User talk:Inchiquin

Hi Inchiquin, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.

I honestly do not know how to add names of battles to the campaignbox. In fact, I am not even certain how to find it. It seems that Jdorney would be a good person to ask, he has a great deal more experience with the relevant articles than I do. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. I comletely agree that these two are very important figures in the period, and there should be articles about them, but like you I don't know an awful lot about them.

What I know without looking anything up is roughly this;

Charles Coote sr. served in some way in the pre-rebellion Dublin administration. He had some lands in the midlands (Roscommon I think), including some sort of iron works. After the rebellion broke out he was charged with putting it down in Leinster and Catholic sources accuse him of all sorts of atrocities in Wicklow, Dublin and the midlands.

He seems to have been a real hate figure for Catholics - one piece that I read, 'The Aphorismical Discovery of Treasonable Faction', calls him, 'an inhuman bloodsucker' among other things. An article I read recently by a guy named Kevin Forkan, on the other hand, claims that the records of the time don't show him as having been particularly brutal or anti-catholic. So maybe he was some kind of scapegoat, I don't know.

He was killed, I think in early 1642, in Roscommon (again I think). The 'Aphorismical Doscovery', says that he desecrated a shrine to the Virgin Mary and that she subsequently guided a sniper's bullet to his head!

_________________________________

As for Coote jr., I know he was in command of some of the settler/Protestant forces in the north-west by 1642. I'm not sure if he was part ofthe Laggan Army, which was the force raised by the English and Scots and based in east Donegal. He didn't obey the ceasefire the royalists sined with the Confederates in 1643 and at some point, again, I don't know when, he went over to the Parliamentarian side. At some point he sacked Sligo or Roscommon and committed some sort of massacre, but I'm a bit vague about this. In 1648-49 he campaigned with George Monck and (again, I think) was besieged in Derry by the Scots.

This part of the war is very confusing, because the Protestant v Catholic conflict splintered into all kinds of factions - the pro-Royalist Scots fought against the English Parliamentarians, with the support of the Catholic Confederates in Kilkenny, while the Castholic Ulster Army for some reason helped the Parliamentarians while it was fighting with the Royalists and Confederates, it makes your head hurt if you think about it too much.

Anyway, by 1650, things were a bit more straightforward. The Parliamentarians (including most Protestants) in Ulster were fighting the Catholic Ulster Army. Coote found himself in command of the northern Parliamentarian forces and destroyed the Ulster Army at the battle of Scarrifholis. He then brought his forces south and crossed into Connacht at Athlone. He then besieged Galway which surrendered in 1652, more or less finishing the war. I'm pretty sure he played an important part in the Cromwellian regime and in the Restoration, but I can't remember any details. ___________________

So that's what I know, bot too much, though I suppose I could look more up. Can you fill in any of the gaps?

Jdorney (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, yes Coote sr certainly did have a bad reputation. Catholic sources accuse him of doing all kinds of terrible things, including hanging pregnant women, executing unarmed farm labourers. Whether there is substance to these claims I don't know. Anyway, I probably won't have the chance to do an article (except maybe a stub) on either of the Cootes for the time being. But I'll look up some books and keep you posted on what I'm doing.

All the best Jdorney (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, will have a look at the Coote website over the next few days. Re the Arklow battle, go here Template:Campaignbox_Irish_Confederate_Wars, go to edit and stick Arklow in between Drogheda and Wexford using the same format (emdash etc) as the other battles have.

Cheers, Jdorney (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inchiquin, thanks for the message - sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you. I had never heard of Nelson and even after some digging through Google Books and EEBO, couldn't really dig up much on him. He doesn't have an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography either. As a result I'm not sure he'd warrant an article. Greycap (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look at your article, good stuff, keep it coming! Jdorney (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, zero idea about New Ross I'm afraid. I could go and have a look when I get some time though. Also, I want to ahve a talk with you at some stage about the Confederate Wars page, but I'll get back to you later.

Bye for now, Jdorney (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Jdorney I would like to hear some feedback.

I honestly cannot say. Depending upon how old the picture is, there may still be copyright issues. This is a question best posed to an administrator, especially an administrator who also have privileges on Wikicommons. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, an administrator would know for sure, but, odds are if it is in a book, it is copyrighted. Copyrighted material can not be posted on wikipedia, all pictures must be public domain. --Brougham96 (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inchiquin, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I'm inclined to think that the 'shifting allegiances' section is confusing for the reader rather than illuminating. These factions evolved as the progressed, rather than being in place at the start, so I feel that getting the reader bogged down in the details at the start is just too confusing.

