda negra were mainly objections. I find the article in w:es extremely POV, and I have argued with Ecelan to the point. I think the fact that the very term was developed by a conspicuous ultra-Catholic and pan-Hispanist revisionist should be clearly mentioned in the introduction, and that more attention should be paid to the usage of the term by the historians of the Franco regime, more interested in resuscitating an anachronical idea of Spanish grandeur and nobility than in historical precision. I don't think the English version is much better, unfortunately.

Nevertheless, I am no historian. I think your best bet in this regard is es:User:Cinabrium, who is far more competent on the matter than I am. He has a homepage here, he writes some mean English, and he's certainly up to the task. Best, Taragüí 13:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:Jmabel)
Thanks for your vigilance. It's a significant propaganda subject, so I'm trying to get fair Spanish input to make the article more or less accurate and balanced, in both languages (I dont' speak Spanish, and my knowledge of the subject is marginal) - hopeless perhaps, but can you assist? The end of the discussion page shows my attempts. Are the people I'm talking to the same ones you keep reverting?shtove 23:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(end copied passage)

Who knows, since the people I find myself reverting are almost uniformly editing anonymously. The comment above indicates that Taragüí would probably have objections that would go well beyond those I've raised, but in the same direction.

FWIW, I read Spanish well and write it decently. If you have specific material you want translated, I'm glad to help (though a bit busy), but I agree with Taragüí that the Spanish-language Wikipedia article won't be much help: unsurprisingly, it is even more uniformly apologist for Spain.

What the article really most needs is references and citations, so that no one has an excuse to keep throwing away large portions of it that they happen to like, selectively invoking the claim that the material is uncited. And this is a topic where I suspect that the online references will mostly be mediocre: for a controversy that raged largely in historians' journals, someone needs to do some library research.-- Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input and don't give up just yet :) See comments on Talk page - FrancisTyers 00:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The info was related to discussion on Christopher Columbus, and whether there was any evidence to support the saga that he learned about Hy Brasil in Galway. See Talk:Christopher Columbus#Signs of Land beyond the Atlantic in Galway? / Navigatio Sancti Brendani. --Red King 18:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(btw, while I'm here, it is not true to say that Protestants are Dissenters. Only Presbyterians, Quakers, Baptists (along with Catholics) are - the dissent is from acceptance of the Supremacy Act and the Book of Common Prayer. --Red King 18:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

You can move pages with the "Move" feature :) I hope I didn't cause an edit conflict when moved it. Nice article, BTW. Alensha 23:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the unverified info can probably be deleted, since it appears to be a very weak conspiricy theory, not even notable since its not widespread.

You might like to look over Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style and Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations for some hints on how to format references. --Barberio 02:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for a delayed reply. I've been on (short) vacations, far away from computers (or even TV or newspapers -- and yes, there is a life beyond the Internet :D).

Getting back into the issue: tracing the roots of a people is usually a hard task, particularly when one does not have written documents. Modern science gives us two significant tools: genetics and linguistics. If a people is essentially an identity (common culture, common traditions, self-recognition of "belonging to"), the latter tends to be more useful than the former. But both of them can (and indeed do) give us good clues.

From linguistics, it is today generally accepted that Basque (Euskara) is an isolated language. It is believed that Euskara was part of a more extended pre-indoeuropean linguistic conglomerate (a family of languages, perhaps?) also represented by the longtime extinct Aquitanian language. The words Gascon and Basque have the same root, since the Romans called the tribes living in that area uascones- Archaelogical evidence shows that Basque ancestors were living more or less in their current settlement area, i.e. between the Adour and Ebro rivers.

From genetics, we know some interesting (and curious) things. Among all peoples, Basques have the highest prevalence of both type O blood and Rh negative factor. Basques with O- blood are 27% of the population, against a 7% average for people of European descent[*]. This fact has given grounds for some speculative theories: areas known to have been occupied by the Cro-Magnon man (as the Atlas Mountains of Morocco and the Canary Islands) show a very high incidence of Rh-, and this is often cited. together with skull features, as a proof of the Cro-Magnon origin of the Basques.

If we try to get the mythical Milesians into historical context, we could say that the legend is an account of (one of the?) indoeuropean wave(s) moving westwards. By all accounts, Milesians were Celts. Protocelts appear in Central Europe (Urnfield and Hallstadt cultures) between 1500 and 1000 BC, contemporarily with the migration of Protoitalics to Italian Peninsula, the rise of the Vedic civilization in Punjab (Northern India) and the fall of the Micenic civilization. Between 1000 and 500 BC Celtic languages spread over Central and Western Europe, and Celts reach British Isles not before the second half of the 1st millenium BC (see also Celtiberians). There is no reason to assume that those Milesians were Basques; it is however possible that they could have departed from the mouths of the Adour (today's Bayonne), coming from Celtic areas in today's Southern France.

With regard to genetic kinship between Basques, Welsh and Irish, I've not found the reference here in WP. Some form of correlation is however possible, so please let me speculate a little bit about it. Today's Irish and Welsh peoples are of Celtic origin, but a lot of intermixing exists. Basques are not Celts, but a lot of intermixing with neighboring Celtic peoples (as Galicians) exists too; in fact, Basque "ethnicity" is not defined as belonging to a certain genetic heritage, but by the sharing of a common language: Euskaldunak ("the Basques") are "Euskara-speaking people". Their land, Euskal Herria, is "the land of those that speak Euskara".

I hope this (unordered) notes help. If you have any further questions, please contact me (in my Wikipedia en español talk page). Best wishes from Cinabrium 02:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

[*]BTW, my mother and most of her family are O-. I'm A+, and am alive just because I was her firstborn child. Had I been the second, Wikipedia would have had one less editor (see Rh disease).

It does not link to an article yet because it has not yet been witten! But it is the name of the expedition: Google ["The Islands Voyage" expedition Azores] --Philip Baird Shearer 00:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shtove, thanks for all your good work on the tudor Ireland articles up to now. I want to have a really good set of articles on early modern Irish history here, so I've also been looking at the biographies of people from that time. The Hugh O'Neill article is coming along, which is good because it was left in really bad state until recently. Likewise the Hugh Roe O'Donnell article. How about a category people of the time eg "Tudor Irish People" or 16th century Irish people"?

