User talk:Mabuska/Archive 4

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Mabuska, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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:Questions, 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! Logoistic 18:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Regiment

I know it was badly formatted and was about to do the quotes thing properly after i found out how to do it correctly when i noticed that you reverted the section off.

However i ask what is so POV in adding documented praise from non-Ulster people who eye-witness accounted the Ulster division's actions? Its not my personal POV. Mabuska 15:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Seemed to be a bit WP:PEACOCK to me. Perhaps more context would have helped. I wouldn't have deleted it on that alone, but the poor construction of the edit gave me reasons to delete it. Jooler 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the WP:PEACOCK article, i have to say i don't think it quite fits into peacockedness. I wasn't using my own personal POV to say they were gallant and brave, but rather an eye-witness account which is sourced. The "incorrect" examples in the peacock article are the editor's POV and unsourced. Mabuska 15:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If i formatted the quotations properly would it be okay to have back up? Mabuska 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I (capital I) won't delete it, but I am just a user/edit like you. Jooler 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to improve the sections appearance beforehand and get a few other quotations from other sources so it doesn't seem based on a sole person's viewpoint. Mabuska 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, my "tidy" before did more harm than good. I've redid it. Like, Jooler says there's a hint of "peakcockedness" about it, but slimming it down by cutting out the curly quotes for the short sentences, and attributing the quites in the text rather than after the quote, in my view, cuts down any danger that it would be seen in that light. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tobermore additions

No problem, it looks like the article is pretty complete now. I see you've done a lot of work to the article and wrote a quite a lot about the village - if only everyone else from NI could add as much information about their local villages! Yeah, the site I was using for photographs is fairly good for freely-licensed images (Geograph) and I managed to get some half-decent pictures for Armagh and Cookstown, but unfortunately there weren't many good pics for Tobermore, it was either this or this! If you prefer the second one we could use it - unless you have some photos of Tobermore that maybe show it in a good light ;-). EJF (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Dhoire not Daire

It is Dhoire, not Daire. Daire means oak tree, Dhoire is old Irish for oak grove or oak forest, and the new Irish spelling is Doire. Your message was also quite disturbing. tomtwenty (talk). 31/5/09 14:04

Disturbing because i said learn some basic Irish before making Irish language related edits? Glad to see you've also realised Derry comes from Daire not Dhoire. Mabuska (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've stopped editing your Daire in County Londonderry, so you don't have to change it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtwenty (talk • contribs) 15:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Scoto Normans and Gaelic culture in Southern Scotland.

Hi, Id be interested to know your take on Robert the Bruce and the Anglification of Lowland Scotland. he was genetically more Gaelic than English (a notion that held some importance to the medieval mind in the sense of "blood" even if it wasnt quite accurate and is no longer acceptable admittedly ((ie some people lied about their ancestors)) to meet the criteria as his mother was a Scot/Gael) and heiled from a Gaelic region of Scotland. If he was able to unite Scotland by appealing to his Gaelic side as you said, how would this tally with the widespread tensions between the Scots and the Normans that you also mentionned? doesnt that indicate that in places outside of Lothian (ie 90% of the Lowlands) Gaelic language was the glue of ordinary society long after the reign of David the 1st? Scoto Norman simply meant Normans that were Gaelicised in the case of Bruce, or Anglified (when the society was already Anglified, ie they fitted in with the reality on the ground in order to rule more efficiently). where I would agree is in the case of the Stewarts, but that was because they resented the Lords of the Isles (Norman Gaels in a sense as they were influenced by Viking social rules of alliance and governance) and even the Stewarts were Gaels in the Norman period of their rule. one was known by the epithet "Walter Og" for example. The last Scottish Stewart to speak Gaelic was James the 5th and he was hardly a Norman. Seamusalba (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I based all my comments on the matter on multi-sourced Wikipedia articles. If i am wrong then they must be too. And i said gradual change just as those articles did - a cultural osmosis which means a merging and blending of cultures, so one was called Walter Og - it was a meshing of cultures that diluted Lowland Gaelic Scotland and the gradual process of it lead to it becoming de-Gaelicified before the Plantation of Ulster. Yes the western Lowlands where still partially Scots-Gaelic, but almost all those overhere who claim descent from the Scots of the Plantation refer to their Scots cultural heritage not Scots-Gaelic culture. On Robert the Bruce, it was a hypothetical proposition not a serious one. Mabuska (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There was a meshing of cultures. Norman and pre-Norman. The result was Robert the Bruce (one result that is to say).He managed to unite a historically predominantly Gaelic society behind a Norman leadership (which counts as a succesful meshing by my reckoning)

