User talk:Ponox

Welcome!

Hello, Ponox, 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:

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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester (HM Prison)[edit]

I changed this to Category:Prison Uprisings as the link won't work like that. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Vinegarhill eastview.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Vinegarhill eastview.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish soldiers[edit]

Please do not remove this category from the Irish regimental categories. These men were Irishmen and therefore belong in this category, which does not only refer to soldiers from the Republic of Ireland. Any regiment which existed before 1922 therefore belongs in this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Michael dwyer 1798.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Michael dwyer 1798.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwallis in Ireland[edit]

Hey, no problem. I'm hardly an expert on the Irish Rebellion -- just a Yank interested in what Cornwallis did after we booted him from North America. :) I fully expected to get some things wrong in that piece. Seeing as your area of interest appears to include the Irish Rebellion, I'm curious if there are sources that are potentially more hostile in their view of Cornwallis, particularly in regard to either condoning atrocities, failing to prevent them, or being more active in preventing them. If you know of a more modern take on the "hanging by lottery" at the end of the French invasion (I only saw this in Lecky), that would also be useful to me. Thanks! Magic♪piano 01:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Cornwallis is regarded as one of the more humane British military figures of the 1798 rising as he tried to curb extreme loyalist factions from killing anyone suspected of rebel sympathies and by insisting all death sentences be reviewed by him. On the other hand, he seems to have let his own Generals a free hand as hundreds of rebels and civilians were killed in the mopping-up campaign. The lottery hangings were indeed by order of Cornwallis and for a recent account this book, A Flame Now Quenched [1] has good information. The Courts Martial 0f 1798-99 [2] also has a lot on Cornwallis reviews of court martial proceedings.

Anyway hope this is useful, let me know if you have any 1798 queries any time and I'll try to help. btw, I moved link to section on French landing on 1798 page as I think it's more relevant there. All the best :) --Ponox (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Prosperous 1798.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Prosperous 1798.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Rebellion of 1798[edit]

Having done much work recently to remove the many unsourced instances of blatant POV and bias in various late 18th century Ireland articles by making use of the vast amount of highly credible sources at my disposal thanks to JSTOR, I find your edits to this article odd.

I reverted your edit as it restores and adds to the amount of unsourced original research in this article. Your edit also removed sourced factual statements and replaced them with unnsourced claims. Your edit also removed information that highlights the sectarian nature of parts of it that directly affected the rebellion. Your removal of "Divisions in the United Irishmen" and moving the bulk of its content to the aftermath section is also very odd as the divisions detailed occurred during the rebellion, not after it, and is relevant to the rebellion itself.

Looking at your edit counter, it appears that you have been active since 2007 but have only 476 article edits out of a total of 578, so I can't tell what degree of understanding you have of Wikipedia's standards and policies, however I would appreciate contributions in improving these articles based upon those Wikipedia principles rather than reinsertion of unsourced claims, the addition of original research, and the apparent removal of information that you mightn't like - several instances of which I have come across in your edit history.

Mabuska ^(talk) 14:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a bit of a nerve to accuse me of POV when your own edit is scantily disguided bias. Let me explain the following to you;

1. It is a fact that County Wexford was the only area that saw large scale atrocities by the rebels.
2. The atrocities section should refer to or list atrocites, details belong in the relevant article, otherwise what is to stop repeated insertions of individual details using the same reference multiple times to make the other side look good or bad -this just bogs articles down in emotive POV
3. I did not contribute any "unsourced or original" research to this article - show me exactly where seeing as you have had a good nose through my edit history.
4. Your newly created section is misleadingly titled, covered elsewhere and devoid of context i.e the "divisions" you refer to were specifically restricted to Antrim and Down between Presbyterian/Catholic. And where do you refer to the fact that sectarian division was deliberately fostered by the government as opposed to any naturally occuring internal U.I division? In any case I merely moved the section, to a more relevant place, although it could also go to an earlier section.
5. As for deleting content I fail to understand why you deleted ''Presbyterian radicalism was effectively tamed or reconciled to British rule by inclusion in a new Protestant Ascendancy, as opposed to a merely Anglican one. which largely encapsulates all the above in one sentence. In addition you deleted content stating the fact that Protestants were still heavily involved in the United Irishmen until it's demise. Both of these statements are a matter of common fact but if you wish to put me through the farce of referencing them (and 1. above) I will, no problem.

