DYK for Britain QuayEdit

 On 5 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Britain Quay, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a protected structure on Britain Quay, once adorned with a time ball, was demolished to make way for the construction of Ireland's tallest building? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Britain Quay. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Britain Quay), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

RathfarnhamEdit

Along with downgrading the quality class it might be helpful if you asked for the references you think are missing. A good editor rated this "B" - some guidance would be appropriate. I see lots of references and little problem with the "tone". Perhaps you'd be more helpful.... in detailing the inadequacies of the article? Sarah777 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hiya.
RE: "A good editor rated this B". The editor rated this as B-class in 2007. Based on the criteria as they were then. 13 years ago. The criteria (and the article) have changed since then. The current article does not meet the current criteria.
RE: "Lots of references". There are not lots of references. By any measure. In terms of quantity, the Rathfarnham article (almost 7,000 words in length) is supported by just 15 in-line references. By comparison, the Dublin article (a B-class article approximately 8,000 words in length) is supported by 176 in-line references. In terms of quality, many of the 15 refs supporting the Rathfarnham article are not especially reliable (including, as they do, a Lycos personal website, a YouTube video, and mainly primary sources). In terms of placement, there are more than 20 sections or sub-sections which are not supported by any inline or other references of any kind.
RE: "little problem with the tone". There are multiple examples of unattributed opinions/editorial ("unfortunately", "a very tasteful manner", "attractive ", "it is not surprising", "some say"), promotion ("very high academic profile", "excellent service", "focal point of the music scene", "meeting spot for young people"), unclear specifications of time ("recently", "twenty years ago", "over the last four years"), and other tonal and writing style issues. I have sought to address (where I could not address have tagged) a number of these examples over the last while. Those tags remain for other editors to review. Or address. If I don't or can't get to them myself.
RE: "Detailing the inadequacies of the article". While I have discretely tagged many of the above problems in recent weeks, personally I am not a fan of "defacing" an article by slapping "unreferenced section" labels throughout articles. Finding them disruptive, only useful in the short term, and best reserved for the most problematic of cases. If you want me to do so, then I am happy to pepper the article with tags. But there would be a lot of them. And, personally, I would see that as being more damaging than helpful. As the dearth of references is largely self-evident. And some indicative cases already highlighted.
RE: "Perhaps you'd be more helpful". Frankly I thought I was being helpful. By not riding rough-shod over an article which remains (perhaps) a C-class article. And by not tagging the bejesus out of it. But by trying to improve it. And by discretely tagging the few areas that I could not improve. (Note: I could not improve these areas EXPRESSLY because the lack of refs made it IMPOSSIBLE to determine what the author was relying upon when they wrote the text. As there are no references of any kind, I could not read the ref, and perhaps re-write the text to better reflect the refs. Or to attribute the opinion. Or to address the RELTIME issue. Or whatever. The lack of refs is a real problem here. Not just for the reader. But because it makes it almost impossible for any editor to "fix it".)
Do let me know where you think I can do more. I will keep plugging away. But do not see that the re-classification could be considered unwarranted or controversial.
Cheers and all the best. Guliolopez (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
That is 'much more helpful'...now I know what the issues are! Happy New Year Sarah777 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of Atlantic QuarterEdit

 

The article Atlantic Quarter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This development will never be built. The developer has gone into administration, the land has been sold off, and planning permission for the proposals expired in 2019.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cardiffbear88. Thanks for the notice. I have/had no interest in "prevent[ing] the proposed deletion". In fact, per the tags I added to that article over the years, I've long had issues with the subject, content, and impetus behind its creation. And would be more than happy to see it removed. Its original/earlier revision(s( being a clear example of why we have WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON guidelines. Almost all the content in that article is based on very early proposals and press-releases. The limited coverage that the subject has received in the meantime is of the "this never happened, and the companies involved no longer exist" variety. Given that the PROD tag has been removed, I'd be happy to see it progressed to AfD. And might do so myself, in all honesty, in time. Guliolopez (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Guliolopez - I’m working through CAT:UP at the moment and it’s so frustrating to see how many defunct projects are still on WP. If there’s anything you can help me locate in the guidelines that might help, I’d be really grateful! I will set up an AfD later on and notify you. Thanks for your help. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


Crime in IrelandEdit

We need an article on crime in Ireland. There was discussion (in some Irish paper) of twenty-five gangs in Dublin. It seems we have nothing on this. Perhaps if you have time you might look into starting a page. I lack the expertise. I shall monitor this page for a reply. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

KerlinEdit

I appreciate your rewording of my entries. But 2 things... I think it is an error to remove: "Kerlin is dedicated to supporting Irish and UK artists, but also seeks artists from further afield, and continues to pursue international audiences, exposure, and collectors through a strong presence in art fairs." It describes their approach which is highly relevant to an encyclopedic entry. Please help me reword it if there's a better way to make it clear it is from the gallery. Second, your edit comments read to me that you are suspicious of something – a backslide – a COI – but please be aware that is not the case, I improved the article with a solid source about the gallery I researched when it came up for deletion. You saw the discussion, so I carefully weaved the most relevant IMO information back into the article. I don't think a stripped back article with lists of artists is particularly enlightening. I'm here trying to improve the article that's it. Thanks. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note.
RE: "COI". My comment was that COI was a problem. In the past. And that, while I do not believe your edits to be based on a conflict of interest, repeating statements made by the subject (without attributing them to a representative of the subject) makes it look like Wikipedia is "speaking" for or on-behalf of the subject. Which has NPOV/COI overtones. Which are best avoided.
RE: "it is an error to remove [this]". I don't agree. That statement is tonally problematic, overtly promotional in its phrasing, not directly supported by the reference, and (effectively) an unattributed opinion of someone who is directly associated with the subject. Like a reprint of an advert.
RE: "Please help me reword it". In all honesty, any rewording of it would still amount to a promotional statement. Given that the source (the quote from the company representative) is itself a primary/promotional source. To solve the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV problem, you might end up with something like "Though the gallery is based in Ireland, in 2019 a representative stated that the gallery had 'always been very clear about expanding into the international market through art fairs'.[1]". While this solves the ATTRIBUTEPOV problem, and VER/SYNTH problem, it does not address the TONE/PROMO problem. If I could have reworded it (to address these problems), then I would have done so already. Instead of just removing it. Given that the underlying source/quote is a promotional/primary source, I think it is not really salvageable.
If you have a proposed compromise, then you could consider raising it on the article talk page. I'm not really in a position to suggest text based on that source/quote. As I don't think we should be basing anything on that source/quote.
All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you this is very helpful, and I appreciate that you would have tried to fix it before removing it... not all editors would. I understand more clearly the reasoning and am happy to leave it out. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