I also agree that there was a gradual Anglification and that the Burghs played a huge part in this. However this wasnt the fault of the Normans and some Normans remained inimical to the idea of Anglification (such as the clan Fraser who were Highland Gaelic Normans" as much as the Bruces were Normans at least)

The first mention of "Scots" meaning "Inglis" and "Erse" (scots for "Irish" to refer to Gaelic (at Bruce's time called "Scottis") comes a century or more after Bannockburn. I got some of that from a book called "The Mither Tung" by a guy called Billy Kay, and some from yourself (therefor presumably from your multisourced wikipedia articles) so presumably you agree with my analysis and thanks for the sources. Seamusalba (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah never presume or assume lol :-) Mabuska (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I. wikipedia sources are fine, but common sense and logic are fine too. If some Normans were pro Gaelic and some anti Gaelic, then the reasons for these attitude disparities should be sought prior to the Norman presence on the Scottish scene. There may have been tensions prior to their involvement as "Wallace" (Scots for "Welsh" or "Briton") and "Inglis" were important ethnic minorities in the South (the evidence suggests that the Picts were gaelicised long before Strathclyde, and a language similair to modern Welsh may have continued to be spoken in the Clyde valley until a generation before King David's reign. scotland had to be multi ethnic because it incorporated bits of Northumbria and "North Britain" into its kingdom, and so the seeds were set for a Southern zone that could become influential against the original Gaelic Scottish culture (if for instance, the population became centred around that zone as it did aroun the Renaissance period for the first time and this was reinforced by the later clearances). but to say the Normans were the cause is wrong in my opinion, as some Normans ruled from the southern zone and took on the prejufices that (as you said) gradually developped there. Others however, did the opposite, or like Bruce, were from a Gaelic background themselves. Seamusalba (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

All i said was that the Normans helped lead to the de-Gaelicification of the Lowlands as the Wikipedia articles state no matter how greatly or littley they did - it doesn't mean they all did or that they solely did. Mabuska (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Not just due to 'prejudices' but also the gradual conversion of Scots away from the Scots-Gaelic culture due to the ever increasing social influences of south-eastern Scotland most notably from the settled Normans who would become part of the fabric of Scottish royalty and thus even more influence away from Scots-Gaelic - Robert & Edward de Brus, the Stuarts, etc. all of paternal Norman ancestry."

It was the "most notably" section of that paragraph that caught my attention. Otherwise, Im in agreement. but the Norman conquest of england and basically the Normanisation outside of Scotland, really needs to be seen as a separate form of Normanisation than in Scotland's case. there was no sudden shock and no tension caused by a threat to the basic culture (ie language). In fact Macbeth was probably the first Scots leader to make use of Normans and he was a definately still a Gaelic speaker after having chosen to make use of them.If you need evidence of the difference in reactions to Normanisation in Gaelic Scotland and Anglo-saxon England, look at the causes for the wars of independance, ie the "Auld Alliance". Scottish soldiers served as the bodyguards of French Kings at a time when the Normans of England saw France to various degrees as theres for the taking and any neighbour aiding their enemies as a threat to their plans. to this day, there is at worst ambilvelance to the French in Scotland whereas in English culture, its much easier to get a Francophobic comment and a positive reaction. Normans and Normanised Flemings such as "Freskin de Moravia" were almost certainly "Scottis" (ie Gaelic) speakers and founders of modern Scottish Highland clans. ~ Seamusalba (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC).

You've still failed to convince me that the Wikipedia articles i showed you which i based my comments on are wrong. Your still trying to back your arguement up by using the Norman adoption of Scots-Gaelic culture. That doesn't matter, no matter how many Normans adopted Scots-Gaelic customs - they still introduced their own cultural customs that became part of lowland culture which helped lead to the gradual de-Gaelicifaction of lowland Scotland. As i said before - if i am wrong then please edit the articles i already listed to you previously as they must be wrong. Mabuska (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(Should I edit the article on the Norman conquest of England?) Seamusalba (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Benjamin Hudson stresses the cultural unity of Scotland and Ireland in this period, and uses the example of cooperation between David I, the Scottish reformer, and his Irish counterpart St Malachy, to show at least partly that David's actions can be understood in the Gaelic context as much as the Anglo-Norman one.[10] Indeed, the Gaelic world had never been closed off from its neighbours in England or continental Europe. Gaelic warriors and holymen had been travelling regularly through England and the continent for centuries. David's predecessor Mac Bethad mac Findlaích (King, 1040-57) had employed Norman mercenaries even before the conquest of England,[11] and English exiles after the conquest fled to the courts of both Máel Coluim III, King of Scotland, and Toirdelbach Ua Briain, King of Ireland.[12]"

^ Hudson, "Gaelic Princes and Gregorian Reform", pp. 61-82.

