Your thesis that County Dublin is a "former" county is a misrepresentation of the facts. The page is about County Dublin in general, not specifically about the administrative unit that existed prior to 1994. I refer you to the page on County Cork, which is also about the county in general, and not specifically the County Council administrative unit. The county council administrative unit is given a sub heading within the article. Furthermore the County Cork page references Cork City, which as you may know is not part of the administrative county at all. There is, therefore, a discrepancy between how these two pages are being treated. I suggest you find some more nuanced language than "County Dublin is a former county". Perhaps "... is a former administrative county" would suffice in this case. For further clarity I refer you to [1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.239.203 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is along and tedious history with this page and all other Irish County pages. In short, the current state of the page reflects the best consensus that could be arrived at. If you feel that you've something new and compelling to bring to the party, bring it to the talk page. Until then, stop edit warring. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, regarding St Judes; I searched EPPI and Google books; it looks like St Jude's was created out of St James' some time between 1861 and 1867. The OSI mapviewer's 25-inch maps are mostly from later than the 6-inch maps (1880-1910) and the 25-inch gives "St Jude's" (though I had to zoom in to the maximum to bring it up, which means you can't see all the letters at once). jnestorius^(talk) 21:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work. Thanks for your labours. So must all 6 townlands of St Jude's be attributed to Castleknock or only some of them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PLEASE STOP.
Yesterday I posted this warning at AN/I that I would block anyone making further edits to change, rename or otherwise affect categorisation of GAA-related articles. You made several further edits after that time and were it not for the fact that you have not edited for some hours, I would now be blocking you. However please understand that if you make any further edits of this sort, I will block you indefinitely even if you are not actively editing (ie even if I only become aware of your edits some hours later). Note that indefinite does not mean permanent, and I or any other admin would happily unblock on an assurance from you that you will not make any further edits of that sort until a consensus is reached. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You will note the time of my peace offer above ("If Brocach and Finnegas will agree to self-impossed ban on all GAA related articles for a period of 2 months, then I will too."). I posted that immediately after reading the ANI thread. You will also note that all the GAA edits that I made were prior to the offer and prior to reading the ANI notice. So there was no intentional breech of the warning. You should also note that the peace offer was thrown back in my face. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but your peace offer did not neutralise my warning not to edit further. You made further edits after I had expressly warned you and others not to do so. Please don't continue or I will block you, as I will anyone else who does the same. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I was saying was that at the time of the edits I was not aware of the warning. It did not appear on my talk page at the time of the edits. Frankly, I'm grateful for the respite that it will bring to the 3 of us. But I am not hopeful that either of the other 2 will get over their ICANTHEARYOU problem anytime soon. Thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, that's the reason I didn't block you - my warning was a general one made at AN/I and I accept that you hadn't seen it. If you and everyone else can now simply cease fire until the terms of an armistice are agreed, nobody need be blocked or banned and we can all get back to writing the encyclopaedia. Good luck! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, its a good idea to refine the TD categories by party and you have been doing. I have taken the liberty of using TDs in the name, e.g. Category:Progressive Democrats TDs instead of Teachtaí Dála. I think this is more succinct, easier to spell, easier to pronounce and follows the current convention for MPs, e.g. parent is Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom by political party and all the sub cats have MPs in the title, e.g. Category:Conservative Party (UK) MPs. Snappy (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Athletics in Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 14:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Laurel Lodged

At TfD March 3, you nominated ((S-par/ie/oi)) for deletion.

I reckoned that if the succession boxes were used as designed, then the real problems which you identified would be avoided. So I tested it on a series of biogs of TDs, and posted an explanation at the TfD discussion, complete with links to the examples I created.

This seems so far to have persuaded most other participants in the discussion, but it would be helpful to have some input from the nominator. If you have a few minutes, would you be kind enough to respond at TfD with your thoughts?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm listifying Category:Former constitutional monarchies, and have finished except for Grand Duchy of Lithuania which you added into that category last year: [2]. The article doesn't seem to mention the constitutional aspect of its monarchy; do you have a citation for it? – Fayenatic London 20:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if you find one, please add it to the list in Constitutional_monarchy#Former_constitutional_monarchies. Meanwhile, I'll delete the category. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Catholic (term) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• <blockquote>Since the word [[Christian Church|Ecclesia]] is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, ''And when he had thus
• ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P26.HTM Catechism of the Catholic Church, 750]</ref>-->

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Roscelese. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The category Category:19th-century Church of Ireland church buildings already existed (from 2011) when I created the 18th-century category to match it. Although the parent categories Category:19th-century Anglican churches etc. had been changed from “church buildings” to “churches” the subcategories for Ireland and Wales had not been changed. Hence I also created 20th century and 18th-century categories to match Category:19th-century Church in Wales church buildings (created 2015). They could be nominated for speedy renaming if you think so. Hugo999 (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there. I am trying to increase the consistency of the display of birth and death dates in biographical articles. My edits are simple housekeeping edits that do not involve adding new information to the article. The birth and death dates are already present in the article in some way. I've gone through hundreds of articles recently, and it is always possible I made a error. Could you link the article(s) in question? Omegastar (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry - my bad. I didn't notice that the extra dates were elsewhere in the articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in with whatever area of the British Isles or subject that they work on. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under the new organization, isn't Roman forts still entirely unnecessary? If we have it down to types, shouldn't it be removed? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. But it is only now redundant. A lot of work (by me) was necessary to make it redundant. @Iazyges: You can submit "upmerge to Roman fortification in Foo" proposals if you like. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will you kindly explain why you say that the categories

Artillery]]

