User talk:Albiet

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Albiet! Thank you for your contributions. I am MJ94 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! MJ94 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Socially or Historically Significant Persons Bearing the Surname McNulty[edit]

Hello Albiet,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged List of Socially or Historically Significant Persons Bearing the Surname McNulty for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

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, Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jill K. McNulty for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jill K. McNulty 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/Jill K. McNulty until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Sionk (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop the stick[edit]

I'd be grateful if you would stop these increasingly venomous and sarcastic taunts. Articles for Deletion discussions are a normal and valid way of getting a wider consensus on whether and article should remain on Wikipedia. I've tried to say as little as possible in the discussion, because everything I say or do is met with a barrage of (aforesaid) sarcastic taunts.

At the end of the day, Wikipedia works when editors co-operate in a civil way. If your edits meet Wikipedia notability guidelines/Manual of Style protocol etc. then you have nothing to fear.

However, any further aggression may force me to take the issue further. Thankyou. Sionk (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

I have opened a discussion about your contributions to Wikipedia and your connection to Tammytoons. Please feel free to contribute your thoughts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albiet. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard McNulty[edit]

I'm not looking for an edit war. However, as you have already misrepresented the contents of references I am loath to trust your references that are inaccessible via the internet. Whether you agree or not, the wording you keep adding to this article is puffery by the standards established on Wikipedia. Additionally, the combative editorial commentary you include in your edit summaries is unnecessary and unwanted here.

If you want to continue to add questionable content to articles, it behooves you to demonstrably support those additions with links to internet-readable supporting texts. The narrowness of your editing areas and your over-protectiveness of articles you edit leads me to question your motives and hold your edits to higher-than-normal scrutiny. I suggest that you allow the articles you edit to mature and come closer to meeting the standards of Wikipedia. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Bernard McNulty has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Bernard McNulty, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bernard McNulty. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 11:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the WP:3RR policy[edit]

If you think logging out to revert from an IP makes your revert warring any the less, you're mistaken. Bishonen | talk 12:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Bernard McNulty. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bishonen | talk 12:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post by Albeit (editing logged out) moved here from my page[edit]

Albiet, I'm moving your post here, and replying below it. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You recently blocked my account including the talk plate wherefrom I can appeal your block. Further, the alternative ticket page is not available. I am requesting that you unblock that portion of the talk page, so I can immediately appeal your decision and request a thorough review by Wikipedia of this entire matter. My reasons are few and simple:

1. I was not attempting to "disquise" myself or engaging in "gaming" when I again edited the article Bernard McNulty". This is evident from the edit, itself, wherein I clearly reference my prior edit signed as "Albiet". I simply forget to sign in at times.

2. As you are aware a pack of rogue editors, including Binksternet, Uncle Milty and earlier Sionk (and who I hope that you are not complicit with in an attempt to set me up, I say this only because you did not also warn any of them about the same exact activities as to the same exact article? It takes more than one to "war" doesn't it?) have been repeatedly tampering with the Bernard Nulty article.

a) They have made repeated edits to this article without first reading and contrary to the verifying sources supplied in the article and while misapplying Wikipedia guidelines.

b) They have only admitted these mistakes and restored the vandalized content, after I have taken them to task and clearly demonstrated no justification whatsoever for these actions. But, each has eventually in their own edit summaries admitted or corrected their error, but only after I called them on it. After, however, they simply resume their prior activities anyway.

c) They have gone further to remove without justification verifying sources, which again, they have had to admit again of record in their own edit summaries that they erred in so doing.

d) Some of them have also committed clear vandalism as to other of my articles and have recieved prior warnings.

3. Finally, I did not revert any specific of their edits or either correct any specific errant of their edits 3 or more times. These rogue editors agily adapt to attack different article content, and I did not restore the same content as to any of these edits 3 or more times.

In fairness, you should unblock the area so that I can immediately appeal your decision here to avoid such blemish on my good record as an editor. Again, I hope that this has not been a set up, because under no circumstances do I intend to let this matter rest now, later or ever. If you do not in fairness allow me to immediately appeal your decision, I shall still take actions after the block is removed.

I have used a different IP here only because you have blocked me from communicating not only my request to appeal your decision, but, also, my ability to communicate at Wikipedia entirely. We have an unerasable e record now though, don't we? Also, as I anticipate that you are a fair person, I should expect to soon also see your warnings on both Binksternet's and Uncle Milty's talk pages. Again, it takes more than one to "war". If I did anything against Wikipedia policy and I do not believe this, they engaged in the exact same activities, the exact same number of times and in their case with absolutely no sound reason or justification whatever.

THIS MESSAGE IS FROM ALBIET

Albiet, you're mistaken. I have not blocked you from editing this page. I don't understand why you think so; have you tried? Please follow the instructions above, in the block template, to appeal your block and get it reviewed by an uninvolved admin.

