User talk:Osioni/Archive 1

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)

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)

Rose of Tralee
I have removed again the reference to the Rose of Tralee in this article. You claim there was a 19th century tradition of a 'Rose'. I am from Tralee, born and bred, lived there all my life and I have never ever heard of this 'tradition'. Until you can provide some independent citation for this, it should not be added back in. Snappy56 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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 Edit conflicts. Geoff/Gsl 23:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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 to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use  .)  See 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)

"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. --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)

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)

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)

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 Image copyright tags to see which you prefer. Stan 15:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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: , 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. An An 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. An An 23:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Your strange message on my talk page
I have to say I find it interesting that the Sheehans fled in a military tender, rather than under their own steam. To me this indicates a higher level of friendliness with the British army than would have been usual in Ireland at the time. 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 on the fate of those who decided to remain loyal to their old bosses. 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)


 * LP just reverted my cleaning of the above falsh and insinuating POV he made, as if in a case of emergency in the middle of the night a horse and cab should have been called. Allegedly the authorities evacuated the house for safety reasons at short notice, so the occupants had no choice but to get into the transport provided. The cleaned text was as follows (interesting that the Greens are since in Government, and as far as the Hibernians are concerned, refer to Prof. Tom Garvin who tells a completely different story):

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. 25 January 2006 (UTC) Osioni 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

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)

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! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 21:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Island of Ireland Peace Park" is a great title for the article! Thank you! :o) ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 10:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 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) ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 20:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

18 months on...
Thanks for your hard work! ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks for the "over-kill" of undeserved Bernstars, have allowed myself merge your second edit up to here, OK ? May I say I would prefere the four stone tablets you moved not boxed up to the bottom left, but spaced in their original size from left to right. Is this possible ? (I had them "scattered" originally as I don't favour rechtangular (germanic style) layouts !.  Greetings Osioni (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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 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)

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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

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

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 Image description page, or else it will must likely be posted on 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 Image copyright tags. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

All-for-Ireland League image
Thanks for your message! If you wish to remove the image of the All-for-Ireland League on D.D. Sheehan I would not object. I don't feel proprietorial over it! (How can I when it is your image!) All the best. DrKiernan 12:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have checked the constituencies carefully. The confusion arises because of the two general elections in 1910. We can date the image from the Cork Free Press to within 9 months because on the image it says "Maurice Healy: North-East Cork". Healy was only MP for North-East Cork from the by-election of 2 March to the prorogation of Parliament on 2 December. At the December general election he was returned for Cork City.

John O'Donnell was returned for South Mayo in January, then lost his seat in December. Tim Healy won North Louth in January, lost it in December and then Frewen resigned North-East Cork in Healy's favor in 1911. John Walsh was returned in December 1910 for Cork South. So, after the December 1910 general election all the AFIL MPs were from Cork constituencies, but between the January and December 1910 elections they also held seats in Mayo and Louth.

I have tried to make sense of this in the legend by including the month. DrKiernan 13:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your suggestion of simplifying the image legend on D.D. Sheehan is a good one, and have made the appropriate change. DrKiernan 09:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Biography Summer Assessment Drive
 WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive! WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award. There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards,  Psych less Type  words! .

Connaught Rangers
I don't understand your clarification "Territorial" (in your recent edit to Connaught Rangers). I thought you might have meant Territorial Army, but you seem to have gone to some trouble to define it as land division. Could you explain? --Red King 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for raising the point. It all began with the Royal Munster Fusiliers page (which I created) when it was recently re-edited to read that the RMF was a Regiment of the British Army. Howewever, pre-WWI all Irish manned, based and garrisoned regiments (Connaughts, Munsters, Dubliners, Leinsters, Innniskillins etc.) were in the first place Irish and based in Ireland. Harris points out in "Irish Regiments in the First World War" (1968) p3: Militarily, the whole of Ireland was administered as a seperate command (one of seven covering the British Isles) directly under the War Office in London. Command Headquarters was at Parkgate in Dublin. Then on p4: The Haldane Territorial Force organisation, for a reserve army, had not been applied to Ireland when it was introduced in 1908

