User talk:Guliolopez

Archives

Croagh/Kilfinny wiki page

Dear Gulio,

I have searched for every single reference I could find regarding our local sports club Croagh/Kilfinny. We will not appear in any article of the New York Times or even the Irish Times! We are a small rural local club, so reports in local papers are the only references that are out there. But they are references. There are literally thousands of wiki pages with no references or citations at all, that seem to remain published. All I have gotten from Wikipedia since I tried to upload our page is disdain and rejection. Despite giving all the citations/references that are available to me. Hoping you will understand and look at it from our point of view,

Regards, Colm Sully1865 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In terms of:

"Our club / our point of view / our page". If you have a connection to the subject that you are writing about, please ensure you have read WP:COI, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:OWN. If you're hearing concerns from other editors, and taking it personally, you should perhaps re-read the bit of the COI guidelines which covers why editors, with a close connection to the subject and who find it difficult to separate their own goals from those of this project, might feel that way. (In short, it is not "your page". And the only "we" here is the Wikipedia community. If you've got different definitions of "we" and "ours", then that's likely the cause of your misalignment with others here.)
"not appear in [..] even the Irish Times". If there are insufficient reliable references to support the basic facts, then that may explain why the reviewing editor raised WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG concerns on the earlier draft article.
WP:COPYVIO. Please don't upload non-free (and clearly commercial images which are being licenced/monetised by the rights-holder) to Wikimedia Commons. Certainly not with a questionable "own work" tag. WP:NONFREE and WP:FAIRUSE images can only be uploaded to Wikipedia (with a valid rationale.)

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulio,

Just regarding ‘insufficient reliable references’, the match reports I have included are from The Limerick Leader which is a highly reputable newspaper in Ireland’s Midwest. I cannot see where the issue would be on that one.

I got permission from Oisin Keniry to use the image of the Playing Grounds, but as I cannot prove this, then I shall upload my own image in the coming week. Regarding the club crest, I will have the club contact Wiki directly with permission to use same.

Regards,

Colm Sully1865 (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. RE:

Images. As you note, if you do not have evidence of ownership/permission for copyrighted/commercial images, then please don't upload them to Wikimedia Commons. The instructions, for the club to provide evidence/permission for the "crest" image and/or "donate it" to Commons, are linked from the template added to the file itself.
References for match results. I have no issue with the Limerick Leader or related sources. And have left them in place. My concern with the other linked sources, as per my edits, is that the GAA.ie, Limerick Diocese and Patrickswell Ballybrown Parish do not support the text they were placed alongside. Making zero mention of the subject. (You might also note the distinction between sources as a means of supporting the text and sources as a means of establishing notability. Trivial or run-of-the-mill coverage of Junior or Intermediate matches in the West Limerick division are perfectly fine when used to support content (like a sentence). But they may not be sufficient to support notability (my local parish choir has been mentioned in the paper - doesn't mean it's notable...)

If you want to continue to discuss the related issues, please consider doing so at Talk:Croagh-Kilfinny. So that other interested editors can contribute. Rather than here on my UserTalk page (where they can't).... Guliolopez (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kilfaul

I just found the Kilfaul page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutlasterGuto (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. OK. Sure. Guliolopez (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shoneenism

Please see talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shoneenism&action=edit

Kind regards. Tyrsóg (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Church of St. Anne, Shandon -- do we need another picture?

Hi @Guliolopez, many thanks for looking into many of my county Cork-related submissions. Regarding your question about whether or not we need another picture of the Shandon Bells tower, I'm not extremely attached to the idea of having it there. I just thought it made sense to show the tower -- regarded as one of the city's symbols -- as seen from the streets of the city itself; show it with context rather than in isolation. To me that gives better topical context than the panoramic view which is also there in the article. But again I'm not dead set on having this either way. More than anything else, I wrote on your talk page to thank you :) Podstawko (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Podstawko

and thanks for your note. RE:

"looking into many of my county Cork-related submissions". To confirm, I wasn't "looking into" your edits directly or specifically. I have >4000 pages on my watchlist. Many of which are Ireland/Munster/Cork-related. A number of your recent edits just happen to overlap with my watchlist.
"not dead set on having this either way". Me either. Which is why I left the image in place. If additional images are added to that article, however, I wonder if some others should be removed. "One in/one out". In particular if they start getting too numerous or stacking and impacting the layout/readability of text.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portarlington GAA Club

I've noticed you have removed a lot of the work that I did on the Portarlington GAA Club wikipedia, I don't see the reason why you have removed this all?

The notable players are listed as notable players by the club and the current panel is the panel of the most recent game, so I don't see your need to remove my work. Gaa 165678 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping with the Curraghkippane Cemetery article

Just saying thanks here. I almost started relying on your edits after article creation... quite a few more articles are coming. Mostly places listed in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage, but not only. Mostly County Cork, but not only. Again, big thanks for all the work you're doing. I would like to give you the Barnstar of Diligence if you're OK with this, but I'm asking you here first because this would be my first barnstar ever given, and I'm not sure I'm not stepping over some boundaries by doing this. Podstawko ●talk 20:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Thanks for your note. RE:

"Help on cemetery article". I came across it, FYI, as cemeteries in Ireland and Gerald Goldberg both happen to be on my watchlist. Generally it looked good. Albeit that while some of the editorial ("picturesque", "providing panoramic view[s]", etc) might appear in the sources, didn't seem quite in keeping with Wikipedia's tone. Also, when describing people as "notable", ideally they'd meet Wikipedia's definition. (One of the people mentioned, for example, doesn't have an article and so isn't "notable" in entirely the same way as the others...)
"More articles coming / Mostly listed in NIAH". Sounds great. If you want any help just shout. I'm sure you're aware, but do note that the NIAH isn't a list of protected or automatically notable structures. And certainly not all meet WP:NBUILDING. (We wouldn't, for example, have standalone articles on this 1970s phonebox or 1990s postbox or sewer vent or even this private house.)
"Barnstar". Thanks very much for the thought/suggestion. But I don't put a lot of stock in barnstars myself. The note of acknowledgement is more than enough :)

