User talk:Miles Creagh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV[edit]

Please abide by a neutral point of view in articles. Your edits to recent Irishmen from WWI do not adhere to such a point of view, and are offensive. Just to repeat what I typed at Talk:Capture_of_Schwaben_Redoubt#Re_.22Irish.22: James Craig, staunch Ulster Protestant and Ulster Volunteer leader, and Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, stated the following on 5th March 1929 at the Northern Ireland Parliament: "We are Irishmen ... I always hold that Ulstermen are Irishmen and the best of Irishmen.". It is highly offensive revisionists trying to erase the rightly Irish identity of pro-British Irishmen. It's just as bad as republicans trying to white-wash and justify their own history. Mabuska (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is offensive - although some people are ready to take offence at anything I suppose - and I have replied to you at Talk:Capture of Schwaben Redoubt.Miles Creagh (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is offensive, just like modern-day loyalist memorial parades and demos in the name of the original Ulster Volunteers. Anyways don't start with the Ulster-Scots nonsense. I accept and am proud to have Ulster-Scots heritage, however it has been subjected to that much revisionism and reinvention in the past couple of decades that what the Scots in Ulster truly are is being lost in a cultural rewrite that's as bad as the nationalists misguided belief that they are all, and have always been, rebel Gaels. Amazing that so many of them descend from Scottish-Gaels, whilst so many Protestants likewise descend from Scottish-Gaels. Don't tell Nelson McCausland or Gregory Campbell their surnames come from Gaelic... Mabuska (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to keep the heid, stop talking in terms of offence, stop accusing other editors of ignorance and bigotry, and engage calmly and rationally. I would appreciate you addressing my point at Talk:Capture of Schwaben Redoubt about the routine linkage of "Irish" to the Irish People article, which doesn't seem to me to include the notion you are advancing that Irishness can be a British identity, like English, Scottish or Welsh.Miles Creagh (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My head is perfectly fine and my comments are calm and rationale, though they may not seem like that but context is hard to determine from the written word without explicit explanation of context. The Irish people articles links to people from the island of Ireland. The article is not perfect however it focuses on what it about, the Irish people which anyone born on this island technically is. Out of the sheer irony of it did you know that Queen Elizabeth II (and thus Charles, William etc.) is descended from the biggest Irish rebel of Queen Elizabeth I's reign, Hugh O'Neill? That fact alone would screw up that many minds here never mind the plethora of others.
By the way the picture on your user page is wrong. King Billy rode a brown horse and fell into the River Boyne as he suffered an asthma attack. He had to helped out of the water by one of the Enniskillen troops. Ironic as well that it was "our boys" who almost cost King Billy the battle. Mabuska (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, history is full of little ironies. Another would be that one of King William's major supporters in his pan-European struggle against Louis XIV's France was the Pope. The main problem with the Irish People article as I see it is that it doesn't incorporate the notion you advanced (and which I agree with) that Irishness can be a British identity like English, Scottish or Welsh. And the problem with the notion that everybody born on the island of Ireland is an Irish person is that not everybody born on the island seems to so identify. Per the 2011 census, a large majority of people born in Northern Ireland identify as either British or Northern Irish over Irish. Miles Creagh (talk)

The Pope backing King William is old hat information. You appear to be confusing ethnicity, national identity, and citizenship altogether. Anyways the article details what you say it lacks about Irish people identifying as British etc: Irish_people#20th_century. The only problem with that section at present is that it needs updated with the 2011 statistics, or rather that the 21st century stuff go into its own sub-section or that one renamed "20th-21st century" etc. Mabuska (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're talking about information from the C17th, so none of it is exactly novel. That detail you link refers to "Northern Irish Protestants" identifying as British. This seems unduly sectarian, and in my opinion the article tends to downplay the wider, historical British identity of Irish prople. (My own family background is Southern Protestant.) But I'll take a look at adding the 2011 census information. It would be helpful if you could explain further how you think I am confusing ethnicity, national identity and citizenship? Miles Creagh (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is the way your comments on the issue come across. I may have a go later at reworking that section to make it better. Mabuska (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this interesting[edit]

