User talk:Guliolopez/Archive 7

DYK for Irish Landmark Trust

On 25 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Irish Landmark Trust, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Irish Landmark Trust renovates historic houses, castles, and lighthouses, and then offers them as holiday rentals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Irish Landmark Trust. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Irish Landmark Trust), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyright

Using term copyright to cite factually released books and US Navy publications rather than random websites. Appreciate websites, but many are not citing work. VM321 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Rocketrosy. I must be misunderstanding what you are saying. Because what I seem to be reading is that you believe that, unless something is copyrighted, then it is not a reliable source. Is that what you are saying? That "only books" are reliable sources?

If so, I would recommend you read WP:RS. While the RS guidelines favour books from reputable publishers over content from other and self-published websites, the copyright status of the work is not the determining factor there. A copyrighted work is not inherently more reliable than an uncopyrighted work. '50 Shades of Grey' is a copyrighted work. That doesn't make it a reliable encyclopedic source :)

If dismissing or removing a source or sourced content, then please reference the relevant Wikipedia guideline. Like that on reliable sources. Rather than a personal judgement based on whether or not the author copyrighted it. Which has no relevance to reliability. Guliolopez (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, When I first starting building several of these pages, I was told repeatedly I had to have accurate sources, not facebook groups, not websites. So I really have been trying to follow this to the letter of the law. Many times websites state inaccurate information so I tend to go to government sources, particularly when it comes to US Naval Aviation. I'm not on here very much - but really wanted to offer factual insight. Thank you very much Rocketrosy (talk)

Help on page Muire na Críostaíochta

Hi Guliolopez,

I am a contributor mainly to the French Wikipedia, and I have noticed you have contributed to the article Muire na Críostaíochta (Pilgrimage to Chartres) in Irish. I have renamed that article from Notre-Dame de Chrétienté, the organizing association, because the pilgrimage has more notability than the association in itself. I was wondering if you could make the changes also to Wikipedia in Irish ? Thanks in advance, Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Scrabo Tower

I am a novice and eager to learn from such an experienced wikipedian as you. You commented your recent corrections on edits I made to the Scrabo Tower article with "Copyedits. Not every sentence needs its own section. Temper introduced editorial and NPOV". I admit that I used too many headings. I do not understand what "Temper introduced editorial" means. I found out what NPOV means in Wikipedia and understand why I should not have written "visitors enjoy...". Thank you so much for your edits and guidance. I understand that this (your talk page) is the right place for my chatting and I hope I am not bothering you. Johannes Schade (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Johannes Schade:. You are not bothering me. No problem. I am glad to help. As you have read WP:NPOV, you might also want to read WP:WTW. And WP:EDITORIAL in particular. While trying to write a paragraph or sentence in a way that "makes sense" for the reader, we can sometimes inadvertently come to conclusions on their behalf. I have been guilty of writing like this in the past. But now recognise why this should be avoided. (For example, perhaps accidentally, suggesting that a reader should find something "notable". When perhaps the reader is perfectly capable of coming to their own conclusions. Generally it is best to avoid saying something like "Notably Smith was the first to juggle cats". When "Smith was the first to juggle cats" is perfectly fine. And lets the fact [if it is one] to stand on its own merits.) Generally speaking, and without writing in a completely 'boring' way, we should avoid being too flowery or leading or promotional in our language. Happy editing. Guliolopez (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will follow your suggestion and read the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I am very glad about your photo. Johannes Schade (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for promoting the article to Class C and Mid Importance! I am very pleased. I admit that the narrative about Charles was too long and the article needed refocusing on Scrabo Tower. Your edits achieved this very well. Perhaps I should add some of the discarded material to the article about Charles so that readers who want to understand why Napoleon III subscribed can find that information there. As you probably saw, I referred to the BBC Pronouncing Dictionary for the pronunciation of Scrabo. I am a bit worried whether this does not violate intellectual property rights. If all Wikipedia articles about places in the UK take their IPA pronunciation from this source, which they probably should do, a high percentage of the content of this dictionary will be reproduced in Wikipedia. I am also a bit worried about the picture of the watercolour of the tower in the frame, which I downloaded from the National Trust Collection website and uploaded to Wikicommons, pretending that the watercolour is more than 100 years old and that the photographs is just a reproduction and carries not copyright. What do you think about it? With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. RE:

• C Class - No problem. In honesty it should be a "B Class". But the lead doesn't fully represent the body. It is too short. If the lead is not expanded in the natural course of things, I will do it myself. And then reassess.
• Discarded material - Yes. If the content about Charles is not covered in the article about Charles, then please add it there. That is where it belongs.
• Pronunciation - I would not worry about this. I do not share your concern.
• Watercolour - I share your concern here. The EXIF data and source both suggest that the National Trust (and/or the photographer or the artwork) asserts some rights over this image. Or at least this version of it. (The watercolour is almost certainly out of copyright. That photograph of the watercolour may not be.) I would recommend removing it. Pending permission or clarification on the copyright status. You could email the National Trust if you think it is worth the effort.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Guliolopez! Thanks for another round of corrections. I a still learning such a lot from you, for example not to abbreviate cardinal points. You asked me two questions: "Do we have a ref to support the suggestion that 'keeping up with the Joneses' was a factor? Or is this retrospective commentary?" I have not invented this, but some guesswork is probably involved. I read somewhere (I must find out where that was) that the Marchioness of Dufferin called Scrabo the 'copycat tower'. The article in the Dublin Builder says "size and mass were the chief objects", meaning the Londonderries wanted it big. Ideally, I would need a citation that says that the Londonderries wanted it bigger than the Dufferins' tower. I do not have such a quote and it might not exist. Does this mean that I cannot say it, or would it be acceptable if I formulated it more cautiously? Johannes Schade (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Another subject: Gaeilge. I am a foreigner living in Ireland and do not know Irish. It seems you are an expert. I found sources mentioning two possible origin of Scrabo: screabach and scraith bó. One funny thing is that the source, which is handwritten, reads scraiz instead of scraith. I heard that Irish does not use the letter z. Could you please have a look at what I wrote? I understand you want to concentrate on another project that you call GA (good article?). Possibly, you could refer me to another Wikipedian who is an expert in Irish? With many thanks Johannes. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Johannes Schade. Thanks for your note. On each point:

1. Copycat. Ideally, yes, there would be a reference or quote to support the suggestion that this was their intention. Even a comment by a reliable third-party commentator (not you or I) that this was a possible intent would be preferable to nothing. ("The Dublin Builder stated that size was a key goal, and historian Joe Bloggs suggested this was because X").
2. Gaeilge. I saw what you wrote. Personally I would simplify it (I don't think we need to give the reader instructions on how to click through to read the hand-written logainm.ie sources). In terms of the letter, that is not a "z". It is a "t" (in Irish script) with a "dot" over it. That dot, when placed over a consonant, makes it a lenited consonant. In short, if you see a "t" with a dot over it, it should be read as "th". "Scraith". Meaning the hand-written note reads "Scraith Bó". (Compare the "dot" in Irish to the "two dots" in a German umlaut. It changes the sound of the letter it accompanies). Anyway, I will take a stab at simplifying the text. (FYI - I'm not sure where you saw the reference to "GA". Typically, if you see "GA" used on this project, it is short-hand for "good article". However, if it was I who used "GA", then that is probably short-hand for Gaeilge. GA is the ISO 639-1 code for Irish/Gaeilge. Compare "DE" for German. "EN" for English. So, it was myself who used "GA", I probably meant Irish/Gaeilge. It it was someone else, they probably meant Good Article).