N

dear user laurel lodged

the reported results in the catholicism article which you deleted are watertight. get an spss xxiii program, the free wvs file and you will get the same results based on tens of thousands of interviews. i reverted your undo command. user john de norronaJohn de Norrona (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You copied and pasted directly from the PDF and so I have deleted your contribution as a WP:COPYVIO. Don't do it again. Write your own material. Elizium23 (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Sportspeople from Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers who are not citizens of the Republic of Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sussexpeople (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Chalcedonianism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I noticed you moved a number of articles which had the words "High Court" in them to separate pages with "High Court (X)", with X being the country in which the court sits. You did this with the High Court of Australia and the High Court of New Zealand. This should not have been done, because the actual name of those courts was as original named in the articles. See, e.g. the talk page for the High Court of New Zealand, where I have explained why that was inappropriate for that Court. There are also comments on the High Court of Australia talk page. I have not checked other courts, but I suspect the same error may have been replicated with them as well. Please be careful in future with other institutions - and I suggest foreshadowing it on the relevant talk page first. Thanks. -Sagaciouseight (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Sagaciouseight that the New Zealand High Court article move should have been discussed on the talk page first. I suggested to them that a requested move discussion be held to decide whether the page should be moved back. However, if you accept Sagaciouseight's evidence on the talk page, let me know and I'll move it back myself without further bureaucracy.-gadfium 19:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that there needs to be a wider discussion about individual countries appropriating what is, essentially, a very generic name. But for the moment, I'm content for this to be rolled back. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. In my opinion, I don't think it is "appropriating" a generic term when a name happens to contain that term within a longer and specific title. Taken to its logical conclusion that would seem to lead to absurd and impractical results. For example, does that mean every "Government of X country" is appropriating the term "Government"? Additionally, I don't really see practically how there could be any confusion about it. For example, I don't see how someone visiting a page titled "High Court of New Zealand" could confuse it with a "High Court" of another country. Sagaciouseight (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also apologies for the method of my original attempt at reversion; I did not know how to reverse a move so my rollback was botched. Sagaciouseight (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Laurel, I was the one who moved the High Court of Australia article back. Like Sagaciouseight I don't really understand your argument, which you have stated in a number of places, about countries "appropriating a generic term;" that in fact is the opposite of what is the case with Australia and NZ - countries that give their court a title which includes their own (non-generic) country name. But more to the point, wikipedia isn't the place for a "wider discussion" about what countries should or shouldn't do! Wikipedia articles should be based on the what actual names are as reported in the sources, whether that's what we editors think they should be or not. I'm still concerned that you moved a number of other articles without discussion (e.g. High Courts of Bhutan, Singapore) and if your reasoning is the same, they should be moved back. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Bishops from Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that I have closed this discussion as "rename as nominated". If you think that these categories (not just the Austrian one) should be named "in" their respective countries, not "of" them, feel free to create a new nomination for all of them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:18th century in the Kingdom of Great Britain, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Laurel Lodged,

I wanted to make you aware of discussions concerning the page move discussion you recently participated in at Catholicism (term):

• Catholicism (term)#Merge proposal with Catholic (term)
• Catholicism (term)#Article name concerns (August-September 2017)

Thanks! –Zfish118^⋉talk 07:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you continue to disrupt wikipedia with nonsense edits such as [3] you will be blocked from editing and face further sanctions. Tim! (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Laurel Lodged. Three categories you created—Category:Roman limes by province, Category:Roman walls in Britannia, Category:Roman walls by province—as well as three other similar categories (Category:Roman walls in the United Kingdom, Category:Roman Limes in the United Kingdom, Category:Roman walls in Scotland) were recently emptied and blanked by another user, and it may have been done out of process. Could you take a look? ℯxplicit 01:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:18th century in the Kingdom of Great Britain, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Nevé–selbert 07:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia: Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding how Wikipedia can describe the political allegiances of Ruth Coppinger. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Ruth Coppinger".The discussion is about the topic Ruth Coppinger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --This is Paul (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An Rfc is opened at Charles, Prince of Wales, concerning the article's lead. You may want to place that article on your watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please end your disruptive editing warring on this page by constantly reverting. You are providing no evidence for why this long standing content should be removed and do not have consensus. You were kindly asked to take the matter to talk, of which you ignored. Where there is dispute it should be taken to talk, not constantly reverted, leading to an edit war, this is extremely disruptive and unhelpful behavior. Helper201 (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reverted my edits on Castleknock because County Dublin doesn't exist. While it may not continue to exist as a county council, it still exists as a traditional county, and Castleknock is in the traditional county of Dublin. Fingal is not a county and it is merely a county council and I don't see a good reason to revert my edits TMN81 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not true. Please read the article on County Dublin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Laurel Lodged. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This - [4] and this [5] are a 1RR violation. I urge you to self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Categories:Monasteries suppressed under the Icelandic Reformation. Since you had some involvement with the Categories:Monasteries suppressed under the Icelandic Reformation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 6. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do assume good faith, and stop making personal attacks as you did have done twice this evening [6] and[7]. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I happened to notice your comment here, and I felt I needed to clarify something, in the hope of spreading awareness. I don't object to either your vote or the vote result in general, and I do agree that such categories are redundant. I do however notice that your particular comment is based on a commonplace confusion between Moldova and Moldavia -- it's understandable, they have the same name in Romanian, and Moldova is also called Moldavia in various sources; in fact, Moldova takes its name from Moldavia -- sort of like the "Macedonia" issue, only Romanians don't really object to the name being taken. As clarified by the disambiguation page or this map, Moldova is a mere part of the old Moldavia. Moldavia was a principality, a distinct polity up to ca. 1860, when it merged with Wallachia to become Romania. By that point, it had been stripped of a region called Bessarabia, which was included in the Russian Empire. Present-day Moldova is the part of Bessarabia that was created by the Soviets as a distinct republic -- that is to say, it is smaller than a subregion of old Moldavia, and not in fact its legal successor. So when you argue that it is an anachronism to speak of "Moldavian" in the 19th century or whatnot, you have it backwards: there was in fact a Moldavian state at the time (not really an independent polity, as indeed it was mostly subject to other states throughout its existence; but it had a flag, a government, an army, a fleet, and even a constitution, including forms of representation); there was, however, no Moldovan state (as whatever is now Moldova was either the backwoods of Moldavia or, from 1812, an unnamed part of Russian Bessarabia). If you and others keep entertaining that confusion, as many do, we risk messing up category trees and losing precious information. Dahn (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice you moved this article to United Kingdom in the Roman era. I have moved it back, as "Roman Britain" is the usual name of the period, and the common name therefore. If you still think it should be moved you should open a move request to seek the input of other editors.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to execute a proper move from Hadrut Region to Hadrut Province but the latter article has to be deleted first as does the redirect in order to move Hadrut Region and it's TP to Hadrut Province. The redirect and existing article prevents that from happening - the first attempt at moving was executed incorrectly. Let an administrator do what has to be done, please. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have now closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 24. Please nominate the remaining similar categories as mentioned in the nomination. – Fayenatic London 22:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Laurel Lodged. You have new messages at HLE's talk page.
Message added 12:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Hello, Laurel Lodged. You have new messages at HLE's talk page.
Message added 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

You might want to nominate Category:2nd millennium in the Austrian Empire as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please use the CFD process. I noticed that you have emptied Category:1892 establishments in Austria and presumably others today, without discussion. As you are an experienced editor you are fully aware that emptying categories out-of-process is not a light matter, and could result in sanctions being taken against you.