Ireland’s New Memory of the First World War: Forgotten Aspects of the Battle of Messines, June 1917 R. S. Grayson Keith-264 (talk) 23:51, 25 June 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) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland flags issue is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:TROUBLES[edit]

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Please be reminded that articles about the Northern Ireland flag come under WP:1RR. A complaint about the flag issue was recently filed at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Miles Creagh. I'm not certain as to why you would send the aforementioned Discretionary sanctions reminder to me. But anyways, I already reverted my reversion of your edit at Countries of the United Kingdom, per concerns about whether the sanctions applied there. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted you to be aware of the situation re; The Troubles, and I appreciate the self-revert. I also will make no further reverts while discussion is underway. Miles Creagh (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Momentum (Organization)[edit]

Momentum (organisation) - hello. [Your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Momentum_%28organisation%29&diff=next&oldid=715453719] to change the status of the org to Far left was uncited and was removed with a comment of vandalism. Please explain and offer links that support that your change was not just vandalism, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's vandalism. Miles Creagh (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see your refusal to answer my question with regards to wp:policy and guidelines. Personally, I don't give a F - as to right, left, far or near, I just saw your edit and agreed that it was basically wp:vandalism. Please do not attempt to replace it. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are conspicuoulsy failing to assume good faith. Please do not post here again. Miles Creagh (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know - the Daily Express is not a reliable source. So don't bother re-adding "far-left" with that crappy "source" AusLondonder (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016[edit]

Information icon Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Naz Shah, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. Mo ainm~Talk 17:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So this[1] would be a revert then, right? Miles Creagh (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think? Of course it's a revert. Mo ainm~Talk 17:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I thought. Probably better to discuss while the RfC is underway on that very language. Miles Creagh (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are trying to say above. Mo ainm~Talk 17:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You do know there is an RfC underway at the Flag of Northern Ireland article, though, don't you? Miles Creagh (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and a response[edit]

Hello. I read your message on my talk page, and I do wish to thank you very much for taking the time to write so carefully and with such understanding of the issues involved: a very warm and helpful message! I think we often find these strange connections in the most unexpected places, and I always hope that we can become better through concentrating on our similarities and then calmly and rationally having pleasant, if firm and strong arguments about differences, than being antagonistic reight from the start. Unfortunately, we all get taken up in the heat of the moment, and I think I was in great danger of doing so recently. I recall my time in Stirling well, though it is now a long time ago, and I used to walk into Bridge of Allan often and wander around abouts there. I also know Warrington a little because my father had an uncle who lived there who we used to occasionally visit.

My heart, I guess, is mostly with Cheshire and Wales (which is where I studied for my first degree, at Bangor). I have never had the pleasure of visiting Ireland at all, but I know of the great hospitality that exists there and the very erudite press and literature of Ireland via Irish friends. When my health inproves, I must fulfil an invitation to visit there at last.

Yes, the problems of visas for family members is terrible: I must stay in the UK because I have diabetic neuropathy that impedes my mobility and walking in general: it was provoked by what we think was "fake medicine" sold to us via ordinary hospitals in China, and there is little cheap health care available there for someone like me. So, I had to return to live here after 5 years. That meant extra problems, like trying to re-register for NHS treatment (because my GP was very quick to inform the NHS admins that I was no longer resident in the UK when I left in 2010 and they can require residence of at least 6 months on return before they will permit any re-registration). It did feel like I was booted out of the UK by successive oppressive legislation. My wife and son's original indefinite leave to remain which they had got lapsed and they now cannot satisfy the changed requirements to re-enter (though they had bad experiences in the UK of a racist nature, which makes them wary). So, it is a big mess. Such problems happen, and if I wanted to be sickeningly optimistic, I would say "These are not problems but opportunities". Haha. At times, the laughter is real as it is a ridiculous situation, but sometimes it is hollow. Once again, many thanks for your message, and sorry for this overly-long reply!  DDStretch  (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thnaks for the response. When I was in Warrington I had a good friend in Bangor - who worked as a librarian at the uni in fact - and I would visit him every other month or so, often staying a day or two in Bangor before heading to Holyhead and the ferry to Ireland. At the risk of sounding, ahem, political, I would say that the visa situation for non-EU family members of British citizens is probably the one issue above all that absolutely turns me off all politicans, and David Cameron in particular. It seems obvious to me that it is all about his dopey pledge to bring immigration down to 100,000, which he hasn't met, and can't possibly meet because of freedom of movement within the EU. So he has to make a show of doing something in other areas of immigration, and if he has to throw British citizens with non-EU family members under the bus, so be it. Although he massively misses his target anyway, so what's the point of all the suffering? Makes my blood boil. In fact, it almost makes me want to vote "Leave" just to spite him (although in my calmer moments I know I probably won't because I'm worried it might cause a rift between the UK and Ireland. And I've nothing against EU migrants per se, who are decent, hard working people in the main. As is my brother's wife in Costa Rica, and - I'm sure - your family in China.) Miles Creagh (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self revert[edit]