So how to define that the Irish Regiments were Irish and territorially based in Ireland and not raised in Britain ?. To use Territorial Army would be equally misleading, as this also only applied to the UK. I would welcome an alternate wording. To state that they were "territorially Irish Regiments of the British Army raised and garrisoned in Ireland" applied to all regiments might be clearer ?? Osioni 21:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Territorial" doesn't illuminate at all, I think it clutters if not downright confuses.  But I take your point - the Irish Guards are fairly nominally Irish nowadays. What's wrong with "Irish Regiments of the British Army  raised and garrisoned in Ireland" - why use the word "Territorial" at all?  Were they reserve forces?  --Red King 19:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * and if they were (which I question - though maybe it was true by 1914), then you need to find a better dab for the word Territorial. Territorial Force is not perfect, but it better than just land division in this context. --Red King 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Link removal
My apologies for not leaving an edit summary when I deleted the link in D. D. Sheehan. That was an oversight and a bad one. My reason for deleting it was quite simply that I clicked it, and then found no reference or link to D. D. Sheehan. Therefore the link didn't add anything to my appreciation of the article. It was my intention to try out the other links as well, but I ran out of time. I still think that the article is OTT, but I have no desire to act as a censor (or, as Jack Lane put it, as a "parish priest"), so having had my say I will not interfere further. Scolaire 08:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to improve articles over here
--Vintagekits 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Protestant Nationalist
Hi, Cheers for changing some of what I wrote on the Protestant Nationalist page about Easter Rising. Didnt know first President of Ireland was Protestant and others you wrote. good stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddytheceltic (talk • contribs) 19:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I understant what you mean by that. I made some changes to support the idea of it been a all Ireland movement. But im glad atleast there is a page to show that not all Protestants in Ireland are unionists, and also I like the Catholic Unionists page. Shows a less sectarian and more political view on Ireland. (Paddy 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for rewording it. To be honnest I find it a little difficult to put knollege too words. The changes you made the point I was trying to create more clearer and formal. Cheers for that can see you have alot of knollege in the subject and writing skills. (Paddy 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Biography newsletter
A new newsletter has been released; WikiProject Biography/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue 006 Note: You have been delivered this notice because you are listed on the WikiProject Biography Spamlist. If you do not wish to receive this notice, remove your name. From the automated, Anibot 16:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Pearse
I didn't revert your edit. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  17:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Osioni, I have not problem with the information, but the word for word quotations should be in inverted commas. You should also try to include as much of the backgroung information, it saves you from be accused of slective quotation. Like I said on the talk page, if you are not happy with my revert, switch it back. Or you could possibly comment on the discussion first. I got pulled myself awhile back, can not remember the context, but it was very much the same thing. Any way, I'll leave it up to you, thanks, --Domer48 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

National War Memorial, Islandbridge
Shouldn't this article have been moved/redirected to it's new location? Wiki01916 16:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Great war template
I've added a label to the pic as you asked.

The v.d.e. element can eb left out by using this code:. However, I would not recommend it. They make it easier for people to contribute to templates (rather than having to dig down into the code of an article and then find the template using their address bar). Since this one is just starting, I think they should be left in for a while at least to see what people can add to it.

Regards, --sony-youth pléigh 13:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Conscription Crisis of 1918
Hi. I understand that you were trying to show that, despite the fact that conscription was not implemented, and many Irish protested involvement in WWI, many others "did their bit". In both home-grown, UK and US "Irish regiments". However, the wording you added to the Conscription Crisis of 1918 article was a little too strong. The wording - "US enters, leads to fighting 69th, leads to Armistice" - suggested a sequence of cause and effect that's a bit of a stretch. If you want to come up with a new way of showing the broader Irish (and Irish diaspora) involvement in the war, then I'd be happy to help word it. But keep it "softer" to start :) Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:618 073C.jpg
Hi, since you're the copyright holder of Image:618 073C.jpg, would you please release it under a free license, like GFDL-self or ? That way it can be uploaded to Commons and used on other projects. Thanks! —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Go raibh maith agat! —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

10th Division
Thanks Osioni. It was more of a "guerilla edit" while I was just reading the article out of interest. The myth that only the "Ulster" division - with it's overtones of the Ulster Volunteers - fought in the Somme is one of my pet hates. You obviously know more about it that I do, so please correct them if I've made an errors.