^ Barrow, "Beginnings of Military Feudalism", p. 250.
^ Ó Cróinín, Early Medieval Ireland, p. 277.

David was based in the extreme South east of Scotland and if youre going to take his actions as "Norman", why deny the Normanness of the Gaeliccentric policies of Bruce far later when he wrote to the Irish gaels as "brothers in language and customs"/ Why see one ruler as more typically Norman than the other? both were Norman. Seamusalba (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The only Scottish source the article on Scotland in the High Middle ages cites about ethnic tension in Scotland, was an ethnic English speaker (from East Lothian which has been English for longer than Cumbria or Cornwall!) and he mentions anti English sentiment not anti Norman. The sources citing anti French sentiment are by Monks from Yorkshire (York claiming jurisdiction over Scotland at the time!) and they are likely to have an agenda surely!? Seamusalba (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously imagine that Gaelic culture was ever "pure" and unNormanisedely static? It changed and developped before and after the Normans arrived. You used an article on the Norman conquest of England when talking about the Normans in Scotland. A Gael is a Gaelic speaker essentially, whether they be Presbytarian or Norman. Bruce and Wallace were Gaels according to Gaelic culture in Scotland. Seamusalba (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The most likely cause for the Anglification of Lowland Scotland would be the wars of Independance. You have Norman Gaels like Andrew Murray and Robert the Bruce demonstrating their Norman Scottishness through Gaelic and the tensions between Scots and the ethnic English in Scotland having to be dissipated. By a century following the wars, Scots is seen as the language of the realm. English replaced French in Scotland far quicker than in Normanised England. Why would that be if the Normans were the cause for Gaelic being replaced? And why were Normans in Ireland happy to be Gaelicised if they werent in Scotland? Seamusalba (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In order to have Anglification, you need English speakers. Thats the basic flaw in the claim that the Normans were responsible. It would be like Spaniards being responsible for the Frenchification of Sweden. The Norman Gaelic King Robert the Bruce spoke Scottish/Gaelic and French. No English. Seamusalba (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Outer Hebrides are arguibly as Norse in their culture as they are Gaelic in the original sense. Even the genetics of the population sampled shows that there seems to be a corralation to their Norse Gaelic mixed ancestry and culture. It was the same with the Bruces and early Stewarts. The tensions between the South East and the rest of Scotland go back further than Norman rule. Seamusalba (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of all these many seperate edits, why don't you re-edit and add any new comments to your first response to any of mine. Funnily enough i said de-Gaelicification not Anglification, there is a big difference in the two terms and thus perpertrators. So one article i quoted you is in an article to do with England but it still made reference to the Norman effect in Scotland. And once again you are trying to say that i said that the Normans where responsible for all of the process. I never once did and have repeatedly said it was gradual and that they along with OTHERS. Stop argueing about points i never made or implied to justify your view. It doesn't matter how Gaelic the Normans became, all it takes is for a few of them to add in their own cultural traits that become adopted no mtter how trivial to aid in watering down the culture they've adopted. Remember now, i never said that they did it all themselves.

I consider this debate closed as we are not going to agree with each other, and please don't drag it into other article discussions with claims of deja vu. If you want to then please do it on my user talk page instead. Mabuska (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough the Normans spoke Gaelic in Scotland, hence deGaelification went along with deNormanisation. Seamusalba (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm you used the expression "most notably" when there were other factors of equal note. That was rather biased against the Normans as they encouraged Gaelic in some instances and there were demographic realities that preceded there arrival . Strathclyde became more Gaelic during the Norman period as it had been outside of Scottish direct control until King David, and the South West was Galovidian and remained Gaelic until the 18th century (it was also a centre for Presbytarian unrest during the late Stuarts and a prime exit point for Gaelic speaking Protesants to Ulster). Seamusalba (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

So if Gaelic speaking Normans use traditional Gaelic guerilla tactics and Gaelic bonds of kinship to win victories against Anglo Normans (ie Bruce Vs Edward the 2nd) this is irelevant to their influence I take it? Seamusalba (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst i should just ignore you seeing as i said the matter is closed, i do have to say - funnily enough de-Normanisation is entirely irrelevant to the entire discussion as its not the topic.