You made a few nominations of multiple categories earlier this year, the last of which (including the category linked above, which you have just emptied) failed to achieve consensus, and this lack of consensus was explicitly because you had chosen not to comply with previous advice to make a comprehensive nomination for what remained.

If you want help with tagging a large number of categories, Marcocapelle may be willing, or you could make a request at WP:AWB/Tasks.

Please desist from emptying categories without discussion. As for the ones that you have emptied, either repopulate them for discussion, or at least have the diligence to redirect them like the ones that were merged following consensus at earlier CFDs. – Fayenatic London 21:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 16#Ancient Greece should answer your question. Thank you for the reminder. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have previously participated in discussions about the use of gendered pronouns in the biography of Albert Cashier. An Rfc about this topic is taking place at Talk:Albert Cashier, and your comments are welcome. Mathglot (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, because you participated in one or both of the CFD nominations for "Ancient Greece" in July, I wanted you to know that I've created a second nomination for Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 1#Ancient, and thank you for contributing to the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Turkey in the Roman era, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the edits!

(1) Do you have a reference for this quote conform to the established church whilst at the same time continuing to worship...in the traditional, pre-Reformation manner;

(2) I've only taken this up to 1660, so I'll complete it to end of 18th century as per the heading (the trigger was updating the Charles Leslie article);

Robinvp11 (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be so good as to strike though every one of your unfounded allegations against me at WT:IE#Moycullen, viz. "The question has been rendered moot by the actions of @Scolaire", "Apparently, they interpret an invitation to comment, such as this, to mean delete 57% of the sourced content", "No need for that now after the actions of Scolaire", "I see that you and Bastun have failed to condemn his behaviour.". I did not delete 57% of content; I deleted 20 words. Five days after The Banner deleted large amounts of content. The conflict, such as it is, is between you and the Banner. Scolaire (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, it looks like you tried to reverse the redirect of Barony of Fassadinin and Fassadinin by performing a cut-and-paste move, which is undesirable because it splits the page's edit history. I've filed a request to have the history merged, but in the future please use the method described at WP:SWAP to switch page locations. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about that @Rosguill:. Thanks for the help. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, List of Independent Catholics, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Laurel Lodged. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Former subdivisions of the Republic of Italy, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Roman fortifications in Roman Egypt, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Constantine ✍ 15:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop.

You know well that the discussion at Category_talk:1900s_establishments_in_Congress_Poland#Chronology_categories_for_Congress_Poland has not reached a conclusion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last warning, User:Laurel Lodged.

Stop now, or be blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Populated places in Posen (Prussian province), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Religion in the British Empire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Laurel Lodged, just to advise that, having inserted the material thrice, the next time would put you into WP:3RR territory. You've been here years, etc., so no template  :) but best to be mindful at this juncture. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 13:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a lot worse than just an edit war warning that you're risking. After many years here, you must surely understand the most basic core principles of Wikipedia are Verifiability through citations to reliable sources. And yet, although you surely know this, and though the importance of sources has repeatedly been pointed out to you in the discussion at Talk:Albert Cashier#Fraud, you have still continued to belabor your original ideas about what must, or must not be fraud, based on your own notions of what constitutes fraud without a source to back you up. Your activity in that discussion is starting to be disruptive. Either find a bunch of reliable sources now to back up your assertion of "fraud", or just drop it. Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Category:Establishments in Posen (Prussian province) has been nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Establishments in the Province of Posen. Please see WP:CFDS. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for reminding me about the inconsistent Congress Poland chronology categories. I have revised my original CFD close, and moved these back to Poland. See Category talk:1900s establishments in Poland.

My templates Template:Poland 1900s estab by year and Template:Poland C20 estab by decade are no longer needed. Nor is your Template:Congress Poland C20 estab by decade; may I delete it? – Fayenatic London 20:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have deleted the two templates that I had created. Do you still oppose deletion of Template:Congress Poland C20 estab by decade? – Fayenatic London 21:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took your silence as a "no", and deleted the page. – Fayenatic London 07:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although you commented about doing something constructive about this on my user page, and in many CFDs, I haven't seen your proposal yet.

User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal is a recent essay that you might find helpful in preparing your proposal. – Fayenatic London 07:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Decades in Congress Poland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Events in Congress Poland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Laurel Lodged,

I saw your objection that empty category Category:Events in Congress Poland shouldn't be deleted. But as you know, in WP:C1, policy states that empty categories that are not in use or used as redirects, aren't tracking categories and aren't part of a deletion discussion are deleted unless they are occasionally empty and marked with the ((emptycat)) tag. None of these criteria applied to Category:Events in Congress Poland and apparently no editors could find an article to be part of this category. There are no prohibitions against its recreation if there comes a use for this category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In your edit to this cfd you've inadvertently removed a closing > so your edit doesn't appear. If I fixed it the 4 tildes would change to me rather than you. Oculi (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Laurel Lodged. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Independent Catholics".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people born after a failed abortion attempt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people born after a failed abortion attempt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Laurel Lodged. Thank you very much for your recent corrections on the article "Thomas Butler of Garryricken". I am a newby in Wikipedia and on an endless learning curve about how to write in Wikipedia. My knowledge of the MOS is still very fragmentary. My problem is aggravated by the fact that my English is second or even third language after German and French. So thanks for your corrections. When I list siblings and children in biographical articles and write list entries like "John (1650-1701), who would become president", I mean to use a "future in the past" tense, not a conditional. As biographies of dead people are written in past tense, I thought I should use future-in-the-past for events more recent than the time that I am looking at. So when I talk about the person's birth and his siblings and I talk about the later life of these siblings, I use future-in-the-past; and similarly when I talk about the children. Perhaps you feel that this is not how an English person would do it? — Another problem is the name of the article. The person who is the subject of the article "Thomas Butler of Garryricken" is called "Thomas Butler of Kilcash" in all the references that I know of, but perhaps I have not found those who do. I do not know how to rename an article and I am not the right person for such a drastic change, which if really needed should certainly be done by a more experience Wikipedian such as you. — The last problem I have is how to call the person who is the subject of the article. You replaced "He" by "Butler". To use the family name is probably the general rule. However, in this case about all the persons named in the article are members of the Butler family. Could one use the first name, which is more distinctive in such a case? With many thanks for your help. Johannes Schade.

Dear Laurel Lodged. Sorry I forgot to sign my post. I have been thinking about my use of the future-in-the-past that you criticised. I now think you are right and that future-in-the-past feels stilted and cumbersome in the lists of siblings and children of biographical articles. I will go through the concerned articles and correct them. Thank you very much for your intervention. Johannes Schade (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Borras->Borris: brilliant edit! I could not possibly have done this as I lack your Irish background! Thank you very much! Besides, do you understand how our John Butler de-jure 15th comes to marry an English girl?