List of geographic portmanteausEdit

JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Is this intended to be, what, an explanation as to why you reverted a number of cited, explained and otherwise balanced edits? That this town appears on a "list of portmanteaus" is not justification for adding content to the lead which is imbalanced relative to the body. Or for reverting another editor's edits for (frankly) overtly selfish reasons (why, pray, is "your work" any more important than that of any other editor?). Or for removing cited material? Or for removing images from an infobox? Or any of the other reversions you made (entirely unrelated to "your work") that were otherwise unjustified and unjustifiable? Guliolopez (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

National flagEdit

How did you manage to get your consolidated links into the article faster than I could get my consolidated links??? Grizzle whinge moan. --Red King (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Aha! because you only half did it! <grin> Seriously though, could you review my changes to ensure I haven't missed anything? --Red King (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. I got through a few of them, and then I realised that there were loads more to do. And lazily gave up. I've come back now and done some more. In honesty though, there's still even more to do. As there's a whole bunch down the end that all effectively point at the same (older) version of that PDF doc. I'll have a look at that now too. Guliolopez (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...Edit

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
  • New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
  • If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

BaltinglassEdit

Funny seeing your edits, I was just considering creating a Battle of Baltinglass article and looking for suitable sources. There seem to be enough to make it notable enough especially considering it basically caused a government to fall and was apparently reported around the world. I have some material here but don't have the Lawrence Earl book. ww2censor (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Great minds and all that I guess :) In honesty, before creating a stand-alone article, I'd personally first expand the related content in the James Everett, Baltinglass and Government of the 13th Dáil. (On your point about the impact on the government, for example, I noted with some interest, when adding the few lines myself, that the latter article makes no mention of the events at all). I also don't have Earl's book. But, in his 30-page chapter on "The Inter-Party Government", Keogh (1994) allocates a page or so to the events. I took a snap from my copy and put it here. If it's of use. Keogh mainly focuses on the Irish News Agency's role in 'slanting' coverage. Which is interesting. Anyway, I didn't know a lot about it myself until looking into it as part of that recent cleanup. But, if you need anything, let me know. (I'm probably a poor replacement for the library. But I have at least a half-wall of books on the period :) ).... Guliolopez (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I've had an interest in the post offices of County Wicklow for many years, so I am acquainted with the story, I even have some mail for the time. I found some reference in the "New History of Ireland" and there is a reasonably priced copy of Earl's book for less than US$10 delivered or so it says. I took photos of some (book ?) cuttings, maybe from the Earl book, that are mainly photos plus some mail used during the event. I've put them in my dropbox but I don't see an email link for me to send you a link but I have email setup here, so drop me a line. I'm not sure either of James Everett or Government of the 13th Dáil deserve more than a sentence or two but obviously the town itself could do with at least a paragraph linking to a main article. This Irish Independent article certainly adds a scandalous postscript (excuse the pun) to the whole affair. ww2censor (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#rfc 34D7C42Edit

Hi... Could you please so kind to participate in request for comment on RfC: Aircraft inventory table on air force pages. Thanks.Ckfasdf (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for CarrauntoohilEdit

 On 18 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carrauntoohil, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the most straightforward way to ascend Carrauntoohil (pictured), Ireland's highest mountain, is via the Devil's Ladder? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carrauntoohil. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Carrauntoohil), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Arklow RNLIEdit

Thank you for cleaning up my edits yesterday. I will have access to a book about the RNLI station and crews in a while. I have seen other articles of lifeboat stations with tables of coxswains and names of boats. Would this add anything to the article in your opinion? TIA Arnkellow (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. I am no expert myself, but (personally) I would avoid a "list of otherwise non-notable names". Which could be interpreted as a concern relative to notability, vanity or WP:NOTWEBHOST guidelines. If individual boats are notable, and "encyclopedic", then perhaps (if well-referenced) that might be appropriate. Guliolopez (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. There are members who have been awarded/decorated for services, that would probably be worthy of inclusion, and I can get references for them. Thanks for your help. I also have noticed you have edited a few articles related to Arklow, are you from here? Or a regular visitor? (Ignore if I am over stepping the mark). Arnkellow (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Arnkellow: If you don't have access to the harbour to get a good photo of the lifeboat, there are several images on Flickr though none are freely licensed. You can always ask the photographer's if they will release one under a free license but don't hold your breath as I have waited more than a year for a favourable reply. I'm not even in Ireland now, much less County Wicklow, so cannot help you myself. ww2censor (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I am from Arklow, the user name might have given that away, but I'm only leaving the house if necessary. I have one on my Insta but its daybreak and not very defined. I will get one or two. I know a man who has old pics, including one of my grandfather and great-grandfather working on one of the old lifeboats, 20s/30s I'd say. Will check my facebook as well. Thanks Arnkellow (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hiya. RE "native or frequent visitor to Arklow". Neither really. I'm from Cork. And I couldn't say when I was last in Arklow. Certainly not this decade. Perhaps not even this century :) I've got well over 2000 (mainly Ireland-related) articles on my watchlist. Many for a decade or more. I think the Arklow-related articles are a relatively recent addition. Prompted by a review that I did, of all the articles about towns/villages in Wicklow, back in March. The Arklow article seemed to need a chunk of work (to remove outdated or seemingly inaccurate stuff). And so I kept it on my watchlist. If you need help with anything let me know.... Guliolopez (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Arnkellow: Don't forget that any photos you acquire must be freely licensed by the copyright holder and not by the subjects. If you need advise on copyright just ask. I suspected your Arklow connection from the username but I too have not been to the town for many years even though I did live on in West Wicklow back in the 1980s and travelled around the county a lot but now I might visit Ireland once a year at most. I'm out of the picture, so to speak, as you might tell from some of my photos. When the lockdown allows for greater travel perhaps Sarah777 can go there though I don't know her transportation situation but she was very prolific with Irish images but edits infrequently now. ww2censor (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm very restricted at the moment! But I have a car ready to go when the lock-down is lifted...a wee bit of cabin fever is setting in - I've taken a humongous number of pictures of the dogs, kids and the back garden (yard in American)... Arklow is tantalizingly close! Sarah777 (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
It's a back yard in Arklow too Sarah777, if I get down first I will let you know, thanks for your help.Arnkellow (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help guys, I have managed to upload and add an image. Hopefully it's good. Arnkellow (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