Happy editing! Guliolopez (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay :) And yes, I do realize not everything on NIAH list is notable. There are tiny bridges listed in NIAH that are mentioned literally nowhere else! (And I mean the entire Irish Newspaper Archives.) But on the other hand, there are surprising absentees on that list which are not yet on the Wikipedia. As an example, I'll be working on St. Vincent's church in Cork next. Podstawko ●talk 10:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good job saving The Corkman! Would love to see your articles (and those of any page watchers) up on the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - Podstawko, you’ve found a good mentor; Guliolopez has helped me out before now with the sometimes complicated issue of NIAH listings. Look forward to seeing your future articles. Although I’d agree that the private house doesn’t look very notable - though the fanlight’s quite pretty! KJP1 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List pages

Hi Guliolopez,

You've reverted a few edits I made adding the List of tourist attractions in Ireland to the see also sections of the articles listed on the list. You said not to overdo it.

When browsing Wikipedia, both as a user an editor, I see lists included in the "see also" sections all the time, when the article is included in the list. I'm just wondering what you mean by overdoing it.

Would you only include the best or most popular tourist attractions? But then what's the point in the list? I've only made around 200 edits on Wikipedia and I enjoy adding the lists to the see also sections as I find repetitive tasks fun (weird, I know), so I'm keen to learn so I know what to do in future.

Cheers, Ilovetotravel12345 (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. And welcome. As you note, I did (indeed) remove some of those links. As a little overdone. I removed, for example, the "see also" link from the Midleton article as it didn't seem especially relevant (per the linked source, the "tourist attraction" in question is the Jameson Experience, Midleton - rather than the town of Midleton as a whole). I also removed the back-link, along with some other redundant or duplicated "see also" links, from the University College Cork article. As it seemed somewhat anachronous (UCC is, primarily, a university - rather than a tourist attraction like the Guinness Store house or Leprechaun Museum or Emerald Park). Further, UCC's inclusion in the List of tourist sites with >100,000 annual visitors isn't, technically, supported by a reference. Nor is St. Anne's, Shandon.

In general terns, and per MOS:SEEALSO, while a "see also" section can be a useful (additional) way to interlink related articles, a "see also" list is not required, shouldn't replace in-body links and would ideally contain relevant links that are limited in number. Back-linking/cross-linking every single word or entry mentioned in the list is, to my mind, a little "overdone". (Like linking from Lough Neagh - which just happens to be a mentioned in the list article. But where the "tourist attraction" is the marina/reserve in one corner of the lake. The other 400 square kilometre expanse of Lough Neagh is not, in its entirety, a tourist attraction. To the extent that tourism isn't even mentioned within the article that is now cross-linked)...

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five Go Down to the Sea?

OMG, the article is minor youtube fame adjacent! His vid mentions the page has 883 views and counting (eh), but glad somebody else got it :) Hope you had a good trip in Ireland. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry - I meant to post this on Guerillero's page. Late at night, will get my coat. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I thought something was up alright as I had to question myself before I saw your correction/clarification ("'good trip'? was I away and I forgot?" :) ). I've bumped up the views there anyway as I gave it a watch. While I did wince at the creator's pronunciation and self-correction issues, was definitely worth a watch. Thanks! Guliolopez (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never did claim to be the brightest spark, haha. Anyway, given new year and all, just to give appreciation for all the work you do around here; ever vigilant and helpful, and as have said before the dry and precise edit summaries never fail to amuse me on wet winter mornings. An old tune out of respect. Ceoil (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what does this image convey/describe/illustrate that isn't already covered by the existing facade image?

Hello @Guliolopez. The building looks different with decorations. The image conveys a key difference in appearance depending on the time of year. Ear-phone (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Thanks for your note. Per my full edsumm and WP:NOTGALLERY, I don't think a gallery section is needed - especially when it contains only a single image taken from a slightly different angle than the existing "main" image. If you feel really strongly about it, then feel free to restore the single-image gallery. But, in honesty, I'm not sure what additional information or context it imparts to the reader. Any more than duplicating these two images would improve a reader's understanding of St Mary's Church. Or these two images would do anything but clutter the Temple Bar pub article. Guliolopez (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you for your response @Guliolopez.

Ear-phone (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you share my concerns...

...about the state of that article. I was thinking about doing what you are doing now, but I'm not even sure that the subject is notable independent of the band he's played in. His best shout might be as an author per WP:NAUTHOR, if another review of his work could be found. Thanks for taking an interest anyway. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Girth Summit. After removing the uncited stuff about a "clatter load of goal{s}", I also removed the text about how fast the subject's great uncle could run on grass (as the speed of his grandparent's brother/brother-in-law, on any surface, is not relevant to the subject of that article). I note, with some interest, that the subject's bio on the "official" band website makes "jokey" claims about the subject being "the man that IBM hired to hide inside the box they called Big Blue when they beat Kasparov at chess". To the extent that I don't see how we could reasonably use that bio as a reliable source. For anything else it contains. And, in all honesty, I also wonder if someone associated with the subject continued this tone/approach in the WP article. Certainly there are more than a few contributions to that article from profiles usernames that suggest a possible COI. Including a few who couldn't seem to stop themselves from adding unattributed opinion and editorial and less-than-encyclopaedic ("jokey"?) descriptions of "Sandymount's snot-green-sea". I have already contributed to the related AfD. While I recognise the NAUTHOR possibility, it seems to me that the subject's notability is associated with the (family) band of which he is a member. Hence, as an AtD, my redirect suggestion..... Guliolopez (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap - that's worse than I'd realised. I hadn't actually read all of it very closely (didn't see the point until I had established whether we'd be keeping it). What drew my attention was the now-oversighted stuff which, without going into too much detail, revealed the name and location of the school attended by a minor associated with the school. It was all very positive - apparently he's thriving - but I have no doubt that it was written by the subject or a friend of his, who is somewhat uncertain as to the distinction between an encyclopedia and a round-robin letter slipped into a Christmas card. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical red-light districts in the Republic of Ireland has been nominated for merging