And bringing up Gaelic speaking Protestants once again, who said Protestants didn't natively speak it at one time? I didn't deny it, you tried to ram home a point that is irrelevant to the entire comment i made about PRESENT-DAY speakers in response to the users question. Who cares if Protestants from Scotland spoke Gaelic when they came over centuries ago? Its irrelevant to a question about PRESENT-DAY native Protestant Gaelic speakers in Northern Ireland. Key terminology there is 'present-day' and 'native', not those few (if any) Protestants in Northern Ireland who may learn it as a second language or those who did centuries ago.

Mabuska (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember a guy called Gregory Campbell objecting to Gaelic being spoken and see the dislike of and alienation from someone's ancestral language as relevant and interesting. Seamusalba (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm deNormanisation occured simoultaneously to the creation of a Lowland identity so its pretty relevant actually (John of Fordun is the usual starting point and he lived in the late medieval period).

The Normans in Scotland were specific to Scotland and had a specific impact. Its irrelevant to see them from an English perspective.

Did you read what I said on the talk page for the Ulster plantation? They havent stopped speaking their language, rather their perceptions of what language it is have changed as Irish and Gaelic diverged. Ulster Irish phrases such as greetings are still used by Irish speakers in Northern Irelands and its quite possible that some Protestants dont share the negative reactions to their ancestral language. I though it was useful to point out how centuries after the Normans had dissapeared (well, been Gaelicised and Scotticised) that Gaelic was still being spoken by Lowlanders (protestant rebels against the Stuarts in the late 17th century) and that this would be of interest to you. It seems sadly that you view this information as some kind of jibe. Thats a great shame.. Also, I respect your decision whether to answer or not, but dont see it as fair to be forbiddent to respond when I read something that dont agree with (thats what a discussion is surely?) I didnt agree that the Normans were "most notable" in the Anglification of the Lowlands.I never said they didnt play a part. I said that they also helped sustain Gaelic in some ways and through certain rulers. You seem to have read more into this than there is. Seamusalba (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If the planters spoke Gaelic, It is interesting and relevant because its so counterintuitive, Thats why I brought it up. No "ramming" intended. ethnic and linguistic commonality between present day groups ancestry is potentially important to current perceptions and how they might develop. Seamusalba (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To a certain degree these developments were offset by the acquisition of the Norse-Gaelic west, and the Gaelicization of many of the great families of French and Anglo-French origin. By the end of this period, Scotland experienced a "Gaelic revival" which created an integrated Scottish national identity. Although there remained a great deal of continuity with the past, by 1286 these economic, institutional, cultural, religious and legal developments had brought Scotland closer to its neighbours in England and the Continent. By 1286 the Kingdom of Scotland had political boundaries that closely resembled those of modern Scotland.

The period between the accession of David I and the death of Alexander III was marked by dependency upon and relatively good relations with the Kings of the English. As long as one remembers the continuities, the period can also be regarded as one of great historical transformation, part of a more general phenomenon which has been called the "Europeanisation of Europe".

Bartlett, The Making of Europe (1993).

However, by the end of the twelfth century, the Scottish kings had acquired the authority and ability to draw in native Gaelic lords outside their previous zone of control in order to do their work, the most famous examples being Lochlann, Lord of Galloway and Ferchar mac in tSagairt. Cumulatively, by the reign of Alexander III, the Scots were in a strong position to annex the remainder of the western seaboard, which they did in 1265, with the Treaty of Perth. The conquest of the west, the creation of the Mormaerdom of Carrick in 1186 and the absorption of the Lordship of Galloway after the Galwegian revolt of Gille Ruadh in 1235 meant that the number and proportion of Gaelic speakers under the rule of the Scottish king actually increased, and perhaps even doubled, in the so-called Norman period. It was the Gaels and Gaelicised warriors of the new west, and the power they offered, that enabled King Robert I (himself a Gaelicised Scoto-Norman of Carrick) to emerge victorious during the Wars of Independence, which followed soon after the death of Alexander III.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_in_the_High_Middle_Ages#Scoto-Norman_kings:_David_I_to_Alexander_III

(from your sources) Seamusalba (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

From the sounds of it you have once again misread or misinterpreted my words. De-Normanisation isn't irrelevant in Scottish history but it is irrelevant to the discussion we where having about de-Gaelicification (what is the proper term for that anyways?). When i say ramming a point i mean all these long posts on the history of Scotland which is still irrelevant to the discussion as once again i must stress it doesn't matter how Gaelicised the Scoto-Normans became as they still introduced their own cultural traits that gradually helped water down Gaelic culture in Scotland, by use of the word help it signifies that not them alone. ou've already acknowledged that so your still doing it i don't know.