I would urge you to self revert your latest edit as that is the second time that you have made changes to the edit I made Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits. Mo ainm~Talk 20:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs, please.Miles Creagh (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you cant see how you have changed what was previous on 2 occasion we will let arbitration decide and having been warned a block is extremely likely. Mo ainm~Talk 20:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be happy to look at any diffs you care to provide, and consider self-reverting at that point, if I am convinced. At present, I don't see that I have reverted you at all. I have tidied up a bit after Eckerslike inserted the language discussed on the talk page. Miles Creagh (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you are refusing to self revert if so let me know and I'll file an arbitration case and let them decide if you have removed content from the article ie a revert twice in a one day period. Mo ainm~Talk 20:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to consider self-reverting once you provide diffs of the removed content in question, like I just said. Miles Creagh (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you told me when I asked you a question have a look yourself I can see 2 i'm in the process of starting an enforcement request I urge you to self revert before it's posted a block is not what you want. Mo ainm~Talk 20:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC
Well, if you can see two and are in the process of filing a request you must have the diffs. If you care to post them here, I'll be happy to take a look at them and self-revert at that point if warranted. Simples. Miles Creagh (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you don't want to revert I will post the link to the arbitration enforcement case when it's completed, simples. Mo ainm~Talk 21:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll look at the diffs you post there and self-revert at that point if warranted. No biggie. Miles Creagh (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It will be too late at that stage I fear best option is to self revert why risk a block and last one on this article was for 90 days for the sake of a self revert? Mo ainm~Talk 21:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not sure what content you are suggesting I have twice removed from the article, which is why I have asked you for diffs. If you don't want to provide them so we can work this out between us, that's entirely up to you. If you don't want to give me diffs, how about just a clue? Miles Creagh (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

they are in the edit history, I urge you again to self revert to avoid arb enforcement. Mo ainm~Talk 21:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've just been looking at the edit history and I just don't see where I have removed any content twice. Still happy to look at any diffs you want to provide, though! Miles Creagh (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've asked you refused. Mo ainm~Talk 21:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I've asked you for diffs, and you've refused. Not to worry, I'll look at what you post in your complaint. Maybe I'll see it then? Miles Creagh (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting[edit]

Howdy, I had to correct your indenting, again :) This keeps discussion from getting too quickly shoved over to the right side of the page. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it! I'll try to keep it straight in future. Miles Creagh (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland Flag[edit]