RequestEdit

Hi, would appreciate if you could have a look over Five Go Down To The Sea?, for tone etc. Obv I'm a fan, so its hard to be impartial. The intention is to take to FAC at some point. Ceoil (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure. No prob. Will do so shortly. Guliolopez (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hiya @Ceoil:. I've done about as much as I think is necessary with that. Mainly, per your request, to consider any potential NPOV and ATTRIBUTEPOV issues. But also to link the refs in a few places. To aid with my own VER efforts. And those, potentially, of others. Otherwise looks grand. Good luck with the DYK and FAC stuff. Shout if any of my edits or edit summs were unclear. Guliolopez (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciated. To me the band are up there with Joy Division, so am aware I'm skirting NPOV, I kind of need you to keep me in check, ha ha. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Have mentioned you here; as an incumbent, given you have command of the hist sources. Ceoil (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, re the FGDTTS FAC, "You are mixing c1 and c2 templates in the Sources" - geniounly don't know what this means. Make any sense to you? Also, edits much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure either TBH.
Perhaps it's the mixed use of manually formatted refs (<ref>Smith, John. ''Important Book''. Harvard Press, 1990, p. 18.</ref>) and automatically formatted refs (<ref>{{cite book | last=Smith | first=John | title=Important Book | publisher=Harvard Press | year=1990 | page=18 }}</ref>).
Or perhaps it's the mixed use of shortened footnote templates ({{sfn|Smith|1990}}) and longer named-ref templates (<ref name= "smith1990"/>).
If it's the former, that's easily fixed. I'll take a look and standardise those.
If it's the latter, that's perhaps less easily fixed. While I can perhaps standardise a few, I'm not sure it's actually appropriate for "{{cite web...}}" references for example to use the shortened (sfn/harv) footnote template format.
While ref format consistency is great, it seems an impossible standard for FAs that are open to editing by anyone/everyone. As should be the case....
Anyway. I'll take a look. And see if there are a few examples that we can standardise. And we can see from there....
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Sound as always. I'm clueless with this stuff :( Sorry to impose. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
No worries. I've made quite a few changes since. And, largely, the only refs not now following the "{{sfn|Smith|1990}}" format are those few that (in my view) probably shouldn't. I'll leave it for now. And if the "FAC gods" suggest that more is needed (and can be clearly specifically on what is needed), then I'll take another pass.... Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
It passed FAC today; many thanks again for the edits and help. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Happy to be able to help. Guliolopez (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

SubediEdit

Hi Guliolopez, Thanks for all your work on reviewing and revising this article. This is my first time working on a wiki biography, so many apologies for the headaches. The information has largely been sourced from articles on Professor Subedi's awards (i.e. why he received the awards), which may explain the puffery. It's been very helpful to read your comments. I added the missing citations and wonder if you could advise how best to proceed to remove the neutrality message at the top. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy810920 (talkcontribs)

Hello @Jimmy810920:. Thanks for your note. And welcome to Wikipedia. A couple of quick points:
  • TONE. Thanks for your explanation on why the tone was so flowery. However, I would note that, while it is OK to use "awards press releases" as sources (and they may be, necessarily, somewhat non-neutral in tone), it is our role (as editors on this project) to ensure that the text here reflects a neutral tone. And, if we are representing the subjective/flowery/non-neutral opinions of others, that it is clear whose opinion is being expressed or whose position is being described.
> Duly Noted. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy810920 (talkcontribs)
  • REFS. Thanks for your attempt to address some of the {{citation needed}} tags in the article. However, I would note that, in this edit you removed a tag (attached to text covering imprisonment while attending Tribhuvan University in Nepal) and replaced it with a link to this webpage. The implication being that this webpage supports that text. It doesn't. That webpage does, perhaps, support the text about the subject's attendance of Tribhuvan University. But it makes NO MENTION of the subject's studies being interrupted by imprisonment. Please do not do that. Please do not remove {{citation needed}} tags if the text is not supported by the reference offered. If there is no available reference to support the text, then the unsupported text should simply be removed. Anything else, deliberately or otherwise, is a misrepresentation of the sources.
> Sorry for that. I meant to insert another citation: the preface of this book https://www.routledge.com/The-Effectiveness-of-the-UN-Human-Rights-System-Reform-and-the-Judicialisation/Subedi-OBE-QC-Hon/p/book/9780367224240, which can be seen without purchase in the "preview". Grateful if you could confirm if this citation is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy810920 (talkcontribs)
Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


Hi again @Jimmy810920:. RE:
  • Responses. Please sign talkpage comments. This is required talkpage practice and etiquette, and is how we identify the author of a particular comment. Just add four tildes (~~~~) or mash the button down the end.
  • References. In honesty, while that reference isn't the worst, ideally we would not rely on primary sources. Like an autobiography. As it may represent only one perspective. Otherwise, one man's political prisoner is another man's agent provocateur. If considering using that source, please put some thought into how to represent it. ("According to Subedi, he was [blah blah]". Or "in his autobiography, Subedi states [blah blah]". Or whatever.) Otherwise, ideally, there would be a reliable secondary source supporting the text.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for both! Jimmy810920 (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Other articlesEdit

Whilst most of the medieval/early modern articles were moved to their original namespace after being moved in the first place by certain editors, I do admit I moved several minor de Burgh/Burke articles of very little substance (one sentence at most for most) that were never at their current namespace but they were based on mentions of their names in the few sources I could find them, which provided their English name, for example Richard "the Devils Hook" Bourke and William "the Blind Abbot" Bourke. Tibbot MacWalter Kittagh Bourke on the other hand was created by one of those certain editors who would never have used the English name for it, but sources frequently refer to him in the English form. Mabuska (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually I think most if not all those Bourke articles I moved were created by the same editor who as already stated would never have used the English name in the creation of those articles and would have moved them to Irish if they had of been. Mabuska (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Inis OírrEdit

Gulio. You are incorrect. The common and official name of the island in both the English and Irish languages is "Inis Oírr". Source: Ordnance Survey of Ireland (Official Mapping Agency).