I'm not happy about the Florence MacCarthy article at the moment. It seems to be far to long to me and clouded in detail, which the average reader could never absorb. I may have mentioned before that I wrote an MA thesis on this topic, so its a bit close to my heart! I am tempted to re-write this article completely, but I want to run it by you first. (Chapters of the MA can be sent by email if you are interested btw! :) )

Also, I've made some changes to Tudor re-conquest of Ireland recently. What I want is to have a thorough but fairly concise account of the main trends in English policy in Ireland and the Irish response to them. Do you think anything has been missed out? You might also like to have a look at Early Modern Ireland 1536-1691 for the same reason - is anything important missing?

Another project that I have in mind is the starting of articles on 16C battles in Ireland, including a category to contain the Nine Years War battles. I have my sights on battle of Affane, battle of Farsetmore, Siege of Smerwick Castle, battle of Clontibret, battle of Curlew Pass, battle of Moyry Pass. Help would be much appreciated. Jdorney 01:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work. I've expanded it a bit with details from McCoy's "Irish battles", but your text is still the backbone of the article. I've also added an article on the Battle of Affane, whichyou mifght like to edit. Jdorney 01:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on Affane. I would question though, whther its a good idea to quote Falls directly. For one thing, Fall' language is abit dated, for another thing, his writing usually echoes the state papers a bit too uncritically. Have most of those battle articles done now. Only Moyry and Smerwick left. Jdorney 22:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Apologies. Ok, well "espied" sounds strange to my ears anyway. Re the "rascals", I have no doubt that Fitzgerald used the term, but I think in modern terms it would mean "marauders", "looters", or "scavengers". Kerne would have done this, but also acted as scouts and skirmishers. Lennon's fairly brief account says that the Geralidines were caught in the river, I assumed this meant drowned. Fair enough. I don't really understand aht you mean about Coyne and livery. If you are asking what it means, it refers to the maintaining of private armies by Irish lords. The term itself comes from the combination of an Irish word for free quarter, coinnmheadh and the English word Livery, which means the colours or uniforms worn by a lord's retained soldiers. Jdorney 00:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. I wikified it a bit and added a sentence. We're nearly there on the battles front now. I have notes ready on the battle of Moyry Pass and intend to start it shortly. I have no detailed info on Smerwick however. Do you? Btw, have you seen battle of Farsetmore article and battle of Curlew Pass? Your input would be appreciated. Jdorney 19:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the "story" designation either, actually. It's bugged me since I first saw it. In fact, I'm preparing (after some discussion) to attempt a condensed rewrite of the whole intro that is more "intro" and less "highlights of Irish history". When I do that, I'll do my best to throw in some verbiage that acknowledges Ireland's interactions with the continent. Dppowell 17:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Trivia section at Richard Grenville you added an anecdote about Gilbert. Does this belong under Grenville? The connection is not clear. Shouldn't it be under Gilbert, if anywhere? Also, how reputable is the source? Lambiam 09:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please, next time if you edit a page and you see that it was last edited by an anonymous someone, check if they made good edits or simple vandalism. I had to restore 72.235.103.88's deletions one by one because simply reverting them would have deleted your later additions. Thanks if you pay attention to this. Alensha 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the reference to Thomas More, it was a bit POV, I tried to NPOV it without deleting the explanation why was Anne against him. The reference to Anne as a victim was in a quote from Retha Warnicke; it's her opinion not that of WP, as it is stated. The same about the word "fetus" (baby sounds better, but we shouldn't change quoted text.) regards, Alensha 19:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the article as you requested. It does appear that your edits have been reverted, but it appears that they were reverted by an anonymous editor, not by EffK. I may restore them. Robert McClenon 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your edits. EffK has not been editing the article in the last few days, only flaming away on the talk page. Robert McClenon 19:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Workshop for background information. Robert McClenon 19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More like an oil well. A distant comet causes no pollution on the Earth. Robert McClenon 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the comment. Some of my articles are related to my work. Others are related to stuff that I loved to read about in my teens. But actually many of the contributions I am most proud of are about subjects that I had never heard of before. I think that writing an article for Wikipedia does much more for me than for Wikipedia...
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I've put the Florence McCarthy thing on the long finger for now. Re Yom Kippur, there is no way in hell I would get involved in debates over Arab-Israeli history of any kind on wikipedia, life's too short. Jdorney 14:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Delighted to meet your acquaintence, Shtove, and am very much looking forward to reading your articles. There's not many people doing much on Irish history pre-1798, so contribuitors such as yourself are invaluable. Be sure do drop me a line. Cheers! Fergananim 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice your first message. I reverted because "the Countess" and "the Earl" are incorrect — only Dukes and Duchesses are referred to by the rank alone, with all others being "Lord X" or "Lady X". And calling her "Fitzgerald" is wrong on two counts: (1) peers and peeresses are referred to by title, not surname; and (2) her surname was "FitzGerald", not "Fitzgerald". And Irish rules are entirely the same as English rules, since the Irish Peerage was instituted entirely by England (it's not like Scotland, which developed it separately and so developed its own quirks). Proteus (Talk) 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingham was a very interesting charecter, and I'm sure I have some notes pertaining to him somewhere. If you do have any queries concerning his activities west of the Shannon I'd be delighted to help. At the moment I'm trying to create a comprehensive list of Irish Kings and Kingdoms, then work through them biographicly. You might also find this - http://celt.ucc.ie/publishd.html - a useful resources. As my health is irregular my input varies, but don't let that stop you asking me. Cheers! Fergananim 21:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the article charismatic authority as per your request. I do not think that a statement in the summary about Hitler's charisma is appropriate. Though it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Andries 13:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shtove, I know you mainly contribute on Irish historical matters, and I wondered whether you have any guidance to offer on the use of the term Anglo-Irish in the opening paragraph of WP biogs. See my query at Talk:Anglo-Irish. Thanks -- Op. Deo 20:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. To my knowledge there are no WP articles on famous editors, are they? And he will anyway never tell. He always adhered to a "do ask, don't tell policy". Str1977 23:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offence at all. I just wanted to increase the chance of EffK not reading such suggestions. It will only lead to another rant. He will probably read it any way, but one can always try. I can assure you that he's not Schröder's ex-wife, neither Hillu nor her two predecessors. But I won't say more about it in the open because ... well, result as above. Cheers and Goodnight, Str1977 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you left a question for another user yesterday concerning the deletion of an article, and your question was deleted as well. The user did not wish to be rude, and would have answered privately if your e-mail facility had been enabled. However, you have stumbled across something confidential, concerning threats to another Wikipedian. Jimbo is aware of the situation. Hope that helps. KHM03 03:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks.--shtove 17:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, what do you mean by claiming that Irishmen taught Englishmen how to speak their own language?--Anglius 04:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)--Anglius 00:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in 15th-16th century history generally - I've made quite a few petty tweaks to some Swedish articles as well. Nothing personal! —Serein 07:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm most flattered! Jdorney 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does seem to be based on the English langage article. There is now also a stub in Swedish!