My use of 'most notably' may have been wrong but you could of focused on that at the very start instead.

Planters speaking Gaelic is interesting and i do thank you for the very interesting article on the internet you found on it, but the past of it isn't relevant to the immediate question on do any Protestants natively speak it today. However their descendants in the Protestant community today don't speak it natively or even speak it all for various reasons. It is a shame that its been politicised and 'hi-jacked' over the last century so to speak by Irish republicans and nationalists, forcing the unionist/loyalist community here to further ignore and bury their shared Gaelic heritage. Unlike the norm for my community i don't deny my heritage though, i proudly accept my Gaelic heritage, look throughout the Tobermore article which is almost entirely my own work, look at how many Gaelic derivations i've added into it and into several other articles.

I also full well know my own Gaelic heritage, i can trace my Irish-Gaelic roots to the Cloinne Ó Flaithbheartach, my Scots-Gaelic roots to the Clan MacDonald, and my Norman heritage to the de L'Isles (who also had a branch that became the MacDonald Lord of the Isles sept of Clan Lyle).

I agree totally about the badge wearing green versus blue nonsense and Gaelic=Republican. Ill check out the article thanks. (You sound a lot more Gaelic than me in your background lol!) I dont know much about my distant ancestry, but my Mum is from ther Black isle near inverness and my Dad "Billy" is from North Glasgow (the Rangers bit). I had a friend who was Catholic and proud to be Scottish and Irish but always complained when anything Gaelic came on tv. So occasionally you get counter prejudices to the usual ones. Also Ive heard that the Catholic Church didnt always do its best to promote the Gaelic language in Ireland (and is interesting that there is no polite form for "you" in irish, perhaps because when addressing a Priest, it became usual to just say "you" ie speak English?!)

Its a pity when people believe the most recent version of their history is the whole truth, and history is important for allowing people to shape how they percieve each other. I was reading about an Irish language learner from Belfast, who had to switch off his mobile when a teacher spoke Gaelic/ Irish. That was the case in Scotland around the 1750s (apart from the mobile phone bit) The point I meant avout the relevance of "de-Normanisation" was that by the time you read about a Lowland Highland split and the "savage Irish Highlander" etc, the Normans were a part of European history. As to the gradual process argument, isnt that akin to the seeds of antisemetism and the creation of Christianity? I mean its a matter of opinion as to the degree. The seeds of anything in history go back cebturies to some other movement and shift, but its a matter of interpretation as to the level of responsibility and I think the Normans role gets simplified (all those Errol Flynn films dont help improv their image). If David brought in English speakers to the Chuerch, the question is why/ was he consciously trying to change the linguistic situation and where did they come into the scene? If there had been a Lothian question (to borrow a phrase from Tam dalyell) in the early Scottish period (ie, it was fought over between England and Scotland and before that northumbria and Pictland/early Scotland)then there was already a seed of the cause for the introductions made in Church reforms by david 1. IE Why not trace the gradual process further back than the Normans? (Thats what a Christiah would say when accused historically with the creation of antisemetism: "why not trace it back further to Roman colonialism in the Levant and the prohibition of not declaring the Emperor a living God? or the creation of monotheism?)

Its the same with interpreting what somebody writes. I read "most notably" and interpreted that as "most responsibly" when there were tensions prior to the Normans. Strathclyde was possibly still Welsh/British speaking and at least semi independant and there had been a lack of control in reality of the lands which inreality were still under the control of the "Mormaerdom of Moray" (ie macbeth et al) before the Normans arrived. The reasons for the focus changing was as much to do with the necessity to Scottify the new territories such as Strathclyde (and that definately meant Gaelicise in the 12th century) as it was a recent acquisition. Ps, I read the article about Ulster nationalism and found it intriguing. Highly contentious namewise, but enlightening as to the divisions in opinion amongst Unionists as to their future status. Seamusalba (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Football articles

Cheers. Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Augher

You must have had been Moutrayed :-) NtheP (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol i must of been, i still swear i edited his edit out Mabuska (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Harrygregg.png

Thank you for uploading File:Harrygregg.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Harrygregg.png