I am Irish, live in Ireland and speak both Irish and English languages. I know what is correct and what is not correct.

The amendments that I am making from the unofficial anglicised version of "Inisheer" to the official name of "Inis Oírr" are correct.

Thank you.

Aidan AidanCampion (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidanCampion (talkcontribs)

Hi AidanCampion. And thanks for your note.
RE: "I am Irish, live in Ireland and speak both Irish and English languages". So am I. So do I. So can I. Perhaps unlike yourself however, in addition to being an editor/contributor on this English language Wikipedia, I am also an administrator on the Irish language Wikipedia. That both of us are Irish (and can speak Irish) is, however, irrelevant to the question at hand. Claiming (or implying) that your edits are more valid than another's edits, on the basis that you are somehow more knowledgeable than another editor is not in keeping with the applicable guidelines. Including WP:10SR.
RE: "The common and official name of the island in the Irish language is Inis Oírr". So it is. That is, however, also irrelevant to the argument. This is the English language Wikipedia. Not the Irish language Wikipedia (which I look forward to seeing you contribute to, by the way, given your language expertise and interest). The common or official name in another language is not relevant here. Per the applicable guidelines. Including WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME, and WP:IMOS
RE: "The common name of the island in the English language is Inis Oírr". It is not. There are multiple reliable sources (like the Irish Times, Irish Examiner, Books, and poems like those by Seamus Heaney which come to mind) which use Inisheer as the commonname in English. If you feel otherwise, then please provide sufficient evidence of that. Per the applicable guidelines. Including WP:COMMONNAME, WP:IMOS and WP:PROVEIT.
Thanks agus GRMA. Guliolopez (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gulio. You are still missing the point.

It is not a question of whether my opinion or yours is more important.

The question is which is correct. Wikipedia is about accurate factual information, not hearsay or what people happen to think or say.

According to the Ordnance Survey of Ireland, the Official Languages Act and the Official Placenames Order, the official version in both the English and Irish languages is Inis Oírr.

If somebody was writing an article about the island in French, German, Spanish or another language, the correct term to be used would still be Inis Oírr also.

"Inisheer" has no meaning in any language. What does it mean in English? It doesn't mean anything.

Seamus Heaney wrote his poem in a time when "Inisheer" had an official status along with Inis Oírr. However, it now has no official status. In any case, neither Mr. Heaney nor the Irish Examiner can be considered to be official sources. The sources that I reference above (e.g. OSI) are official.

The amendments that I am proposing should therefore be permitted.

Regards,

Aidan AidanCampion (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


Hi AidanCampion. It seems that you still haven't read the relevant policies. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:IMOS#Common names are the ones that apply. As per my prior note (and edit summary), and as per the relevant policies, that "Inis Oírr" is the official name is not relevant to how we title the article. Or refer to the subject. On this project. The official name doesn't supersede the common name.
The argument, that the equivalent German language article uses "Inis Oírr" is irrelevant to the title of the article on the English language Wikipedia. There isn't a common German name for the island. And so the official name is used. There is, however, a common English name for the island. And so that's the one we use. (Arguing otherwise is like arguing that the English language article for "Germany" should be titled "Deutschland").
Anyway, I'm done trying to explain this to you now.
If you have read the relevant policies, and don't understand them, then raise a question on the relevant project talk page.
If you have read the relevant policies, and don't agree with them, then raise a proposal on the relevant project talk page.
If you have read the relevant policies, and still feel that Inisheer (or Spiddal or Moycullen or whatever other articles you have decided to crusade upon) represents the common English name for that/those places, then raise it on the relevant article talkpages. But be prepared to prove your position. With references.
Otherwise, consider turning your energies to stuff that improves the project. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Gulio. You really are a miserable individual.

Have you absolutely nothing better to do with your time than wrongly amend information that is factually correct? It appears not.

You obviously have a very sad life. I feel sorry for you.

Aidan 51.171.33.130 (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi 51.171.33.130/AidanCampion. If you have any interest in constructively contributing this project then:
  • WP:NPA - don't play the man, play the ball
  • WP:LOUT - don't forget to log in
  • WP:IMOS - don't imagine the guidelines aren't applicable to your crusade
Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ardee editsEdit

I just wanted to thank you for your edits on this page, I'm not confident in deleting uncited content because I don't use wikipedia very often but I wanted to do what you did. Also, I want to apologise for writing "association soccer", it's really silly so i must have been tired when looking at my edits. Thank you, ProfPixels (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Cavan hurling championship 2016Edit

Mr Lopez. Thanks for getting in touch. Ive scaled back my involvement on here but i do remember the edits in question. There was a time when i had access to the highbeam site and iirc there was an anglo-celt article on the fact of the ineligible player. That's the best i can do. Im sorry now that i didnt link it. I can't think why i wouldnt. Eleutherius (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I note that the Independent says 2017 was Mullahoran's first title in 4 years which would make sense only if it was true they hadnt wont the 2016 https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/hurling/cavan-shc-final-carr-drives-mullahoran-to-title-36164403.html

Thanks Eleutherius. Totally understood. If someone asked me about edits I'd made 3 or 4 years ago, I'd probably struggle too. I agree that other evidence suggests that Mullahoran's "win" didn't stand. (Including the 2017 article that you highlight. And another from 2017 which I found that described Cootehill as the "holders".) However, I'm struggling to find a definitive reference which supports the specifics of when/why/how the result was queried. And overturned. Not least as I/we can't really rely on SYNTH of sources to make the claim that the result was overturned.
I also note with some interest that the Cavan Senior Hurling Championship and Mullahoran GAA articles ascribe the 2016 title to Mullahoran (rather than Cootehill). While the Cootehill Celtic GAA article claims it for Cootehill (rather than Mullahoran). Given this discrepancy (in multiple different articles), I was hoping to find some kind of reference that would clear it all up. One way or the other.
In honesty though, if we can't find a definitive reference one way or the other, I'm not sure what to suggest. As, if the winner of a competition hasn't been important enough to be recorded (by those who run it and participate in it), then one has to wonder whether that competition is important enough for us to have an article about it. Clearly hurling isn't particularly important in Cavan. Certainly the Cavan GAA don't even have a "roll of honour" page. Recording club hurling competition winners. In the way they do for their multiple football competitions. And they didn't even mention the competition in their Sep 2016 and Oct 2016 news feeds. Not to mention who won it.
Anyway, I'll keep looking. But might just abandon my goal of clearing this up. As, frankly, it seems like even the people/clubs/county board involved don't care. So I'm beginning to wonder why I'm bothering.... Guliolopez (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Party for Animal WelfareEdit