Re the British Empire, I think there should certainly be a section on early modern Ireland in it, though i don't have the energy myself at the moment. Canny's Making Ireland British is good. Another useful book for the colonisation of Ireland is "Natives and Newcomers", a collection of essays, I can't remember the name of the editor right now though.

Re ideology, there's a compilation book called "Political Ideology in Ireland 1541-1641, edited by Harman Murtagh, which is very informative. Also there's a recent, somewhat off beat bok about writing in English on Ireland in the seventeenth century by Deana Rankin titled, "Between Spenser and Swift". For Irish language responses, a good place to start is Michelle O'Riordan's, "the Gaelic Mind and the Collapse of the Gaelic world". Also Brendan O Buachala has a book in Irish whose name I can't remmeber right now.

Other books would be more specific about particlar times and events. I like Murtagh's "Tyrone's rebellion" for the background on Hugh O'Neill and the outbreak of the Nine Years War. Ciaran Brady has a provocative but interesting take on 16c Ireland in th "The Chief Governors", where he emphasises the sincerely held belief of English governors in civil "reform" in the 1500s and why this collapsed into violence. Stephen Ellis' "Tudor Ireland" has loads of minute detail, but is not great for the bigger picture in my opinion.

Hope that helps, Jdorney 11:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Help appreciated. I hope you're in good health. Is your name Clint, by any chance?--"

Delighted you asked, though you might have to wait a while for me to do so as I'm still under the weather. And no it is'nt. Fergananim 14:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canny is still there alright, he's actually my supervisor! Hopefully he doesn't know how much time I waste on here. Re maps, I'm afraid i don't know anything about them except how to cut and paste them from other articles. Same with pictures. Jdorney 15:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've being doing some long-overdue edits to Edward Bruce, particularly under the headings "The Invasion of Ireland" and "Arrival and the Campaign of 1315". I began it because the original article was hopelessly wrong in many places, but am now wondering if what I am writing would be better suited as an article in its own right on the Irish Bruce wars? Fergananim 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oy Shtove, I just always say hoo-pah-TEE-ah, which solves the whole problem!

Yo, anonymous - many thanks (I think - what was the problem?). So hard T, with emphasis. But how does Hy turn in to Hoo? Ancient Greek? Or is it Irish-whiskey pronunciation? Oy - there's a bit on the Roman pronunciation of Veni Vidi Vici talk - weeni weedi weechi - wot u fink?--shtove 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, shtove. I have more than a passing interest in your favourite area. I am, however, wondering why you anglicise all the names of sixteenth century Gaelic and Gaelicised lords when, for the sake of accuracy, the standard practice in Irish Historiography (e.g. K. Simms, Mac Niocaill etal) is to use the Irish version if they were culturally Irish but the anglicised version if they were not? That practice allows for Florence McCarthy's name to be anglicised, while conveying an equally accurate role for figures such as Brian Ó Ruairc, Ulliam Nuinseann , Fiacha Mac Aodha Ó Broin, Mac Muiris Mac Gearailt, and so forth. I fear that the reality of Ireland's diversity in the sixteenth century is not conveyed with your current policy. El Gringo 01:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but elsewhere when we have people correctly addressed in one form but much more famous by another we do the following.

Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry, KG, GCH, PC (18 June 1769 – 12 August 1822), known until 1821 by his courtesy title of Viscount Castlereagh

I don't know the details of the Countess in question to dispute what she may have been called incorrectly but a 'known as X' after the formal usage may be the solutionAlci12 17:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