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		You are a champion! Johannes Schade (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Drombeg

So I understand I put a water mark in the picture, correct? I was confused by the message (I though someone else uploaded again the picture with a watermark). If I indeed put a watermark in the picture, I will remove it (normally I don't do that!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vreijs (talk • contribs) 11:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vreijs. As you note, I was not asking you to consider adding another (new) watermark. I was asking you to consider removing or reducing the current (existing) watermark. The current (large and blue) watermark is obtrusive ("noticeable or prominent in an unwelcome or intrusive way"). For example, your Commons image cannot really be used on Wikipedia - because the watermark is so large and obvious that it impacts the other (aesthetic) value of the image. Or, to put it plainly: your image would be nice - if it did not have the ugly watermark. The Commons project guidelines allow for visible but unobtrusive watermarks. If you do not want to remove the watermark entirely, then at least think about making it smaller. And less obvious. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Vreijs: I believe the image in questions is c:File:County Cork - Drombeg stone circle - 20150328102444.jpg. Because you have released the image under a free licence someone could crop out the watermark or retouch it out, but in each case it would be preferable if you would please just reupload a new image without the watermark. We would really appreciate it. Thank ww2censor (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Listowel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Montague, Richard Murphy, Patrick McGrath, Douglas Kennedy, Lloyd Jones, Joseph O'Neill and Hugo Hamilton

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

For all your good work at the Glenbeigh article, just for starters. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Cork City Page Edit

Hi Guliolopez, I published an image of mine to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cork_(city). I understand I should have verified that it's non-restricted for use. Thank you for clarifying the need for this. I'm in the process of releasing it to Creative Commons. Please let me know if that is the only reason for your edit and if I replace the image once it has been verified that it won't be removed? Thanks. Architecture should not be owned by anyone, because it should be for everyone. 12:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul James Lee (talk • contribs)

Hi Paul James Lee. There are two main guidelines/policies governing images:

1. Image copyright - Which expects that an image "copyright holder has released the image under an acceptable free license". Given that the image was previously published (by you?) under a non-free/Commons-incompatible licence ("© Viewsion Virtual Environments & NU Millenium Digital Technologies 2014"), evidence of a change of licence is required. This can be covered (with proof of ownership and change of licence) via OTRS on the Commons project.
2. Image placement - Which expects that an image "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article". Given that there are already several other maps included in (or linked from) the article, I'd personally question whether an additional map adds to the reader's understanding. Not least as (with the surrounding whitespace and broad scope of the map image), a reader would have to "click into" the map to understand its scope or content. Something already met via the other maps/map links (aligned with the WikiProject Maps and WikiProject Geo Coords projects). What, in your opinion, does this new map provide, which assists with reader's understanding, beyond what is already included/linked?

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

--Architecture should not be owned by anyone, because it should be for everyone. 21:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your response. I submitted the image in Wikimedia and had it verified as being my own work and copyright free. Here's the link: Cork City 3D Map

I propose to place the map in the section called "places of interest". The map was is created for the very purpose of indicating the locations of places of interest in Cork City. There are no other maps that convey this information. I'm not sure how this wouldn't be seen as relevant? The image is an original work containing a huge amount of visual information.

Architecture should not be owned by anyone, because it should be for everyone. 21:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul James Lee (talk • contribs)

Hi. On the points you raise.

1. "Architecture should not be owned by anyone, because it should be for everyone". A nice sentiment. Clearly heartfelt. However, while I don't disagree with the sentiment, I don't understand the relevance to this discussion.
2. "My own work and copyright free". Cool. Glad you sorted that out.
3. "There are no other maps that convey (places of interest in Cork)". None? That's a particularly dramatic claim. Not least given the existence of other maps of the city (including those already added-to or linked-from the article. In a manner already aligned with the project's mapping conventions.) Personally I'm not aware of any other similar article which uses a non-standard map to pinpoint a relatively select sample of buildings in the article (For example, the inclusion of buildings not mentioned in the section (like webworks), or the exclusion of key buildings which are mentioned in the section, may add more to the reader's confusion than to their understanding).
4. "Original work containing a huge amount of visual information". Indeed. It does include a huge amount of information. And a significant white border. To the extent that, if added to the page, it cannot be read. Not without "clicking on it". And, even then, not without "zooming into it".