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
2. Then click on "templates",
3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
4. If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Laurel Lodged. I think your latest bout of corrections has substantially improved the article "John Butler, 15th Earl of Ormond". Your English flows much better than mine. I am still busy going through your corrections to learn the lessons you teach me. My main issue at the moment is that I do not understand your edit to the end of the lead, which now reads "it was discovered that the titles had merely been dormant and they were restored to his son". The pronoun "he" seems well to refer to the 15th Earl. However, I thought he died childless. Could this be an error? Besides I find that the "discovery" of the titles being dormant is quite astonishing and may have been the reward given to the 17th Earl for his conversion to the Church of Ireland, but this is just a guess of mine. Johannes Schade (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My bad @Johannes Schade:. I'll fix it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Laurel Lodged. Thanks for fixing and for the many improvements you made to the article since that time. Your changes are usually for the better but there is one I wonder about: why do we need to repeat the family name (i.e. Butler) in the list of the 15th Earl's siblings? I will not revert your edit without your agreement, but there are similar lists of siblings and children in about 50 biographical articles that I should change to include the family name for consistency with this one. I am hesitant to do that work without understanding the reasons. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Laurel Lodged. Your efforts have been rewarded: the article John Butler, 15th Earl of Ormonde has been promoted to C-Class by JoeHebda (perhaps you have already seen). Congratulations! Johannes Schade (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please get clear consensus before changing content on the abortion article going forwards. Continuing to edit without such consensus may get you blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also note that there is a WP:1RR restriction on the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually looking at the talk page and there is clear consensus against your removal of content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Laurel Lodged. I just saw (a bit late) your correction from the 22 September on the article Walter Butler, 16th Earl of Ormonde where you changed the descriptions of the events in the Timeline (formerly "By date") table to past tense. I thought about this and realised that you are right and I should change. I will therefore go through the Timeline tables of all the articles concerned (about 40) and change them to past tense. I am a bit less convinced about Born -> Birth, especially since you changed Dies -> Died and not -> Death, but there might be a good reason that I do not see. My English teachers always told me that the verb forms should be preferred over the nouns, but perhaps not in that context. This is important because it appears very often. With thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Johannes Schade:. I think that you are more correct using "born". Good work on the other Butler articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I will thus use "Born".Johannes Schade (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! RFe this revert: in my edit summary I was referring to MOS:DABREDIR. If you click on that link you'll find yourself in a section of the manual of style for dab pages, which explains the use of redirects in entries.

Your approach would be preferable if the Cave of Hira was a non-notable entity that would only ever be treated within another article. However, it is a an article-level topic: it's notable in its own right, it used to be a separate article for most of its existence and it could become one again at some point, and even at the moment it's treated in a self-contained section of the article it was merged into. – Uanfala (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your approach would be preferable if the Cave of Hira was a separate article. Since it is not, my approach is preferable. Let us not engage @Uanfala: in WP:crystalball gazing about future events. It is what it is. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I encourage you to read MOS:DABREDIR, especially the fourth bullet point. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Uanfala: I think that sub-section 3.5.2 of the MOS is the relevant section for this issue: "For foreign-language terms, be sure an article exists or could be written for the word or phrase in question. Usually this means that the term has been at least partially adopted into English or is used by specialists.". Since the current name fails that test, then a re-direct is inappropriate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a foreign-language term in the sense of the section you're citing. The relevant part of the MOS, which I've been trying to get you to look at for some time now, is "A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic". – Uanfala (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Uanfala: How is it not a not a foreign-language term? Since you won't find that mountain in any English dictionary, sub-section 3.5.2 applies in this case. This dicussion should probably move to the relevant talk page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That subsection is for foreign-language terms that you would normally find in a bilingual dictionary, say, the Arabic words for "rice", or "cave". The Cave of Hira on the other hand is a geographic location. The entry on the dab page Hira is not for the Arabic word "hira" (in which case it shouldn't have been there in the first place). – Uanfala (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Cyprus in the Roman era requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know you do not like RC-parishes. But removing the category about the RC diocese of Killaloe from the article Kinnitty "because the parish is not mentioned in the article about the RC diocese" is clearly based on poor reading from your side. First of all, there is a nice template about the diocese in the article, secondly the article Roman Catholic Diocese of Killaloe does mention the parish of Kinnitty. So please stop with your removals. The Banner talk 10:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Protestant church buildings by continent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Laurel Lodged. I looked at the article John Butler, 17th Earl of Ormonde and noticed that curious addition to the last on the list: "Elizabeth Butler (died 1822), married 1799, Thomas Kavanagh (1767–1837), The MacMorrough." It seems The MacMorrough is a kind of clan leader, and an Irish hereditary title, which I do not really understand. It has been added quite early in the history of the article on 6 May 2009 by a user called Hohenloh, unluckily without any citation. You put it then into bold on 25 November 2011, so I guess you understand why the The MacMorrough should be mentioned and why it should appear in bold in an article about an Earl of Ormond. There is also a The MacMorrough mentioned in the list of siblings. That one has a Wikilink on it which points to an article called Caomhánach. That latter article seems to be written more in Irish than in English and seems to say very little about The MacMorrow. Perhaps you have an idea where to look for references and for how to make this understandable for non-Irish readers of the en-Wikipedia like me. — Besides, I just realised that you are an old man living in a Laurel Lodge home. I am also an old man but still at home with my wife. You might live quite near to me. I am in Bangor, County Down. It seems there are Laurel Lodge homes in Larne, Longford, Dublin and other places. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"a type of massive structure built in ancient Mesopotamia". The last time I checked Mesoamerica was no where near Mesopotamia. Heiro 21:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Laurel Lodged, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