You have left a notice on the wikipedia page that will delete it in a few days. To keep it up I have added more refrences, and have shown that they in fact did contest an election (GE 2020) but before the party had registered (Similar to Hermann Kelly and the IFP, who were in the same position as PAW, but their article was allowed) . The party will also be running many candidates in the next local election, and have recoginition from the european animal party coalition. Thanks
Wolfe Tone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfetone98 (talkcontribs) 22:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for your note. RE:
  • "left a notice that will delete it in a few days". If you disagree with the proposed deletion, then you can just remove that tag. Per the message I left on your talkpage, and the instructions on the tag itself. If there are still concerns, then a broader AfD discussion is always an option.
  • "I have added more refrences". Thanks. It is improved. However, while the references added support at least some of the text, they are less useful in establishing notability. As few of them are either independent of the subject or otherwise represent the significant coverage expected by the related notability guidelines. (In fact, there would appear to be only two news sources which deal with the subject as a primary topic).
  • "in fact did contest an election (GE 2020) but before the party had registered". They didn't though. That Cronin ran without a banner is, defacto, what "independent" means.
  • "Similar to Hermann Kelly and the IFP, who were in the same position as PAW, but their article was allowed". I'm not sure I understand the point here. But Kelly and the IFP had notoriety and notability in advance of the party being registered. Even their cock up of the registration was reported upon. Coverage is what determines the notability or a group. Not registration. (Registration requires capturing 100 signatures, filling out a form, and ticking the right boxes. Not all registered parties have or need articles. Registration alone isn't enough to meet the project's inclusion criteria. Which is about notability. Or notoriety. Or whatever you want to call it. You might also want to have a quick look at WP:OSE.)
In any event, if you disagree with the PROD, just remove the tag. If you can add more references that actually establish WP:ORGDEPTH, then please do. And, if you can add references to support the actual text of the article, that would be ideal too. (As much of it is not supported).
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I'll remove the tag. Just to follow up on their native name, I have been in contact with the party themselves when making this to make sure my info is correct, and that is the official translation they have decided to use, I know you know more about these things than I, but the party themselves say that's the native name so I have to assume it's correct. Thanks again, Wolfe Tone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfetone98 (talkcontribs) 12:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hiya.
  • RE: Remove tag. That's fine. If sources are added/available to the extent that ORGDEPTH is met, then that should be the end of it. Otherwise, in all honesty. I may yet open a more formal AfD discussion. To establish whether things in the real world (or the community's consensus/interpretation of those events) has changed since the last discussion about it.
  • RE: Irish name. That's fine. However, a fundamental principle of the project is that the content of articles should be verifiable. If the reader or another editor has to "ring up" the subject of an article, to verify the content, then that does not meet the expectation. And, frankly, starts to beg questions about the notability of the subject. (As, if no other outlet, even the subject themselves, has NOT published this stuff, then why are we doing so. And how can we possibly claim that the subject is notable, if even the basis information [like the name of the subject] hasn't been published/recorded anywhere.) Anyway, text should be supported by published sources. Not private or secret or "call John" type primary sources. You might want to have a look at the "but it's true" and "verifiability, not truth" essays. Please don't add stuff that isn't published elsewhere or verifiable by the reader or other editors.
  • RE: Edit summaries. Please consider using edit summaries as well Wolfetone98. Similar to the policies about editors being able verify each other's changes, there is also an expectation that editors are able to understand each other's changes. And the rationale for them. This applies to edits to the Party for Animal Welfare article under discussion. And indeed any/all changes made to the project.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Dublin reversionEdit

Sorry about my removal of "currently". I failed to notice it was a quote! Thanks for your reversion. Best Wishes Arpingstone (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Baile Mhic EalagoidEdit

Hey, I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but the correct spelling of Ballymacelligott in Irish is 'Baile Mhic Ealagoid'. The reference you use is incorrect. You can check the local GAA team for the correct spelling. http://www.ballymacgaa.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoghaniam (talkcontribs) 08:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Eoghaniam:. Thank you very much for your note and contributions. While I fully appreciate that spellings vary, where that it is the case, the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Ireland related articles ("IMOS") expects that we use the (official) Irish Placenames Commission database/record as the source. Which, in this case, reflects the same spelling used in the associated 1975 Act. Respectfully, the 1975 Act is significantly more authoritative a source than the GAA or the local club. Where, I would note, the GAA itself uses inconsistent spelling. And, in this case for example favours the same spelling as the Act/Logainm. In any event, the IMOS applies. And it is the "official" version which we use. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Arklow/Aaron BarryEdit