I've only just noticed the reference on your user page to moments in Irish history in the decades leading up to 1921 de-existing. I'd subscribe to that WikiProject if it came about. --sony-youth pléigh 23:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mahon
Hi - thanks for your message. I hope that my edit summary didn't seem rude; having just a limited space comments can make it seem rather abrupt. The inaccuracy was about the "County Clare", as he also represented County Carlow. However, the introduction doesn't need to be very specific about something which only represented one part of his career, so I'd rather keep the detail of when he was an MP for the body of the article. Finally, if you are adding a few of these (and the text seems perfectly reasonably for people whose notability comes primarily or wholly from being an MP), a couple of copyediting points: MP doesn't take a ".", and county should be capitalised when it's a specific one, such as County Clare. Warofdreams talk 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Parliamentarian sounds good - I'm quite happy with that. Warofdreams talk 16:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Double entry
Hi Osioni, if you read the paragraph immediately before the one in which I deleted the sentence, you'll see it's been duplicated (it might be a paragraph or two before I can't remember). Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rome Rule
The AFD has been & gone. You make interesting points. If you find references for them please please add them to the article. Aatomic1 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit in Manfred Curry
Osioni, are you sure not to mix up Manfred Curry with his father Charles Emerson (Dr. Charles Emerson Curry, ed., Sir Roger Casement’s Diaries: His mission to Germany and the Findlay Affair (1922) )? --85.178.151.240 (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, must admit Dr. Manfred (born 1899) could not have been Casement's contact, it must have been his father Dr. Charles Curry as you rightly point out. I have adjusted the texts accordingly and thank you for pointing this out. Got it wrong because my contact was with the Dr. Manfred Curry family. Osioni (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Osioni, but I believe you mixed up father and son again. Charles Curry was a physicist (first working with Ludwig Boltzmann at the University of Munich), whereas Manfred Curry was the physician and made his degree as a Dr. med. (doctor of medicine) in 1930. The earliest time the hospital was founded can be in the 1930es or even later. Manfred Curry called it American Bioclimatic Research Institute after WWII and it was named Manfred-Curry-Klinik by his widow after Manfred's death in 1953 (Manfred Curry). Excuse me being curious but whom of the Manfred Curry family did you have contact with? --85.178.165.180 (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification: I met Frau Dr. Manfred Curry twice at the Curry home, adjacent to the "Manfred-Curry-Klinik", in Riederau, where I viewed the Casement papers (together with my father actually). She clearly said Casement left his papers for safe keeping with Dr. Curry with whom he had a close friendship, my mis-understanding appears to be that I understood her to have meant her husband Dr. Manfred as she kept referring to him all the time. A procurement sum was agreed between her and my father for the papers, which fell through on his insistence that a Casement bust be placed in the clinic grounds. A while later she wrote that her daughter had taken the documents to Dublin and handed them in to the National Archive. I have reflected the details you provided into the Charles Curry-Casement link on the Manfred Curry page, which I feel is relevant. Certainties: Frau Dr. Manfred Curry inherited the douments, Casement stayed nearby the Curry home in Riederau (see plaque image), and Dr. Charles Curry published a work on Casement. Osioni (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Global account
Just to confirm for administrative reasons that I am temporarliy s:User:OsioniTemp(talk) on en.WS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OsioniTemp (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I was unabled to sign out for some technical reason. Now doing so. Osioni (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Irish nationalist politicians
I see that you've been adding Irish politicians to a category Category:Irish Nationalist politicians. Not only is this a vague category (who defines nationalist), but there are more clear-cut and objective categories out there and in use. Most of the MPs you've added this category too are already categorised according to the nationalist parties that they were members of, such as Category:Home Rule League MPs and Category:Irish Parliamentary Party MPs. The first you've placed in the Category:Irish Nationalist politicians category, meaning there is now no need to add the individuals to the parent category.--Damac (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Demac, the root problem arose from the fact that the Category:Irish politicians contained a large mixed listed collection of politicians from various parties past and present, covering a period of two hundred years, which I have now spent considerable time sorting out, that is, categorizing half of them as far as possible (all well intended). (See discussion Snappy59) It still contains a collection which defies category (unless Diverse Irish politicians, Irish 18th century politicians, etc.,  perhaps you have suggestions?  The Category:Irish Nationalist politicians I have defined by period as a list of names not defined by party or movement (HRL, LL, INL, INF, IPP, PN, APN, UIL, AFIL, Ind.Nat. etc). This is definitely lacking and is simply a list of nationalist politicians and activists relating to the perion 1801-1922. The definition of "nationalist" is broad - simply other than Unionists?. Hope the intentions are understood. I am working through the varios parties/movements one by one, which will not happen in a day. Osioni (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand the logic of Category:Irish Nationalist politicians.
 * Politicians are members of parties, so the most obvious approach is to catalogue them accordingly.
 * Defining who was or wasn't a "nationalist" from 1800 to 1922 is an impossible task, especially given that nationalism, as a political ideology, really only kicks in from the 1848 revolutions. Moreover, Irish MPs ran on a variety of platforms (emancipation, repeal, etc), which cannot all be understood as "nationalism". The term nationalist doesn't even appear on the page on Daniel O'Connell. Why? Because he wasn't a nationalist.
 * John O'Connor Power was in two party categories. He was not in the catch-all Category:Irish politicians, yet you moved him into Category:Irish Nationalist politicians. Why?
 * As for the remaining few uncategorised entries on Category:Irish politicians, nowhere in Wikipedia does it state that all entries in one category have to be subcategorised. They can remain in the category that makes most sense.--Damac (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I respect and follow the point you raise to a degree. Irish nationalist is fairly well defined in its article. IRB membership/politicians admittedly belong to a different category. Regret including Power. O'Connell is a borderline case, 'nationalist' perhaps missing in the article. Ideologically 1850 is, as you say, the correct defining point. Osioni (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Irish nationalism article is a shambles. There is not one source for the section on "early nationalism" (i.e. up the the Young Irelanders]]. It is a mish-mash of original research and hearsay, particularly the earlier period. Have you counted the number of "citations required" in the same article?
 * O'Connell is borderline in your opinion. You consider him a "nationalist", even though the "nationalist" Young Irelanders would certainly not have seen him so.--Damac (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