Personally I don't see it. It doesn't follow the mapping conventions, cannot be viewed in place, has unclear inclusion criteria, and is generally not of the form typically used to illustrate city articles on the project. Don't get me wrong. It's a nice map. I like it. A lot in fact. But not for inclusion, in-line, within the article. Guliolopez (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Rosscarbery

Just noticed that in 2016 you reverted an edit(not mine), thinking a reference to the Catholic church, St Fachtna's , was redundant, as previously mentioned. The previous reference was to the Protestant church. They are both dedicated to St. Fachtna. I made a similar edit today.2001:BB6:9509:6358:C8C3:496D:5152:ED20 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Sorry, thought I was logged inAineireland (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Grand job. Fair enough. Happy to see it (re)added. Guliolopez (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Great Island

On 25 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Great Island, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the single road bridge to Great Island in Cork Harbour is more than 200 years old? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Great Island. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Great Island), 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.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Irish landmark trust

Thank you for quality articles around Irish topics, from Cork Jazz Festival and Mellows Bridge in 2005 to Irish Landmark Trust and Great Island in 2018, including categories and images, for service also in other languages, for recovery from frustration and for patiently explaining, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2016 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Guliolopez (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Guliolopez. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

80.111...

80.111... my Apollo-sense is tingling... ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

'Broken'/'Unbroken'

Please AGF. I have no idea if they should or shouldn't be. I'm just checking the links and finding them transcluded. There are no more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:A2E:B158:2835:17EE:2763:728F (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I did/do assume good faith. I'm unclear what in my edit summary would have indicated otherwise. As noted however, it is perhaps best to investigate and/or fix the problem than to potentially add incorrect or misleading templates. (Two wrongs and all that). If that's the last one, then that's grand. All sorted. Guliolopez (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons

	Gothic Seasons Greetings
	Wishing you all the best for x-mass, hope it is a time of cheer. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

And many happy returns! Guliolopez (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverts

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Profile blocked as one of at least 48 others operated by disruptive sockmaster (DNFTT)

---

Can you explain why you think a law concerning imports is not economic regulation? Is English not your first language. I'm worried this may be a competence issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YusufAdnan (talk • contribs)

Because it is not a law. A bill is not a law. I have moved the content to Ireland–Israel relations. Where it more properly belongs. And reworded it slightly to reflect the difference between a bill and a law. (Which I understand. Because English is my first language. And because I am Irish. And understand our legislative process. Quite well. Thank you.) Guliolopez (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Then it's a clear competence issue because what you said in your edit summary was "It's not an economic regulation", not "it's not a law yet", which I would have understood. The responsibility to communicate in English is all you. To avoid further miscommunication, all I will say is it is fully expected to become a law and if you think waiting for the completion of this formal process is important, I will self-revert until then. YusufAdnan (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

RE: "Waiting". Fine. I will accept that.

RE: "Competence issue". You have had ample opportunity to temper those comments which are contrary to WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I will not continue to accept that.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You said "regulation". You meant "law". Calling that a "competence issue" is not a personal attack, it's a fact. Poor communication does not mean you are malicious. But it did provoke a relatively minor dispute that was easily resolved when explained your reasoning clearly above. However, something like this could have gotten much worse, especially after you decided to continue reverting for the given reason: "Nope". No matter how much you try to blame others, the fault for that is yours. YusufAdnan (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with my understanding of editing etiquette, use of edit summaries, and the related policies. At least to the extent that I'm not overly interested in being schooled by a profile that existed for all of 2 hours before questioning the "competence" of another's edits. If want to continue to discuss content, then I'm happy to do so on the relevant talk page. I think we're otherwise 'done' with the finger pointing. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you think the length of time I have been here means I have to be more polite to you then you are to me. I'm happy to discuss content on talk pages in the future, but I'm also quite satisfied with my ability to read and understand sources, in general. I know I haven't been here for 10 years or anything, but what in the fuck is "WP:UNDUE in this form" supposed to mean anyway? YusufAdnan (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

That level of mischaracterisation of what I have done/said is entirely unsurprising coming from a sock. Not wasting time/breath responding. DNFTT. Guliolopez (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Omeath

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Another sock. Same master. Sigh.

