User talk:Tameamseo

Welcome!

Hello, Tameamseo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Rettetast (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Barry Owens

I have nominated Barry Owens, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Owens. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Declan Quill

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Declan Quill, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Declan Quill seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Declan Quill, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAA details added to Ireland

Hi. The detail you recently added to Ireland (relating to underage structures, team selections, league and championship structure, etc) is way too detailed for the context. The article about Ireland deals with the country/island at a very high level, and while it should contain summary detail about the games, the detailed specifics can and should be dealt with in the relevant "sub-articles". Either in the GAA article, Sport in Ireland articles, the various competition articles or similar. You may also want to note that POV terms and subjective descriptions (like "prestigious", "best", "great pride", "less important", etc) should be avoided unless supported by a source. Same goes for personal commentary or interpretation in general. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micheál Quirke

Could you please explain on the article's talk page why you felt that it needed cleanup, and what the type and extent of cleanup needed might be? Thanks. Tameamseo (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The cleanup tag was added for some very minor things that i corrected now. It included a few typo's, making a list out of the external links and removing some extra spaces. Nothing serious, cleanup was mainly added so that those minor thingies would be spotted(And corrected). Excirial^(Talk,Contribs) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

A little hint on using references. I noticed that you cited an article inside within the article text as: See References. In fact, this can be done much easier(And cleaner). To add a reference, add it between REF tags directly after the line or fact you want to get references.

For example: <ref>This Is My Reference to Book 13, Section 12</ref> will create this: [1].

After doing that, make a seperate section called references or similar, and add <references/> under it. Doing this will create the following:

References

1. This Is My Reference to Book 13, Section 12

Quite easy, and it can save quite a hassle. Maybe its handy to use, but its by no means required to add references this was. Most articles don't do so. Well, hope this helps, and happy editing to you! :) Excirial^(Talk,Contribs) 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAA

Hi you may be interested in having a look at WP:GAA Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi which templates are you referring to ?Gnevin (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK no worries . Can you have a look at Hi can you have a look at {{Kerry clubs}}

and make any changes needed Also do you know where Churchill GAA and Cromane GAA play Gnevin (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the editing went a bit crazy , I've create {{Kerry clubs}} as you've more knowledge of Kerry GAA I was wonder if you could have a look at this template and make any changes needed, add clubs , move if incorrect division that sort of thing Gnevin (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAA Clubs in Kerry

I've started to add all clubs in Kerry (slowly but surely) and was hoping you could help a bit where possible. See also [1] --Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jorgenpfhartogs, I'll try to add some clubs over the next few days.Tameamseo (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm doing the same thing as well. Many thanks for replying though. Go raith mile maith agat--Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Category sorting

To sort just add {{DEFAULTSORT:persons name }} at the page bottom such as {{DEFAULTSORT:O'Connor,Paul}} Gnevin (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rónán Ó Flatharta

Hmmm... the issue is not there are are not enough sources, it's that the statements about him need to be matched with the citations. May I try a crack at it? Bearian (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now, I'll rv the tag. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE

Hello, Tameamseo. You have new messages at Rettetast's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Infobox GAA player

Sorted that Gnevin (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of where this error is happening? Gnevin (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No that's ok when you link to the template its works fine Gnevin (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 assesments

Hi Teamamseo

good work assessing some articles, but when adding an assessment, please take acre not to remove the assessments for other projects &msdash; this edit to Talk:Declan Quill removed the {{GaelicGamesProject}} banner.

Also, please can you remember to use edit summaries? It makes it much easier for other editors to understand what you've done :)

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candacate

Did you understand anything about this article. What this about? I did not understand anything about this article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second your opinion. It looks like a fork, any useful information should be merged with Kandake. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move of Anthony Maher

Hello, I noticed that you moved and dabbed the Anthony Maher page but you didn't update the several pages that linked to it. Please help in cleaning this up. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did indeed forget to update the links. Thanks for letting me know. Tameamseo (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leac Snámha / Leic Snámha Lixnaw conundrum

Hi there. I've been trying to reach some sort of conclusion on whether Leac or Leic is the correct Irish word. I based my last edit on some text from the latest Parish magazine! - Having done some Googling it appears that both translations are floating around. This is kind of circular, because if 'Leac' is the correct form, then then 'flagstone' explanation is incorrect.