First, the use of 'rebel' to decribe the native Irish does in fact imply that Irish resistance to English rule was unusual, was exceptional. The word in this context was designed to establish English rule as the norm in society. Ciarán Brady devotes some time to discussing this in his book on Shane O Neill/Seán an Díomais and points out that it was O Neill and his struggles which represented the norm in society and, if any group had been 'rebelling', it was the English government of Ireland which was rebelling against the norm. It is a thoughtless word for a professional historian to use; an acceptance of the English view of the time as fact. Second, because Irish-born worked in the English government doesn't make it less colonial, no more than Algerian-born Pied Noir working for the French made the French government in Algeria less colonial. In fact, native-born workers are part of every colonial government and all works on colonialism and settler-colonialism incorporate them into the structure of those types of government. Third, to claim that the government was 'Irish domestic' implies that domestic Irish concerns were at its heart. With just a flicker of thought towards the English attitude towards the Gaelic world, Ireland's majority culture, this is patently untrue. The refusal to allow even Irish-born Old English head the government confirms that in English eyes the nascent Old English community was not to be trusted in government (and they were not). It was a government which was fully controlled by the English, most especially from Sussex's deputyship, and to claim it was a 'domestic Irish' government is simply ahistorical. The resistance to English policies from 1556 to 1583, and the ultimate defeat of the Old English, confirms beyond doubt English colonial control over the government. El Gringo 13:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd liked your suggestion. It set off a ... discussion. Why not stop by? --CTSWyneken 00:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And we're off again! --CTSWyneken 19:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOur opinion on a catagory dispute at Martin Luther is requested. --CTSWyneken 15:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shtove. I suggested the rename from Category:Elizabethan Ireland biographies to Category:Elizabethan Ireland people (or one of the alternatives I listed) as I didn't think the term 'biographies' was right in this case, because it's a self-reference to the articles, rather than actually describing the content of the articles. You can probably best see what I mean by comparing Category:People (This category is for biographical articles) with Category:Biographies (This category is for articles about books that are biographies). If there is a consensus to rename, an admin will run through the pages with a bot to make the necessary amendments, so there shouldn't be any edit implications. BTW, Ryan is the guy that added my welcome message. All the best. - Nzd (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shtove. Thanks for your message. If you'd like to contribute to the discussion, you can do so here. I will try to remember to notify category creators when suggesting renames in future. Apologies for not doing so this time. All the best. - Nzd (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my user page. I have now made it look worse, as I added one more link, and didn't know how to format it, but I think it's better to leave it like that, and hope that someone else will fix it. I've sent a message to the guy I stole the page from, so he might be able to help. It's good to see some intelligent and reasonable comments at Hitler, by the way. AnnH ♫ 11:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I don't have other maps of Ireland or Mercator. Some time ago I was collecting maps related to 17th century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What I found is here - maybe some of the sites will have the maps you are looking for.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's GFDL so there's no restriction on its use within Wikipedia. The reason I requested something better is because it's badly scanned and due to the sunset it's not especially good for demonstrating what the islands look like. As for who took it, either me or my father, it was a long time ago and we were using the same camera, so I've forgotten. Joe D (t) 02:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted your Rockall photo in Spanish Armada in Ireland. Thanks. Do you have any other images that would be relevant there - ie. stormy west coast of Ireland?--Shtove 22:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! I'm heading out to sea next week and might get some pics of the north coast (can't promise stormy though! :) ), so I'll drop you a line if they're any good. Cheers. Anilocra 11:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My compilments on a excellent article ClemMcGann 13:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re the Museum - do drop in any Saturday or Sunday - If I'm not there ask for Philip Smiley. You might also consider diving associations ClemMcGann 09:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I left a reply for you here. <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith  Talk to me  12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more stubs, and hope to have a few more done before too long. Nothing too adventerious, but hopefully of interest. Knock yourself out. Fergananim 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mac an Bhaird
• Diarmaid Mac an Bhaird
• Leabhar Cloinne Aodha Buidhe
• Clandeboye
• Mac Aodhagáin
• Leabhar Breac
• Murchadh Ó Cuindlis
• Laidcenn mac Buith Bannaig
• Leabhar Clainne Suibhne

My proverbial hat's off to you! GREAT WORK! I especially like the photos, as far too many wiki articles are not well served in this department. I'll begin to add in little bits here and there, especially in relation to the west coast. It is well worthy of featured article status. My only advice at present would be tighten it up, make sure all the sub-headings are in right order, and go over the opening paragrah again. The bold print looks a bit odd where it is, and I think any reference to the Desmond Rebellion should be removed to the main text. However had'nt that ended back in the early 1580's? Minor quibbles, I stress. 8/10! Fergananim 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting reading, but could you please advise how you identified the ship that was wercked in Tralee Bay. My information, from the journals of the Kerry Archaeological & Historical Society - No. 23 (1990)"The Surrender of an Armada Vessel near Tralee; an exploration of the State's Papers by Brendan G McCarthy is inconclusive on the identity of the ship but states that it is a barrk (bark, barque) between 40 and 50 tons with 24 people on board. It was a small three masted vessel and would be called a Patax or a Zabra by the Spanish.(Fenitharbour) MOC 18:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenitharbour (talk • contribs)

This is why citation is so important. The details in the article come from the Graveyard book listed in the general sources at the end of the article: written by a journalist who didn't give precise citations in his own text and didn't supply an index, so it's not easy to cite text pages throughout the article. Google it to see if you can get a copy - short book, very good read, with a solid account of the politics. Judging by my knowledge of the original state papers of the period, it also seems reliable on those details of the shipwrecks. I've done my best with this, can do no more! You seem to have a good source, so please add it. All the best.--Shtove (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is up now. The "E" from "example" did not get cancelled out. The picture, I think, was originally in Muckross House. The Dublin Review articles on her will require MASSIVE re-writing of the article.

Hi Shtove, In case you haven't seen it, I thought you might be interested in this Smiley box. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 18:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment about a bare-bones version elsewhere. Good Idea. Difficult to implement. Agathoclea 22:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Yeah...I should have known better than to read an entry on the Life of Adolf Hitler on an open-edit site such as wikipedia.

There are clearly two main strands of people who use Wikipedia: 1)Those who want to achieve some form of self-glorification by seeing their name in lights. 2) Those who are thinking, 'This might be of use to someone else'.

I used to edit bits and pieces for Encyclopedia Britannica for a couple of years andI thus find all this subtle political manoeuvring very childish indeed.

Hitler was about as Christian as Ming the Merciless...and not quite as well dressed either.

To my mind there is a small clique of persons who wish to slam organisations such as the Roman Catholic Church through petty mided tactics. Although I am Catholic by birth it is not so much that which bothers me. The section on Hitler's religious beliefs on Wiki is dangerous; it seems to portray a man only half guilty of his own crimes by suggesting 'great forces' were at work to twist his mind.

I share Fest's objection to calling Hitler 'Evil' - it excuses his human actions by portraying him as being the pawn of some dark force.

But yes, I'll continue to repaste the quote I supplied from Mein Kampf indefinitely as the thrust of the existing subtleties is deeply offensive given the vast weight of material demonstrating Hitler despised christianity no less than he despised judaism.

