User talk:Guliolopez

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Active items

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Six years!

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

This very strange...

1. Killeigh parish (in main space)
2. moved to draft space
3. moved back to main space

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]

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]

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]

	The Original Barnstar
	Excellent expansion and clean up work at Belleek Castle! The article wasn't in great shape when I came across it in the new pages queue, so thanks for bringing it up to snuff. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulio,

I’ve been trying to update the Cork Admirals Wikipage the best I can. Thank you for the edits you’ve made to the start of the page. I’m new to editing Wiki pages and wondering if you can help me with this issue.

The History section that I added, about Alan’s 2016 season with the club and you deleted due to no source/reference. The information that I put in is true, however there’s only one online source I can find to back up scores, records and information for that season. It’s on the Cork Admirals website, in the news section. There are news and game result blogs written by their committee member. Unfortunately if you try to open them it says “webpage not found”. The titles and the brief descriptions are there to see, but once you click to view the full story it takes you to an error page.

Is there anyway that I can have that information up of that season, and the Honours section with those types of sources? I know they are not great sources but they are all I can find. Before 2020 American Football wasn’t really reported on.

Edit: I found this webpage with the results of the 2016 season. Would this be a sufficient source so I can add the 2016 section back in and update the scores that I didn’t have? I know it’s not an article and is directly from the Admirals own website, but would this be okay?

https://www.corkadmirals.ie/schedule-and-results

Thank you for your time and help. 51.199.228.6 (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. And thanks for your note. Before I come to your main question there, a couple of quick things you might want to consider:

1. WP:COI. If you're connected to the club, you should maybe propose changes on Talk:Cork Admirals. Rather than editing directly.
2. WP:BIT. You seem to get this already, but "the info I put is true" isn't "enough". Reliable/verifiable (and ideally independent) refs are needed.
3. WP:NCLUB. If its content can't be supported by reliable/verifiable/independent refs, then that raises a concern about whether the article subject is notable.

Anyway, to your specific question. While some content can be supported by primary references (like the club website), that is far from ideal. And should be the exception. The best sources are WP:INDEPENDENT. My personal recommendation is that you find reliable/verifiable/independent sources. And see what content they can support. Rather than writing the content first. And working "backwards" from there. (Especially, and in all honesty, if that content reads like a personal essay and/or limited-interest piece about "Alan". As if, frankly, an average reader who is not connected to the club should know or care. Even the most poorly-written GAA club articles, which can sometimes be a bit inappropriately "parochial", don't wax-lyrical about the tenure of individual managers...) Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported Budisgood at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Budisgood and competence. I have mentioned your name there too, in relation to Killeigh parish and the move to draft space. The Banner talk 14:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While I understand the frustration, and am probably the last editor who should be lecturing anyone on being "quick to anger" (as I have a hair-trigger at the best of times), but I wonder if you've tried to remember what it was like when we were starting out. We were all WP:NOOBs once. And made missteps. I'll probably stay out/neutral on that ANI thread for now. But will keep an eye. In case my input is useful (anyone or at all...) Guliolopez (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constant missteps? Getting hint, tips etc. presented on a silver platter and bluntly ignoring them? Copyvio? He had uploaded crest from several GAA-clubs as own work while clearly taken from Facebook. Reported and removed as copyvio. Promptly re-uploaded but with another licence, still copyvio. That is not noob-behaviour, that is being unwilling/incompetence. The Banner talk 20:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He should have shown some signs of improvement... The Banner talk 23:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is solved by Budisgood himself. The Banner talk 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Interesting self-implosion there. Ah well. Guliolopez (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies RE: the interlanguage link on this list. Was trying to improve another editor's edit, but didn't see this had already been reverted a number of times before. Totally hear you on WP:CSC and WP:NLIST. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And no problem. I will open a thread on the article Talk page shortly. As the note directly to the editor's User Talk page didn't seemingly "work". (FYI. The creator of the linked NL article was blocked for interwiki spam issues. Just FYI.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Jonathan Deamer. Just to "close the loop". While I did subsequently open a thread at Talk:List of Cork people, I note that the warring editor has been indef blocked for SOCKing. I also note that a "Mark O'Leary (musician)" title was previously deleted as unambiguous promotion. And there appear to be a number of socks associated with editing that title (and some associated titles). While, in all honesty, the warring on the list article is perhaps the least of the issues involved here, I'll move for page protection on that title (if issues continue). Guliolopez (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, and your work in addressing this! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Best to you
		Thanks for all the help and guidance over the years; your defiantly a person that makes being part of the project worthwhile. We might have a pint in the Hi-B or Crane Lane some day :) Ceoil (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Right-back-atcha. Currently planning to be out ("in town") on the 30th. Dunno where yet. Will keep an eye out :) All the best for the new year! Guliolopez (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez Hi Gulio!