Do you have proof that you are the copyright holder of File:Harrygregg.png? One of the images was taken 40-60 years ago, and I doubt you took that photograph. Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Harrygregg.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Harrygregg.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Dunlavin Green

hello mabuska,
i wouldn't reply to dunlavin green, not even a parting message. it seems that from dunlavin's perspective anybody who voices disagreement will be seen to be doing so in bad faith (e.g. they're politically or racially motivated). it's generally not a good idea to work with people who can't assume good faith as it's almost always unproductive and merely serves to generate animosity.
regards,
aineolach (u · d · c) 23:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah not gonna bother even though i would like to make it straight on the discussion that just because i am British in identity and nationality and from Northern Ireland - that doesn't make me a loyalist. I am nowhere near close enough to even qualify as one. I also don't live in north-eastern Ireland either - i live in north-central Ireland lol :-P Mabuska (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid

Black and tans in Cat. 'Militant Unionism'

Hi! I reverted your inclusion of 'Black and Tans' in the Cat 'Militant Unionism' as it appears to be original analysis (research). It is not clear how this group can be categorised separately from the 'regular' RIC. Happy to discuss it at the Talk Page if you still think differently. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hiya, sorry was going through my history books and thought that as the Black and Tans were a Unionist force being used against republicanism and the fact they were militant in their means that they fitted the category and might still do in that regard. Northern Star ^(talk) 10:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see how it might be construed that way, but I think some distinction needs to be drawn between state agencies with full-time paid personnel employed to carry out policy and those which were non-state with primarily a political agenda intent on influencing government policy, otherwise the British army, Special Branch (instituted to counter 'Fenianism') among others might also fit the criteria. RashersTierney (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. When i use the term "Militant Unionism" i don't mean loyalists explicitly - i mean all kinds of militant unionism legal and illegal paramilitary, so would Black and Tans fit in in that manner of speaking? Northern Star ^(talk) 11:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time to elaborate just now but I wasn't drawing a distinction between legal and illegal. Just demonstrating how the term as it stands could be interpreted so widely as to be meaningless. The Cat page should have limiting criteria that should make clear what is intended for inclusion. Perhaps a question at the Ireland noticeboard might help in this regard? RashersTierney (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard the Black and Tans described as a "unionist" force. This would be OR. Mooretwin (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough though they are widely regarded as such by nationalists especially seeing as their actions were primarily towards nationalists/republicans. Northern Star ^(talk) 12:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:ClydeValley.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:ClydeValley.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FinalRapture - † ☪ 00:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Northern Star

I noticed you changed your sig to Northern Star. As you are probably away, there is an account already with that name but with no edits: see User:Northern Star. You would probably be able to "usurp" that account for yourself, see Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations. The effect would be to change your name from "Mabuska" to "Northern Star". All of your edit history etc. would be transferred in a very clean manner.

(Also, if that editor comes back, or someone else usurps the name, there is an off-chance that someone could take issue with you using their name.) --RA (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, i didn't even know there already was one. I'll change it to something not exactly the same. Northern Star ^(talk) 13:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you like "Northern Star", you could just take that name tho. Since there's been no edits on that a/c, I don't see any reason why you couldn't just swap from "Mabuska" → "Northern Star" via a change of username request. In that case, you'd go from User:Mabuska to User:Northern Star and all your edit history, user/talk pages etc. follows you over. It's up to you. --RA (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Validated"

...got an answer to what it means: Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)#2nd_attempt. --RA (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I understood that you're an Irishman (I wish I can visit your wonderful country some time soon!), so you can understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country, music and language! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Shame on you"

I want to apologise for that comment last night. I could excuse myself by giving some spiel about a long week but that doesn't suffice. It was out of order. --RA (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. We can all be subject to flashes of rage or stupidty and the such. I won't let it get inbetween us or the work we are trying to do :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 14:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It was true for yourself and Scolaire: shame on me. --RA (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a reply to your comment at User talk:Scolaire. --RA (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Whilst i admit you have been open and more willing to discuss, however putting Northern Ireland before any all-Ireland context is hardly a compromise seeing as the country should always come first anyways before anything else. Only Superfopp believed otherwise. Your comment that my proposal wasn't "even handed" didn't also go down well.