Category:Historical red-light districts in the Republic of Ireland has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killiney Castle

Are you happy with the article now? You're the only editor since it was created by a sock. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doug Weller. Thanks for your note. In honesty, no. I'm not entirely happy that the COPYVIO/CLOP issues, raised at Talk:Killiney Castle by the apparent rights-holder, are fully addressed. Not yet anyway. Per my related note at the article's Talk page, I was hoping that the other involved editor/rights-holder would provide more information on what they described as "glaring errors". And, based on that, I'd try to address remaining any errors of fact and/or CLOP issues. In one "swoop". If the other editor doesn't come back on my latest "ping", then I'll go ahead (unilaterally if needs be) and excise much of the CLOP text. And any obvious errors. Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were they added by the sockpuppet who created the article? If you hadn 't edited it I would have deleted. Any of their original edits can be freely deleted. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure I follow fully @Doug Weller. If by "they", you refer to those comments on the Talk page (by "Cavantownlands"), then it's not implausible/impossible that these are sock-related. If by "they", however, you refer to the CLOP/COPYVIO issues, then - yes - those edits were all made by the now-blocked profile.

If you wanna give me an hour or so, I am happy to pare-back the article significantly. To remove most of the CLOP, COPYVIO, SOCK-added stuff. And you can then REVDEL that crud. Leaving a smaller stub. (While I understand the point about deleting on WP:G5 grounds, I think the topic meets WP:GNG/WP:NBUILDING. And I don't think the nuclear option is the best one here.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sock who created the article. I"d prefer not to delete, I agree it's notable. It would be good if you pared though. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Doug Weller. I've since removed all the COPYVIO, CLOP and (I think) factually questionable material. While, for good order, I'm happy to tag for REVDEL myself (anything/everything prior to 1207873724 being a viable target), feel free to cull up to the current revision. Guliolopez (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Feudal Baronies

Attention Wikipedia editors,

Guliolopez has recently shown an interest in pages related to Irish feudal baronies, but there appears to be a confusion from him between feudal baronies, administrative baronies, and baronies in the peerage.

Feudal baronies are a specific type of hereditament (property) that can be owned and possessed. Like all forms of property, including feudal titles, claims to ownership are based on the current possessor's assertions. Therefore, disputing the validity of ownership claims, when the source is the owner themselves, becomes a moot point (i.e., who else would the source be?).

It's essential to note that Wikipedia editors are not responsible for adjudicating the truthfulness of these claims, merely citing the source. Any disputes regarding ownership should be addressed through legal means, such as a court of law or by demonstrating a factual prior use and the absence of a valid transfer. It should also be acknowledged that the existence of these feudal baronies is a matter of law, confirmed by legal documents. These documents are not likely to be released for the benefit of Wikipedia editors, and any legal standing should be ascertained through appropriate legal channels.

It would be prudent for Guliolopez to defer these matters to professionals rather than engaging in amateur assessments. LordRockall (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC+2:00)

Hah. That's funny. RE:

"Wikipedia editors are not responsible for adjudicating the truthfulness of these claims, merely citing the source". If the only source is a self-published, recently created, non-independent website (which is not backed-up by other independent/reliable sources), then it absolutely is the role of other editors to verify related claims. And not just cite/follow obviously questionable sources.
"prudent for Guliolopez to defer these matters to professionals rather than engaging in amateur assessments". Together with your recent vandalism of article namespace and user namespace content, that's another interesting dalliance with civility/ownership guidelines and the like.
"appears to be a confusion from him between feudal baronies, administrative baronies, and baronies in the peerage". To confirm, I am more than aware that it is your contention that (in addition to declaring himself "Chief Regent of the Name" [with airs over everyone called Barratt], and "Baron of Irrus" ["feudal lord" or Baron or whatever over everyone in northwestern Mayo) that Louis Allan Barratt has declared himself "Baron of Tirawley". And that it is your assertion that the these "feudal baronies" and "feudal titles" are separate and distinct from the historical "administrative baronies" (incl. the Barony of Tirawley) and the defunct "peerage titles" (incl. Baron Tirawley). Your assertion is (now) understood. There is no longer any confusion as to what claims are being made. My contention, however, is that the only sources which support these claims are the websites created by the claimant. Websites created recently (in Oct 2023, Nov 2023 and Jan 2024 respectively). Seemingly to support these "I'm feudal lord of north Mayo chief of all people called Barrett" claims. And to hawk Aran jumpers and PDF templates to people who want to buy "titles" from the "Baron" on Etsy. As per the issues highlighted on the related article and Talk pages, there are no independent/reliable/verifiable sources which support these claims.

Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Guliolopez,

Your concerns regarding source reliability are duly noted. In the context of asserting ownership claims, it's akin to proving ownership of an item stolen from you – the police wouldn't expect you to provide independent reliable and verifiable third party sources.

Just as one wouldn't seek independent, reliable sources to prove ownership of a toaster, the onus often falls on legal documentation and the disputing parties themselves. In the case of feudal titles, the matter is particularly nuanced, involving historical and legal dimensions.

Valid points have been raised about source reliability and independence. In the interest of fostering clarity and understanding, could you please specify which sources you find problematic and elaborate on why they are deemed invalid or unverifiable? Additionally, in making these claims you should possess evidence or sources supporting your viewpoint, and sharing those details would contribute to a more comprehensive discussion.

Constructive dialogue on these matters can help refine the content and ensure accuracy in our collaborative efforts.