A tag has been placed on Category:Buildings and structures of the Catholic Church in Ireland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Clergy in the United Kingdom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Clergy in Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Sligo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanesque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course the archbishops relate to a larger area, but they are actually based in, and I think, live in, the city, dont they? To say someone is "from" somewhere can and often does mean that they do what made them notable there. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't agree @Rathfelder: If the category was called "Clergy in Dublin (city)", then your argument would work. Not only have many archbishops not been from (i.e. born in, or lived a substantial part of their lives in) Dublin city, many have not been from the surrounding counties. Many of the Norman / English archbishops were foreigners and some of them never bothered to even reside in the city. If any individual person is genuinely from the city, then that person should of course be a member of the category; the Archbishops in general, cannot, however, be moved in bulk into the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Presbyterian churches in Northern Ireland has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Wikiacc (¶) 04:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At first glance it seems to me that this is primarily a nationality category for English people in Ireland (although only in the Elizabethan era). What is your opinion? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really. The current sole occupant is from County Galway. In principle, they can be English or Irish. It's sufficient that they're in 18th-century & 17th-century spy categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marcocapelle: I think that the whole Elizabethan tree, outside of England, is just a former of cultural imperialism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Canal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashtown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you might be best places to edit or decide whether or not to keep this new Laurel Lodge article which has just been started or whether to fold it into another page. I thought I would flag it with you anyway.Financefactz (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was this on purpose? Elizium23 (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Huntstown and Littlepace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GAA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Laurel! Thanks for your contributions--and your support. I really appreciate both. One change you made on Persecution of pagans was to change the verb says to said, and I wanted to let you know, it is a literary convention to always discuss what literary works 'say' in the present tense--they are still saying it whenever we read them. The authors may be past tense, but their writings are always referred to as speaking not as having spoken. I didn't change it back, but the entire rest of the article follows the present tense rule except that one sentence now, so if you could change it back, that would be great.

And Laurel! What's with the love of the word that? I was taught not to use that if the sentence is intelligible without it--especially two of them right after each other! But you aren't the only one I've run into who loves that everywhere--another editor here dinged me on an FA because they wanted thats everywhere too! To them it created clarity, to me it was just clutter! So much of writing style is personal--so I left all your thats in place. Someone out there will like them, I'm sure. Someone not me. Anyway, thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Laurel Lodged. Thank you for your correction in the article "Thomas Butler, 10th Earl of Ormond". As you know English is not my 1st language and I do make mistakes. Several times now you corrected me when I tried to use future-in-the-past and you commented "wrong use of the conditional tense". I was not intending to use conditional mood. I was trying to express that something happened in the past but was a considerable time ahead of the moment where the story, told in past tense, was. The Wikipedia article "Uses of English verb forms" has a paragraph dedicated to future-in-the-past. The example given there is "She knew that she would win the game". I feel this is similar to "Thomas would survive Elizabeth by 11 years", which you corrected to "Thomas survived Elizabeth by 11 years". Obviously, what you propose is right, I mean there is nothing wrong with "Thomas survived Elizabeth by 11 years", but it loses the subtle difference of stressing that Thomas's death was in the future with regard to the normal flow of the narrative. Thanks for your patience that I do not want to abuse. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now have a better understanding of your purpose @Johannes Schade:. You're correct - future-in-the-past is quite subtle. Perhaps I've been too literal. However, in this particular case, I still think that its application would not be as correct as the more literal form. For example, had the story been "...and so just to spite Elizabeth, he went on to father 10 children by 5 different women", then there would be continuity. However, his narrative really ends with Elizabeth's death. I see no notable events beyond her death that could in any was be associated with her presence or lack of presence. Do you agree? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Laurel Lodged. Yes, I agree. You have a point. I am glad we do understand each other about future-in-the-past as being different from conditional mood. Perhaps I have a tendency to overuse future-in-the-past. With thanks and greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Qubadlı‎, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Lachin, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Do not delete or change established sentences or lead structures and don't POV-push — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shusha. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lachin corridor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know we hardly know each other, but I am in need of help. About a month ago I nominated Biblical criticism for FA. It is getting little enough attention that the coordinator is considering archiving it. This is its second try and I am afraid that would kill it forever. IMO, it is an important topic that deserves to be amongst WP's best. It needs a source review - random checks to be sure sources say what the text claims, so I am asking everyone I know for help. There are too many sources for any one person to do, so if you could even do one, it would be deeply appreciated. Post anything you do here. Please help if you can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Catholic congregations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edits here, here, here are WP:DISRUPTIVE. I don't think you understand when using primary sources are allowed, so I'll show you. Per, WP:PRIMARY, Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia and Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This means that as long as we're not interpreting the source to say something it is not, we can use it. E.g. we can use "Azerbaijan said this" and then include a source from Azerbaijan. Which is exactly what I had done in the pages you reverted. Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 06:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding a map of a separatist, unrecognised country to an article about a village that is de jure and de facto controlled by a UN state is not "historical context" as you claimed here, here, here, here and here. And especially adding back the separatist country back to the infobox with a "(de facto)" note near when the village has been confirmed to be under Azerbaijani control is WP:DISRUPTIVE. I'm not giving you a warn for it, but please take note. Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Why did you reverted this my edit? --Pcaalt (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it deleted valuable categories Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Since you've failed to respond for over 2 days about a very weird comment you have left in my talk page here, I'm asking you in your talk page to elaborate on what you implied by So there's a tag team? So much for "goodfaith". I'm assuming WP:GOODFAITH in your comment, therefore wanted to ask you about what you meant. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Laurel_Lodged reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result: ). Thank you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Buildings and structures of the Catholic Church in Lebanon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Place Clichy (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Mosques converted from churches by the Republic of Turkey has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GPinkerton (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Laurel Lodged:I fell off my chair laughing. I read it with an American accent and everything lol. Thank you for providing some much needed wikihumour (I don't think the other editors will appreciate it though). Have a nice day. Kevo327 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found some interesting reads on your userpage and I'll read some in a bit, consider yourself doubly appreciated. (I'm apologizing preemptively for when I'll start being a punctuation-Nazi once I read the articles). Kevo327 (talk)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Laurel_Lodged reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result: ). Thank you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Your edits of Lachin corridor were the subject of a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James "Gallda" Butler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James "Gallda" Butler until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hog Farm _Bacon 06:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Laurel. I've been looking at an article you wrote 10 years ago, St. Maelruain's Church, Tallaght. If you look at it in light of the 10 years of editing experience you've had since you wrote it, I'm sure you'll recognize that it needs attention.

It has been flagged as needing citations. The first citation fails to support the information in the paragraph that the citation appears in. The second citation merely confirms the existence of one of the graves at the church. The third and final citation wasn't a citation at all, but merely a note, which I have converted from a supposed citation to a note. So, really, the article in effect doesn't have any citations at all.

There was a sentence in the article which read: "A survey of the graves was carried out by SDCC...." As a Dubliner, I decided to expand the initialism to South Dublin County Council, but that was merely a guess on my part. If I'm wrong, please correct what I did. To non-Dubliners, SDCC is meaningless.

The Note: "SDCC survey, available (for reference only) in the Local Studies section of the library?" is not really an information note, rather, it is more like a scribbled question by an editor to himself rather than information that is useful to any reader.

Furthermore, the note is a particularly feeble contribution to the encyclopaedia because most readers of Wikipedia cannot visit some unnamed library in Dublin. Once you've looked at the note, you might decide to delete it entirely.

