User talk:Osioni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Osioni, 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:

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!  Alai 17:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Home Rule Act 1914

Despite what might look like fairly heavy copy-editing afterwards, you did a good job of adding context to this article. --Red King 20:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've added what looks like an editorialising comment on Historical revisionism to this article. Since it was you who wrote it, I've resisted the impulse to revert and instead invite you to clarify or expand. It can't simply be left as a bald assertion. --Red King 17:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Well I see that LP deleted the editorial comment. I'd really like to know what you meant? If new facts have come to light, they should certainly be included (provided you have the citations). --Red King 22:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You haven't replied, but I'm still intrigued by the remark on your personal page, about historical material being "de-existed". I've always been intrigued by the way that partisan folk-memory allows violence to continue. Why is Ireland still fighting Wars of Religion when the rest of Europe has essentially ceased to care? Much of it seems to be selective recall, and Wiki's open edit policy allows these perspectives to be exposed, compared, contrasted and synthesised (in the thesis/antithesis/synthesis sense) and so improve understanding, leading to conflict resolution. So I'm particularly interested to see cases of selective editing. --Red King 11:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Good - your user page is clearer now and I see that we have a common view. I look forward to your added clarities and factual analysis of history from contemporaneous material. --Red King 00:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"Britain would surely have followed through" is speculation, not fact. You may well be right, but Wiki conventions prohibit personal speculation ("editorialising"). On the other hand, it would be ok to write that "Historians speculate that Britain would surely have followed through", but you must give the references - which historians, in which books. It can't just be your personal opinion as that contravenes the no original research rule. --Red King 11:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

To sign and date-stamp your articles, type four tildes. Or just click on the signature icon at the top of the edit box. Is just to the right of what looks like a No Waiting sign (That's a "nowiki", handy if you want to explain some wiki code but don't want wiki to interpret it. [[Like this]] --~~~~) Red King 11:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything controversial about your revision, though there's a point when the material really belongs in History of Ireland (1801-1922) - after all, History of Ireland is supposed to be a summary overview. You'll see I did a copyedit: I'll be interested to know if you felt that I (a) improved the readability or (b) elided inconvenient history! --Red King 16:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] D.D. Sheehan

Some of what you write I agree with. I put up the tidy notice because of the poor quality, present tense, lack of proper sentences etc., especially towards the end. The censoring you refer to concerned an almost untranslatable paragraph that I decided to get rid of rather than attempt to decipher. If you rewrite it, I would have no problem with its inclusion. This is also the reason for some of my other changes, it was not clear exactly what the original content meant. Britain made no promises to the National Volunteers, it hinted vaguely at some future reward for loyalty. I don't understand your problem with describing the UVF and IV as paramilitary. I apologise for the RFC/RAF mix-up. Home Rule had been decided as the answer for the "Irish Question", the dispute was about partition.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Munster Fusiliers

If you don't want anyone else to edit a page you are working on, mark it with {{inuse}}. Otherwise, you'll just have to learn how to deal with edit conflicts like everyone else, perhaps by reading Wikipedia:Edit conflicts. Geoff/Gsl 23:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:JFK i.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JFK i.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged imaged will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Nv8200p (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

See how I tagged Image:618 073C.jpg plus document the facts of the image; how you own a hard copy and how you came to be in possession of, etc. If you have a hardcopy of Image:618 073C.jpg, add notes to that image too. Add the text for the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. That may help. I don't see that mentioning JFK would be an issue. --Nv8200p (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Pogrom" in Irish War of Independence

Is see that Lapsed Pacifist reverted your In addition southern Protestant Unioists fell victim to being widely pogromed, their country houses extensively burned down.. It is rare that I agree with him, but this time I do. First, this is a serious devaluation of the word pogrom and is completely inappropriate. Second, if you meant ethnic "cleansing", then the historical evidence doesn't support you. Contemporary Church of Ireland and British Civil Service sources describe the actions as being anti-loyalist rather than anti-protestants. Whilst it is probably true that most loyalists were protestants, the converse is certainly not true. The fraction of either group with "country houses" was very small indeed. We discussed earlier the question of historical material being "de-existed" and historical revisionism. I accept that this is one topic where a challenge to the 'prefered' version of history may not be welcome, but by all means do so provided you can cite your sources. --Red King 13:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