LordRockall (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained (in tags on the relevant article, article Talk, user Talk and AfD) which sources are potentially unreliable (namely those brand new personal websites all created to promote interests of the person claiming to be the "Current Baron"). And which sources, though potentially reliable, do not support the text they are place alongside. Please take this to Talk:Baron of Tirawley. And you can leave the newly found "interest of fostering clarity and understanding" and nods to "constructive dialogue" aside. You have already shown the community who you are. Nobody, not least me, is falling for that feigned attitude. Guliolopez (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hopefully it won't be necessary to take this further, but in the event that it is, please note that there is a related file on Commons, [[File:Arms of Louis Barratt, Baron of Irrus.png]]. I've flagged a query at the Commons helpdesk, Arms of Louis Barratt, to check on the appropriateness of its hosting the image. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LordRockall (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is. Thank you. I opened it myself. Bye bye. Guliolopez (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A real pie for you...

...for tireless dedication to the encyclopedia by catching every vandal with a keen eye for obvious vandalism. Your commitment to quality edits rivals the most thorough admins, making Wikipedia a haven for the vigilant. May your watchful gaze continue to elevate the art of the project to new heights. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 20:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I needed that laugh/smile :D Right back at you. Sincerely appreciated! Guliolopez (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an unfortunate fact that Wikipedia, like every internet site, attracts its share of loons and wackos. Fortunately, I see this latest one has now been blocked. KJP1 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Tyndall

It would be much appreciated if you would kindly desist from tampering/"correcting" this article while I attempt, yet again in coming days, to address your concerns. Take a break. 2001:BB6:18E7:1800:7D5A:6604:81CA:91A9 (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2001:BB6:18E7:1800:7D5A:6604:81CA:91A9. Thanks for your note. As you might read in the summary about "acceptable no-edit orders", if you need time to make changes to an article, you can tag it with one of the WP:INUSE templates. Generally speaking these wouldn't be in place for "days" however. Otherwise, if you're still gathering sources and framing text and the like, you can do so in a H:SANDBOX someplace. And then, if any (for example) referencing and other issues are covered, you can cover in the main/Article namespace. Beyond that, and in all honesty, the very (very) minor copyedits that I have made to the Mona Tyndall article (removing unneeded quotes from a reference title, tagging a small number of unsupported sentences and consolidating a duplicated reference) are HARDLY justification for declaring the need for a "Moratorium on edits [..for..] at least for a week". Also, "tampering" is a very loaded term. And, while I won't rise to it, you should consider reading WP:ETIQ. Guliolopez (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PRADO - European Commisson

Hi there, I saw you flagged the image I uploaded of the for speedy deletion. Not sure what your edit summary meant when you said Eh. COPYVIO? PRADO section?. As far as I can see it's tagged correctly and is a public work published by the Council of the EU: its copyright notice is here: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/about-site/copyright/

"Reproduction is authorised, provided that the Council of the EU is always acknowledged as the original source of the material, unless otherwise stated and that the original meaning or message of the content is not distorted."

Can you clarify? Drumstick21 (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. And did you read the bit that followed that? On the exact same copyright page? Which you seem to ignored/overlooked? Which talks about the stuff from the "PRADO" section of the website? The "Public Register of Authentic identity and travel Documents Online" section? In which the passport documents/samples are found? IE: consilium.europa.eu/PRADO/en/IRL-TO-01003. That copyright policy text, dealing with travel documents, reads:

Copyright limitations for the PRADO section of the website

You must under no circumstances:

distribute, use or make copies of, or otherwise duplicate any materials contained on the PRADO section, except as expressly authorised here below or authorised by the GSC
sell, loan, rent, lease, re-license, sublicense, forward, distribute, re-distribute, or timeshare the PRADO section or parts of it, or "frame" or "mirror" the material or services contained in or accessible from the PRADO section on any other server or Internet-based device without prior express written authorisation from the GSC; [..]
harvest, collect, gather or assemble any material for other than official and non-commercial use

The images you have uploaded are taken from the "PRADO" section of the website. And are therefore covered by the restrictions above. And, unless you have express written authorisation from the GSC, then their use on Commons is non-compliant. Also, FYI, per COM:Licensing, Commons doesn't accept "Media licensed exclusively under non-commercial only license".

Hope that's all clear. Guliolopez (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I genuinely didn't notice that section. (I looked straight past the big title saying PRADO). Drumstick21 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx

Thanks for this FYI, and in return here's an FYI for you that it taught me: as WP:MENTION says, "Mention templates don't work in edit summaries." I only saw the FYI by happening to review the article history. I personally use format [[User:Foo12345|.]] in edit summaries to ping a user discreetly, e.g. here. jnestorius^(talk) 16:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always learning. Thanks! Guliolopez (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Bridgetown College source

As you have been editing this page for many years, and have been on Wikipedia for many years, I have a question. I have located a source for the 50th anniversary text, but am unsure if it is okay to cite this given its age and other factors, what are your thoughts?

My apologies if this is the wrong way to go about this, I am new to Wikipedia.

Thanks. AlfonsoBourbonCream (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. In honesty, while that source isn't brilliant (those homepage.tinet.ie sites being WP:SELFPUBLISHED/WP:UGC-style pages that anyone could create back-in-the-day; almost GeoCities-style), it depends on what you propose to do with it. If you're planning to use it to address the {{cn}} tag, alongside the "In 2003 Bridgetown College celebrated its 50th anniversary" text, then I think that's reasonable. Given that, per WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:ABOUTSELF, it's seemingly published by the subject org about themselves. And is hardly an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sourcing. If that's what you intend to do with it, then knock yourself out. If you intend to do something more with it, then consider whether it meets the guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I intend to do is address the citation needed tag, so it'll work fine I gather.

