User talk:Maolcholann

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! BigDunc 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Warning of restrictions
The article Orange Institution,along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to |active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2007 Arbitration case, and amended by community consensus in October 2008 and November 2009. The current restrictions are:
 * All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
 * All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related.
 * Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. BigDunc  12:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Orange institution
As a new editor, you may not know that reasons for removing your edits are given in the edit history of the article [this is true of any article]. Without taking any position on the pros and cons, I thought you would want to know that the objection is to putting the material in the opening paragraph of the article. If you put it in the body of the article, then it has to be addressed on its merits. --Red King (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Drumcree pictures
Just letting you know that the you uploaded is about to be deleted. That is, unless you can do something about the copyright.

If you ask me, the Drumcree conflict article is in dire need of some pictures. All we have on Wikipedia is a picture of the church, a picture of a mural, and a very simple map. It'd be great if you could upload some of your own, with the proper licences of course. ~Asarlaí 01:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left a reply to your message on my talk page. ~Asarlaí 21:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for that Asarlaí - will follow up. Maolcholann

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Hooded Loyalists salute Orang Church Parade in Obins Street, 1972-thumb.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hooded Loyalists salute Orang Church Parade in Obins Street, 1972-thumb.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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 meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 09:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Hooded Loyalists salute Orang Church Parade in Obins Street, 1972.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hooded Loyalists salute Orang Church Parade in Obins Street, 1972.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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 meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 09:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Loyalist Paramilitaries escort Orange Order home from Drumcree Church Service thumb.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Loyalist Paramilitaries escort Orange Order home from Drumcree Church Service thumb.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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 meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 09:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Loyalist Paramilitaries escort Orange Order home from Drumcree Church Service.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Loyalist Paramilitaries escort Orange Order home from Drumcree Church Service.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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 meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 09:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Troubles
Please note that blogs are not regarded as reliable sources here. I see that the original material is linked from your reference and would suggest you link to those rather than the blog. For details of how to cite referenced, please see WP:CITE. Thanks. Rodhull andemu  17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ballyhegan petition


The article Ballyhegan petition has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unencyclopedic. This is just a copy of a petition, there is little context and no aparent encyclopedic value.

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  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  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. Victão Lopes I hear you... 15:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left some comments on the Talk page. Cheers. Rodhull  andemu  16:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rodhullandemu has moved the page to Wikisource (here) but it was then moved again (here) because "an authoritative (published) source" needs to be added. That published source is the THIRD REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO ENQUIRE INTO THE NATURE, CHARACTER, EXTENT AND TENDENCY OF ORANGE LODGES, ASSOCIATIONS OR SOCIETIES IN IRELAND. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 6 August 1835. Page 181.  That published source can be seen here. ~Asarlaí 16:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that reference Asarlaí - and for the offer of assistance Rodhul. Perhaps what I should have done was say that I found the Ballyhegan petition while researching the history of violence associated with Orange parades and that it formed part of the 'Two Hundred Years in the Citadel' paper that I submitted to the 1990s 'Parades Commission' - as reproduced on Scribd & my OrangeCitadel blog. But how now to do that - beats me. So any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Maolcholann (talk • contribs)
 * I think it's best to keep the whole thing at Wikisource. That means we can link to it without pasting the whole thing into an article. Wikipedia discourages that. For an example of what is encouraged, have a look at Irish Declaration of Independence – notice how there's a link to the full declaration at the very bottom right, and the rest of the article only has a few passages taken from it. All that needs to be done is to add the source "THIRD REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE blah blah blah" to this. ~Asarlaí 22:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but of course it won't always be at the above location on Wikisource. I haven't had time yet to fix it there and move it into their Mainspace, but once that happens it will be citable here if necessary. Rodhull  andemu  22:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to go along with what you suggest Maolcholann (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to List of UFO religions. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi D.. I'm still trying to get the hang of Wiki. The article I referred to was my own. It was published in an academic journal and is more than a novel synthesis of previously published material. Rather it is based on original archival (media) research that I used to support a new theoretical framework for explaining religious and quasi-religious experiences. And are attempts to explain, or to build on previoius explanations of such phenomenon not acceptable ? Why not? Maolcholann (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)



You use this link continuously as a reference, and as you say, you seem to be the writer of it. If it is published in an academic, peer reviewed journal, then cite that, not the blogspot, though as you are still the writer, I'd suggest that you read our conflict of interest guideline. Citing ones own research is frowned upon, and seen the number of reversions etc. above, I'd suggest that you discuss further additions first on talkpages. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)