User talk:Laurel Lodged

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

Last warning, User:Laurel Lodged.

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

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]

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]

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]

• 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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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] 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]