Best,

Dave.

....and yes, I am in London!

("Baaaah!") :o) --Iamlondon 17:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shtove. I don't have any particular doubts that Westward Ho! offers examples of the black legend or was influenced by it. But because the BL is such a hot button topic, we should adhere quite closely to the verification and NOR policies. I would say the same about the BL article itself. Nesbit 02:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm near a university library. If you can recall the sources, I can try to look them up. Nesbit 04:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Our paths have not crossed much recently for some reason. Anyway, I have done some long overdue clean-up work on the Old English (Ireland) page. I wonder if you could have a look at it, as I'm sure you have some content of your own to add. I hope that we can rid the pae of its current cleaup status tag. I'm not really sure what to do with the second section, I don't quite get the point that whoever wrote it was trying to make. I hope all else is well. Jdorney 22:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticted a comment you made on this on another talk page. Unrelated to that comment, I set out to create a page on the Siege, and when writing the background info, it ended up as an article on the second Desmond Rebellions, with a section on Smerwick. I'm not a historian and I have left some comments on the talk page. Perhaps you could review --Rye1967 06:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have since found my comments and questions on Talk:Second Desmond Rebellion, and yes I think and article on the Siege of Smerwick would be great but I don't have acess to any more info either. Whenever it does get created it will be easy to have it replace the paragraph in the Second R article, so in the meantime, I am making all the other articles point to there.--Rye1967 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Jdorney, co-operation IS better than un-discussed deletion, which is why I didn't like his blanket revert of my work without giving a reason, so that is why I have reverted his changes on this occasion, something I don't normally do. I have given him an explanation of my reasons, and I will discuss it with him. We may be squaring off!, but I don't engage in revert wars - a waste of energy. I can see that he has made a great contribution to WP

I have just now removed one item from the list of battles - the 1581 sack of Smerwick castle. I have been in the area a few times as a youngester and although aware of the fort, have never heard of a castle (although there is a reference to the castle of Feirter in the area). None of the articles mention a battle of 1581 either. --Rye1967 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with your conclusion on the revert, but I will discuss with Jodorney, keep an eye on progress on our talk pages!! Interesting comment on the Azores massacre - as I was reading the Smerwick info, I was thinking that Rezalda (sp?) who was in the Spanish armada and was a Smerwick veteran must have been itching to have a go at the English forces again, it was many of the same guys - a cycle of revenge within a generation, as we have even seen in Northern Ireland. A time of great savagery but I wonder how much of our current-day standards we can apply when judging the behaviour.

There isnt (yet) a category of massacres, cause there were others, in other countries and those of Cromwell, and indeed on nearby Dursey Island on the Beara Peninsula --Rye1967 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re pictures, I'm afraid my technical expertise is still non existent. I'm going to have to change a few things on the Old English page, after a talk with El Gringo. I have a problem with the idea of "Norman rule" in Ireland. They may have orignially come from Normandy, but Ireland was annexed by the King of England and the old English settlers below the nobility were generally English.

Re the Desmond articles, to be honest I'm not too happy with cutting the original article to make a cut and paste one. I would prefer if we left the original as it was and then worked on comprehensive one on the second rebellion if people think its necessary. The point for me is that so few people know the history and background involved that it is best to have releatively short and clear articles rather than long and detailed ones. That's what I was going for when I wrote the article in the first place. I realise that I should have discussed this first with Ryle1967 before I reverted anything though.

Jdorney 19:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shtove, Don't know if you've been keeping up with the 2nd Desmond Rebellion article, I've more or less re-written it in the last few days. I have two questions you might be able to help me with.

First, what do you know about the story that Fitzmaurice offered the Kingship of Ireland to the Pope's illegitimate son? It sounds a bit far fetched to me and I can't find any other reference to it. This doesn't mean its not true of course.

Second, the info about 200 Spaniards being massacred near Naas. Likewise, I can't find any mention of this either. I'm mainly using Colm Lennon's 16th century Ireland as a source. I also have some notes from state papers on the final stage of the rebellion from my Florence MacCarthy notes and a couple of journal articles. Anyway, can you confirm that this actually happened, and when and where it happened?

Cheers, Jdorney 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the nephew thing. That makes a lot more sense.

Re the Naas question, the only reference to it I can find is in the History of County Kildare article here on wp. I find it rather odd that 200 Spanish soldiers (and I'm not sure Fitzmaurice had that many to start with) marched from Smerwick to Naas in 1579 and stayed there until 1580 when they were massacred. Apart from the lack of references, it just doesn't make sense. Why not stay in Munster in the heartland of the revolt? Would the English have left them alone for a year within 20 miles of Dublin? Doubtful. If they left in July 1580 to help Baltinglass aand O'Byrne, that would be a different story of course.

It does seem though, that there were a load of executions of Palesmen in Naas in 1581, executed for their involvement with Baltinglass. See http://www.catholicapologetics.net/pers_3.htm#Under%20Queen%20Elizabeth. In fact, it seems like there was a lot of Catholic martyrs during the Desmond Rebellions, mostly in the Old English community, something I was only vaguely aware of before. Maybe the article should refelct this?

How do you feel the Second Desmond Rebellion article is looking in general?

Hope you had a good feed incidentally! You do references like this ^[1]. You have to have a

at the bottom of the page to see the footnote.