That said, it was an extremely confused and confusing conflict and the reader could probably do with some help in putting together who's who. My proposal is that the 'shifting allegiances' section be made an appendix and put at the bottom of the article for reference purposes.

What do you think?

Jdorney (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're looking for some obscure projects, you could start with a few battles from the Confederate wars.

• The Battle of Glenmaquinn in 1642 when the Scots routed the Ulster insurgents. Not sure where you'll get sources for this but they're bound to be around somewhere.

• Siege of Duncannon 1645. Thomas Preston and the Confederate Leinster army successfully took the town off its Parliamentarain garrison. Good info in Padraig Lenihan's 'Confederate Catholics at War'. Also a ship sunk during the siege was excavated in about 2002, so you'll find news articles online if you look.

• Sack of Cashel 1647 Inchiquinn's notorious (at the time) atrocity before the battle of Knocknanuss. Can't think of any sources right now though I'm afraid.

• Siege of Derry (1649) - the lesser known siege of Derry, when the Scots besieged the Parliamentarians who got some help from Owen Roe O'Neill. Good luck explaining this in 2,000 words or less! Info can found in Scot-Wheeler's Cromwell in Ireland.

• Siege of Kilkenny 1650. Cromwell unsuccessfully attacked the town but then persuaded it to surrender before moving on to the Siege of Clonmel. The Clonmel article could also be expanded. Scott Wheeler again I reckon, but there are probably a fair few sources around.

Jdorney (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two as yet un-written articles that come to mind right away are The Graces (Ireland), about the concessions which Catholics tried to wring from James I and Charles I, and the History of Kilkenny, which would need a lot of early modern and medieval imput. Personalities from the early modern era that need bios include Nicholas Plunkett and Patrick D'Arcy (edit, someone seems to have done D'Arcy after all).

Jdorney (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inchiquin, which edits are you concerned about, just the most recent ones or more? Leaving a note on the talk page would be a good place to start.

Jdorney (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello again, I saw your edits and also did a few of my own. Im happier with the article now. What do you think?

Jdorney (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Plunkett one. Keep em coming!

Jdorney (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to put something together? Did my advice make sense? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner Jacobite. I've been working a lot on a page I have started up. I did try to get the boxes up earlier but I didn't have enough time to work it out but I'll try again soon Inchiquin (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi Inhiquinn,

We seem to have a misunderstanding about the line in the confed wars article. The point Im trying to get across is that in these battles, benburb, dungans hill and knoknanuss, half of the men who fought on the losing side were killed. Nothing to do with the total population.

Jdorney (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jdorney,

I don't dispute your point; the thing is I don't think it demonstrates the impact of the Confederate defeats in 1647. It was not particularly unusual in early modern warfare for the losing side to have half their soldiers killed; for example in many of the battles in Scotland in the 1640's half (or even 3/4ths -as at Kilsyth) of the losing side was killed.

As mentioned, The 7-8,000 killed represented over 1% of the total male population in Ireland in 1647 (William Petty estimated the total population in 1640 was just over 1.4 million, about half -700,000- male). When you look at the losses in this light, I feel it gives a better understanding of the impact of the defeats of 1647... I think this is a point of some importance.

(As an aside, I've been doing some work on the Portadown Massacre and Saintfield articles...hope to have these two finished soon. The Sack of Cashel article is also in the pipeline, as I have a few good sources for this). Inchiquin (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, again. I was thinking of doing a stub article on Charlemont my self, but you beat me to it and in fairness, your version is much better than the one intended to write. Likewise on the Portadown article.

Looking forward to the Sack of Cashel article and thinking about doing one myself on the Siege of Duncannon in 1645. Whereabouts are you based anyway? If you're in Ireland and reading up the confederate wars, you should read Michael O Siochru's 'Gods Executioner' which is just out.

Don't mind the polemical title the man had been researching the period for over 15 years and knows his stuff. His 'Confederate Ireland' is heavy enough but pretty informative, with a lot of new research on the political side of the period. I'd also try to get my hands on Padraig Lenihan's 'Confederate Catholics at War', which is very illuminating o nthe military aspects and why the Confederates couldn't take advantage of their many opportunites to win the war in the 1640s. Though if you're further afield than Ireeland it might be harder to find these two. For the broader background of early 17th century I'd have a look at Nicholas Canny's 'Making Ireland British'.