You and Superfopp have made it clear that mentions of Northern Ireland in navboxes shouldn't be there as other counties don't despite other Irish county navboxes mentioning Ireland (this crosses the boundaries of Wikipedia:Gaming the system i believe). Can't have mentions of the UK in the lede (Superfopp and Laurel said this not you) whilst making clear Northern Ireland counties are clearly part of "Ireland". Can't even use a Northern Ireland county map for the navbox - Superfopp says cause it makes it look like an island and you not even giving a reason. Yes you have really been compromising - on one issue that everyone else would of made clear should be the standard anyways and only the hardcore editors would disagree with. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply to your points above but suggest you read back over the discussion with WP:AGF in mind. It is a common trait of internet-based discussions to assume positions and motivations behind the comments of others and to read statements they make in a light shone by those assumptions. That light rarely illuminates either what they actually intended to say or what they actually wrote. In this case, it is clear to me, that you have read some of the statements I made in a light that was not how they were intended to be understood. --RA (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a common problem with the internet - you can never tell what tone or intention things are being said as you can when talking to someone face to face. I've let my anger at Superfopp be taken out on anyone whose comments or indeed silence on issues i saw as an act of corroboration which is shameful on my behalf. Perfect topic header for that statement lol. Time for me to end this topic the way you opened it - with an apology, and also to declare shame one me this time round. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No bother. The wider questions you are raising are perfectly sound but I think you should take them to a generalised discussion about NI and ROI on WP:IECOLL. These are fairly root questions though. Regardless of how open minded and liberal any of us think we are, you should expect hard views on every side (like my NI as a "country" bug bear). That doesn't necessarily mean anyone is pushing a POV or wants Wikipedia to imply anything sinister. The facts are that there is a core disagreement over points of view on this matter in real life and that is reflected in the points of view offered by reliable sources. Finding agreement in how those points of views can be neutrally balanced will be hard. --RA (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

2001

What happened in 2001 to make you abandon Anglicanism and embrace atheism? Mooretwin (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Its hard to say, i had an epiphany so to speak. Not sure of the exact year to be honest, its around that time anyways. Whilst i may be an atheist to the end, i do respect peoples rights to believe in a God and to follow their religion no matter what i personally feel about it.

My interest in history i suppose aided it as i saw how inconsistent and full of holes the Bible is and how it has been politically altered (Old and New Testaments) throughout history to promote certain agendas (the same for the Koran but you wouldn't tell a Muslim that). Protestantism to me is based on a corrupt belief as most of it (especially Anglicanism) is based on a Bible (minus five books) that had been corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church and Emperor Constantine in particular. 40 other books were ignored for inclusion as it didn't match their vision. Its amazing how he held the Council of Nicaea to decide what should be included in the Bible, yet he still died as high-priestess of a sun cult.

The Roman Catholic Church also sold itself out to convert people - moving the date of Jesus's birth from Spring to Winter, almost to the exact date of the Winter Solstice to convert Celtic pagans. Easter iseems to be named after a Germanic god - Ēostre. The famous religious festivals in South America are based on pre-Christian festivals. Christianity absorbed local culture wherever it went to convert people and be accepted and around the world became further and further removed from what it is. Even in Ireland pagan sites and legends where made into Christian saints and places of pilgramages to help convert people.

Also i felt like most people, especially on this island, are hypocrites as they go to church on a sunday, prey for forgiveness for their sins but go out and sin during the week and go back and do it all again. Add in that the ones who profess to be a Catholic or Protestant but if they really were they wouldn't have spent 40 years bombing and shooting each other to bits. Many people here are only nominal Christians to keep the numbers up against the other side.

I am open to the possibility of a higher plain of existence that we don't know about, however i don't believe in religion anymore. However i will always maintain everyones right to believe in what religion they want to without prejudice - if only some of them would be so nice in return. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your open and honest reply. I agree with you about much of what you say, but don't agree that it necessarily leads to atheism. Mooretwin (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No problems. I stay away from religious debates or discussions as sometimes its hard to properly explain and try to get people to even understand and not preach. Funnily enough my aunt is super-religious lol. In fact three generations of my family have served as treasurers for my local Church of Ireland. Her sister is a Presbyterian Elder (convert through marriage). It takes all sorts lol. ^(talk) 22:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Townlands

Noticed that you have been putting fact tags in relation to NI towns and their townlands. You may be interested in a really good mapping application which will allow you to see original townland information which may or may not confirm the information relating to a particular town. http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,591271,743300,0 Have fun :-) Bjmullan (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, looks like you got round to it before me.

Anyway, the above link and the maps on Placenames NI should be enough to confirm which townlands belong to (are in the vicinity of) which towns.

Also, Mabuska, some of the comments you made on Talk:Dungannon and Talk:Limavady are incorrect. The whole island is divided into townlands; the vast majority do have Irish-derived names; and the vast majority were not created by the English. However, you were right in saying that the townlands were mapped and given Anglicised names by the English.