Most anecdotal evidence I've heard from locals (not admissible as wiki links!) point to 'flagstone' being the correct form. If 'Leac' is correct, then we're back to the 'Swimming Lake' explanation of a few edits ago (problem being that there are no 'swimming lakes' in Lixnaw, but there was a 'swimming flagstone' i.e. 'Leic Snámha' which leaves me more inclined towards the 'Leic Snámha' version.

Any ideas how to best resolve it? Leave both options perhaps? Jhonan ^talk 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I should clarify, I messed up my original post. The terms in question are 'Léic Snámha' (Swimming Lake) or 'Leac Snámha' (Swimming Flagstone) - The flagstone (Leac) reference is to the original bridge over the River Brick. There is no 'swimming lake' in Lixnaw, so I'm not sure how the 'Léic' usage came into existence!

There are valid primary references available for both versions. There's a bit of an edit history to this issue as well, it started as 'Leac', was changed to 'Léic', then back to 'Leac' and now it's 'Léic' again... :) - All this probably because some sign-writer got confused. Jhonan ^talk 19:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up http://www.focal.ie/Search.aspx?term=leic and found no reference for Leic. However, http://www.focal.ie/Search.aspx?term=léic shows that Léic means 'lake', according to that link. Looking back at the history for the article, it was originally Léic. I'm not sure that Leic is correct (do you know what Leic means?) Jhonan ^talk 21:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pelvic floor

Hi. I provided citations for one of the fact tags you put on Pelvic floor. Your other tag I deleted along with the tagged sentence, because it was a tangent that belongs on Kegel exercise (which also needs some fact tagging). Do you know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine? No end of work to be done there! --Una Smith (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point... and lots more questions

Hi Tameamseo,
The "History..." is currently strictly for recruits, so it was obviously right to remove the trialling players. I would argue that the "History" section title should be changed to include any player involved in the Experiment, but or course with the proviso that only notable players are included. (This would, of course, exclude the players you rightly removed from the History.) Do you think the History description should remain limited to actually "listed" recruits?
The History section seems overly long to me, and I would argue it should be divided into subsections, possibly into decades. This would raise problems about players whose careers were across decades. Should it perhaps be divided into subsections? Should those subsections start from recruitment date, or first VFL/AFL game date?
The article is about something affecting football in both Australia and Ireland. First of all: it only has Australia-related category tags. Should have Irish cats, and if so which ones? Moreover, and despite your edits, article also seems rather Australia-centric, with scant attention paid to football (and in the case of the Ó hAilpín brothers, hurling) in Ireland. Should a section about this be added? (I would suggest that out of the long-time article editors, you are obviously best placed to do this!)
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ps: Please don't take the "fact|date" tags as a personal attack - thanks in great part to you, this former stub is already on the way to being a good article... fascinating subject matter, surely featured article status is not far away!

Hi Shirt58. I don't really have any strong opinion as yet as to whether we should include all notable players with a connection whether they refused offers, were on trial or actually played AFL or limit it to those who have actually been listed, or about what the best way to organise your suggested subsections would be. As regards the categories, I added the Gaelic Athletic Association cat. I'll add a bit more about Ireland as you suggest if I have time. Any suggestions as to what sort of thing should go in? Not sure what you mean about the fact tags, I don't think any of what I've written in the article is tagged?? Tameamseo (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Londonderry / Derry

Hi, re your edit to the List of Empire ships - D article. First I want to say that I have no preference for the use of either name, so I'll not change it back without discussion. However, the source used said Londonderry and not Derry. In changing it to Derry, the source is being misrepresented. What are your thoughts about this? Has there been a previous discussion where consensus has been gained to always refer to the city as Derry no matter what a source says? Mjroots (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a idea, what do you say to a piped link to Derry but displaying Londonderry? Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. In all honesty, it's hardly a major issue. But I think in this case I would go with Londonderry for the county and Derry for the city per the IMOS - not as if there's doubt over what's meant. If marked as a direct quote of course, you would definitely have to use whatever version the source did as anything else would be misrepresentation, but it seems not to be marked as such a quote. Tameamseo (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008-2009 Cork players strike

I redirected to my verion which has more detail, thanks for highlighting this Gnevin (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can i ask why this misinformation is in the article about gerald mccarthy? "Only two of the 32-man hurling panel indicated that they wanted to play in 2009 under McCarthy[23]