Ref added; "The Arklow native spent last season on loan with Bohemians, making 19 league appearances as the Gypsies secured Europa League qualification by finishing third". He was born in Dublin, lived in Bray in his early childhood, then move to Arklow while still a young child. His brother is the lead instructor in the local Brizalian Ju Jitsu club. Let me know if the ref is good enough. TIA Arnkellow (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks good Arnkellow. That ref is absolutely solid enough. Is it possible to do the same for the other entries you'd added also? And perhaps even some that were there before? (A similar concern was raised recently, about lack of refs in Mallow's "people" section. Only took 20 mins or so to address. Hopefully similar here. I've just added one or two refs myself....) Guliolopez (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah I say I can do. Would copying the references from the articles themselves be ok? Or shall I try to get fresh ones? Arnkellow (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. If there are refs in the linked articles which confirm the association (and are verified) it is absolutely OK to "reuse" them. In honesty, however, I'm not sure all the linked articles have readily identifiable or verifiable refs. So Google maybe the quickest. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I see you have been busy, thank you. I will try to find refs for the ones left, Erik Eir might be his own website; would that be reasonable? Arnkellow (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I have. There's only 2 or 3 "left". In all honesty I don't see the point in wasting time with the entry you mention. That article should be deleted. If the only available biographical source is the subject's own website, then it is an indicator that they do not meet the notability criteria. (IE: If there are no biographical sources, which confirm even the basic details of a subject's life, then WP:ANYBIO would suggest that they probably aren't notable.) In short, I wouldn't worry about that entry. Yet. If the community considers that the article should be retained, and sources are encountered as part of that process (AfD or otherwise), then we can address. Otherwise I wouldn't worry. Byrne, le Blond and Travers remain outstanding however.... Guliolopez (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I have this google book search for le Blond. But I can't turn that int a ref can I? Arnkellow (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
'Course we can... Guliolopez (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Guilolopez you are an absolute diamond. Thank you very much. Arnkellow (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Struggling on Garret/Garrett Byrne, turning up more results for his Grandfather, and mentions that the family settled in Arklow; but not one that could be used. Tried the Times archive, no luck there even though the Byrne article uses that as a reference. There are a couple of local history books that could help. A trip to that shop is required. Arnkellow (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Ya. I gave up. Added the {{cn}} tag and have moved on :) Guliolopez (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!Edit

  Thank you so much for your diligence in rescuing and hugely improving the article on Máire Rua O'Brien! You deserve a good tea break :) Smirkybec (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Smirkybec. In honesty, I found it an interesting exercise. To separate the history from the folklore. And, in doing so, to see where the former probably influenced the latter.
While it is entirely my opinion, and hence not something to reflect in the article itself, I found the exaggerations on the subject's life to be both understandable. And annoying. In the sense that the folklore seems to derive from the storyteller's moralistic (and perhaps misogynistic) perspective on how a woman/widow of the period should have behaved.
("She married too often for my liking"; 3 husbands = harlot. "She married too quickly for my liking"; days/months = heartless. "She married people I didn't like"; Parliamentarian/Protestant = traitor. Etc.)
Combined with the fact that she doesn't seem to always have had the best relationship with her Irish neighbours (trying to keep them off her lands - by closing gates and rights of way) or non-Irish neighbours (trying to unseat the "planted" families from their lands - by stealing sheep and stuff), I can understand how her perceived failings were exaggerated into cartoonish hyperbole and local myth. Probably by the same local neighbours. Or their descendants.
Anyway. While the folklore (the fiction) has a place in the article, it should be framed in a way to distinguish it from the history (the facts). Which I think it now is. Or at least better than it was.... Guliolopez (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
She's an interesting woman! I remember reading about her years ago in a book about haunted sites in Ireland, and was quite surprised to find her in the DIB and then not on Wikipedia already! You can feel like a little bit of a spoil sport taking a more sober look at her life, but she was formidable even without the embellishment. She is a very striking case of the vilification of women too, I'm surprised there were no allegations of witchcraft thrown in there for good measure. Thanks again for getting stuck in to the article, it was quite disheartening to see the quality decline, but speaks to her legacy! Smirkybec (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Two years!

I am still proud of the TFA 1 September ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

CooteEdit

Hi,

There is a Irish history journal about the cootes and gives there origins in Ireland and how they arrived during the plantations.

Coote Coote Coat of Arms and Family Crest Notebook Journal (6 x 9 ...

1.kapremont-upgrade.ru › ...

Could be good to add it Clonloumbog123 (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It's important show they are a different branch to the bad bloody brutal coote barons Clonloumbog123 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Clonloumbog123. What book/journal, exactly, are you proposing to use as a source?
In the above, you seem to mention something titled "Coote Coat of Arms and Family Crest Notebook Journal". According to Amazon, this is a blank notebook. With 100 empty lined pages. If you are proposing to use a book which contains only 100 blank pages (and a coat of arms), then I am not sure whether you intend that as a joke, or some form of trolling. Either way I'm not especially interested in engaging with it.
If, on the other hand, you have copy/pasted the wrong title, and are aware of a reliable (non-blank) work, then please advise (specifically) what ISBN it has, who authored it, who published it, etc. And I can take a look. And see if it forms a reliable and verifiable source.
Otherwise, I have no idea what to do with your comments above. Guliolopez (talk)
sorry... I pasted wrong title Clonloumbog123 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. What is the correct title then please Clonloumbog123? Or is it a secret? Guliolopez (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
It won't work for me , I'll try get it working Clonloumbog123 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Clearly your keyboard is working. Am I to understand that you know the words, but they can't be typed? Other words can? Just not those ones? Even the most naive sub in the world wouldn't sustain this level of ball-hopping. Not interested. G'bye and g'luck. Guliolopez (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Dundalk article - thank youEdit

Really appreciate the review and edits you're doing. I'm trying to clean it up, but I'm probably jumping the gun. One quick question - I had tried to judge what could be reasonably included as 'Dundalk'. I was thinking the Dundalk Municipal District specifically, which includes Cooley / Carlingford / Greenore. What do you think? The 15km thing is nonsense alright, will remove it. The town itself doesn't have legal boundaries anymore as such - so the municipal district seems correct? sexitoni 16:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Our talk page notes seem to have crossed. I've dropped a note into Talk:Dundalk#Full_rewrite_and_Good_Article_nomination. As it's a content discussion, might be best to cover things there. (Personally I'm not sure what the criteria should be. But, as you note, "15km" is far too broad. Especially when it starts to "claim" buildings and sites that are in another town/place entirely.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Irish Defence ForcesEdit

Could you move Defence Forces (Ireland) to Irish Defence Forces? That is what we call ourselves officially. 2001:BB6:522C:F900:DD9:3272:DA33:64AC (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shannon Free ZoneEdit

I noticed a comment on Shannon Free Zone that this article needed more work. Can you be a bit more specific about what areas need work so I know where to start looking for. The Banner talk 20:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. The Shannon Free Zone article had a "needs immediate attention" flag (project tag) since Feb 2008, and a "needs more refs" flag (cleanup tag) since Sep 2014. The latter being revised from a "no refs at all" tag which had been there from 2008. In my view, the "refimprove" tag is still somewhat applicable. And hence I didn't remove it. The main refimprove issues, from my perspective, are those claims in the lead which are not supported by the refs or the body. For example, the "600 acres", "first free trade zone", and "incentives end 2003" statements are all unsupported. Until they are, I'm not sure the "refimprove" tag can be removed. Guliolopez (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Related pages about Shannon are just as badly sourced. This will take a while. The Banner talk 22:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Notable People (redirected from Haz-Zebbug page)Edit

Hello Sir,

With reference to my recent change in the 'Haz-Zebbug' page, in the section for 'Notable people'.