Jdorney (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just about done. Here, if you're interested. Contribs welcome.

Jdorney (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Duncannon article is very interesting Jdorney. Like so many figures of the 1640's, the firemaster Nicolas la Loue sounds like an interesting character but unfortunately it is hard to get info on these smaller figures... same goes for John Burke, the commander of the Connaught Confed army. Inchiquin (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've noticed the Chronology of the Irish Confederate Wars article. All help putting it together will be appreciated!

Jdorney (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Inchiquin, sorry for the delay in replying there.

How's the Sack of Cashel article coming along? Also, re the chronology, I was thinking that we need to flesh out the 1641/42 years a bit. Not only was this one of the most intense periods of the war but for research purposes I think it would be very valuable if we could outline the actual events of the rebellion phase as they occurred.

Too often these are passed over as a period of feral chaos, which defies understanding. Also I think we could do with a few more entries on confederate politics, when it was founded, when the general assembly met etc.

What do you think?

Regards, Jdorney (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the 'Sack' article is up and running! Nice work!

Jdorney (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

Thanks for your message, the collaborative aspect of wp is its strong point I think. I'll reply to your points one by one.

• One the Confederate Wars issue. I see your point about the name. The Irish langauge term, the 'Eleven Years War' is the only one that unifies all the stages of the conflict, but even it isn't entirely accurate as the last Irish troops surrendered in 1653, twelve years after the war's outbreak. However, I don't agree with either changing the name of the article or splitting it up to be honest.

• Re the name, the Confederate wars may not be entirely accurate stricly speaking but its in far more widespread use than the Eleven Years War and according to WP policy (and common sense I think) we have to use the most widespread name.

• On splitting the article; First of all, while the conflict had different stages, it doesn't make sense to view its different phases in isolation. An overview article is very necessary if the casual reader - which is the audience we have to write for - is to make any sense at all out of the period. The English Civil War has an overview article and then sub articles on rounds one, two and three (Though I have to say I don't think that these articles, lifted from a 1901 Britannica site are very good). We have the same, on 1641 and Cromwellian Conquest but no military article solely about the Confederate's campaigns of 1642-40. (We do have the Confederate Ireland article though).

• If you would like to create an article on this, though, that's a different matter. I wouldn't have a problem with it but I don't know if it would be much bigger than what's on the ICW page right now.

• On the Portadown point, I don't mind either way. The campaign box is just a way of grouping the relevant articles together.

Again, I see your point but I dont really agree with a name change. The name is not a desription of the war but rather what it is generally referred to as. The confederate wars is the most common term available.

Jdorney (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the generals issue. I don't know if your're talking about creating an article here, but as a general point its an interesting one. One of the Confederates' greatest weaknesses in my view was their lack of a combined military and political leadership. Instead of having an overal commander who carried out the orders of the political leadership they had a series of provincial generals who retained a fair bit of independence - which didn't exactly help in formulating, let alone achieving viable war aims.

The continental veterans were a mixed bag,.O'Neill was probably the best but was never entirely trusted by the Supreme council, who suspected that he was working to his own agenda. And, going by his attempt to make a seperate piece with the Parliament in 1648, provided O'Neill lands were restored, they may have a had a point. On top of that, his men were notoriously ill disciplined and spent a fair portion of the 1640s plundering Catholic civilians for supplies in north Leinster. On a purely military level, he was also extremely cautious and not given to bold manouvres. Preston was very good at specific things -ie siegework but had no idea how to handle a field battle. His experience in Flanders was entirely in siege warfare, I don't think there were any major field battles in the Eighty Years War during his service. Similar criticisms could be made of Garret Barry.

The aristocrats had a couple of advantages for the confederates, people like Muskerry, Mountgarret and perhaps Castlehaven could raise and pay troops on their own behalf and avoid the robbing of freindly civilians. They were also in some cases more comfortable handling cavalry. Maybe even more important was that they were politically reliable. The Supreme Council in Kilkenny was dominated for most of its existance by highly conservative, landed, Old English Royalists. Basically they didn't want any kind of revolution in landholding after the war and given that their armies were never entirely under their control, it was much safer to put them in the hands of fellow aristocrats and even English catholics rather than militant, landless Gaelic Irishmen or Spanish veterans. Just my thoughts.

Jdorney (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inchiquinn,

re 1641-42, I'm particularly interested in the battle of glenmaquinn and the attack on Lurgan, which seem to have been important events.

Re the Covenanters, no, no idea of their casualites I'm afraid, but they must have been pretty high, as you say.