I have removed it but you put it back. The article you choose to take this from is incorrect. The players held a press conference which the Independent also covered where they stated "No players want to play under McCarthy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.136.241 (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the problem. On Wikipedia, what matters is verifiability - see WP:V - and reliable sources - see WP:RS. You can't just say "that source is wrong, I'm removing the referenced claims and adding my own unsourced claims". You have to provide a reliable source for the claims you are making, e.g. by giving a link to the Independent article in a footnote in the Wikipedia article. You also need to use edit summaries to explain what you're doing - see Help:Edit summary - as otherwise it just looks like you're vandalising the page or pushing your own non-neutral point of view. I hope this helps. I am editing the article to address your concerns. Tameamseo (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mossie Lyons

I have nominated Mossie Lyons, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mossie Lyons. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. 2008Olympian^chitchat 19:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin GAA

I removed it as the purpose of the field is for home grounds owned by the county board. Croke Park isn't owned by the DCB or Dublin's home ground Gnevin (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry I didn't leave a better edit summary in the first place Gnevin (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Mortimer

Just a comment on the edits and re-edits you have made on the Conor Mortimer page.. the presidential election did actually happen.. abiet some of the comments made on his page, about said topic, were distasteful i did try to fix them as they were made, i didnt write the origional myself but cleaned it up. It did happen and is what he will be remembered for in DCU as a whole, not his contribution to the GAA..

There should be something left if even a footnote on the page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.221.19 (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with it being included but to be on Wikipedia it should be properly sourced and should adhere to WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:BLP. This is especially important because it involves negative claims about a living person. The text removed by me and again by another editor was entirely unsourced and did not appear to follow all those policies. Tameamseo (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sayings of Jesus on the cross

With respect to [edit], is it possible you just misread the sentence? Not most but in fact all of the translations given put the comma before. Sparafucil (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sparafucil. Maybe I'm missing something here but the fact that the versions given on the Blue Letter Bible site put the comma before surely does not in itself support the claim that most English translations of the Bible place the comma before. It surely isn't the case that most of the many English translations of the Bible are on that site. Tameamseo (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any systematic bias in the dozen examples chosen, and the site has the advantage of displaying them all side by side, but if you can find a better replacement please go ahead. Btw, I cant find a single example of ", today", including the Catholic NAB and Douay-Rheims. Sparafucil (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not that I'm suggesting there's systemic bias in the versions used, it's just that it seems to me the source only actually supports the assertion that those 12 versions all have the comma before and simply isn't enough to prove the assertion that most English versions are the same. We need a source that actually says that most English versions do this. Tameamseo (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Books on gaelic sports

Hello, Tameamseo ! It's a long time since the last time you went on the french side!

In fact I'am looking for quite the both. Books are for me first, to increase my knowledge on gaelic sports. If I can use them for WP, why not but it's not the essential part of it. Matpib (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for these informations. I going in Ireland this summer. I will check them in Dublin. Matpib (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelcholáiste Reachrann

Hi, thanks for your message at WP:AN. I have reverted the defamatory content and semi-protected for one month given that this has been going on since the beginning of March. We'll have to watch for accounts being created to continue the vandalism though. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footballer

Thanks for catching my error. Rpyle731^[[User talk:Rpyle731|talk]] 04:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citations

I've added some cites for D. P. Moran but consider that the volume of your requests amounts to WP:JDLI. You'll find them all if you bother to read the online essays that are linked. Then you can add them if you think it essential.

I liked your Unfulfilled religious predictions, and would like to expand it with predictions by Roman Catholic, Hinduism and Islamic writers; but I'm not a religious type. Maybe they don't qualify as religions in your wolrd-view?Red Hurley (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Moran, that was months ago but please see WP:AGF and don't jump to conclusions about editors' motives. I can't say I had heard of him before reading the article and I had no idea whether the extreme ideas attributed to him were true or not: looking back at it I have to say I possibly did place rather more tags than necessary but there certainly were numerous uncited claims about these extreme views. You may want to see WP:BURDEN as well.