I'm sorry I wasn't online when you posted on my page some hours ago. I'm not going to sanction you for block evasion for that post, since you're a pretty new editor and you made an innocent mistake (in thinking you couldn't edit this page, which you can.) Bishonen | talk 19:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mario McNulty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nothing Has Changed. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie McNulty[edit]

Can you find any sources that show her birth and death dates? Was she born in America? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can for the article. Frankly, this actress is barely notable. I really wouldn't add articles for actors who were not big stars. McNulty was a working actress, and she had a variety of small roles in the West End and elsewhere. She received some warm notices for her parts, but she was never a star or an important actress, and only a few of the productions she appeared in were notable. There are more important actors/actresses from the Victorian and Edwardian eras that the encyclopedia is missing. See WP:ENT for some helpful criteria about what makes a notable performer. One indication that she is not encyclopedic is that we do not have any information about her life, her birth and death, her family, etc. No journalists thought that she was important enough to interview and write about these things, and we do not see obituaries of her in The Times and the other major theatre papers. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for my barnstar. It was very kind of you and I do appreciate it. Jack1956 (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited McNulty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Presidential Unit Citation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tim McNulty (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabinet. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James P. McAnulty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Envoy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Poster monograph of Kansas Legislature 1875.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Poster monograph of Kansas Legislature 1875.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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. Stefan2 (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gary Lambert (politician)

added links pointing to MS, BS, JD, John Lynch and Global War on Terrorism Medal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allen B. Worley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page USMS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Echocardiography 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:

(2014). ''Pioneers of Medicine Without a Nobel Prize''. London, UK: Imperial College Press, pp. 142<-143</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2170493/] Full Article – Siddharth, S. &
Data on Management of Congenital Heart Disease. Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 2008; 86: 875–881)</ref> Real Time 3-Dimensional echocardiography can be used to guide the location of [[bioptome]]s

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shawn McNulty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BFA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Rear Admiral Thomas T. Matteson (USCG).png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Rear Admiral Thomas T. Matteson (USCG).png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

File:TBM 1-C Avengers in flight over the South Pacific Ocean, 1944.jpg

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shawn McNulty for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shawn McNulty 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/Shawn McNulty until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Ulidia[edit]

Why have you restored a redundant article with no reasoning at all? All I can think of WP:OWN. Does this article surpass Ulaid? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Mabuska,

My reasons are explained in my last edit. Wikipedia has a process for deleting articles. If you believe that the article Kingdom of Ulidia is redundant, then, please nominate it for deletion so the community has an opportunity to discuss the matter. In interim, I shall again restore directs to article. Sincerly, ~~Albiet

No-one is suggesting we delete the article. Rather make it a redirect to the more appropriate and applicable article.

Also: Restored article containing credible, extensively sourced detail on the latter Ulaidh kingdom, which historians distinguish from the earlier Ulaidh. The info is not in the general article Ulaidh. Wikipedia has an established process for deleting articles - this edit summary is wrong on various accounts:

No-one suggested deleting the article. Though if you want I will.
Article is on about the exact same Ulaid entity. Where is this distinguishing between the older and newer entities which you make claim of? The only two different entities that could be distinguished are the historical and the pseudo-historical/mythological versions. Neither of these articles goes into the latter.
Also tell me how Kingdom_of_Ulidia#Boundaries_and_ruling_houses and Ulaid#Territory_and_relations refer to different Ulaid entites? Tell me how Kingdom_of_Ulidia#Seat_of_government.2C_religious_center_and_fall and the majority of Ulaid#History differ considering they detail the same things. Though also tell me which is better referenced, better formatted, and gives more information to the reader with a far less confusing style of writing?
Credible and extensively sourced detail? Is it accurately attested? Tell me how in Kingdom_of_Ulidia#Descended_houses does the very last source back up your wording which makes the claimed descent definite, whereas the source states "reputed". In fact that whole section is overly convoluted and unneccessary. Also far too much sourcing from O'Hart and Hack, two very out-dated sources when compared to the research done academically since, especially considering the flaws with O'Hart's work. Whilst I have used them at the Ulaid article, they aren't used much and a vast plethora of other sources are used.

Also your article contains a selective copy of List of kings of Ulster focusing primarily on the Donlevy's. In fact the latter half of the article focuses on the Donlevy's, not Ulaid, and is something better detailed in an article of its own.

Lastly tell me what is the most commonly used name especially amongst academics for ancient Ulster. Its not Ulidia. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To correct myself, Ulaid does go into the mythological background but under the appropriate section of Ulaid#In_medieval_literature. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you have been active since my responses to you, I highly recommend that you participate in the discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Ulidia. Failure to provide thorough reasoning for your view, or even any reasoning, will mean that you will have even less justification to revert my redirecting of the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Mabuska,

I am sorry that on receiving your communication this afternoon, I didn’t immediately drop everything else that I was doing and immediately respond to you. I understand now that immediately addressing your concerns should take priority over anything else that I had planned to do today on my Fourth of July Holiday. I shall be careful not to transgress in this manner again. And, of course, I like everyone else love being prodded, this is always a good way to encourage me to calm dialogue and cooperative effort. While I don’t see the urgency, since you think that this is such a pressing matter, here is my response to you.