---

Don't removed cited content with an edit summary that it is "uncited" again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheYellowRoses (talk • contribs) 22:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your note. As your concerns relate to the content of a particular article (and as you have kindly opened a thread there), I will respond there. Otherwise, as a new editor, if you have any more general questions, I am happy to cover them here. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Duh...

[1] - Absolutely. I'm not usually that stupid. I blame lack of coffee. Thanks for fixing it. -- Begoon 03:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

[2] - Thanks for the fix. Somewhat new to Wikipedia, helps a tonne. Zer0thenumber (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Hi Guliolopez, I wanted to thank you for helping me edit the Madison, WI page. I am new to Wikipedia, so writing in an NPOV tone that is devoid of puffery does not come natural to me. I read through all of the pages that you wrote in the comments, and realized that I still have quite a lot of changes I need to make to write in a suitable manner for Wikipedia. I hope you understand. I also wanted to thank you for your patience and time in helping to make a few of my edits more suitable for the platform. Best, Thefactmanirud (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Changhua Senior High School

Hi Guliolopez,

Thank you for leaving the message, so I can communicate with you. In Taiwan, junior high school students attend a national exam and choose their high school accroding to their scores. The senior High Schools which have many famous alumnus, graduates entering top universities, long history, and traffic convenience usullay become the first choice of junior high school students. Students have to get high scores so that they can be admitted. Most of those prestigious school are single-sex and established during Japanese rule. Jianguo High School, Taipei First Girls' High School, National Hsinchu Senior High School, Cheng Kung Senior High School in Northern Taiwan, Taichung Municipal Taichung First Senior High School, National Changhua Senior High School in Middle Taiwan, and National Chiayi Senior High School, National Tainan First Senior High School, Kaohsiung Municipal Kaohsiung Senior High School in Southern Taiwan are examples. Every year, the news report the students entering the schools mentioned above. I am willing to make Wiki more detailed and the sentences I wrote was objective. Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poseidonperseus (talk • contribs) 11:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Hello. Thank you for your note. None of the links or sources that you provide support a claim that National Changhua Senior High School is "one of the most outstanding high schools in Taiwan nowadays". Or "one of the top schools in Changhua County". Or "one of the most prestigious and distinguished high schools in Middle Taiwan". They do not use these terms at all. Even if the sources you provide *did* use those terms, then it would be an opinion. A subjective statement. That would require attribution. "According to XYZ report". Or "According to a survey of 123 parents". Or similar. Please do not restore unreferenced statements, unsupported promotion and unattributed opinions. Not without spending some time to address the concerns raised. Guliolopez (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Blanchardstown- photos

Do the photos on the Blanchardstown page that you reverted recently have to be so small? I wanted them to be the same width as the box on the top right of the page and I believe they looked good as the same width as that are now *too* small. Darren J. Prior (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Per WP:IMGSIZE, the width of thumbnails is determined by policy or user preference. If you want images to display larger for you, then perhaps best to update your prefs. Otherwise, per the convention and guideline, except with very good reason, do not use px, which forces a fixed image width. ("I'd like it if they matched the infobox width" doesn't, to my read, seem to be a good reason to override everyone else's preferences...) Guliolopez (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In Blanchardstown, as in all other articles, the infobox image size is controlled by the infobox template code, while, when there is no infobox, the WP:LEDE image may be a bit larger but only if warranted and is controlled by the "upright" setting of the image syntax. The unforced image size within the prose is controlled by your own preferences and is found under the Appearance menu and fixed pixel sizes should not be used. ww2censor (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Moselle