I am from Albania and I have a request. I was looking from a person from Ireland which edits the Irish Wikipedia, mostly articles for sport. I found you one of them. I have seen that you have created an article for Cork City FC on Irish Wikipedia: w:ga:Cork City Football Club and created and also edited some other articles for some sports clubs on Irish Wiki. I want to ask you can you create 2 articles on Irish Wikipedia, for Albania national football team: Albania national football team and for KF Tirana: KF Tirana which is the most important and the most successful football club in Albania.

I would thank you so much if you will create these 2 articles on Irish Wiki with short content, infobox, references and external links. And then add them to their corresponding Wikidata pages.

Only these 2 articles which are the most important articles related to Albanian football

Thanks EndriNeha (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EndriNeha. With thanks for your note, I am not currently in a position to create those articles on the Irish Wikipedia project. All the best with your efforts. Guliolopez (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez Can you request the articles to be created, to another Irish Wikipedia user? I would really love to see them on Irish Wiki. Thanks EndriNeha (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In honesty, no, I wouldn't feel comfortable requesting that another user create articles on subjects with which I have no connection or investment. My role with the Irish language project is more focused on WP:ADMIN and WP:CRAT tasks. And I wouldn't really be happy (as a contributor with elevated rights/role) proposing "tasks" to other contributors. Even if I wasn't an admin/crat on the project, I probably wouldn't feel comfortable advocating for any topic/club/organisation at all really. I wish you well with your own efforts. Guliolopez (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guliolopez. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulio, I wanted to ask you something. If an article focusing on the 'Housing crisis in Ireland' were to be started, tentatively, by an editor, what title do you think would best suit something like that (in your opinion)? I see the page for the UK is named Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom, with a redirect from Housing crisis in the United Kingdom. Then there is New York City housing shortage from NYC. Just wondering what your thoughts on this would be. Happy 2025. Regards, Ridiculopathy (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Ridiculopathy. An interesting question. Personally I'd be guided first by WP:COMMONNAME. Where, to my mind, "Ireland's housing crisis" is the term most commonly seen in newspapers. And on Wikipedia for that matter. However, with an eye on WP:CONSISTENT, perhaps "Housing crisis in Ireland" is more consistent with existing titles. Like Housing crisis in Quebec or Housing crisis in Brazil or Housing crisis in the United Kingdom or Housing crisis in the United States or similar. Many of which, however, are redirects to other titles or sections. "Housing crisis in Ireland" would also be consistent with Squatting in Ireland and Homelessness in Ireland type titles. If "pushed", I'd probably suggest Housing crisis in Ireland. (Other than its title, the other things to consider are potential CFORK issues with other/overlapping articles. Including those listed). Hope that helps... Guliolopez (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes I see what you mean. Ridiculopathy (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulio,

I just wanted to reach out to you as you're clearly a very experienced Wikipedia user and have done some great work on the Rory Gallagher page. I am an academic who specialises in the life and work of Rory Gallagher. I recently co-wrote a book about him (Rory Gallagher: The Later Years) and run a popular Rory website (www.rewritingrory.co.uk). Over the next few months or so, I am planning to do a substantial update of the current Rory Wikipedia page to provide far more depth into his musical career. As a new Wikipedia user, I just wanted to check in with you to make sure that I avoid any typical pitfalls and to keep you in the loop about my plans. I just had my first attempt at adding one line in about Rory's place of baptism, which I hope I did correctly! Many thanks :) Punchestown82 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Punchestown82. Thanks for your note. I notice that you have already, per your own edit summaries, started to make "considerable updates" to the article. In terms of pitfalls to consider/avoid, I would highlight:

• WP:CITESPAM/WP:BOOKSPAM/WP:SOLICITING/etc. While, I have no doubt, your intentions are based on good faith goals to improve the article, as you have a connection with the sources, you should be aware of these guidelines. Which brings me to...
• WP:COI. Again, while no doubt acting in good faith, be careful of "accidentally" prioritising content or sources with which you have a connection.
• WP:NPOV/WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV/MOS:EDITORIAL/MOS:WEASEL. You really should read these guidelines. As you have already introduced editorial commentary that is less-than-ideal. I will be opening a related thread at Talk:Rory Gallagher. Because it's a material issue...