For sources for my statement "Contemporary .. sources describe", see History of the Republic of Ireland#Notes. --Red King 21:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your remarks. Certainly I agree that the research is needed into why the ethno-religious mix in the Free State/Éire/Republic changed so much in that period. I would certainly hesitate to assume that force was involved. In my ancestors' case, the reason was intermarriage and (arguably) the Ne Temere decree. What is certainly true is that the south became nearly as much "a catholic state for a catholic people" as the north had become "a protestant state for a protestant people". The Mother and Child Scheme affair made that very evident. I agree that we hear much about discrimination in jobs and housing in the north but not in the south - it would be naive to assume that it didn't exist and so bear fruitful research into sources. I'm not aware of any deliberate movement of people.
Usage of the terms "Unionist" or "Loyalist" rather than "Protestant" is to emphasise that it is the political loyalties (or treacheries, depending on your PoV) that are important, not the religious belief. Not all Protestants are Unionists, nor vv. But I agree that the usage needs to be examined critically on each occasion becuase there is evidence of double think at times - even in reputable materials. --Red King 11:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish History and Myth 1890-1922

Hello Osioni, and welcome to Wikipedia. Read with interest your comments on your main page and you seem like someone who could both benifit from and be a benifit to Wikipeida, particularly on the hidden reefs of Irish history! Being there! First off, might I ask why you think a United, all-island independant Ireland is even necessary? Not looking for any abusive rows, just well-reasoned and thoughtful arguments with both sides agreeing to disagree equaminitly if need be. Cheers! Fergananim 13:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The chance for unity was missed in 1914 and practically lost for ever in 1916. Perhaps. I think people still underestimate the resiliance of the Unionists at that time, and the fact of the matter is that they were far better armed and motivated that people in the south. We would have had a terrible, all-Ireland, civil war, after which the British would have found it very easy to take over again and the cause of national self-determination would have being set back yet again. So a united Ireland was never going to be a solution because, if we were to ask for self-determination, we could hardly refuse to let the unionists do the same. Remaining with the Empire/UK was their choice, and still is. Until certain people get that simple fact through their heads nothing positive will occour. There is no reason why we should not be happy with the country that we have. Fergananim 12:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nollaig Shona/Merry Christmas, Osioni

How's the form? You still on wiki? If so, looking forward to hearing from you so we can get cracking on the above. All the best in 2006!Fergananim 19:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another image

Hi, if you are the copyright holder of Image:618 074H.jpg (which you would be if you took the photograph yourself), then you need to put it under some sort of free license, whether GFDL, CC, etc. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to see which you prefer. Stan 15:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afd: A Tribute and a Claim

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I've listed A Tribute and a Claim for deletion. Its not an encyclopedia article, but if its not copyright, it migh be suited to wikisource. AnAn | Talk 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Osioni, I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia policy states no original content. Which means that an article about the poem would be OK, but not if it quotes more than a few lines of the poem. If you're sure its not copyright (and can prove it), you can post the original text of the poem on Wikisource - a project like wikipedia which was designed to be a repository of original (copyright free) material. I hope you're not offended that I've AfD's this article - its more that it doens't belong on wikipedia than it being a bad thing to make available. AnAn | Talk 00:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: transwikification (moving content from one wikimedia project to another). You put the following in the "external links" section: {{wikisource|Pagename}}, which produces a lovely little tile. You can do the same with all the other wikimedias - wiktionary, wikiquote, wikibooks etc. If you can't figure out where to place it in wikisource - its best to approach someone who works there more than I do. I'm a real newbie @ the other wikimedia projects. I hope this helps. AnAn 21:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I really liked the wikisource article. It looks great. I'm glad its worked out for you - maybe you could put up some more DD Sheehan poems if you have any. All the best. AnAn 23:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D.D. Sheehan