Hi Guiliolopez, thanks for your efforts to clean up Wikipedia. However, when you edited Moselle, you removed the word "popular" as a POV. Whether something is popular or not is a fact and tourist organisations and civil authorities publish figures on visitor numbers which are a hard indicator of popularity. In the light of that you may wish to consider restoring those words (the rest of the edit's fine). Bermicourt (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks also to you for your own efforts on Wikipedia. I removed the statements in that article (about "two of the many popular tourist attractions" or that "[X] is a particularly popular tourist destination"), as they were/are not supported by any references of any kind. If there were references to support the claims of the kind that you suggest (popularity adjudged based on number of visitors, or "ranking", or reviews or similar), then I would not have removed the statements as POV. As they would not have been POV. They would have been a verifiable fact. But they are statements unsupported by any verifiable references or stats of the type you suggest. And hence can only be read as POV. If you are aware of sources that support the assertions, then I will happily support the restoration of the claims. I am not happy to restore uncited claims and unsupported statements and unattributed POV. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

30em is the default?

But when you changed it in Silver Wedding (novel), the reference list goes across my entire screen. When I set it at 30em, I get two columns, which is much easier to read. Yoninah (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah. With apologies if my edit summary was overly brief (to the extent that I didn't explain my rationale fully), but what I was attempting to note was that, when the list gets long, it will wrap (to the default of 30em) anyway. (Because there are only 9 refs it possibly doesn't happen automatically now, but if there were more than 10, you would see the multi-column default "kick in"). If you want to restore the force wrapping, then that's fine with me. But, generally speaking though I'm not sure we need to force reflists into a multi-column set-up. When there aren't a lot of refs. (A list with a small number of refs for example looks, to my eye at least, a little odd when "manually" bunched into two columns). Guliolopez (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll leave it your way and see how it looks on other pages with more refs. Yoninah (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

VisitScotland update

Hi. Thanks for the information. I can make the change to my username as you advise. As you can tell I am new to editing Wikipedia but I would say that the information in my edit is accurate and comprehensive and the previous information was incorrect so a bit confused about what was wrong with the copy in the edits. Clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Anna VisitScotlandCorp (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VisitScotlandCorp (talk • contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello.

RE: "change to my username". Great.

RE: "clarification would be appreciated [..] about what was wrong with the copy". I provided specific clarification of the concerns with the proposed edits on the relevant article's talkpage. Namely that the text added included promotional, first-person and copyrighted content that seemed intended to serve the interests of a specific organisation more-so than to serve the interests of this project or of the reader.

RE: "information was incorrect". If you want to highlight inaccuracies with the existing text, then please do so at the VisitScotland article talkpage. If doing so, then be specific, and provide references for what is "incorrect" and what the correct text could/would be. Otherwise, editors are strongly discouraged from directly editing articles with which they have a specific and declared association.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocking AngloIrish77 ‎

I see you reverted AngloIrish77 citing that they are using multiple accounts. Shouldn't they be blocked if so? I don't see any block log for them. Dmcq (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi.

REVERT. Yes. I reverted this edit (for overt misrepresentation of sources), this (as ungrammatical and pointless), and this stuff (as a needless deviation from the source - which uses the terms "black or black Irish" rather than the terms that this particular editor seems to find counter to his world view). That the editor is a block-evading sock was largely secondary to these reverts. And, for example, wasn't a consideration when pretty much all of the editor's other "contributions" were reverted by other project contributors for not reflecting consensus on article scope, not engaging in CON, engaging in uncited editorial, outright misrepresenting sources and generally being less than constructive.