~Asarlaí 00:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if such a tool was in existence why didn't you add in a citation for it? I never denied that the whole of Ireland is divided into townlands. Modern townlands were created by the English based on various different units, the townlands article even declares this. And academic sources even declare that they aren't all of Gaelic origin. I've added in the citation to the townland article that backs this up. So your statement is unfactual and incorrect that all derive from Gaelic and are of Irish origin. Problem with PlaceNames map is that the settlement sizes aren't always uptodate, and might exclude new townlands that they expand into. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

demonym

Mabuska, I appreciate your perspective on the demonym questions but I've removed my compromise from the Northern Ireland article per my post on the talk page. --RA (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Slash that. Always willing to compromise. --RA (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've posted another suggestion. --RA (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a very surprising poll. It really kicks the trend of recent polls such as CAIN with respect to "Irish" vs. "Northern Irish".

Just a note - that it's generally not form to edit another editors comment and add bits to it; I know you meant well and no harm done. I've edited it further as follows. --RA (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No bothers, should of made my additions clearer. The trend it shows is that more people than before identify as Northern Irish rather than simply Irish or British, mostly at the expense of those who'd state British and the result has seen the Irish identity rise above the British identity. Though how many of those who state Northern Irish would also state British is asked further? Some would also no doubt choose Irish as i know people who say they're Northern Irish but are nationalist in outlook and would choose Irish if asked to choose. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Barony of Magherastephena

The article Barony of Magherastephena has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Mispelt name. Article moved to proper spelling. Little chance of this redirect ever being used

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Maps conventions

I see you have created some maps for counties in Northern Ireland. Can I point you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Areas maps for tips. As you can see there you should really provide some greyed out context around the area rather than just show the counties with no surround at all. Dmcq (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see you've done some with the whole of the south of Ireland too. I'd have thought just the northern part would be enough and that would make the counties in Northern Ireland show larger. Dmcq (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A few stuck-in-the-past editors currently have a problem with having Northern Irelands counties shown just on their own outside of the all-Ireland perspective despite the fact politically they aren't related (not since 1921 anyways) and the fact there aren't 26 counties in the Republic of Ireland anymore. Though i would rather just follow convetion. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Point them at the map conventions, let them argue against that. I believe they'd be quite right though to argue against the version which just showed Northern Ireland like an island with no context around it at all. Dmcq (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I do agree for article infoboxes maps showing the surroundings must be used. I'm drawing up a couple of new maps based on the ones over at Wikimedia along the lines of the article you showed me. Personally i don't feel that the whole island is needed, do you think this does it more than a satisfactory degree? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile including the left of Donegal to make it more recognizable, see what you think, but in essence yes that look good to me. Dmcq (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It might look good, but there are a couple of editors who will take offence that it excludes the entirety of the island and that it fails to show its relation to the rest of the "counties of Ireland". As someone else said, may as well show their relation to all the counties of the UK as well. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way do you know of Wikimedia Commons? I noticed the pictures were uploaded directly here. They are better there at cataloguing pictures and letting people search for them and the pictures can be used exactly the same on Wikipedia. It also make it easier for other language encyclopaedias to use pictures. Pictures on the English Wikipedia are very often moved to Wikimedia Commons eventually anyway so it would probably happen eventually anyway but you might like to make them more easily available. Dmcq (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you move them to Wikimedia? Mabuska ^(talk) 16:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons, there's a section on moving your own images. I've done it once by putting on a tag and waiting and it took two weeks before anyone noticed it, since you seem to be doing a number you might want to look around more and somehow introduce yourself on the talk page or something like that to get the attention of someone who is involved in things like that. Dmcq (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

County Mayo - Section: History

Would you tell me why you removed 'An outline history of County Mayo from prehistorical times through to the present day, written by Bernard O'Hara and Nollaig Ó'Muraíle, two prominent Mayo historians can be read here:- [1] completely from this article. The History section is really bad as it is now and makes little sense so I agree with the notices you put there. But, the link I had added is very sensible and gives an excellent account of the history of the county which is easy to understand. Maybe I should precis it instead if I can find the time? When I added it I thought it a good option as the history is long and complicated. As for the tribal stuff - it is muddled and for the surnames bit - it is just rubbish in my opinion but because someone else put it on I don't like to remove it Comhar (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, i placed it in the relevant place for external links. Fourth link down here: County_Mayo#External_links - "History of Mayo". Though yes i did shorten the title down to its simplest, but people can find out the rest by going into the article, but you can expand the title if you want. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact i'll edit the title for you to state what the webpage is titled as :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 21:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you help with the Baronies of County Mayo. I'll be doing work on them over the next week or two hopefully and will take all your hints and examples on board as I work my way through it. Thanks. Comhar (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)