Thank you! AlfonsoBourbonCream (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Honan

I will not attempt to add further information to this piece about Isabella Honan. At least the erroneous information on her place within the family is now omitted - though other interesting details have once again been edited out. Normac2024 (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. RE:

"not attempt to add further information to this piece". Fine. If you change your mind, and decided to add additional content, you might consider opening a thread at Talk:Honan Chapel first. Not least given the apparently conflicting sources.
"erroneous information on her place within the family is now omitted". As you will note, and given the apparently conflicting sources ("In some accounts, she is a sister-in-law of the Honan brothers, rather than a sister"), it seemed best to pare back to the established (non-contentious). Just stating that she was "heir". Without giving "sister" or "sister-in-law". It is worth noting that, where sources conflict, it is often best to note that conflict. As McNamara does himself. Rather than just selecting one over another. Otherwise, where sources conflict, such a conflict would ideally be raised on the article talk page (so other editors can weigh-in on whether/if/where/how to address).
"other interesting details have once again been edited out". The only other thing I removed (other than simplifying to "heir" as above), was the stuff about the Honan brothers being unmarried and without children. Personally I'm not sure how relevant that is to the chapel itself. That she was heir seems sufficient. The details of how/why she was heir is perhaps less relevant. Especially if there's uncertainty or conflict on the point. As elsewhere, if you feel it is relevant and should be added/re-added, then take it to the article Talk page. Where other editors can contribute. Rather than here. On my User talk page. Which isn't for article/content-specific discussions.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leitrim, County Down

this is not a criticism of your work, I’d like to make that of upmost clarity.

Firstly I’d actually like to thank you for touching on these pages, a lot of things you corrected where my old, sloppy work, although some of it wasn’t, like the piles upon piles of unsourced information in the GAA clubs page, no idea who added that. History is an extremely important topic and shouldn’t simply be taken word for word,( Not to blow my own trumpet or anything but the only sourced information in that entire article comes from yours truly of all people )

although there is but one criticism, or more so question, on the actual page for the village I noticed that you renamed “Locations” or whatever it was called to “history” although there is a case can be made to defend this change, wouldn’t any other title be more fitting than history? Sure both locations are definitely historic, but look at it in comparison to say Castlewellan’s history.

Bullet points vs paragraphs here. Mooedlorre (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mooedlorre. Thanks for your note. While I'm delighted to hear that your note isn't intended as criticism, I'm not sure what I am to do with it. If you are asking me to make (or assist with) specific changes I'm happy to help. But I'm not sure what you're proposing. In terms of:

Liatroim Fontenoys GAC, my changes here were to remove entirely uncited name-dropping of seemingly non-notable people, temper unsupported and promotional editorial (about the club being "honoured", its members "starring" [rather than "playing"] in games, how a club team "enjoyed their best day on the Hurling front for some years", a member "proudly raised the Cup aloft", etc), address bizarre capitalisation (including of words like "cup" and "hurling"), and fix some dead links and the like. All of it in line with WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:NOTPROMO and WP:GAELICNEUTRAL.
Leitrim, County Down, I have only made a few small edits to that article (spelling, grammar, layout and syntax fixes). To bring it in line with WP:CITYSTRUCT, WP:UKVILLAGES, WP:USEPROSE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:GALLERY guidelines.
Castlewellan, this article should not be used as a good example of anything. It does not follow the WP:CITYSTRUCT, WP:UKVILLAGES and WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Which is likely why it is rated so poorly (almost the lowest "start" class) on the Wikipedia Content assessment "grades" scale. If you want an example of what a good town/village/place article should look like, then look to the actual guidelines (WP:CITYSTRUCT or WP:UKVILLAGES). Or a similar article that has been assessed and graded to, for example, sit within Category:B-Class Northern Ireland-related articles or Category:GA-Class Northern Ireland-related articles. Like Lurgan. Which, while it still needs work, isn't a "directory of lists and other miscellany". Like the Castlewellan article. An article which contains a "places of interest" list (a heading not expected by WP:UKVILLAGES and which is a form of WP:NOTDIRECTORY MOS:MISCELLANY that should be merged with history/geography sections; As prose - not a PowerPoint "list of random things"). And a similar "uncited list of every sports club". Which should also be prose. As we see in the B-Class Armagh article.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you’re trying to educate me on this topic, can you possibly, remove some of the Wikipedia jargon on this reply, I understand you clearly know your way around this website but I haven’t a clue on what you’re talking about when you write like this. Mooedlorre (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's probably fair @Mooedlorre. Rather than trying to make sense of my jargon, just read the WikiProject UK geography guideline on "How to write about settlements". Or perhaps the WikiProject Cities/Settlements guideline on "Article structure (for settlements)". Either of will explain why I moved the "places of interest" content to a "history" section. And why you shouldn't use the Castlewellan article as an example or template for other articles. Guliolopez (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

Hi @Jacobfrid. Before recreating this, did you note the relatively recent TfD discussion about single use weatherbox templates? Is it planned for this template to be used in more than once article? If not, has something (else) changed? Guliolopez (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Guilolopez. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I was not aware. However, this template will not be single use. It will replace existing embedded templates in Dublin and Geography of Ireland. --Jacobfrid (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal @Jacobfrid. I thought that (use elsewhere) was probably the intent alright. Nice one. Guliolopez (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RTE journal error

Thanks for fixing this. I have raised the matter of RTE being cited as a journal previously at the WP:REFILL talk page so hopefully someone will address it. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't realised that issue was being introduced by REFILL. Hopefully someone will address. Guliolopez (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Razed

When someone says "The building was razed to the ground" I itch to brandish my (imaginary) gun. At least in print you have some chance of distinguishing between razed and raised, but perhaps we could plead with the shamelessly prescriptive Académie Française to direct their legendary haughty indignation as an act of charity to a fellow language in trouble by banning the word raze from English altogether.