BLOCK. Yes. AngloIrish77 should be blocked. When I have time (or if my hand is forced) I will reopen one of the many SPI investigations that I have been forced to waste my time on before. But, until then, I will spend my time doing things that will not be a huge time sink. If you, or another editor, find their hand forced in the meantime, then I will gladly contribute.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Dmcq, since Guliolopez provides a pretty decent argument, they can say this, yes. Guliolopez, reopen the SPI, please, if if just pro forma, and you can mention that I blocked the Anglo-Irish account per WP:DUCK, based on behavior, esp. compared to IRL7. I don't want to give too much away, but besides the huge article overlap, there's a few idiosyncrasies (and you noted some of them) that apply to this account as well (including the "black" thing). Thanks, and good luck. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Do you want me to open the SPI anyway? Even though the block is already in place? Just to "close the loop"? Guliolopez (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And for the clerks to properly tag and all that. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. Done. Thanks again. Guliolopez (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Irish placename translations

Saw your comment. That's fair enough. I am an daily Irish speaker so never thought twice about adding in a reference (new to this Wikipedia thing :)) but will do in future. Thanks for the helpful comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrendirl (talk • contribs) 13:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries Darrendirl. Ná bac leis. While not the case here, sometimes some well meaning editors have a tendency to "invent" Irish names. For people or places or organisations. Often, frankly, quite clumsily, or inaccurately or grammatically nonsensically. Hence I am keenly aware when Irish labels are applied without ref. Not a problem in this case. But definitely best to consider adding a link to logainm (or some other definitive source) when adding Irish translations. Let me know if you need any other help with "this Wikipedia thing :)". GRMA. Guliolopez (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, re: Garda Síochána

Thanks for your edits of the content I added today to this article. All were well explained and amazingly, I agreed with every change. That does not happen too often with most editors. It's great to meet such a rational, helpful editor. Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Honan Chapel

Thanks for sorting out the refs, and the Puck fair merging stuff a few days ago. Its striking how, even now, Clarke is under so under appreciated. I see you had done a lot with the page earlier, in what appear to have been trying circumstances. You seem to have the patience of a saint. Ceoil (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hiya. No worries. I may tweak one or two further refs yet. Just for consistency really. Indeed, over the years I'd tried to "rescue" the Honan article from some kind of editorial puff piece (which had no refs or context and was written by more than one editor - neither of whom's goals seemed to fully align with those of the project). Mainly this involved tidying the existing content. And sourcing and bulking the refs a bit. You've taken that a step further. Which is great to see. (FYI - I've never previously read/heard/understood that UCC was founded as the "Royal University Cork". As the text suggested. The UCC article doesn't use the term. Happy to discuss if needed...) Guliolopez (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok if I lend a hand with copy editing? I haven’t read the sources yet, so I’m just going off what’s in the article, ie, checking for grammar stuff and readability. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be great. The Royal University claim, it turns out, was dubious at best. Also, yes, Guliolopez, have followed the article edit history. Christ. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Edward Nangle Review

Hi Guliolopez, was wondering could you please review two new articles of mine. Both links here: Mayo_Association_DublinEdward_Nangle Thanks a million, Tomás.Tomás Deb (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. Sure. Guliolopez (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A Guinness for you!

For all your hard work, relax a while, cheers. ww2censor (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have it later! Guliolopez (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Enjoy, I'll be having a few in Dublin in a few weeks too. ww2censor (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

National Monuments of Ireland

Thank you very much for your nice help with my mistake of understanding any NIAH record as National Monument. Although I lived in Ireland for a while, I don't live there. I just only try to humbly collaborate to let know something of the Irish heritage. Sorry for my mistake, it was due to my ignorance, for sure not with bad faith. Right now I have understand cleary the difference between NIAH and the Irish National Monuments and from now I will keep in mind that they are not the same and that the NIAH is only important to use it as a reference in an article and not as information. Thank you very much for kind help and for the list of National Monuments of County Wicklow!.!. --Valencian (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. You are very welcome. Guliolopez (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of edit for RISE in Irish political parties

You reverted my edit about RISE and I can understand why, yet if you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland there is a discussion about the difficulty of having an encyclopaedic approach simply on the basis of whether a party has been registered. Some notable and relevant parties, e.g. Republican Sinn Fein, are not registered. I think the page should have mention of RISE somewhere. Do you? Perhaps you can spot a better place for it? Or we could perhaps follow the precedent of a formulation that adds, 'as RISE are unregistered, Paul Murphy would be listed on a ballot paper as Independent'. I nearly wrote something like that in my initial edit but then felt that the whole section would be too long in proportion to the summary nature of the page (it can't be right that the entry on RISE becomes longer than that of Fianna Fail). This is tricky but perhaps you can see a solution. JimHolden (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Skellig