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! This is really helpful and I'll be sure to read through all the documents carefully. There are lots of things to take on board. Yes, I really want to help improve the Rory article and ensure that it provides a more comprehensive overview of his entire career, but I will be careful in terms of which sources I draw upon, particularly as I've published extensively on the topic. Punchestown82 (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I think I reverted one of your edits yesterday on the Dwyer article, instead of just inserting something into the infobox. My bad. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. OK. I'd wondered what happened there. Do I take it that the restoration of the "only earned 500 EUR from XYZ" to the lead was also in error? Personally, and while this should definitely be covered in the body, I wonder if it really needs to be so prominently placed in the lead. In the second sentence. ~20th word. Effectively the main thing we're saying about the subject. (Personally I wonder if this should be tempered slightly. As a reader might (not unreasonably) think "well this is just a pointed hatchet job - I'm gonna take the rest of this [otherwise entirely factual stuff]" with a pinch of salt. Anyway.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Can you please stop editing and replacing my own taken photo of Guinness - Crane Street gate which I posted 18 yrs ago with some new photo because there is no difference in quality and it shows the same location and everything!

Cheers! Vjekoslav (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. RE:

• "Please stop editing [the Guinness article]". What editing are you talking about? I haven't edited that article in at least 10 months. Are you seriously talking about this change from a YEAR ago? (Which, unlike your own edit of a year ago, was supported by an explanation/justification?) It is true to say that I had also, previously (four years earlier), corrected an edit where you erroneously described "your" image as being of St. James's Gate (a medieval gate that was demolished in the 18th century and which is NOT the random modern factory gate pictured). However, it is (to my mind) not reflective of reality to imply that I have (and continue to) edited that article inappropriately.
• "Please stop [..] replacing my own taken photo [..] with some new photo because there is no difference in quality". Respectfully, and while I acknowledge that aesthetics can be subjective, there are multiple images on Commons which are "better" framed, more suitably angled, higher resolution, without glare, not overexposed and less grainy than "your" image. Including several of the same gate like this, this and this.
• "it shows the same location and everything". So do the above images. Which show the exact same gate in the same location. And none of which have the glare/overexposure/framing/composition issues evident in "your" image.

I will open a thread on the Talk:Guinness article talk page to discuss. Please consider contributing. Guliolopez (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulio, can please help make Trinity College Dublin page a GA article? Good Article attempt is going on. I putted many good improvement too. Do you know other Dublin specialist editors, who maybe also help? SeanBeans1981 (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While that article needs a significant volume of work (I mean, what is the full text of "prayers before/after meals" doing there?) I'm not particularly well-placed to help. Or, if I'm honesty, especially interested. Thanks for asking all the same. And best of luck with it. Guliolopez (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the recently vanished editor (now editing while logged out) is still intent on turning every part of Dublin into a suburb. I can’t write up a report at the minute as I’m on mobile, but I fear a trip to ANI may be in the offing…. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Sigh. I note that the only "non-logged out" incarnation of the otherwise IP-only contributor has since been renamed and globally blocked. Making ANI/escalation slightly more difficult. I'd already opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. And may update that in due course. Perhaps before pursuing the WP:PP option. Thanks! Guliolopez (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guliolopez, i'd like to come here to thank you for correcting my edit on the Bachelor's Walk massacre.

However, could you please not type (some) words in caps? it makes your messages seem more aggresive, see the below.

How you typed it: "This is NOT what the body or the source states. One followed the other. But correlation is not causation. The body (and sources) give that the "motive" was in "response to verbal baiting". "Howth gun-running = Bayonet/shoot women on the street"? WHAT?"