Jdorney (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Keep me posted about the new article.

The difference between O Siochru and several other people who have written about the Cromwellian Conquest is that he is a professional academic, who really has in-depth knowledge of the subject. He did pioneering work on the Catholic Confederation in his first book, 'Confederate Ireland', which is a weighty read, but invaluable if you are really interested in the politics of the time.

For Gods Executioner he is writing in a much more 'populist' style, which at times almost seems biased in an Irish Catholic direction. I'd say that some of this is genuine personal bias - the younger generation of historians in Ireland have been trying to rescue something of the traditional nationalist history that was discarded by the previous generation of 'revisionists'. It has a lot to do with contemporary Ireland in lots of ways, people in academic circles the 1970s and 80s were almost ashamed of the Irish nationalist tradition because of its violent manifestation the Troubles. With the ceasefires of 1994 you started to see an effort to reclaim the story of, '800 years of oppression'. Anyway, just my theory.

Another thing to remember is that God's Executioner was written not only as a book but also as tv programme which has aired on RTE and the History Channel. So it had to be easier on the eye than his previous stuff. Don't let that put you off though.

Oh, and happy Christmas! Jdorney (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin! Happy New Year!Jdorney (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inchiquin, hope you're well. That sounds like an interesting project, though I confess I don't know anything off the top of my head about any of those projects. If I can help I will, Jdorney (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff. Unfortunately I've never heard of the Wicklow gold rush, but it is intriguing that it happened where and when it did. If you start an article I'll be happy to help out.

There's a theory called the 'revolution of rising [but unfulfilled] expectations'. Where people's expectations get raised to the point where they can't bear it when things don't work out. We may be on the cusp of something like this in Ireland right now in fact. If not revolution then certainl;y a change in government. And more Irish going to places like Oz of course.

Re history wars, to be expected I'm afraid. It'll work itself out in the end though. Regards. Jdorney (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inchiquin,

The articles sound like good ideas. If you need a hand let me know. Re Drogheda, there's a pretty good account of it in Padraig Lenihan's 'Confederate Catholics at War'. Apart from that I don't know but I'd imagine Gilbert's collection of primary sources ('Confederation adn War in Ireland') has some documents pertaining to it.

To be honest I've lost interest in wikipedia to a large extent and won't be contributing much in the future. All the Irish historical articles are plagued by pov wars, so it's become impossible to develop decent articles. The advent of stricter rules on sourcing has actually made this worse because people can put in any pov quotation as long as its referenced and also delete large passages as 'unsourced' when they are in fact summaries of well researched material. The quality of the articles in terms of coherence, readability or relevance seems to have been lost sight of. The Cromwellian conquest of Ireland article is actually one of the milder examples of this. The Oliver Cromwell article itself has been bloated with ill-informed pov. As for the modern stuff...

Rant over, but basically,chasing around quoting wp rules at people in order to slant articles in the direction of a badly understood pov is about my definition of a waste of everyone's time.

Good luck with your articles though ;)

Jdorney (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Inchiquin, yes I would be interested in helping with your blog. can I contact you by email? Jdorney (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to take a look, as I have just add the DNB text to the article Murrough O'Brien, 1st Earl of Inchiquin. There are a number of battles mentioned in the article to which I could not find an article on Wikipedia, however the details of some of them can be found in:

• Charles Smith (1815), The ancient and present state of the county and city of Cork: Containing a natural, civil, ecclesiastical, historical, and topographical description thereof., Volume 2, Printed by J. Connor, 1815, pp.146–148 and other pages for other battles.
• The Dublin University magazine, Volume 27,Jan–Jun, William Curry, Jun., and Co., 1846. pp. 38-39