O Lord Damac, take it easy. Yes, the Young Irelanders were of another category, excuse. I did't mean any harm. So what of my slipped "opinion". No need to blame me for Irish nationalism, not my creation, the consensus of others. Such is life. You are right on its lack of authenticity. Apart from thst, in the Europe of today "Nationalism" is in ill repute and very suspect. Would myself prefere "ours" defined defferently. Osioni (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * just to finish on Category:Irish politicians, this is a 'lead' or 'parent category' for its sub-categories. The many unassigned random names posted to it I have moved to the relevant catgories they correctly belonged to (also in the case of Category:Irish diaspora. Osioni (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image John_Redmond.jpg
Hi Osioni - I am trying to track down this image - with no luck - yours is the best that I have found in the public domaine! Do you have this image in higher resolution? It is intended for use in a documentary on Ireland in WW1 to be broadcast on national tv in Nov this year. Your help is gratefully received as is a prompt response!

Thanks, Sandra C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sconway001 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandra, am not exactly sure where I got it from, suggest you look up one of the publications referenced under John Redmond 'Sources'. In the NLI you may find what you are looking for. Wishing you success (what date will the broadcast be? .. might help his typical 'Nationalist' "Mid-importance" rating - see 'Discussion tab' to be reviewed!). Osioni (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)