As to raising a building, I took my inspiration from the Americans who happily raise buildings all the time (famously portrayed in the film Witness) but I'm happy with "constructed" – I simply didn't think of it while editing. Spideog (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand job. As per my EDSUM, I agree that "the building was built" is a bit clunky. But, and while I don't use one myself, I always try to think of Wikipedia users (including the blind and visually impaired) who may use text-to-speech screen readers when "reading" an article. And so I try to "read it aloud in my head". If that makes sense :) I am therefore extra conscious of turns of phrase which would sound identical but could have different meanings. (Like "the building was razed" V "the building was raised".) Glad you agree that "the building was constructed" works as a compromise. (PS: You're aging yourself with that Witness reference - A great show though :) ) Guliolopez (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the clunky "the building was built" reminded me of the line "the heat was hot" in A Horse with No Name (a song I actually like). Spideog (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of Irish Architects publisher

Hi Guliolopez, the reason I added Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs as publisher of Dictionary of Irish Architects is that it appears in the footer at the bottom of the website (e.g. [1]), which I usually interpret as the "publisher" of a website. That isn't wrong, but I think you're right that Irish Architectural Archive is a more specific publisher. Consigned (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Consigned. Thanks for your note. RE:

"agree that Irish Architectural Archive should be listed as publisher". I'm glad you agree. The Dictionary of Irish Architects website is published by the Irish Architectural Archive (IIA). So, yes, it is accurately listed in the "publisher" param for that webpage.
"the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs logo appears on the dia.ie website (and so would also be valid as publisher)". I disagree. That logo is on that website because the IIA receives funding from the department or arts and heritage. And, possibly, the DIA project was fully funded by the department. However, the IIA is a charity in its own right. Not a government department or subset of a government department. It is not operated under, owned by or a subsidiary of the department of arts and heritage. The department's logo appears (for the same reason) on the websites of the Irish Museum of Modern Art, "Inspiring Ireland", Tipperary Museum of Hidden History, Irish Association of Youth Orchestras, National Print Museum, Jewishmuseum.ie, Ireland Canada University Foundation, etc. Each of whom received funding from the department. And included the department's logo on their website as a result. The existence of a logo doesn't equate to ownership. Or make the department the "publisher" of these websites.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, looks like I was mistaken. Consigned (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for following-up. Guliolopez (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Bulls and FB refs

Thanks for the edit on Cork Bulls.

I don't have the ref for the independent article...I guess i could guess it from the date?

Also, just a general question but the vast majority of refs i have for all things Rugby league in Ireland are from Facebook. Will this hamper my ability to get things accepted by editors? I'm working on the current league for instance and i don't think i have one non-FB ref Eleutherius (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. RE:

"don't have the ref for the [Cork] independent article". You could perhaps consider using a "{{cite web}}" template entry where the "work=" param is "Cork Independent" and the "via=" param is "Facebook.com". I wouldn't go guessing at dates.
"Will [reliance on FB posts as main/only source] hamper my ability to get things accepted". Yes. For two reasons. In terms of reliability, the WP:UGC guidelines mean that Facebook posts are only considered reliable in rare cases (See WP:ABOUTSELF). In terms of notability, if the only sources available are self-published Facebook posts and the like, then it is unlikely that WP:GNG is met (requiring significant coverage in reliable and independent sources).

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping centres

Hi, just out of interest, what does make a shopping centre notable? These ones for example - Mahon Point Shopping Centre or Omni Park. Ridiculopathy (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While, of course, I'm not the arbiter of what is and isn't notable (for shopping centres or anything else), in all the previous deletion discussions on shopping centres it is clear that WP:SIGCOV is valued. In the multiple previous discussions about Letterkenny Shopping Centre, for example, the consensus was that there wasn't significant coverage in multiple reliable/independent sources to justify a stand alone article. Those advocating a keep at Low Pavement, Chesterfield, on the other hand, note that the listed/protected status of the buildings meant the shopping district likely met WP:NBUILDING/WP:GEOFEAT. I can't speak for Omni Park and am not one for abstract WP:WHATABOUTX/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS musings. If you need more, you could always contact someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers. Guliolopez (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful answer. In the meantime, I trust you might have a bit more sympathy in future for new editors who add articles in good faith (such as I did with Rathfarnham Shopping Centre) when we see other shopping centres that don't look that notable with articles up. Ridiculopathy (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. To confirm, all I did was ask (quite dispassionately and reasonably I thought) how the subject was notable. I didn't assume anything other than good faith on anyone's part. I also note that, at nearly 3,000 edits over two years, I'm not sure which new/novice/apprentice editor we're talking about :) Nice work on the O'Connell Monument article BTW. Was genuinely surprised we didn't already have such an article. FWIW, I don't think we need the ", Dublin" bit in the title. (Seems a fairly reasonable PRIMARYTOPIC in my opinion and we don't have any other "O'Connell Monument" articles; The comma/geo DAB suffix probably isn't needed...) Guliolopez (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure the word "dumbfounded" was used on your part as to how in the name of god I could dare to assume that such a topic as Rathfarnham Shopping Centre could be worthy of an article, but maybe I'm still a bit too sensitive on here. I hope you're less dumbfounded now in any case. As for 'O'Connell Monument, Dublin', thank you for your comment. I was also very surprised it didn't have an article. I wasn't sure if he already had a statue in Cork or Kerry and so I didn't want to limit the 'O'Connell Monument' page to just the Dublin one. Dublin-centric wikipediaism and all that. I hope you appreciate my consideration. Ridiculopathy (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have no recollection of using hyperbole. If I did express surprise, and could've expressed it better, then my apologies. While I do understand the ", Dublin" suffix (and the desire to avoid too much Dublin-centricity) I'd say that the Dublin "O'Connell Monument" is the primary topic. There is an O'Connell Monument, Limerick. And the one in Ennis. But if, for example, the Limerick one is notable enough for someone to creates an article/redirect/whatever, then a ", Limerick" suffix could handle any DAB issue. IE: I'd put the comma-separated DAB on the other examples. The other way around. So to speak. Guliolopez (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but I don't know is there a way to change an article title once it's been published? To remove the Dublin specification from the end. Ridiculopathy (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Pages can be WP:MOVEd. Pretty much anyone can make uncontroversial moves. See WP:BOLDMOVE. If you feel a discussion is needed, you could open a thread on the article Talk page. I'm happy to help if needed. Guliolopez (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved it there, seems to have worked. Thanks. On a slightly connected note, are all streets automatically notable? Or, say, a village or hamlet where people live? Ridiculopathy (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Again, you should probably start from the presumption that NOTHING is automatically notable. In terms of streets, and per WP:NSTREET, they are notable only if they are the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject. In terms of villages, and per WP:NPLACE, they are generally presumed to be notable. But only when they are populated and legally recognised places (like census towns and the like). Sometimes places don't have sufficient coverage to warrant a standalone article. And may be covered in the articles on the legally recognized populated place or subdivision that contains them. Like a small hamlet or townland or suburb or whatever being covered (perhaps with a redirect) in the article on the civil parish or census town in which it is situated. I'd personally be more wary of "hamlets" than villages. As "hamlet" isn't a defined term in Irish planning law or in local development/governance contexts. And so a "hamlet" may not always have "legal recognition".... Guliolopez (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Ridiculopathy (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PowerBook 100 under FA Review