All the best, Jdorney 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing my attention to this page, which seems to me to be a sober and commendable piece of work. I have only a couple of minor quibbles. I think it more accurate to say that Sorley extended and deepened MacDonnell power in Ulster rather than created it as such. In this regard, his role within Clan Iain Mor as a whole is worth some greater elaboration. I intend to write an article on the 1565 Battle of Glentasie in the very near future, which I hope will clarify some of these issues. I will let you know as soon as it is up and running. Regards. Rcpaterson 22:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Glentasie now stands. Regards, Rcpaterson 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move on the terminology page needs your vote, Shtove. El Gringo 19:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo-it should have read 'posthumous'-after death. The point arises from the rather curious wording about his possible marriage in the article itself. Thank you for the reminder; I intend to rewrite this page very soon now. Regards. Rcpaterson 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[the typo referred to above was, 'posthumpus marriage'.]--Shtove 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all the links that linked to Thomas Lee the army captain so that they would link to that article and am creatinga disambiguation page for Thomas Lee so that it clears up confusion about who is who. Dinosaur puppy 23:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Looking throught the links I have found other Thomas Lee's who might be quite notable as well, one is even a billionaire. Dinosaur puppy 23:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Shtove, Yeah, you are probably correct about the toning down. Work away on that. The Adamson stuff is seriously hardline loyalist material (even though Adamson himself is in the UUP). His creation of an ethnic Cruithin identity as a basis for modern loyalism has gained some followers here in the shape of Mal/Setanta and others. Ethnic identities are just so idiotic, especially given the numerous alternatives for basing an identity upon. El Gringo 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you didn't make assumptions on my behalf thank you. Also, if you had read any of Adamson's work, you would notice that he specifically suggests that it highlights a common identity. However, from your edits it is evident that you have not read any of it, as you don't appear to know the most basic information about it.

As for "has gained some followers here" - I had heard of Adamson decades ago, before Wikipedia was a twinkle in Jimbo's eye you know!

Once again, so as there is no confusion - I am not loyalist. When I notice a loyalist contributing regularly to Wikipedia, I'll be sure to point them out to you (shouldn't be too hard to recognise though). --Mal 03:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change it if you will to something better than my edit. They ruled a few coastal towns with great success, destroyed thousands of manuscripts and treasured works of art, and never did rule the Gaelic culture. MelForbes 00:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange one. Yes, we wrote this article together, as can clearly be seen from the history page. And the talk page. I don't know what's up, but in the short term I'm going to revert it and see what happens. Jdorney 21:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done. Seems to have worked.

Just looked over the Nine Years War battle articles. We probably should expand the battle of the Yellow Ford article, this was one of the first I wrote on wikipedia and I went for brevity and clarity over content. the battle of Kinsale article we should re-write completely imo. The article as it stands is very poor for an event of such importance in Irish history. For sources, I have access to the battle of Kinsale (ed Hiram Morgan), Irish battles (Hayes McCoy) and 16th century Ireland (Colm Lennon). What do you reckon?

Jdorney 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to have a go at Kinsale first, at some point in the next week. Jdorney 19:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave the article a read. First and foremost I will say that it is well written. The hardest part about assessing articles sometimes is telling people that an article they have devoted much time to is terribly written. Not the case here. I made a short list of things that I think ned improvement. As always, they are just one mans opinion so take them for what they are worth:

• Use of the term "was in train" in the intro? No idea what it means or what it is tryig to imply.
• I would suggest expanding the intro a little to include why the Spanish Armada was invading England (part of the greater Anglo-Spanish War) and generally what caused them to wreck.
• There need to be in-line citations throughout the article, especially where people are quoted. I am assuming that the majority of the info came from the 2 books listed. Take a look at Corinthian War as a good example of how to properly cite and refernce.
• I would repostion the Clew's Bay photo so it does not break the page up in such a strange way as it currently does.

Overall it is an excellent article and with just a few changes could easily stand for GA Status. Hope this helps and if you need anything else please let me know.--Looper5920 22:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your comment on the talk page of American Psycho. Snot wank — I will always remember that neologism. If only I could think of such creative designations for university feminists. Rintrah 09:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me using it. :) Rintrah 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here it it is:

'...A prig is a believer in red tape; that is, he exalts the method above the work done. A prig, like the Pharisee, says: "God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are"—except that he often substitutes Self for God. A prig is one who works out his paltry accounts to the last farthing, while his millionaire neighbour lets accounts take care of themselves. A prig expects others to square themselves to his very inadequate measuring rod, and condemns them with confidence if they do not. A prig is wise beyond his years in all things that do not matter. A prig cracks nuts with a steamhammer: that is, calls in the first principles of morality to decide whether he may, or must, do something of as little importance as drinking a glass of beer. On the whole, one may, perhaps, say that all his different characteristics come from the combination, in varying proportions, of three things—the desire to do his duty, the belief that he knows better than other people, and blindness to the difference in value between different things.'

(I've met Wikipedians like that.)

Burchard's third edition, needless to say, drops the whole entry. My favourite moment from the first edition is the obscure:

Foam, froth: '...One demands of foam that it be white; froth may be of what colour it pleases. Froth may be scum, but foam, though it may become scum, ceases to be foam in the process.'

qp10qp 22:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should, of course have said 'Burchfield'. {Must have been some Freudian admixture with your word for him.) By the way, I've looked you up and realised I've read lots of your articles, using parts of them for an immense history of Ireland I've compiled for my own reference in Word. Very, very interesting and useful; thank you. qp10qp 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Maybe just dive in amd make the edit - I'm a little fuzzy on the subject matter and don't want to mess up the article. Cheers. -- No Guru 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I deleted it because it was historically incorrect. It even discreditted the accepted historical facts! I replaced it with more factual information. Sorry if it doubles up.

Thanks for your feedback! I find it very helpful. Do you see any other places in the article that could specifically use improvement? Any suggestions or information would be warmly welcomed. Thanks! Drewpy181 20:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)drewpy181[reply]

Hi! The film Sacred Evil has been released in India. I could not find a website of the movie. However, there are reviews (here and here) and also news items (here and here). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its an interesting debate, but unfortunately, one I know nothing at all about. Seems to me though that if Agricola had invaded Ireland then someone would have recorded it. Regards, Jdorney 12:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Do you think we have done a decent job of American Psycho? I have edited it so much, I hardly know if I am improving it anymore. It will remain submerged in B-class status until it gets more references. Rintrah 14:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I have also had the same concerns, but they were numbed when I editied it too much. You are right about repetition; I have tried to improve the Rampage section in others ways, but have not properly addressed this. I do not like the Symbolism section much either; it is I who originally tagged it. Everything could be made more succinct, as you say. I think I most improved the article by deleting large parts of it some time ago.