The reason I didn't include a citation/resource is because I am a resident in Haz-Zebbug (it is my hometown too) and I am very aware of the village's history and of its fellow villagers that made history. Believe me, the information that I submitted is correct and true.

If you want to enchance this page, send me your email so I can send you more information. I have magazines, articles published by the village local council, and local band clubs.

Many thanks and regards, Jonathan Jonathan.Magri (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Jonathan.Magri:. Thanks for your note. And contributions to Wikipedia. If you wish to improve the relevant article (or any article on Wikipedia), please do take a look at the guidelines on notability and verifiability. In short:
  • "I am from there, it is true" is not, unfortunately, sufficient reason for adding or retaining content. The WP:IKNOWITSTRUE essay summarises the project's approach here.
  • "I will individually email any/all editors with articles published by local clubs" is also not, unfortunately, sufficient to allow for other editors to verify the accuracy of content. The WP:RELIABLESOURCES guideline describes the project's approach here.
If adding or re-adding content to the relevant article, please ensure to refer to published and reliable sources that other editors can identify and verify.
If adding or re-adding entries to the "notable people" section of the article, please ensure to refer to the guidelines on notable people. In general. And for lists of "notable people" in articles on populated places specifically.
If you need help with either of these things, please consider contacting the Teahouse. Which is a friendly place for new editors to ask questions and seek help.
(Please also consider reviewing the editing/etiquette guidelines. In particular those which deal with not "reverting" the good faith edits of another editor without explanation. WP:REVEXP.)
Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

DurrusEdit

I dont think the original author of the Modern history of Durrus is with us any longer, but that doesnt mean the the sources used invalid, just rather tenuous at times, overly reliant on government stats and tables, and not verifiable via line citations. Suggest a redirect to the town article in this instance, alas. I have tried with other of his articles to being to verifable standard, but this one is beyond my access to sources. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

ps...had spent roughly an hour searching the dreaded MOS for the inflation template...thanks for that but noting its out c. 0.85M; that's accountants for you. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry. I had my head in something else when I saw your note the other night. And then I forgot to come back to you. RE:
  • Durrus. I might try a merge and redirect the series of three (overly detailed, indiscriminate and "mirror"y) component articles (early/mid/modern history) into the Durrus and District history title. And then link that. But, yes, otherwise we seem to be prioritising excessive and indigestible detail (dotted all about the place) to something that a reader could actually digest (in the main place the reader might actually expect to see it). At Durrus#History. I've got other things on right now. But will hopefully remember to come back to it.
  • Inflation. Indeed. Even after I found the thing, it probably had 20 "trial and error" attempts. Mashing the preview button each time. Before I could get the thing to return something usable. In honesty I wonder if that template is overly complex for most use cases. I won't be rushing back to it again myself any time soon.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I have a few books of the Sheep's head that mention a number of standing stones in and around the Durrus area, and will add shortly. Re Inflation, it seems you have saved me from quite a bit of frustration and angst. Some of these templates are very good, quite a few other seem to be very badly designed and containing very poorly written or needlessly complex code, syntax, or whatever. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Great. I probably have similar books somewhere. Mainly walking books of the Beara Way and Sheeps Head. But they do cover the main "brown signpost" sites. Goodness knows where they are though. In the meantime I will likely keep tweaking the History of Durrus and District article. Piece by piece. It may end up being completely pared back. But I wanted to see if at least some of it could be rescued. At least, in the meantime, the "main" Durrus#History section covers the basics. At least to the level of other/similar articles. Guliolopez (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Notability & query?Edit

Brendon Fearon is a criminal and yet he is notable among the community as people here obviously don’t mind when the history of Travellers is highlighted in a bad light, I want to try change that and highlight the good ground work as I expressed on my page. In England last year where the crime took place over 83.24 thousand robberies happened, yet his notable for such.

Angela Collins is more notable than this Traveller man brendan and regardless of how many people entered the doors of a Irish institution, she has contributed to history, culture, the education of Ireland as is why it’s now being taught in Irish schools.

She is a known figure among Irish society as is why she was noted within the press on many occasions by reliable sources.

As I also expressed while removing the delete tag, there was over 6 million who died in the holocaust. Settela Steinbach the article since 2006 has been left with just a book reference and a deadlink, 500,000 of Europe’s Roma and Sinti died.

The Irish women within the institutions who was enslaved and also lost her life has more citations from reliable sources as a new article as it’s also notable individual in regards to a sensitive topic.

How would I start a group among here to build on Survivor history like the survivors of the holocaust have?

I saw a form of group for sex work however not all Magdalene women were involved in such. Many were girls who faced abuse or was sent for other reasons but I would like to try start a group to build on the history.

An also a group in which you said for yourself has not been developed as much as it could have, I would like to try build on all this notable history more among this community and for others to also see here it’s been recognised by main media outlets as it’s all notable aspects to Irish and Traveller history.

Your advise would be appreciated as to how to start a form of action group among the community users here. Thank you.

Kind regards WIKIBB2020 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think you have yet, so please take a look at WP:OSE. And the related WP:WHATABOUTX section of the "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" guidance page. That the project has another article on a different abuse survivor or victim (whether members of the Roma community or Traveller community or otherwise) isn't in itself an argument that we should also have other ones. Please focus on the application of the notability criteria to the subject directly. Guliolopez (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

What you said isn’t factEdit

I’ve been monitoring your activity as it seems highly biased against the Cork Collins family who are Travellers of irish Catholic run institutions.

You did a revision on St finbarrs cemetery and what you stated is not fact, what is fact by notable references is that it was only the Collins family who had held the services as they are the only family to have identified one women within that site of 72 women.