I have nominated PowerBook 100 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation

Hi Guliolopez :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi @Guliolopez, just wondering if I could use your knowledge for a moment. I recently made a new list page at List of things claimed to possess 365 of something attempting to compile a list of those places that are claimed that have 365 of something - Clew Bay with its 365 islands for example. I would have named it "List of places that claim to possess 365 of a given thing", but for the obvious reason that Clew Bay is not a living entity and would never be able to claim anything for itself. As someone with a fair amount of wikipedia experience, would you say such an article idea is too fringe and/or futile, or is there some way I could save it from being deleted? I personally think such a list would be an addition to the wiki project, if only to catalogue just how often such a claim is made around the world: "the lake has 365 islands - one for every day of the year". Regards, Ridiculopathy (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The long and the short of it is that you'll probably need to show (in refs or whatever) that WP:NLIST applies. IE: That the members of that list have been discussed, as a group or set, by independent reliable sources. If no other independent/reliable sources (even a listicle or whatever) have discussed "things of which there are 365" (as a set), then it'll be hard to counter any OR/INDISCRIMINATE arguments.... Guliolopez (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the info. Ridiculopathy (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCC History Society

Hi, I am currently gathering more sources re the histsoc as I am aware there are issues there but re you saying it is the only historical society in UCC that is not true, the link clearly showcases the other societys in the college including ancient civilisations & mythology society which is counted as the ancient history society and, up until it went defunct, there was a medival history society also. So, HistSoc is indeed the oldest Historical society in the university, beingest. 1948 Beckybourke (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. RE:

"UCC HistSoc isn't the only historical society". OK. If you say so.
"UCC HistSoc is the oldest historical society". Also grand. But you'll need a ref to support that. As the linked webpage (in the draft) doesn't state as much. It simply "lists" the society. The word "Historical [society]". Between "Hispanic [society]" and "International Relations". That is all. If there isn't a reliable and verifiable (and ideally independent) source which describes the subject org as "the oldest", then that text shouldn't be there. Doing our own maths or applying our own logic, to come to conclusions not in the source(s), is covered by WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

Thanks again. Guliolopez (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"it's" is incorrect when possessive.

Hello. In view of this, might i suggest you take a look at MOS:TYPOFIX, in particular the part which says insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected, as an explanation for what i did. Thanks. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. RE: ""it's" is incorrect when possessive". I'm aware. Thanks. RE: "insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected". OK. Thanks. You may note that I'd added a {{sic}} template. To clarify that, per the same guideline, that the error was not made by Wikipedia. Thanks again for followup. Guliolopez (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yeah, sorry about the heading, i could tell you knew it was wrong, i just couldn't think of a good heading at that moment. I noticed that you'd put the sic template in after i wrote here, we were probably doing it at roughly the same time. I used to use that template, but came to consider that it isn't as easy (for the reader, for the editor i'm not so fussed) as silently correcting. Anyway, we've both been here for years, and i don't recall bumping into you previously, so...pleased to meet you. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you too. All good. Thanks! Guliolopez (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TaskUs expansion and formatting

Hi Guliolopez. I work for TaskUs, the outsourcing company, and I understand that I'm supposed to work with the larger Wiki community to make changes to the company's article. I am reaching out to you because I saw the extensive editing you have done on the pages of other outsourcing companies. My suggestions for expanding and updating the TaskUs article are posted on the Talk page. Can you please take a look and let me know what you think? I recognize that these are substantial changes, so I'm happy to implement if I get the go-ahead. Thank you, RK at TaskUs (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Aiken

A Chara,

Saw your comment regarding my historical knowledge when you chose to personally delete the historical information that I personally entered. I will enter equivalent referenced material over the weekend. Devite (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. Albeit that it would ideally be placed at Talk:Frank Aiken. (Discussions on article content and article references should occur on article talk pages.) To confirm, however:

I made no comment whatsoever "regarding [your] historical knowledge". My edit summary included a comment on the lack of references or attribution to support the additions that were made. I made no comment on "your historical knowledge".
"you chose to personally delete the historical information that I personally entered". I don't understand your use of the term "personally" here. But, yes, I removed the uncited text and unattributed opinions that had been added. As above. Notwithstanding the fact that, as discussed at Talk:Frank Aiken and per WP:BURDEN, anyone (including myself) could have removed that unsupported text at any time (including immediately), given your indication that you were "going to add further sources in later on", I deferred doing so. To give the time seemingly needed. It's (now) been nearly 2 weeks since that content was added. So, hopefully, there's been time to collate sources. If you need any help adding them, please just "shout". Perhaps at Talk:Frank Aiken.