Re. the predictions thanks but I don't know why you called it "my" article: I didn't create it, nor was I the main contributor. There are now a couple of Catholic predictions in there. I concur with you in seeing the lack of Muslim/Hindu and indeed almost any religion other than Christianity as a serious deficiency. As far as I know it was originally created by User:Black Kite to contain material from a previous "Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians" article, which is the reason for the imbalance, which does need correction. Please do add if you have any sources. And again, you really should not jump to conclusions about people's motives with no evidence whatsoever when you don't even seem to have checked the facts. It is certainly false to suggest that I don't see Catholicism, Islam and Hinduism as proper religions. Cut it out and WP:AGF please. Tameamseo (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with Moran, only 2 recent good-sized essays, but very influential at the time. Still, you'd expect most people to read a cited online 16 page essay, a secondary source by an academic that is perfect for wikipedia, and then cite particular aspects themselves – if it really matters. So it looked like WP:JDLI to me. The UFR page - like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?;-)Red Hurley (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moderating your tone. Re. Moran, like I said, WP:BURDEN, but at the same time I was a bit too trigger-happy with the tags on that occasion. Totally agree about the UFR! Tameamseo (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laudabiliter

G'day Tameamseo, I had done a lot of reading about the Papal Bull Laudabiliter, the Celtic Christian Church Roman reform, and the Norman expansion before adding my initial lines on on the Cambro Norman invasion. Too many readings to quote specific references. But it is now generally accepted by expert historians (with some exceptions in the way of historians) that the Papal Bull (not a mere letter) of permission from Adrian was indeed genuine. That is why Popes Alexander III, and Lucius III invoked it in anointing King Henry and King John with the title Dominus Hiberniae (Lord of Ireland). This title and state survived until Henry VIII was forced on it's account to take action to have himself declared King by the Irish Parliament after the schism in 1542. The reason I changed it back sans comment was that you had made the change without the courtesy of discussing it. Please read up on Laudabiliter. There's lots of stuff out there, including Cardinal Moran, and my namesake Patrick Geoghegan, the Irish historian. Your narrative as it stands, quoting one intractable historian only is way too negative. But the issue is pertinent. Few now dispute the existence of Laudabiliter as the instrument for church reform which was was the major issue (Rome and money). Nothing new there, Tameanseo. (Jogeoghegan (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi Jogeoghegan. I have no problem with changing the text. All you need to do is quote Wikipedia:Reliable sources - that's what counts on Wikipedia, not our personal knowledge or beliefs. It's not usually considered necessary to discuss every change you make, especially when it's referenced and there's no particular reason to believe it's going to be controversial. On the other hand, your edit was unreferenced, altered sourced information without explanation, and misrepresented the historian referenced by making it look as if he said something different to what he actually wrote. That is not acceptable.

You might wish to note also that Curtis is in fact not some "one intractable historian" against authenticity: he actually appears to be personally in favour of authenticity but acknowledges that it is controversial - that is what he is used as a reference for. If you have references sufficient to outweigh the source currently quoted, please do add them and change the text accordingly. Those references would also be useful on the Laudabiliter article, which seems to portray a much lesser degree of consensus than you suggest is the case, so I'd encourage you to add them there too. Thanks. Tameamseo (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tibbott, Tibbot and Tioboid ne or na Long

Hi, I'm putting back Tibbot ne Long, that you removed, as that is what Theobald Burke was known as in his day. Tioboid na Long is modern Irish and belongs there too, but it is no use for people searching wiki for Tibbot ne Long. Check the search engine google for each spelling, and you'll see 3 for Tioboid na Long, thousands for the "old" spellings. Sad to say, Irish has changed quite a bit since his day – and even since the 1960s when I learnt it.

• Tibbott ne Long - 8,560 li'nks;
• Tibbot ne Long - 925 do.
• Tioboid na Long - three do.

Naming his page was a problem for me, as he was a viscount in his last 2 years. Like his mother Grace, he had lots of spellings, incl. Bourke; we have to include some of the better known ones. Best for 2010.Red Hurley (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Red Hurley, no offence but I'm afraid you're incorrect on this point. I'm guessing you don't have a great deal of Irish? Tibbott ne Long is not Irish (16th/17th century or modern), it's an anglicisation of the Irish. I don't have a problem with mentioning it in the article, but it shouldn't be represented as Irish when it isn't. Your confusion is quite understandable - like you say there's a lot of variation in those spellings because of the fact that English versions are often just varying ways to anglicise the Irish and because spelling was less standardised in that period than it is now. I agree it can be difficult to decide which versions to use.