This is another clear example that you should really focus on elements you know about as you have state a untruth, while allowing new member to focus on their topics of interests.

Regards. WIKIBB2020 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi.
  • "You are biased against the Cork Collins family". Not true. If I have an issue it is with editors using Wikipedia as a soapbox. For specific causes with which they have an association. And creating or expanding multiple articles about themselves or their family members. In support of those specific interests. Without consideration to the interests of this project.
  • "Only the Collins family have identified their family member [or campaigned for investigation]". Not correct. The Justice for the Magdalene Research campaign, the Coppin's family and others have also called for the same site to be investigated.
  • "You should really focus on elements you know about". Not appropriate. Unilaterally declaring that I (or anyone else) doesn't know enough to contribute (with the implication that you know more and hence your inputs are somehow more valid) is not only incorrect, it is also contrary to the related guidelines.
If you're interested in improving the project (as you have stated before), then I'm happy to assist. If you continue to have difficulty separating your own interests from those of this project (and feel the need to diminish the contributions of anyone who priorities the interests of the project over your narrower interests), then I'm not happy to accept that. Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

None of those you state are actually relatives to those in that mass grave site though.

Justice for Magdalenes Research was those who through the Collins family and their research had declared the Collins family being the only one to have identified one women out of a site of seventy two women. So there is no other relatives.

Miss Coppin does not have any relatives in the mass grave site nor is it stated in any article so in your mind that would be COI concern. You should provide citations to your claims are its again not fact. She was a attendee of St Vincent’s laundry in cork and recently took her case to the UN. She has not called for St finbarrs mass grave to be investigated nor is she a relative. She has mentioned it within discussion like she mentioned another mass site in association with St Vincent’s, however that’s not calling for what the Collins family had and that certainly is not having a relative in the site. When the site is known to only have one women identified by one family by the people you tried to suggest as being those who have done such.

Regards.

You haven’t tried to help or contribute towards the facts. WIKIBB2020 (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. In all honesty, that you seem to be taking this all as some form of personal affront suggests you're still having difficulty separating your own goals from those of the project.
If I misread a source to the extent that its appropriate to change "The family members of some of those buried in this grave" to "The family members of some of one of those buried in this grave", then that type of edit is fine with me.
Otherwise I am less comfortable with edits which seek to mention only one victim (and the members of one victim's family) across any number of related articles. And with edits which seek to create articles on multiple members of that family. As if one victim (and that victim's family) somehow have more relevance, notability or importance over others.
If you have specific edits or content you want to discuss (or if want to discuss the best way of making those edits), then I'm happy to contribute. I'm not really otherwise happy to be attacked for some perceived "bias", to being advised against editing specific articles or topics, to being accused of untruth, or anything that comes from the presumption of bad-faith.
Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Cork City W.F.C.Edit

Hi Guliolopez - I think it should be pretty clear that WP:REDLINK (guideline) would take precedence here over WP:WTAF (essay). Specifically the "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic". A bit further down it explains the practical reasons for this, along with the emphasis "Do not remove these red links". The entire WP:WOMRED movement is predicated on this and obviously isn't going to be derailed by a rather silly and contrarian essay. In any case the articles in question are actively under construction at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Initiatives/Women's National League (Ireland), where you are more than welcome to get involved. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for your note.
Firstly, apologies, I hadn't actually spotted your revert of my earlier change in that series of edits. If I had, I likely wouldn't have removed the links again.
Secondly, in general terms, yes a guideline absolutely does have precedence over an essay. My concern has been that we don't go back to the situation we had recently where every single squad member was red-linked. Or where some are red-linked while others are not. And where it is not at all clear why that would be the case.
In honesty, perhaps it is my own acknowledged ignorance of the task force's goals, but (having overlooked your edit summary) all I could see on the face of it was 2x list members linked. Without any clear reason why those were "selected" over others. And where there were no backlinks (from any namespace) to one of them and where the other link/article had been deleted. Absent any other information, I didn't see how these looked to be links to articles that were likely to be created or retained.
Anyway, if you want to restore the links then that's fine with me. I don't have enough wherewithal to contribute to the taskforce directly or generally. But I look forward to helping with those 2x articles. When created. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverted changes to articlesEdit

Hi Guliolopez!

I hope this message finds you well.

I was just wondering if we could have a chat about my changes that you have reverted recently? I am relatively new to Wikipedia and eager to learn, which is why I would really appreciate your feedback as an expert on Wikipedia - more than 15 years is impressive, I must say.

So, although I have read your editing summary, it is still a bit unclear to me why my pictures where not considered meaningful/notable.

Guliolopez, could you please explain in more detail why you reverted most of my changes?

Thank you so much in advance! LitMusDub (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi LitMusDub. I reverted or amended your changes because they did not appear consistent with the image/content, WP:COI, WP:PROMO and WP:SPAM policies. In short, all of your edits involved adding the same or similar content across multiple articles. Where the intent was clearly to mention the organisation with which you appear to have an association (as indicated by your non-compliant username). And that this promotional intent (your goals) outweighed any value to the reader (this project's goals). For example, the Ulysses article already has an image of the front cover of that work. And so your addition (of effectively the same image) added nothing to the reader. And seemed only intended to mention the organisation with which you have an association. Similarly, the Book of Kells article already has 17 images of the actual historical manuscript. And so your addition (of an image of a facsimile copy) added nothing new to the reader. And, again, seemed intended to meet your own promotional goals over those of this project. Otherwise, this image of a rock (which could be anywhere or anything) provides zero additional information to the reader of the Nelson's Pillar article. If you cannot see how your (promotional) goals are the project's (informational) goals are not fully aligned, then I would suggest that you are too close to see it. And would recommend that you review the WP:COI policy. Guliolopez (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ChungjuEdit

I would like to ask you something. You put citation needed on some of the famous residents of Chungju. Why did you do that? In all the names that appear there, everyone was born in Chungju. EVERYONE THERE HAS ARTICLE SPEAKING THAT THEY WERE BORN IN CHUNGJU. Didn't you look at these people's articles?2804:14C:5B41:8586:3907:5269:38B7:A6A6 (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. If there you are aware of available and reliable sources then feel free to add them. Shouting at me about a lack of inline references (or anything else for that matter) doesn't address the problem. Guliolopez (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)