Versus not capitalizing certain words:

"This is not what the body or the source states. One followed the other. But correlation is not causation. The body (and sources) give that the "motive" was in "response to verbal baiting"."Howth gun running= Bayonet/shoot women on the street"? what?"

I realize my mistakes here as this is my first time editing an attack/ massacre, yet again thank you for correcting me.

Good day and thank you for your time. Lolzer3k 14:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. If I used caps, it was for emphasis (which I did because markup/italics/etc are not possible in edsumms). While I apologise if this emphasis was perceived to be aggressive, I did (at the time) think that emphasis was needed. (As, in honesty, the implication that the Howth gun-running could be seen as justification or "motive" for shooting/bayoneting unarmed and uninvolved people (including women) who just happened to be in the street, seemed worthy of emphasis. Especially when the body and sources don't give it as a "motive".) Anyway. I'll take your feedback on board. Thanks again for the note. Guliolopez (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey chief. Just said I'd let you know I've filed a report at ANI over the suburb vandal. Cheers, — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I didn't see the thread until after it closed. But I note that the admin blocked as a "bad WP:CLEANSTART". Which seems more than reasonable to me. I would question whether it will address the IP-hopping behaviours. But at least its good to have an ANI thread to "point to". If needed in future. Thanks for taking the time/trouble to pursue! Guliolopez (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw you reverted changes I made to the Union page listing past officers. Can you explain the logic behind this? I see that it is the case on University of Galway Students' Union that they have listed the former presidents? If I solely provide the presidents would this be allowed? EoghanOM (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While I summarised the rationale/logic in my related edit summary, to confirm:

• WP:VER - The directory of names that was added is almost entirely uncited. (And, while I personally question the appropriateness of that "every president ever" table in the UGSU article (and had previously removed it as uncited) it is, at least, now seemingly supported).
• WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY - Wikipedia is not a free webhost or "directory" for hosting a list of "every name ever associated with the org".

In addition you might want to read:

• WP:OTHERCONTENT - Even if the "list of every UGSU president" was equivalent to the "list of everyone associated with ULSU" (and I don't see that it is), the inclusion of content in one article doesn't necessarily justify its inclusion in another.
• WP:NOTMIRROR - Even if the "list" appeared on a website associated with that org (and that was used as a ref for an extensive list of names), it is not Wikipedia's role to republish/mirror that content.
• WP:COI - Given that a name, similar to your own username, appears in that list, you might want to consider reading the related guidelines.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huge thanks for helping me with the Ballyvoy page really appreciated BallyvoyLad6 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all @BallyvoyLad6. As you continue your own editing, you might want to note that:

• (WP:BURDEN). Additions are supposed to be supported by references. You should add a link to wherever you got those census numbers.
• (WP:CAPS). "census" isn't a proper noun or title. There's no reason to capitalise it. Consider that the article is titled 2001 UK census (no caps).
• (WP:TONE). While our writing doesn't have to be dry, it should be factual and neutral. Describing someone as producing "incredible artwork" or a location as allowing "you [to] climb up the steps and have a great view" is not in keeping with these guidelines.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

btw i found the 2011 census numbers on city population de and for the 2021 census i found it on the list of localities by population in northern ireland and it said 136

plus the 2001 i found on this exact wikipedia page before i edited it BallyvoyLad6 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please add any sources you use to the article. Not here. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to cite BallyvoyLad6 (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok BallyvoyLad6 (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see HELP:FOOTNOTES. You just put the web link in a <ref>linkhere</ref> tag at the end of the sentence. Guliolopez (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment to me in edit summary: sure! Reviewing the Garda Síochána article itself, as well as the articles of the reconstructed supervisory organisations, has been a piecemeal bit of work, so no problem reworking some of the text now with clearer referencing, including a reference or two on the previous organisations. It's a bit overdue for review, prompted by the commencement of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024. I had been intended to mention these pages over at WT:IE when I'd finished what cursory work I'd done on them for further consideration. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, came across Draft:Clondalkin, Dublin when doing CopyPatrol, it's a straight copy of Clondalkin but with the top of the infobox changed. Is this the Dublin suburbs vandal again? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly. Yes. The same silly "copy and paste the entire article for no apparent reason" behaviour was repeated at Talk:Clondalkin the other day. Either ignore or WP:G2. Personally I'd ignore. Guliolopez (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tried for a G5 in the hopes someone reblocks for a bit, otherwise I'll just ignore them. Thanks! REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen an AfD. Agree with same so just transferred information and added to the history of the Saint Mary's Caherciveen page. A club in the same town.