Really like the article on D.D. You oughta submit it for peer review. Fergananim 21:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that articles like this - besides the fact that they are very well written - would be great for people like Japan Acid and indeed the rest of us, as it broadens our understanding of Irish history. We were raised to see it very much in black and white and from a very green point of view, so its a good thing to add in more colour and understanding of the various processes that led to where we are now. Plus, it is very well put together and deserves a wider audience to appreciate it. Fergananim 21:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate what you mean, Os. It can be said that I'm coming from the same direction myself, especially anything pre-1800 as most people simply don't have a clue about our history prior to that date. Illness, however, has meant that much of my work is simply revision and I have many articles still incomplete. Fergananim 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your strange message on my talk page

I have to say I have a fair idea of the dilemma ex-British soldiers faced at the time, although I very much doubt opinions on the Protestant minority had any bearing. Sinn Féin and the IRA actively opposed the Hibernians. They had to, to assert their authority and take it from those corrupt, sectarian relics. It's incorrect to say the AOH "infiltrated" the Irish Parliamentary Party, as if it were entryism, and they had some great plan they wished to carry out. The relationship was more like that between the Ulster Unionist Party and the Orange Order, with sad old Catholic bigots sorting out jobs for the boys. As for the All-for-Ireland League, they were about as important and influential to Irish politics then as is the Green Party today. Their stance is not notable at all.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lapsed Pacifist

You may need to know that LP seems to have ceased editing on Wiki since he was cited to the arbitration committee for PoV edits, multiple reversions. The Citation statement is on his talk page, just above the invitation to propose himself as an Administrator! --Red King 00:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:SF-Poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SF-Poster.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Peace Tower

Please rename as you see fit. I wanted to keep it in English, this being the English-language 'pedia, but there's no crime in having it at the official Gaelic title with a redirect from English, or making a redirect from the official Gaelic title to the English one (whichever seems to you to be most useful the majority of users). Thanks! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Island of Ireland Peace Park" is a great title for the article! Thank you! :o) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ awards this Barnstar to Osioni for making excellent changes that have improved one of my favourite articles.
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ awards this Barnstar to Osioni for making excellent changes that have improved one of my favourite articles.
The leaflet I have here (picked up at the In Flanders Fields Museum in Ieper last time I went in, probably about 2 years ago) is a poorly translated thing that calls it the Irish Peace Tower (in one place; in another it's the Irish piece Tower, which has very different connotations). Despite having been to the Tower twice, I've failed to spot the better name for it either time and have been mentally referring to it as "the Peace Tower" ever since.
I've got some free time in a fortnight, so I'll try to pop into Mesen in order to take a better photograph of it - and I expect there's a large sign with the real name on it that I've carefully missed in the past (this type of thing happens to me regularly, unfortunately :o) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheehan

Please note that Sheehan was moved from Irish writers into the Irish writers sub-cat Irish non-fiction writers, because that is what he is. He remains a writer/author but in a more appropriate sub-cat. Hope this explains. Ardfern 20:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have all the answers - all I know is that the idea of sub-cats (eg under Irish writers) is to move articles into more relevant subject areas (even multiple areas) to aid categorisation and viewers being able to find things, otherwise Irish writers would end up a massive single undifferentiated list, of little value to anyone. Ardfern 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. See Help:Edit_summary.
Dubidub 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:AIL.Card.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AIL.Card.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P. A. Ó Síocháin image

Actually, I entered the wrong reason in the deletion log. The actual reason why that image was speedy deleted was that it was tagged under Speedy Deletion Criterion #I6: having the generic fair use image tag, but with no fair use rationale on the image page. However, because you uploaded the original image before May 2006, it does not really qualify.

Therefore, I have restored the image for now at Image:JFK i.jpg. But I must also instruct you to actually add a detailed fair use rationale for that image, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, or else it will must likely be posted on Wikipedia:Images for deletion instead. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, that generic fair use tag is deprecated, which means you should replace it with either one of the more specific tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/s/i/User_talk%7EOsioni_6319.html"