(In the meantime if you could avoid (mis)characterising my good-faith edits (as "vandally delet[ions]") and my edit summary comments (as "comment[s] regarding [an editor's] historical knowledge") that'd be great). Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifications

When you move an article to draftspace, please notify the creator and nominate the redirect for speedy deletion under {{db-r2}}. See WP:DRAFTIFY. Those steps can be automated with User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft. SilverLocust 💬 23:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will do. And appreciate the WP:MTD suggestion. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dundalk

Hi, you have worked in the Dundalk page before. There's a user insisting on adding an uncited paragraph about the coat of arms. Any way of dealing with it? I have tried reaching out to the user. Sexitoni (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As yours is a content/referencing concern (related to the article) rather than an etiquette concern (specific to the editor), I would recommend opening a thread on the article talk page. Rather than a specific user talk page. That way other editors will see the thread and can contribute (which isn't really possible "hidden away" on the user talk page. Opening an article talk page thread (to raise the concern and request the sources) is likely the first/best course of action. (Otherwise, as you note, sources and support is required for changes. "this is well known to many citizens of Dundalk" isn't really a reliable/verifiable source....) Guliolopez (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, will do. Hopefully someone can weigh in to clarify with a citation (I can't find a good one) rather than an over and back Sexitoni (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Clark Panel at Little Museum of Dublin

Not objecting to your tempering of the language in this edit, but, since you asked where it the source says it, the actual label (seen if you click the image at the linked source) refers to the panel as "The Window No-One Wanted." To justify referring to it as a "centerpiece", the article states "few [of the museum's objects] are more intriguing", but also (admittedly WP:OR) when touring the museum last March the window was singled out by the guide as a highlight. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. In terms of "window no-one wanted", I see now (with your direction and the benefit of zoom) that the museum label, under the exhibit, uses those words. If you wanted to restore, that would probably be OK with me. But I'm always wary of using the content of images to support text (For WP:RS, WP:VER and WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons). In terms of the word "centrepiece", I don't personally think the text is improved/advantaged by its inclusion (we've already "singled out" the window by mentioning it above the other 5,000 exhibits, so editorialsing somewhat [even if only very slightly and if partially supported] doesn't seem neccessary. IMO.

(Note that the article has, historically and somewhat repeatedly, been updated by apparent COI contributors to include [at best] quesi-promotional editorial. Hence, in honesty, I'm extra conscious of subjective/editorial flourishes in that title.)

Thanks again. Guliolopez (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I understand your position and am okay with the edit. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fuck off editing what I write

I’m writing about Columbkille. It’s where I fucking live and I add a fact and a well known joke around the Columbkille/ thomastown and you keep deleting it. 80.233.71.144 (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Em. I don't know who or where you think you are, but there are guidelines about when "jokes" are appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. And when they are not. The recent uncited and unexplained additions to Columbkille, County Kilkenny do not fall within those guidelines. You might also want to read the guidelines on editor engagement and when "do not edit" requests are/aren't OK. I also wonder if the guidance for younger editors page might be applicable to you. Guliolopez (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Betsy part was a joke and I get you removing it but the stocks in columbkille is known in the area. Go into o haras pub and ask “does columbkille have good stock?” And he will tell you 80.233.71.85 (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place I can write about columbkille stock and I won’t talk about Betsy because she’s a joke and I won’t be “the skunk of the garden party” as the guidelines for jokes says 80.233.71.85 (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In all honesty, I'm having a hard time following what you are asking me. However, if there are specific changes you wish to make to the Columbkille, County Kilkenny article, then you can raise them at Talk:Columbkille, County Kilkenny. And provide the references that you are using to justify/support those changes. And other editors (including myself) will see how we can help. (FYI - Given that you seem to be accessing Wikipedia from different IPs, and may not easily notice or be alerted of responses from others, you may want to consider creating an account.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kilcoe Castle draft

Hi @Guliolopez, there's a draft I created which you may be interested in helping edit even while still in draft space, as it is probably within the domain of your interest. I spent some time working on the draft, and thought you might be interested in providing input on the structure, narration flow, etc. even while it is still awaiting approval. With many thanks, podstawko ●talk 15:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kilcoe Castle podstawko ●talk 15:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look when I get a chance and see if I can add/help with anything. Guliolopez (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! podstawko ●talk 10:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Killeigh parish

This very strange...

I have seen more extremely poor articles from his hand. The Banner talk 23:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see it moved back to the main article namespace as well to be honest. Not least as the issues raised were not addressed. I frankly do not understand why anyone would create such an article. It is based almost entirely on primary sources (and reads as WP:NOTMIRROR/WP:NOTDIRECTORY replication of those sources). If we need to cover the geographic topic (or stuff about the geography of the area) then that would typically be covered in the (actual) geographic articles. Including Killeigh, Geashill, etc. If we need to cover the churches (location, history, etc) then that would also typically be covered in the geographic articles. Or, if the churches are independently notable, a specific architectural article. If need to cover the sporting stuff, then that would also normally be covered in existing (village or club) articles. I'm having a very hard time understanding what this new article is "for". It just seems to act as a WP:CFORK of content that is already covered (or can/should be covered) in existing articles. If the creating/promoting editors aren't able to address the issues I'll open a merge/redirect discussion. Guliolopez (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt the author is a local and deeply involved in the GAA. But his writing and sourcing skill are at least lacking. And he removes all criticism from his talk page. COI or just overly enthusiastic? The Banner talk 01:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely just enthusiasm I'm sure. Coupled with a misconception (unfortunately not uncommon) that everything needs its own standalone title/article. When many topics can and should simply be covered WP:WITHIN existing articles. (Where more context can be applied, duplication can be reduced and replication [of content from other articles or other websites] isn't needed to "bulk up" what would otherwise be a mostly empty DICDEF stub).... Guliolopez (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Your Gardiner Street Gospel Choir edit

Ah my bad, I had mixed up another source I came across but didn't use. - Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]