My first of two points is that the article Kingdom of Ulidia is meant to document the historic or lesser Ulaid for the Wikipedia, and many editors have contributed to the article over the years not just me. I am of the opinion and from appearance most of the historians and sources on matter that the subject of the lesser Ulaid is far too expansive to be dealt with in any meaningful way in a main overview article on the greater Ulaid. I had even been myself researching and preparing over the last few month additional matter for inclusion in the article. I can’t see how this new material can be contained in a general article on the Ulaid without it becoming unwieldy. I am also of the opinion that the article on the greater Ulaid is an inappropriate venue for inclusion of material on the lesser Ulaid. Many researchers would not expect to find the material there.

The major historians and sources distinguish between a greater and a lesser Ulaid. As I am sure you are aware, the reason for this is that the greater or prehistoric Ulaid is the subject of a very, very extensive mythology, while the lesser or historic Ulaid is subject of just as extensive, far flung and detailed a history. The two subjects are simply difficult to congruently melded in a short article.

This is the reason that most sources distinguish the greater Uliad as the Kingdom of Ulster or Ulaid and the lesser Ulaid as the Kingdom of Ulidia and handle the subjects separately. See as two of many examples Library Ireland, “Ulidia or down and part of Antrim” and at note 1 “the name ‘Uladh’ was applied to the province of Ulster, but in after times was confined, as mentioned in the chapter on Orgaill, to a large territory on the east of Ulster, called Ulidia. This territory … comprised the present county Down, with a great portion of Antrim, …”, http://www.libraryireland.com/Pedigrees1/irish-chiefs-clans-down-antrim.php, and the National Dictionary of Biography “As the family originally came from Ulidia, the lesser Uladh”, https://books.google.com/books?id=fyUJAAAAIAAJ&q=Cormac+MacDonlevy#v=snippet&q=Cormac%20MacDonlevy&f=false.

I understand, though, that my and these scholars opinions are likely completely off base and unworthy of your serious consideration, since as you made so poignantly clear in your next to last communication to me, I am not the writer, scholar, researcher or thinker that you are, but rather just an inept and unqualified creator of a poorly laid-out and otherwise convoluted articles (There is nothing that’s insulting there or in your snide reference to my talk page. I’m glad that you’re keeping things so civil. Again, how could such gentle overtures not encourage dialogue and cooperation from another person).

My second point is that Wikipedia has a long established procedure where the community participates in determining whether articles should be merged or deleted. Editors are not supposed to do this unilaterally, no matter how brilliant, accomplished and superior in talent to others they may be. When I originally created the article Kingdom of Ulidia on 10 September 2013, its content was in no way whatsoever duplicative of the article Ulaid. At the time the article Ulaid dealt exclusively with the archeology and the legend of the murky prehistory of Ulster and the Ulster Cycle as most such articles do (view article history to see article as it then existed before the first 18 September 2013 edit of 68.190.254.86). To the extent that the article Kingdom of Ulidia has now become duplicative of the article Ulaid, it is because you, yourself, have over time by dozens upon dozens of edits expropriated the bulk of the content of the article Kingdom of Ulidia, including sources and for most part while also rewording, and merged it into the article Ulaid. Also, the article Kingdom of Ulidia does not just cite to Hart and Hack. It rather cites to some 15 separate sources, some of undisputed authority, like the Oxford Companion, Encyclopedia Ireland, Encyclopedia Britannica, Dictionary of National Biography, The Highland Clans, Woulfe, Byrne, Leland, MacGeohegan and Fitzpatrick.

Patiently awaiting your reply,~~Albiet

I'd seriously suggest that you drop the sarcastic tone, however looking at post above, this is nothing new, and really does you no favours. Mabuska ^(talk) 07:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also please post your response where it matters, though you are still showing a clear disregard and ignorance of Irish history, and the two sources you provide above are very out-dated, and lacking in reliability. And considering Ulaid and Ulidia are the exact same entity why should I not merge the few useful bits of information from the Kingdom of Ulidia to it? And per Wikipedia protocols I am within right to boldly turn the page into a redirect if the reason is sufficient to which it is, though it is up to you to convince others that it is not so. A more thorough detailing is at the talk page discussion at Kingdom of Ulidia. Mabuska ^(talk) 07:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry but I have decided to report you for your uncalled for personal attack on me and your attempt at justifying it as "germane" for the discussion. If I don't it will only imply to you that you can go about being uncivil to editors as its "germane". Mabuska ^(talk) 23:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carroll LeTellier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Recipients of the Legion of Merit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Service Cross. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Recipients of the Legion of Merit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Martin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Albiet. 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]

Nomination of Ciaran McKnulty for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ciaran McKnulty 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/Ciaran McKnulty until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. OZOO (t) (c) 15:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Albiet. 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]