Miles, it's occurred to me that these guys aren't playing straight, and that it's just a numbers game in which their little group can get away with giving a distorted picture of how things are in Northern Ireland. It might therefore be best to concentrate on matters which are easily proven with reliable sources. They are using the lack of official status of the flag as a technical device to undermine its credibility. They are then using that in turn to distort the wider picture of its common usage. As regards the issue about whether or not the flag is official, I personally didn't think that flags needed to be official if they are in common use, but the truth seems to be that the flag was originally only the government flag and not the provincial flag. Why they didn't make it the provincial flag too back in 1953, I do not know, but that's the way it was, and so when Stormont was abolished in 73, presumably the flag went with it (officially), even though it had just picked up on common usage since the 1972 suspension. Since most sources seem to uphold this line that the flag lost its official status in 1973, you are going to get nowhere trying to argue otherwise. Even neutral people at the noticeboards are simply going to look at what the sources say. Best therefore that you concentrate on the common usage side of things and the fact that it became popular and widely used after 1972, and that the Unionists are the majority of the population and not just some extremist fringe. You won't sway these hardline republicans and Welsh nationalists, but you would stand a better chance with uninvolved mediators. Their tactic was to insist on putting the line that the flag isn't official right into the lede. Rather than debate whether or not this was necessary in the lede, they simply produced sources. The same tactic can easily be used to put the whole truth into the lede so as to get things into perspective. That's what Jonto tried to do. And he's got good sources. Build on that.Centuryofconfusion (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Start using the talk page, take an evidence based approach, respect the view of the RS notice board and there will not be an issue. Don't make changes without agreement - if agreement is clear or unclear seek third party review (as I did on the RS notice board). There is no conspiracy theory, just an awareness that debates on anything to do with the Troubles are problematic and need to be resolved on the talk page. If you guys carry on making silly assumptions about other editors motivations and edit warring or tag teaming it is just going to end up with a set of topic bans ----Snowded TALK 12:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It actually was made the provincial flag back that the government stated anyone could use back in 1953: [2]
Why do you not also just start editing? Jonto (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Endorsement[edit]

Miles, I notice you clarified that it was the English parliament. Correct. But there remains a very blatant omission between the Glorious revolution bit and the bit which states the fact that King James II still had considerable support in Ireland. There is the important fact that the Scottish privy council and the Scottish convention endorsed the English parliament's action and invited William and Mary to be King and Queen of Scotland. It's important not to leave Scotland out of the background events. Yesterday I added , 

 in which James II (King of England, Ireland and Scotland), a Roman Catholic convert, having lost support within his two Protestant kingdoms, England and Scotland, was ousted from power by Parliament, who then offered the throne to his Protestant daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange.

Yes it was the English parliament who ousted him, but the action was supported immediately afterwards by the Scottish parliament. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Centuryofconfusion. You are correct that the Scottish Privy Council and Convention of Estates followed the lead of England in offering the Crown to William & Mary, although I might have a wee quibble that it was "immediately afterwards" in the case of the Convention, which didn't convene until March 1689, some months later. But, yes, generally I think some concise scene-setting about the broader three-kingdoms context for the events of the Siege would improve the article, and the sentence you copied above seems perfectly fine to me . Miles Creagh (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm not sure about the description of the Glorious Revolution as "bloodless" - it may have been in England, but in both Ireland and Scotland it set off brief but bloody civil wars! Miles Creagh (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was blood in Scotland the following summer, and of course it wasn't a bloodless revolution in Ireland. When they call it the bloodless revolution they are referring to the fact that no blood was shed from the sequence of events beginning with William's landing in Torbay, the flight of King James to France, and the endorsement by the Scottish convention in March 1689. Here's Britannica on it http://www.britannica.com/event/Glorious-Revolution Killiecrankie and Bonnie Dundee are of course stuff for another article, but one cannot leave out mention of Scotland as critical background information relating to the overall dynamic within which the Seige of Londonderry occurred. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Siege of Londonderry[edit]