Finally, I would appreciate if you would show me from your conscientous study of my edit history the "several instances" of where I am supposed to have removed content because "I didn't like it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponox (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In due course. I do not have time right now, but I will explain fully the problem with your reverts. You do not WP:OWN this article and attempts at giving a more balanced view should not be reverted to downplay certain highly relevant events. My edits to this article are nowhere near finished, complete or definite so mention of government actions will also be expanded upon. I intend to improve this article over time not keep it in it's current poor state. And yes source your encapsulation as otherwise it is OR which you claim you didn't insert any of! Just because you didn't like a work in progress is not a reason to just revert it.Mabuska ^(talk) 11:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full response[edit]

Now to respond to you more fully: First of all I never accused you of POV. I questioned why you reinserted dubious or unsourced (or both) information whilst removing credibly sourced information that was added. There was no hostility meant in my message, if you thought there was then I apologise, however you did revert, seemingly without much thought, good work that I was adding to the article, work that it badly needs, which peeved me off and felt to me like WP:IDONTLIKE.

"1. It is a fact that County Wexford was the only area that saw large scale atrocities by the rebels." Large scale? Where in that section does it say "large scale", it just says "atrocities" no "large scale" about it. No-one is denying there where either however why did you remove the addition: "Sectarian massacres by the Defenders in County Wexford "did much to dampen" the rebellion in Ulster."? It is reliably sourced and highly relevant to both atrocities and the rebellion. Why? Further if there were only "Large scale" atrocities in County Wexford, that implies there where lesser atrocities elsewhere. also my rewording and sourcing of that line doesn't change what your preferred version states - that atrocities happened in Wexford.

The Scullabogue massacre article does not contain the exact same information, however yes a few specifics can be left to that article than this one. I can work with that.

"3. I did not contribute any "unsourced or original" research to this article - show me exactly where seeing as you have had a good nose through my edit history."

Well the County Wexford stuff is unsourced and your encapsulation is purely original research until you find sources for the whole statement. So yes you did add unsourced claims and original research to the article.

"4. Your newly created section is misleadingly titled, covered elsewhere and devoid of context i.e the "divisions" you refer to were specifically restricted to Antrim and Down between Presbyterian/Catholic. And where do you refer to the fact that sectarian division was deliberately fostered by the government as opposed to any naturally occuring internal U.I division? In any case I merely moved the section, to a more relevant place, although it could also go to an earlier section."

If the title is a problem then rename it with something better. Do you have evidence that it was specifically restricted to Antrim and Down? The sources I used didn't make specific mention of certain counties, simply "northern Presbyterians", which well implies Ulster not 2 counties. Sources above whatever someone determines is "fact" without evidence. Also if you even read what I inputted into the article, especially that divisions section you would see the following that you even moved: "The government also had news of the sectarian massacre of Protestants at Scullabogue spread to increase Protestant fears and enhance the growing division.<ref name="Blackstock"/>" - So I did "refer to the fact that sectarian division was deliberately fostered by the government".

Seeing as the rebellion was effectively the story of Wexford and Ulster, the information could be put into a "The rebellion in Ulster" section which this article could do with.

"5. As for deleting content I fail to understand why you deleted ''Presbyterian radicalism was effectively tamed or reconciled to British rule by inclusion in a new Protestant Ascendancy, as opposed to a merely Anglican one. which largely encapsulates all the above in one sentence. In addition you deleted content stating the fact that Protestants were still heavily involved in the United Irishmen until it's demise. Both of these statements are a matter of common fact but if you wish to put me through the farce of referencing them (and 1. above) I will, no problem."

Pure and simply because it was unsourced original research. If you have sources be my guest, it will help improve this article to some degree.

This article needs and will receive an overhaul as it desperately needs it as I'm surprised, no shocked, that an article of such high importance for many facets of Irish history is in such a poor state. If you are so concerned about this articles content then why are you happy to let it remain in the way it is? This article barely deserves the C rating it was awarded. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many associated articles are in a similar if not worse state, which I find equally shocking, and as stated beforehand, your help would be appreciated, however statements need sources, edits such as your encapsulation and this with no evidence added to back up your claim of fact does not help improve articles. You may know that is fact or whatever, however most people won't and will want to see a source for it. So if that is a "farce" then it's a farce but it is needed. Please see WP:SOURCES. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also I find it very curious as to why you purposely changed Protestant to prostant? Twice at that. Was it a Chinese herb that was being massacred? Whilst it was obviously a typo, why de-capitalise a name? Why the word even needed touched is beyond me. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Pitchcap.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Pitchcap.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Ponox. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]