I don't want to spend any more time messing around with it but perhaps it might interest you since it's your creation, and a desire to be proud of your work might give you the motivation I don't have to continue any further with it. — O'Dea (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@O'Dea: added a few citations but am not greatly motivated to spend more time on it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It completely defeats the purpose of redirects if you instead add pipelinks, contra to both WP:NOPIPE and WP:DONOTFIXIT. Please do not "fix" redirects, it is irrational. GPinkerton (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GPinkerton: WP:EASTEREGG trumps WP:NOPIPE in this instance. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aqueduct of Valens; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. We do not capitalize honorifics in Wikipedia, and "Emperor X" is not how either English-speaking people or the Romans themselves refer to emperors. Please do not keep edit warring your against-consensus preferences into the article. GPinkerton (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Aqueduct of Valens, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please stop trying to force your preferences into the article, it is contrary to the MOS. We do not use puffery of this kind. GPinkerton (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! Any specific reason as to why you removed the "Populated places in the Republic of Artsakh" category from the Umudlu article? It's a pretty useful category for gathering all the Artsakh settlements in one category. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AntonSamuel: Because it was already diffused to the "Populared places in Shahumian province" category which is a child of "Populated places in the Republic of Artsakh". By the way, good solid work on all the village articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I see, though I'd like to re-add the category on the page as it its pretty useful to have it along with the Shahumyan Province category to get an overview of all the settlements in one place other than on the List of cities and towns in Artsakh page, and the category is present on the rest of the Artsakh settlements articles as well, so its prudent to keep it for the sake of consistency. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AntonSamuel: While it's against the policy of only diffusing to the lowest level, I can see how it's aiding your work in this instance so I'll let it pass. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, thanks! AntonSamuel (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the Roman era has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Likewise Category:Egypt in the Roman era and others for Syria and Cyprus. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_1#Category:Syria_in_the_Roman_era and the section below it. – Fayenatic London 12:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Presbyterian congregations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Protestant congregations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition of "recapture":

recover (something taken or lost).

^[1]

or

to take something into your possession again, especially by force:

^[2]

Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Basilicas in the Catholic Church shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GPinkerton (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Catholics are a minority - sicut erat in principio ...

If you want Wikipedia to use a minority's unnecessary and POV honorifics, you would be better to make that case in a WP:RM for the Mary, mother of Jesus article. GPinkerton (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GPinkerton: Isn't this the kind of nasty, bullying, insouciant behaviour that has you before the ArbCom at the moment? I would have thought that you would have wanted to be on your best behaviour while the jury is still out on that case. Alas, pardus maculas non deponit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you have fundamentally misunderstood the case. I am requesting the ArbCom step in to quell the kind of religio-nationalist campaign that so often ruins Wikipedia, as you well know. Anyway, please do not insert religious honorifics into Wikipedia, they do not belong. Thanks. GPinkerton (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Anglican bishops in Ireland has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't just rename diocese pages without discussing them - you've changed them to something that is both more complicated than the original title, and also which is inconsistent with how the dioceses themselves refer to themselves. Neither are consistent with Wikipedia practice. Now I have to go and fix all of them, which will take up heaps of time. Deus et lex (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Deus et lex: I did not do it without discussion. As I advised you, and other participants, on the WP:CFD, I did so on the emerging consensus on that discussion concerning the the problem with capitalisation of bishops titles, and by extension, diocesan titles. The change is not more complicated as you claim above - the disambiguator makes it much clearer what is in scope. Perhaps you meant to say "longer". Some dioceses prefer to have "Anglican" in their title, others do not and have it as a descriptor. In any case, Precision is preferable to ambiguity. They do not have to be "fixed" if the "fix" that you put in place for Bunbury is an example. There you eliminated a lot of material that can and should go in the lead. That is most unhelpful. Please revert your remaining "fixes". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop reverting my edits. Your changes are not helpful, they're inconsistent with Australian usage (we don't use terms like "ordinary" and so on). Stop being annoying, either edit properly in a way that is an improvement or leave the pages alone. And putting one line about a bold move is NOT discussion, so don't go and suggest that it is. Deus et lex (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Deus et lex: Australian usage? But this is the English language Wiki. The British variant of English is applied in the case of Australian pages. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic priests in France has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Roman fortified camps by province requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Roman signal towers by province requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I saw that you moved the Armenian transliteration for a couple of Karabakh villages to the "other name" parameter in the infoboxes - was the purpose of this for aesthetic reasons or something else? I think that having the transliteration next to the Armenian script in the "native name" parameter makes it a bit more clear that it is indeed a transliteration of the name in Armenian script. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AntonSamuel: I did for all those beginning with "K" in Askeran. It was for for aesthetic reasons. What's your preferred order? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see! I would say that I prefer the established format with the name in Armenian script + the transliteration in the native name parameter, mainly for the sake of clarity, while I can see that aesthetically it can be more of a matter of taste. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AntonSamuel: Do you mean like Jamilli? Would that be a good template to use?

More like the previous state of the articles you edited, such as the Armenian name for Xanqutala (Khnkavan) is presented now, with "Խնկավան • Khnkavan" in the native name parameter. A lot of the Armenian villages in Karabakh/Artsakh are still utilizing the Azerbaijani de jure names as the article titles, while some have been renamed to their common names so the state of the articles aren't uniform at this point. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you @AntonSamuel: edited Jamilli, why did you not use the above format ( "Խնկավան • Khnkavan")? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The name of the village is "Jamilli" in both Armenian and Azerbaijani, as well as the article name, so there is no need to include it twice, I put the Armenian name in the native name parameter as the village had an Armenian population up until the 1960s, but it has been moved since to the other name parameter. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Asia has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Protestant martyrs of the Middle Ages has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bishops are religious leaders. It's supposed to be heirarchical. Rathfelder (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rathfelder: Agreed. Therefore....? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So Category:Religious leaders in Belize is a parent of the bishops. It can be a parent of clergy and priests too, but I havent found them yet. Rathfelder (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But I dont think we want both Belizean religious leaders and Religious leaders in Belize. Rathfelder (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rathfelder: Correct. So it should just be in Religious leaders in Belize since it is "Bishops in Belize". Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fooish religious leaders is the general pattern. Category:Religious leaders by nationality not by country. Rathfelder (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is clearly another mess here. Category:Religious leaders by continent is completely unconnected to Category:Religious leaders by nationality.Rathfelder (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rathfelder:Where we have something in a county, then we need not conflate it with nationality. It must go into the parent "by county" category where it exists.. It should not go into the "by nationality" category. For all other situations, the larger question of "by nationality" remains open. It does not arise where something is unambiguously in a country category already. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rathfelder:So Category:Bishops in Belize should definitely have Category:Bishops by country as a parent. It is less obvious that Belizean bishops should also have Category:Bishops by country as a parent. That question is still open. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we need to work out a scheme which people will accept. It needs to be wider than just bishops. It needs to be able to cope with the confusion between nationality and country. Rathfelder (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Religious leaders in New Zealand requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic priests by country has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My proposal is that we characterise bishops by country, so for each country there is a category of Fooish bishops, then we can have a subcategory of Bishops in Foo - where not all the individual bishops will personally be Fooish - if its needed. Those in the superior category will be the Fooish bishops who served somewhere else. The Bishops in Foo can be subcategorised by diocese in Foo. The migrant bishops will be categorised as Fooish bishops but also as Bishops in Bar. Fooish bishops is ambiguous, and we can exploit this ambiguity so we dont need both country and nationality categories. We clearly cannot have two categories of bishops for the same country. Are you happy with this, or do you have an alternative proposal? Rathfelder (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rathfelder: I'm not happy with categorisations taking place while category discussions are still live. All such categorisations should cease until a definitive agreement has been reached. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I dont think there is much prospect of a definitive agreement being reached. We will have to work out compromises. I think we did well to get agreement for bishops to be categorised by country rather than nationality. But it's only by doing the work that we can discover what is needed. And I undertook to do that when I proposed the main merger. The things you are objecting to are pretty minor and cane easily be reversed. Rathfelder (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Roman Catholicism in Europe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Laurel,