Finding sources is not easy for a club defunct for nearly 100 years but feel approprtiate to merge into Saint Mary's Lf8u2 (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have an issue with covering the first (earlier) club in the second (later/successor) club article (and there is plenty of precedent for this in other similar articles), WP:VER is a basic tenet of the project. While, yes, sources on short-lived and relatively-local-notability-only subjects can be difficult to source that (a) just confirms that there probably shouldn't be a standalone title and (b) will present an issue for other editors coming along later (as the text will be indistinguishable for false or hoax material and could simply be removed). Some stuff about local history (reliant on folk memory or local knowledge or whatever) is better suited to blogs and podcasts and the like - and less suited to the project here. Not everything has to be in/on Wikipedia. Other outlets exist.... Guliolopez (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both sides: clearly he passes WP:SIGCOV, but he also might be a case of WP:BLP1E. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deprodding but feel free to go to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take another look. But probably will open an AfD discussion. (If for not other reason than to gain consensus that there is no reasonable AtD). Guliolopez (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've seen you've made quite a number of edits to this page over this past week - I likewise initiated the preceding edits surrounding the organisation's name change and rebrand. Whilst I agree the unsupported sections of the article should've been cited (as they had remained so for a number of years, which I had nothing to do with), I feel the article is now considerably less informative.

Most of the information on the structure of the organisation would've been initially taken from their website amle.ie, and while I could re-insert the info and cite that as a source, I understand this likely would make the article overly reliant on primary sources. As a compromise, I could add some basic information structured similarly to the page for the European Students' Union, including the list of officers the union elects, and it's member organisations (student's unions), some of whom have their own wikipedia pages.

What do you think? DeQuillsta (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. If there were sufficient sources (independent or otherwise) to add a short "operations" section (or to expand the "organisation" section to include a small amount of "operational" detail) then that would be OK with me.

Otherwise, the WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTHOWTO content (seemingly covering very specific minutiae on how this student body elects its officers and structures its sub-committees) was excessive. And uncited. And tagged as such for 5 years.

In short: I have no issue if a small amount of information (about the org's "officer" roles or operations) were added. Even based on primary/non-independent sources. However, I would have an issue if we mirrored large sections of the subject org's website (listing roles, naming their non-notable holders, etc).

I also, FYI, do not think that the European Students' Union title is an example of best practice (for anything). Guliolopez (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Great! I can have a look into it tomorrow. I can also look at other pages for national unions of students to see how much detail their pages go into on organisational structure. Agreed that it is not necessary to mirror the website, particularly as the website itself is out of date in places (it has a "history" section but this has not been updated in many years). Likewise I don't think it's necessary to have an archive of every person elected to the union, but a simple summary of the positions the union has might be worthwhile simply for the average page viewer to understand how the union functions without the need to delve deeper.

Agreed on the point of ESU, although I think a table similar to their member and associate organisations one would be beneficial in fleshing the page out as this can hyperlink to existing wikipedia pages for other student unions in Ireland, and indeed, their respective higher education institutes. DeQuillsta (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guliolopez, thanks for flagging that. I've revised the Huonville access section to remove promotional language and added sources to support the key points. Let me know if anything else needs adjusting.Cheers, CineBrick315 02:45, 29 June 2025 (AEST)