Thank you for helping. Rintrah 01:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you review the article again? I have reduced the annoying content in the Themes and Symbolism section — particularly all the reader speculation which really belongs to a fan forum. I and a few others cleaned up the Rampage section more — you might still need to check that it is accurate. As far as I can tell, the article is succinct, or almost so. What it is most lacking, quite clearly, is references. I might eventually add these myself, if I can, since no one else seems to take on this challenge. Rintrah 17:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many years are subcategorised by country: see Category:Years in Ireland for other years. Tim! 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		I noticed your excedingly careful and edits on Queen Elizabeth I, which are exceptional. Good work and keep it up! --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 22:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. Categorisation is all a bit of a how-long-is-a-piece-of-string question. My thought is that though Ussher did receive some public notice for his disputations while young, there was a lot of it about at that time, and I think that if he had been run over by a Dublin Corporation ox cart in 1603, very few people would have heard of him now; however, that cannot be said at a later stage in his life. So, I would put him down as a notable Jacobean and Carolingian person (such categories son't seem to exist); just to have him as a notable Elizabethan could be a bit misleading and cause people to misplace him. However, you know, whatever. MAG1 11:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shtove,

Thanks for the support. I've definately be sucked in and y g/f's patience will wear thin soon. RE: "you won't get a knockout, just a draw on points" - this is why I prefer watching amateur boxing. Better three short clean rounds that everyone can walk away from with pride than twelve long bloody ones demanding a loser.

Regards, --sony-youth^talk 08:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, the article looks good. I've made a slight amendment to the effect that Albion is sometimes still used in English, often in a poetical sense. TharkunColl 09:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your query. Gavin the Chosen's history is somewhat convoluted. He went through several usernames, some admitted and some not, a thousand warnings, dozens of pleas by e-mail, various informal mentoring arrangements, and an ArbCom case. Nothing worked and we had to part company. There's no specific diff I can give you, but you could check out his talk page history, and the case here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Thomas Butler, 3rd Earl of Ormonde Thomas McCarthy (poet) Dirty protest Beara Peninsula Patrick Harte Repeal (Ireland) Tom Hales Hugh Dancy Anthony Browne George Carew Arthur Grey, 14th Baron Grey de Wilton Arthur Chichester, 3rd Earl of Donegall Piaras Feiritéar Great Irish Famine (1740-1741) Battle of Kilrush William Pery, 3rd Earl of Limerick Blanket protest Valentine Browne, 4th Earl of Kenmare Dunluce Castle

Cleanup Ancient Order of Hibernians Margret of Thormond Murrough O'Brien, 1st Marquess of Thomond Merge Provisional Sinn Féin Hiberno-Scottish mission List of United States disasters by death toll Add Sources Éamon de Valera Richard Og de Burgh, 2nd Earl of Ulster Aran Islands Wikify Anglo Irish Bank Agarose gel electrophoresis Association of Ideas Expand Mary Rose Sieges of Galway Culture of Ulster

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shtove, Sorry I didn't get back to you about the Naas thing. As you may have noticed I've been distracted by other things. I swore when I started editing wikipedia that I wouldn't edit articles on the north and troubles if at all possible, but now I find myself embroiled in all the horrible pov disputes that I knew were inevitable. Anyway. Any ideas for improvements of the calmer waters of early modern Ireland? Jdorney 10:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly enough, reason does eventually prevail even in NI articles if you are persistent enough. And ban enough people. But several years of my life are now missing as a result.

To be honest, I really don't know anything about the siege of Smerwick beyond what is already in the Second Desmond Rebellion article. Nor would I know where to look apart from going to the state papers. I got on ok with NC, but alas I didn't stay the course in what I was doing in NUIG, for a number of reasons. I'm now away from the academic world again, for now at least.

Jdorney 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way, did you see the Irish Times correspondance about the siege of Smerwick? There was a debate about whether Walter Raleigh was present and whether civilians were killed there. The balance seems to have come down in favour of the version of events on wikipedia. Jdorney 09:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! In response to [1], no, actually I don't think I've ever seen it discussed on a page here. (Perhaps it needs to be? Not sure what the right spot would be.) I doubt if I'd win the sobriety prize myself, LOL. Love Durova's essays, by the way--she's good. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at this [2], and wondered why you were the one to get it in the neck from that "jerk". Just curious.--Shtove 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes... that was a good one. Still not sure how I got so much attention from that vandal, but they've left me in peace since. All in a days work! :-) Hiberniantears 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Thanks. --sony-youth^talk 10:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation process is ending in two days - you have two days to have you final say and 1. show any proof that Volunteer is a rank and 2. leave your final vote in coming to a consensus here. Thank you.--Vintagekits 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would wholeheartedly concur that this should not just be a dry dictionary article. Quite apart from the fact that a large majority of WP editors are guilty of this sin (is it a virtue?), Priggishness has formed a large part of the thought of the last two centuries' politics in the west. Whether through Whiggishness, where I believe the term has a partial root or by Toryism is insignificant. God save the prigs! One point however, I'm not sure how to disagree with the movement of the article. Can you help? Sorry decidedly pink and not in control there! Brendandh 01:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see its talk page for deets. I think I may've responded to you in more of a "talk gently to the newbies" over-explanatory tone than was actually warranted now that I look at your hist. here. No offense intended! Anyway, it's a cool template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think of this 1347 in Ireland; am I going into too much depth, wandering too much from other Year's in style? Fergananim 17:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were kind enough to copy Fowler's prig definition for me a while back User talk:Shtove#Fowler's prig. I pasted it into Prig, which may be set for deletion or transfer to Wiktionary. Any ideas on how to keep it here? I'd like to think WP has time for this definition, especially when the current editors of Fowler's don't.--Shtove 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to respond to this before, but I've been up to my ears in an FAC. Anyway, betimes I've dropped in on Prig and lobbed a couple of literary spanners into the works there, which I hope will do the job. Do not hesitate to contact me if anyone again dares impugn the encyclopediacicity (eh?) of that page, because I still have Jane Austen on the subs' bench. qp10qp 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 22:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Talk page for Elizabeth I, you wrote, "...William Cecil's Bloody Question - designed to put suspects on the spot - forced the faithful to deny their faith in order to affirm their allegiance to the Crown." I cannot find reference to that on Cecil's page, nor on others where I might have expected it. Could you elaborate? I'd love to find the actual text of that question. Thanks, Kevin/Last1in 13:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that we were misleading by describing the establishment of the Roanoke Colony, and then leaving out teh fact that it failed, especially the basic aspects of that failure. As it was, I felt it was implying that once established, things went well, and of course, they did not. Many WP readers do not get past the lead section, which is supposed to summarize the article enough to make them want to read more. Thoughts? Mark Vaoverland 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 12:13 21 March 2007 (GMT).