Please do not assign nonexistent, red link categories to articles or categories unless you plan on creating these categories yourself. See WP:REDNO for more information. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz: I plan to create them. It's not always possible to do so in a timely manner: the real world has a habit of obtruding. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in the United Kingdom requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you are doing here[8] and at (many?) other places is considered a very poor practice. You nominated Category:1782 disestablishments in Austria for deletion on 1 April 2021: the nomination was closed as "no consensus" the 15th, and the very sameday you empty the category to get the result you wanted anyway. Please revert all these changes and don't try this trick again, as it is severely frowned upon. Fram (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Laurel, do not empty categories out-of-process, especially if you are doing so because you don't agree with a CFD decision. You know better than to do this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many people have to tell you to stop doing this? [9]. Fram (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Irish expatriate bishops has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Irish expatriate protestant bishops has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Irish expatriate Catholic bishops has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Irish expatriate Roman Catholic archbishops has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Irish expatriate archbishops has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not empty categories out-of-process. This could be seen as disruptive editing, especially where there has already been a discussion at CFD which did not result in consensus to delete or merge such categories.

Please now see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 18#Category:Empire of Austria (1867-1918). – Fayenatic London 21:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, Laurel, you are going to ignore the words of two different administrators and continue to still empty out-of-process this Austrian categories when you disagreed with the WP:CFD? This is disruptive editing and could result in a block. Your opinion is not more important than a consensus decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See above; this is still happening, and I just learned that this isn't the first time she didn't have consensus for the same deletions; [10]. There is no problem with trying another CfD for something that ended in no consensus the previous time, but when your proposal failed twice, it is bad practice to start implementing it anyway, and even worse to continue after multiple people have urged you to stop. Fram (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:British expatriate Roman Catholic archbishops requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have started WP:ANI#Emptying categories out of process where I asked the admins to take some action to make you stop. You are invited to join that discussion. Fram (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has just emptied Category:Roman_Catholic_provinces_in_the_United_Kingdom (an LL creation) and has resisted my attempts to resurrect it. The same editor failed to have it deleted at cfd and seems to have been biding his time: 2012_October_13#Category:Roman_Catholic_provinces_in_the_United_Kingdom. Oculi (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. Is it the same person? Rathfelder's English is not as good as the 2012 proposer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rathfelder (who is English) is very much a one-off, and post-2012. Oculi (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oculi: actually I've just noticed that Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical provinces in the United Kingdom exists so that will do. I'll populate it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No point in populating a category with articles that do not for the description of that category. And probably no point in a category that has never had an article written that belongs in it. Kevin McE (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joseph Srampickal will confound Rathfelder. Christophe Pierre. Jacob Angadiath. Oculi (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Joseph Alessandro. Emanuel Barbara. Francis Baldacchino. Oculi (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you could have improved this edit by putting "By the way, HE'S GAY!" in bold text in the caption? Seriously, your POV is showing a little too much... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've requested the moves you suggested at speedy: see Talk:Province_9_of_the_Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America. Oculi (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Archbishops in New Zealand by diocese indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:New Zealand bishops has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Peel (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I get people to see how horrible an idea the Ukraine categories are especially? Why is there no requirement that people who oppose a nomination actually engage with the reasoning of the nominator? Also, is there a way to stop people from creating categories that are just plain wrong and would be imposing a POV on Wikipedia, as would the creation of the Taurida cateogry? Also, is there any way to make sure this discussion does not close with just 6 people having participated, 3 of whom showed absolutely no awareness of the actual geopolitical issues at play.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might have to go to Category Review. But decisions hardly ever get overturned there. I'm surprised at GoodOl'Factory - he's normally so sensible. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not. He has doubled down on super ahistorical applications of such things. If he had his way, we would categorize eveything in modern Canada as happening in Canada at least from 1763, even though applying the concept to anything close to the modern boundaries does not come until 1867, and really not until 1870, and Newfoundland and Labrador remain outside its scope until 1949. He is also the main advocate of using South Africa to refer to anything before 1910. I am just getting so very frustrated about the whole thing. Especially now that I have been attacked as somehow an agent of imperial governments for putting forth the straightforward argument that when there are clear government in place, as there were in 1899, and clear boundaries were in place, we should follow them in categorization. I also have to admit I think the worst possible outcome is a scheme where we put anything in more than one by place of establishment category, except things that were clearly established in more than one place, and even those cases need to be handled on a case by case basis. I thin we need to agree to have every thing in only one by place of establishment category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I am just so frustrated at the whole situation. Micahel Z. seems more and like a radib Ukrainian nationalist who is trying to use Wikipedia to valiadate the long standing national history of Ukraine. He is straight up arguing these categories should reflect 21st-century boundaries back on the past. But both he and Good Olfactory refuse to say yes or no on wether something establshed in Crimea in 1802 belongs in a Ukraine category. This avoidance of the hard questions that show why the category cannot be sustained is one of the most frustrating of all the issues at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I am just outreged at Good olfactory insulting my comments as "wall of text". It is his cop out to not in any way deal with [[Taurida Governorate. It is just plain rude and I am tired of him getting away with being rude and condescending towards those who he disagrees with. The refusal of some editors to use reasonable grouping for categories is getting frustrating. I guess I need to get less frustrated about things. I am just tired of so little participation that a very small number of editors control how we categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In principle I could rename/merge/delete these speedily. Let me know if you want me to do anything of that kind. I'm very happy that you are sorting them out, as you clearly understand the historical geography much better than I do. Rathfelder (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pedro II of Brazil on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After spending all the work to nominat the Uknraine and Lithuiania categories, they were kept mainly by the work of editors who refused to even engage with what I wrote. They never even tried to answer my basic questions on definition. This is why I hate doing large scale nominations. Because they take huge amount of work, and then based on their very size it is argued that there is a consensus for the rubbish they represent. I am really, really mad that the fully agreed to 1912 revisions were then overturned even though no one even bothered challenging them. I am just sick of Wikipedia refusing to even try to be historically accurate in categories. I am fed up with trying to improve the project and them being attacked as an imperialist for wanting categories to reflect the actual limits of polities at the time in question. The whole thing is just an unending case of people imposing presentism and ignoring reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: I share your frustration. Gaming of rules is no substitute for academic rigour. It seems we're shopping in the wrong shop. Wiki is no longer what it purports to be. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Byzantine Greeks on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Laurel,