--PBS (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested, but my major interest in the English Civil War. I have a side interest in making sure that the inevitable POV in Irish articles of the Wars in the Three Kingdoms does not distort the facts (for example see Ordinance of no quarter to the Irish which was written originally in response to the claim that it was used in Ireland (see Talk:Irish Rebellion of 1641#Ordinance of no quarter to the Irish), as I usually find that more detail helps to balance the simple unbalanced POV that one side or the other likes to include from pop histories. I see you have had some correspondence with User:Jdorney, it is a shame that he is no longer involved in the project, but I understand his reasons. I helped him out several times when I thought he was right and others were wrong. I do however disagree with him over the articles on the English Civil War as I think that the Scottish wars were an integral part of the same theatre, and the two are closely linked. --PBS (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that my reasons recreating the article Murrough O'Brien, 1st Earl of Inchiquin was because of copyleft problems see User:Philip Baird Shearer/BCWs copyright issues. --PBS (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying sooner I've been away. Also sorry but my reference books are in storage at the moment. Besides I don't think I have anything on the uniforms and equipment but one large glossy book (given as a Christmas present and more for the coffee table than research). I used to have a book on 17th Century swords and hand guns but it went I know not where. Looking at the net I wonder if the chap you remembered was Philip Haythornthwaite who seems to have written a number of books on military uniforms from different periods -- mainly it seems Napoleonic. A Google search of "Uniforms of the English Civil War" threw up "English Civil War (Brassey's History of Uniforms)" by Philipp Elliot-Wright which might help. -- PBS (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using "English Civil War (Brassey's History of Uniforms)" as a search key threw up several other books:

• "Soldiers of the English Civil War" (two volumes) Vol 1 infantry by Keith Roberts, Vol 2 cavalry by John Tincey
• "Matchlock Musketeer 1588-1688" by Keith Roberts.
• "Ironsides: English Cavalry 1588-1688" by John Tincey

Hope that helps as they should lead you to others. -- PBS (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could be of service :-) -- PBS (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Inchiquin, if that is your real name ;) ,

I've been meaning to get onto you about the Sack of Cashel casualty figures. Was recently reading John Morrill in the Age of Atrocity re the Siege of Drogheda, which I was doing re-writes on, and he says that before Drogheda, no assault on a town in Ireland had cost more than 100 lives. Similarly, O Siochru says that at Cashel Inchiquin "executed the handful of surviving defenders" at Cashel - implying that most of them were killed in the fighting rathe than massacred after.

Now I'm not saying they're right, but can we source the figures of 800 military and several hundred civilian casualties? If so, is there a clear separation in the sources between those killed in combat and those killed when disarmed/prisoners?

Rgds,

Jdorney (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point there on the writing of 1640s Irish history. It has come on a lot in the last ten or fifteen years but there is still such a massive gap, that, as you say, the basic facts in many cases have yet to be established. And anotehr problem is that some historians tend to assume things that have not really been properly proven or researched.

Re Cashel, would it be possible to footnote the relevant passages cited in teh article itself so that we have everything referenced? Btw, what's the otehr thing you wanted to bring up? I'm all ears?

Cheers Jdorney (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to leave it as traitor, because they were found guilty of being traitors to the English and then British state. We do not write alleged murders for those found guilty of murder. It does not mean that a person did the murder, it just means that they were found guilty of murder and as such it is a badge.

If you wish to change the wording to make what I have said explicit in the text then a change from "years a wide variety of traitors were not so lucky" you could change it to "years many men found guilty of treason endured the full sanction of the law." -- PBS (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendandh (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Inchiquin, you seem to be acting in good faith. Sorry for earlier suspicions but, as you see, they are warranted.IbnAmioun (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{admin help}}

Hi, I have been blocked from creating articles for some reason unknown to me. It would be appreciated if someone could fix this if possible.

--Inchiquin (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you describe what happens when you've tried? Your account is not blocked and it is autoconfirmed so I can't see why this would be. Maybe you are trying to create a page but you are including a link that is on the spam blacklist? Maybe the title you are trying to create has been salted?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us the title you were trying to create as well as the message you see? Thanks. Peridon (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Peridon. Fortunately I was able to create the article on the Dublin Gunpowder Disaster.Inchiquin (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I'll look it over. Jdorney (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force this is a heads-up for a possible reorganisation of the Commonwealth and Interregnum articles, please see Talk:Commonwealth of England#Structure and organisation of Interregnum articles -- PBS (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Clover Corporation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Inchiquin. 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]

Hello, Inchiquin. 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]

An article you recently created, Revolt Motors, is not suitable 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. Behind the moors (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt Motors, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Greenman (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vmoto 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/Vmoto 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.

Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Revolt Motors 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/Revolt Motors 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.

Hatchens (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Inchiquin,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Super Soco for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hatchens (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Inchiquin, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Hatchens, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Super Soco, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Soco.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hatchens}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hatchens (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Super Soco 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/Super Soco (2nd nomination) 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.

Hatchens (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that a new book has been published that might interest you. The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland - New Edition

https://wordwellbooks.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=2023 Hibernian (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hibernian

Thanks for the 'heads up', that does look like an interesting read, and aligns with my current field of interest. I'll definetly try to get hold of it.

Inchiquin (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]