Thanks. Mr. Scott had let me know that I should expect it, and our discussion had ended on good terms, so I was expecting it to be generally favourable. I found it really remarkable both that he so quickly "got" how Wikipedia should work, and how much he liked our freely licensed fan-based photography that I found for the article before it became so common to make questionable fair use claims on promotional pictures. It's nice to see Wikipedia getting some favourable comments from the subject of one of our articles! Jkelly 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my reasoning: i thought the line on sorley's name was too long, and some of it had little relevance to him. what i thought was key in the line wass his gaelic name, meaning in english, and how the name has been anglicized. i thought, the fact Somhairle is a gaelicized version of Sumarliði, an old norse by-name meaning summer-wanderer, is pretty irrelevant to the article. Celtus 07:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote.--Play Brian Moore 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It said "U.S" instead of "U.S." I've been working on those mistakes lately. --Jordan Elder talk 16:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy has been making bad-faith edits by refusing to compromise, has made false 3RR reports against me and is now accusing me of being someone in Hungary. He did a stupid thing so I was told him he was stupid. John Smith's 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better to say he lacks wisdom, then. John Smith's 20:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me he was behind that? John Smith's 20:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I was kidding. I don't let the actions of a few people make me "bitter". Their own actions influence how I treat them. John Smith's 21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Hughsheehy 09:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers. Fergananim 14:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can do whatever you want at this respect.... but I think that at the beginning I didn't introduce any kind of NPOV, nevertheless you answered me with a NPOV (there were more tentative of invasion that failed by "adverse weather" of course.... what's that? ). You can visit Mousehole or Penzance and then you can have an idea about what happened there.…..the summer of 1595 (there disembarked 400 men (so called "Tercios Viejos") “ even though they had not intended such a landing initially“ but the important is they were professional soldiers, with a broad fighting experience gained in Flandes for many years... but anyway there were two documents, one wrote by the English militia Captain, which said that they have to forsake the village because it was not possible to fight against them, and the other wrote by the captain Mesquida of "Los Tercios" that says "they are not organized to fight,this work is easy...) so don’t try to minimize…

but I think that this is not the subject of the discussion... for long time the English media have tried to shell the defeat of the "Armada Invencible" as a big thing that underwent to the end of the Spanish empire and the beginning of the English one, which is completely false, (otherwise England had colonized America, but they couldn’t because the Spaniards ruled the sea, and after that were the Dutchs. ;-). 

what I try to explain (at the beginning from a neutral point of view ) is that the Anglo-Spanish war was the beginning of the Spanish empire..... and that this war was finally won by "The Kingdom of Castilla” it paid the war" (not Spain.. Spain was created laterly... and by the way the flag that you put is the old Castilla’s flag)...

So what do you say about NPOV? .. up to now I have read quite a lot, and even from the British Army what I have read is from NPOV…. But if you study in deep the pace treaty “signed in London, you realize who obtained the best conditions…. My friend”… there is a book wrote by a guy of oxford that you should read… and is called “ Ten muddles about the Armada invencible” to begin with....

By the way the core of the Spanish Armada was Intact after the first encounter, this core was called “The dozen Apostles, 12 galeons ” which were anchored in Santander in 1589…. The presence of these ships in Santander made to change the plan of Drake of attacking Santander and he decided to go to La Coruña… (where by the way there is a very important party that commemorate this battle in which the English were repelled, they performance the battle on the streets……)

If you want to say the true, me too…..

About neutral or subjetive points of view,...

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published.You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. BetacommandBot 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're wrong there: there are no separate Crowns of England and Scotland, not since the Act of Union of 1707. Elizabeth is not Elizabeth II of England and I of Scotland, but Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Slac speak up! 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I often didnt leave comments because I would have thought that the improvements needed to further the article are rather obvious. Many, if not all, of the articles I rated as Start articles have very few sources, if any at all. Another improvement would general expansion, as many of the Start articles were only a few paragraphs. As for the Stu articles, they're usually only a few lines long and just need more information and with approproate sources to support it - • The Giant Puffin • 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article just needs sources to verify the information in it, preferably using the {{cite}} method - • The Giant Puffin • 20:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems that we have with maintaining the article John von Neumann is connection of content with references. Might it be possible for you to include references relevant to the recent addition you made to the article? I have seen this material as well but, do not immediately have it at hand, and you probably do. Thanks. William R. Buckley 21:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way. A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details. Member News Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia New Members Congratulations to our 225 new members	From the Editors The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below) We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page New irc channel Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network: #wikipedia-en-bio Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up. Contributors to this Issue Psychless (talk · contribs) Phoenix 15 (talk · contribs)
Complete To Do List Write an article Expand an article about: a person an actor an animator an artist a bishop a businessperson a diplomat an educator an engineer a lawyer a military person a musician a photographer a saint a politician a scientist a sportsperson a writer Improve an article by: adding references adding categories Review an article Romano Volta • Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle • Answer requests for comments Work on the Portal Portal:Biography Assess an article Assessment requests Unassessed articles Assessment Progress Biography articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Core Other ??? Total FA 35 1,619 1,654 FL 194 194 A 105 105 GA