Thanks for the follow-up. That's much improved. Generally speaking, text that seems to promote more than it does to inform is perhaps best avoided. It needs review every so often. Guliolopez (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I've filed a report over at SPI about the newest incidence of MarioFan, as I'm nearly certain it's them. Best, — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. And thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pleae stop removing clarifications at the end of the first paragraph of Irish soviets ([2] [3]) to explicitly clarify that "soviet" isn't being used in reference to the Soviet Union. To the vast majority of people, the word "soviet" refers to the Soviet Union by default, so it is obviously helpful to clarify that in this particular case it doesn't. Simply saying "Soviet" in this context refers to a council of workers who control their place of work, not a Soviet state. misses the point, because if someone is knowledgeable enough about socialist theory to know that there have been soviet states unaffiliated with the Soviet Union, they almost certainly already know what a soviet is (and that it's not a state). On the other hand, if someone doesn't know any of that, just saying not a Soviet state is too vague, and is likely to be confusing to anyone who doesn't know that there have been soviet states beyond the USSR, which is most people. Plus, if you truly don't want that sentence to refer to the USSR, then I don't know why you're capitalising "Soviet" in it, which implicitly reads as referring to the Soviet Union (as opposed to "soviet state"). Theknightwho (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theknightwho. In no particular order:

• "stop removing clarifications at the end of the first paragraph of Irish soviets". I haven't edited that article in three months. My last change (in April) was to simply summarise an entirely uncited/unexplained/unsupported edit. In which I removed/changed just three words. With a clear edit summary. Is this the change that has prompted your WP:NOEDITORDER? Really?
• "I don't know why you're capitalising "Soviet" in it". When did I capitalise "soviet"? In ANY edit? Provide a diff please.
• "To the vast majority of people, the word "soviet" refers to the Soviet Union by default". Does it? What are you basing that on? Other than your own opinion.
• "confusing to anyone who doesn't know that there have been soviet states beyond the USSR". The lead clearly links to the soviet (council) article. And already stated/confirmed, prior to your recent change, that the term used in the lead refers to a soviet council. And not a soviet state. (And, IMO, covering the issue for any still uninformed/illinformed/confused reader)
• "it is obviously helpful to clarify that in this particular case it doesn't". Is it? To me it is a form of overdone editorial. Which isn't reflective of the sources or the body. Where the body (and as far as I am aware the sources) make no mention of the USSR. A problem relative to MOS:LEADNO. And where we now spend HALF THE LEAD editorialising about what the subject IS NOT. For the benefit of some readers (who we've presumed to be confused/ignorant). Rather than explaining what the subject IS. For the benefit of everyone else.

Guliolopez (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in some slagging match where you miss the wood for the trees by microanalysing everything I say. I'm not going to seriously entertain the idea that most people don't immediately associate "soviet" with the Soviet Union, and I find it hard to believe you think otherwise. We also do not spend half the lead "editorialising about what the subject IS NOT", because we quite specifically clarify exactly which sense of "soviet" is being used, and then contextualise it by reference to the Soviet Union, which neatly addresses the obvious sources of possible confusion. Theknightwho (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Theknightwho. RE:

• "not interested in some slagging match". Good. Neither am I. But I do not like it (and neither would you) when a "stop doing XYZ" request is at least partly framed as being based on a change (the addition of a capitalised word) that was made by another editor. And not me. If I'm having a hard time seeing the wood for the trees, it is perhaps because one of the trees you expressly drew my attention to was not planted by me. If you want me to see the wood, then maybe don't directly point to specific trees that are not on my property :D
• "I'm not going to seriously entertain the idea that most people don't immediately associate "soviet" with the Soviet Union". As already noted, in my view, the risk (that some people might conflate "soviet" [meaning council] with "soviet" [referring to a state of the Soviet Union] was already covered by the existing text.
• "We also do not spend half the [lead talking about what the subject is not]". The lead is 79 words long. Split into two sentences. The first sentence, 41 words in length, summarises what the subject is/was (a series of self-declared soviets/councils formed during the revolutionary period in Ireland). The second sentence of the lead, 39 words in length, mostly serves to clarify what the subject is/was not (a soviet state connected to the Soviet Union). Perhaps "half" is a bit of an exaggeration. But, frankly and honestly, my back was probably up because of the misdirected "accusation".

I'm happy to take this to Talk:Irish soviets. Where, in honesty, this (an article content discussion) would ideally be better addressed. Rather than, given how your initial prompt was framed, as some kind of admonition of specific edits of mine (including minor reverts of unexplained/uncited/unsupported changes; And other changes that I didn't even make...). Guliolopez (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A link to soviet (council) is not going to followed by the majority of people, and it certainly does not clarify the use of the word "soviet" to anyone who just wants a quick summary of something without digging into multiple pages, which is a lot of people.