Re Google, your figures are a lot different from what I found. I'm wondering :did you look at the later pages? The statistic given on the first page is often shown to be inaccurate when you do that, as in this case. Once I checked the later pages, I got

• "Tibbott ne Long" - 75
• "Tibbot ne Long" - 45
• "Tiobóid na Long" - 23

You might also like to note that "Tibbot na Long" came up more than "Tibbot :ne Long" 53 to 45 so by those criteria it would seem just as worthy of inclusion.

In summary, for modern Irish, "Tiobóid na Long" is correct. For the Irish of the late 16th and early 17th centuries, you'll find spellings like "Tepóitt na Long", "Teaboitt na Long" in Irish writings from around the time he lived, such as "Beatha Aodha Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill" and the Annals of the Four Masters - see [2] [3] [4] [5]. I'd be pretty surprised if you found any uses of "Tibbot ne Long" in them. So I'll change the article back again if that's OK with you. Thanks. Tameamseo (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's still rather a lot of "ne Longs" out there. I'm obliged for the earlier versions in A4M etc. It should be there as an English mis-spelt version of an Irish name. It happens to correspond with other aspects of his life story - now Irish, now sort-of-English. You'll agree that there was no one common spelling in either language.Red Hurley (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Tameamseo (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you did the Irish version and on Risteard an Iarainn. He was spelt in Chambers' book as Risteard AR Iarainn, which I had copied. Such is life.Red Hurley (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments from Talk page

Hi Tameamseo. I have again reinstated the comment that keeps getting deleted on Talk:Irish language. I appreciate that the comment may look like a troll, but users comments should only be deleted for clear violations of the talk page guidelines, and I don't think a case has been made that this particular comment is such a violation. The comment is questioning the credibility of a source that Wikipedia has cited, and is such, it is on-topic for the Talk page.--Doradus (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doradus, thanks for the message. If you read the talk page guidelines, you'll note that trolling is in fact a reason to remove a comment. (Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism is appropriate). If you prefer we could remove the parts of the comment that seem to be obvious trolling and leave the sentence about the the census figure being laughable. Tameamseo (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tameamseo. Thanks for the compromise. I'd rather leave it intact, but I guess it's reasonable the way you've left it now. --Doradus (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of wood carving

The neutrality tag you placed on History of wood carving produces text which says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I see no dispute; in actual fact, the talk page has been untouched since last May. The peacock tag is also undiscussed; care to point out some of the worst instances you see? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, even the most casual glance through the article reveals problems. See Talk:History of wood carving Tameamseo (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I draw your attention to...

You might be interested in a little discussion going on here: Talk:Lurgan concerning the popularity or otherwise of rugby compared to gaelic football and which should be listed first. Tedious, I know, but we sometimes have to suffer these things. You should recognise the people involved. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish surnames

Hello Tameamseo. I came across an article that you made some edits to: in this edit [6] you added this guy's name in Irish. I Googled his name, and looked on the team web page, but I couldn't really find anything that linked that particular surname with the player. Do you know if that really is his Irish surname? Just asking because there are numerous ways of rendering that surname (see Mac Amhalghaidh for a number of forms, and also Mac Amhlaoibh which is entirely different).

Is there a standard for Irish names/surnames? Like are people registered with an Irish form, and that is the 'correct' way to refer to them in Irish? Or is it okay to refer to someone by any of the Irish forms of a particular name/surname?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, unfortunately that was a couple of months ago and I'm not entirely sure where I got it from. I must have had some reason for entering it as the correct form, but I don't know what it was now. Feel free to change it if you have anything to suggest the version he uses/is registered as is a different one. It's likely that one Irish name would be selected for use as his "GAA Irish name", even though, as you say, the Anglicised form may have derived from any of a number of Irish names (congratulations on your excellent work on the two articles you linked by the way - I just read them and found them most interesting). As I say though, I'm afraid I have no source on the form to be used in that article. Tameamseo (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Declan Quill

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Declan Quill requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BigDwiki (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All=Ireland Senior Hurling Final listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect All=Ireland Senior Hurling Final. Since you had some involvement with the All=Ireland Senior Hurling Final redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tameamseo. 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]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]