Miles, I want to improve the article about the siege and I'm wondering if you might wish to help. There is no hurry. I'll make a list here of what I see as being problems with the article as it now stands. First of all, the lede mentions the Royal Navy. That needs to be changed for a number of reasons. The UK Royal Navy did not exist at that time yet that is what is currently linked in the lede. It was before the Act of Union and the English Royal Navy hadn't yet combined with the Royal Scots Navy. It should also be remembered that the fleet importantly also contained merchant ships. I found this link https://neverfeltbetter.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/irelands-wars-the-relief-of-londonderry/ which sheds quite a bit of light on the breaking of the boom episode. The Mountjoy seems to have been a merchant ship. The most important military character in the relief expedition was Colonel Percy Kirke who commanded an English army. It's therefore rather narrow and inaccurate to state that the city was relieved by Royal Navy ships. A broader description might be something like 'a relief taskforce bringing an English army commanded by Colonel Percy Kirke'. Another big omission is a section dedicated to the breaking of the boom. And another big omission is the controversy surrounding Lundy and Cunningham. There is plenty of sourced material detailing the various opinions on whether these two were traitors or defeatists. That is a very important part of the episode. Also omitted are the details of the truce at Bishop's Gate when King James arrived. And also omitted is the mention of the starvation and the notorious stories of having to eat rats and dogs paws. And last but not least there is the fact that not once in the whole article is the official name of the city mentioned. They have the name in Irish, but they don't have the official name. There needs to be at least one full Londonderry for the city and one for the siege. These should be the first mentions. The rest can then all be Derry. This could be made into a very good article. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm ready to jump into the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute just at the moment - we're not even done with the Northern Ireland flag. (And once we are, I may want to spend some recuperative months editing in other areas. Like Butterflies, or something! Miles Creagh (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Miles, I understand you perfectly. I've got a cousin in Selkirk who's an expert in caterpillars if you need any help. Anyway, I'm clearing out of this for a while until things cool down. As regards the siege article, I hadn't been intending to deal with the name dispute immediately, but it was eventually going to have to be tackled. I wouldn't expect you to get involved in such a dispute on the Londonderry page itself, because at least there it does acknowledge on the first line that the official name is Londonderry. But it's morally wrong that in a history article about the most famous event that ever took place in that city, that it's full official name is not even mentioned once, and especially since the event occurred at a time when the full name had its maximum significance to the contemporary dwellers, those being the English Protestant settlers. The Siege of Londonderry article has been totally sanitized, all complete with the name in Irish. It would be only fair that the full name of Londonderry appears on the first mention as well as calling it "The Siege of Londonderry" on the first line of the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centuryofconfusion (talk • contribs) 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aughrim and the Boyne[edit]

Hi Miles, There's a discussion on the talk page of editor Mabuska which you might like to read. I was thinking of challenging the claim made on the Battle of the Boyne article that King William did not cross the Boyne on a white horse. I have never seen any evidence either way and I think that anybody who claims that the horse definitely wasn't white, needs to provide a reliable source. In the absence of such a reliable source, there is no need to mention the colour of his horse in the text. That can be left to the poetic license of famous artists such as Benjamin West.

The Battle of the Boyne
ArtistBenjamin West
Year1778, prints after 1781
TypeOil on canvas, historical painting

Centuryofconfusion (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After posting the picture, I just noticed that you are already using the same for your user page. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Miles Creagh. 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 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Miles Creagh. 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]

Does UK naturalization imply "English"?[edit]

Hi Miles. Based on articles you have written, I think you might be able to help me answer a question. Can an American who has been naturalized as a UK citizen claim that they are "English", or are they limited to saying that they are British? Thanks! --Joedo3 (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! A person who naturalizes in the U.K will obtain British citizenship, the exact same legal status that is held by native-born people from the constituent countries of the U.K (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). However, people born in those countries will often identify quite strongly with the constituent country and consider themselves English, Scottish, Welsh etc as much or more than British. However, there is no separate legal status underpinning such identification. Generally, people who move to the U.K don't have the additional identity that comes from a connection to a constituent country, and immigrants who naturalize are far more likely than native-born Brits to identify primarily as "British". That said, I see no reason why an American who has naturalized as British, and lives in England, perhaps for many years, shouldn't also identify as English. For the purposes of Wikipedia, though, you would probably need a reliable source for such self-identification before adding it to an article. Miles Creagh (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. You can become British in law, but you can never become truly English if you are not English to begin with. In the case of Americans though, who may already have considerable English ancestry, and who already speak fluent English, if they live long enough in England and start to pick up the English accent, they might begin to be considered as English. But they'd still always be an American too. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Irish[edit]

Hi Miles, I'd like to hear your opinion on this one,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Francis_Beaufort#RfC_on_National_Origins

Centuryofconfusion (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Miles Creagh. 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miles_Creagh&oldid=1140374073"