The second sentence begins "Soviet" in this context is used in its original socialist sense of a council of workers who control their place of work - that's 22 words that only address what the subject is. The remaining 16 words of the sentence (not as a reference to the Soviet Union (which took its name from the same meaning).) addresses a very obvious possible source of confusion, while also contextualising the use of the word "soviet" within the wider socialist movement that was going on across Europe at the time. I fail to see how that's a problem.

Also, it's just a modified version of the sentence that was already there which followed the same structure of clarifying what it is not, so this doesn't even make any sense as an argument for the old text. Theknightwho (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theknightwho. As per my note above, if you want to discuss any:

• article content changes, I'm happy to do so at Talk:Irish soviets. Including any possible/further improvements to the Irish soviets lead.
• inter editor stuff, I'm happy to do so here. Including, I dunno, even a small acknowledgement that the initial "stop doing XYZ" request could perhaps have been better framed? (Especially where "X" was a reasoned change in which I simply removed three uncited/unsupported words arising from an unexplained/anon change and "Y" was an edit made 5 years ago by another editor entirely?).

Guliolopez (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez Sure, but I think your response to "please stop removing clarifications" was disproportionate, and you're completely misrepresenting what my argument was. The issue was only ever "X" (removing the clarification, which you did twice in the last year), and the "Y" that you refer to was me pointing out an inconsistency in your reasoning (changing "not a member of the Soviet Union" back to "not a Soviet state" is incoherent, when "Soviet" (capitalised) refers to the Soviet Union anyway). Theknightwho (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If my response was overdone, it was because your initial note wasn't just a short note that I "please stop removing clarifications" (Your initial user talk post, containing over 200 words, had little to do with my edits or editing). And, frankly, could (and IMO should) have simply been added as a post-edit explanation on the article talk page. Where explanations for content additions are typically covered. Rather than a user-focused and user-specific criticism on two otherwise straightforward edits (where I simply reverted uncited/unexplained/unsupported changes on one article) months ago. Including in August 2024. Nearly a year ago.

I mean, what do you think your response might be if I opened a 200-word "stop doing ABC" thread, on your user talk page, based on a normal/reasoned/random revert of yours from nearly a year ago? And laid any concerns I had about the current status of that article (including any spelling or grammar or capitalisation changes made by other editors) at your feet? Guliolopez (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My original message was entirely about your edits, specifucally because I noticed you had done it twice, and I am not interested in this attempt to derail the discussion by arguing about the argument instead of the substantive point. "PLease stop doing X" is perfectly reasonable in the context of multiple reversions, even if they did occur over a long period, because it strongly suggests you'd have probably done it again. You keep trying to downplay responsbility by turning it around on me, as though this is about blame, when it's actually about making the article comprehensible to the average person. What this isn't about is my apparent responsibility for your overreaction, because we're not children. Theknightwho (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also occurs to me that this might be a site-culture difference - I usually edit Wiktionary, where we almost never use entry talk pages, because it would spread things out too much, so we tend to go to people's talk pages for minor issues. Theknightwho (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. RE:

• "might be a site-culture difference [..on..] Wiktionary [..] we almost never use entry talk pages". Well that's an important distinction to note. On Wikipedia we discuss editor-specific concerns on editor talkpages. And content-specific concerns on article talkpages. We also wouldn't typically dredge-up relatively innocuous (reasoned / explained / resolved / ancient) edits, including by otherwise experienced editors, as part of a basic content discussion.
• "it's actually about making the article comprehensible to the average person". If that's what "it's about" then that is the express purpose of the article talk page. Something I noted very early in this thread. And yet we're continuing to discuss your reaction to my reaction. As if "that's what it's about".

Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - just to note that on the one hand, I'm thankful for some of your contributions and the way you've helped address some of the issues on AFI-related articles. On the other hand, I'll go back and check some of your revisions where you'll have taken issue with the way that I've phrased something, and have slapped it with nitpicky tags that criticize the way I've drafted something on a sentence-by-sentence basis. If it's a more overarching problem with a paragraph or section, I get that, but if you're taking issue with some particular phrasing (like the tone tags you recently applied to Louth Mavericks), I don't get why you would bother with applying those instead of just adjusting the sentence into a phrasing you think is more appropriate? austiñobobbiño (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]