Could you please explain and specify why these categories are not complied with categorization guidelines? As for the number of entries in some categories, there are a lot of categories everywhere with only one entry, e.g. [11] or [12]. Don't you think that perhaps you should have started renaming categories dealing with your own country first? As for the modern state of Croatia, none of modern states existed in the 7/8/9th centuries in that form or territory. I can't see what's the problem here. I could only agree with you that the Category:4th-century establishments in Croatia is maybe not appropriate, because there was the Roman province of Dalmatia at that time, and Croats settled there only in the 7th century. But what to do with the Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in Croatia for instance? Regards, --Silverije 22:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Laurel,

I can see you have reversed my edit on Mary Magdalene page. You say no citation was given for the kiss. The citation is in the actual sentence: The Gospel of Philip. The kiss etc... are mentioned in the same article in the section of the Gospel of Philip. Is that incorrect too? Many thanks Sofiairiondo (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sofiairiondo: What I meant was that the page number, chapter etc needs to be cited. Else how are we to know that it actually says what you say it says? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spencer Dock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Receiver.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Socialism on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shusha on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De facto and de jure is the territory of Azerbaijan. Making a claim does not mean its territory yet. This is an illegal claim. Qolcomaq (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Qolcomaq: It depends on who you're talking to. To the claimer, it's a valid claim. To the claimee, it's an invalid claim. It suffices that there is evidence for a claim. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What kind of evidence are we talking about?. You seem to be Irish. Ireland claims Northern Ireland. There is a state called de jure and de facto Northern Ireland. No matter how much Ireland claims, the fact remains. Qolcomaq (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Qolcomaq:The evidence is that that they occupied it for a few decades or more. Military defeat does not extinguish a claim; only a peace treaty does that. Ireland relinquished it's claim to the northern part of the island a few years ago. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement, the parties exercise control over the occupied territories (remain in the occupied territories). You are fighting for something that has no legal basis.Qolcomaq (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a legal art. There is no status, let alone the Nagorno-Karabakh RepublicQolcomaq (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Spartan army on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4-way intersections may well be a bad idea. We actually have a category though Category:20th-century African-American women opera singers, which is 5/6 way intersection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Good grief. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • It has 2 sister categories as well. I just nominated them for upmerger. Before I did that I went through every article in all 3 categories (about 70 total, the overlap by century is fairly high, 50% between 19th and 20th, even higher than that between 20th and 21st, and yet a few more of the 20th-century cases might have performed in opera in ways in the 21st century that they would belong in that category). This is supposed to be a non-diffusing sub-cat of Category:20th-century American women opera singers, yet for all 3 categories there was no overlap at all with the ethnicity neutral parent was absolutely none. This is exactly why we have to no last rung rule, because the ERGS exception to category diffusion is very confusing, and lots of people do not do it right (not least because we have a for sports, and maybe for acting and singing, exception to the non-diffusion exception, so the whole thing is headache causing and confusing).John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nakhchivan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! Thought I'd give you a tip regarding the Commons templates - it can be a bit confusing, since Commons both has its own articles as well as categories. New York City for example both has an article on Commons as well as being a category [13] [14]

If you want to link to a specific category on Commons, you need to use Template:Commons category.

Template:Commons will first and foremost link to Commons articles and automatically link to a category page if no article for the topic exists on Commons. However this will not happen if you specify the name in the template, then it will leave a dead link.

AntonSamuel (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AntonSamuel: Many thanks. I wondered what was going wrong. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For sure! Just to clarify, using - Commons - within brackets is fine, just don't add anything else within the brackets. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big scary banner. Blah blah blah. More big scary notices. <Insert shaking in boots emoji>

Even with a source at hand, you create a big mess. It is not "Corofin, Kilnaboy and Rath" but the parish Corofin consisting of the former parishes of Rath and Kilnaboy. The Banner talk 19:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL, this sounds that you are deliberately disruptive. And unwilling to do your own research. That is an option, you know??? The Banner talk 11:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is more likely that it is yourself that is attaching undue weight to an informal, local name and ignoring the official name per the diocesan website. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like your humour. Unfortunately, you are wrong. The Banner talk 12:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Continental Association on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: How about we cool it with the casting aspersions and personal attacks? You've gone after not one, not two, but three different editors in such a short amount of time. When Fram tried to tell you that you weren't being helpful, you went after them instead. Calm down. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MJL: I take your point about the 2 topic bans contributions. But I reject the Fram accusation. Ironically enough, it was me who said to him, "Keep calm Fram" when he got personal and going off the point. But yes, we both dallied too long in giving each other a kicking. But I didn't start it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Thank you for the ping] Not being the one who started it is no excuse. However, I appreciate that you are willing to listen to my points regardless. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You Lachin page you UNDO my edit with comments that "Undid revision 1073943544 by Abrvagl (talk) restore sourced material that was removed without explanation". As you can see on the talk page, I not removed the source without explanation. Page was edited by the ZaniGiovanni, where his edit not exactly reflects what stated in the provided source. So it is not removal without explanation, in is removal of content added without reaching consensus. Discussions are ongoing in the talk page, and you also joined them.

Can you please revert you last edit? we will include information as soon as we reach consensus.

Thanks ,

--Abrvagl (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:South Dublin (county) has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Local administrative units of the Republic of Ireland has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]