Not really in favour of lists of pop cult stuff clugging the tail of articles, but maybe a separate sect is due, as in why the star-wars (not a fan) juggernaut chose the location, and then revisited, and briefly outlining their encounters with locals and heritage people. There are some very good but opposing sources on this, and so would have to be weaved together with balance. Wondering as to your view. Also, thanks for all the help on Honan so far. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Justin Barret and NP pages

• On the Irish name:
  So you're claiming that because you can look up stuff on Google and find it therefore it's adequate and justified? I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works "I googled it" isn't an argument, you need to use sources to justify everything. There's no source on Cathal Boylan for the name "Cathal Ó Baoighealláin" and no evidence anyone has ever called him that and nothing returned on a Google search. If you have a standard for what does and doesn't constitute justification for including a name in Irish it has to be an actual consistent and coherent one, you're not the arbiter.
• On the National Party Page:
  Many things are facts, but when you put it in the summary, occupying 50% of the space your making an implicit subjective judgement that it (a negative thing) is the most important thing to know about the party, this could only be because you have a personal ire against it due to your political views. It is also misleading because there has not been a general election in the party's existence so it would have been impossible to have any representation on a "national level", the only elections have been the local and European elections and there are specific reasons why candidates were not fielded in these. So the statement is inherently misleading and it's only purpose is to negatively portray the party. Maybe put it in if the general elections pass and there are no candidates, as this is the most important political election and ultimately where political power derives from.
  

Blight55 (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hiya.

RE: "I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works". I've been contributing to the English language Wikipedia project for some time. And am an administrator on the Irish language Wikipedia project. I do not need education on "how Wikipedia works". Thanks all the same.

RE: "There's no source on Cathal Boylan for the name Cathal Ó Baoighealláin". You may be correct. I don't have that page on my watchlist. As per my note on your user talkpage however, the content on the Cathal Boylan article has no relevance to the content on any other article. You may not yet have read WP:OSE. So I'll link it again. Cheers.

RE: "You're not the arbiter". You are correct. I am not. In this case it is the community consensus guideline on the use of Irish language names which the arbiter here. Cheers.

RE: "an implicit subjective judgement". You keep using the word "subjective". I do not think it means what you think it means.

RE: "impossible to have any representation on a national level". You are correct. I will tweak the text to account for that. Thanks for that.

RE: "[a general election] is the most important political election and ultimately where political power derives from". Now THAT is a subjective statement.

FYI. I have opened the consensus thread that you requested on the relevant article talk page. Happy to discuss content stuff over there. In the meantime, if you want to discuss "how Wikipedia works" then I am happy to help with that here on my talk page. Or yours. I'm easy either way. All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Conor D. McGuinness

Hi Guliolopez, Conor D. McGuinness is a recent creation, the only member of Waterford City and County Council with an article. He doesn't appear to be notable outside of this. Another one for AfD? Spleodrach (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Spleodrach: I had actually made a note of that earlier in the month. While I can't remember why, specifically, I didn't propose action on it at the time, I suspect it was because (a) there were much "worse" examples at the time, and (b) I was probably jaded and worried about getting a name as "mister bitey/deletey". If you want to propose for AfD or PROD, then I'll be happy to chip in. Thanks! Guliolopez (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Owen Lean

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

---

Per your edit summary for this article (11 Dec 2019), I tend to agree with everything you say. Any previous and now verification-failed 'source', including The Irish Times, led to Lean's promo site. The one Lean-free cite is to magicweek.co.uk, a one-man vanity website set up by (notable?) magic performer Duncan Trillo who invites content from performers but does not accept responsibility for what he publishes. Lean has written a book on magic, The Hit And Run Magicians Handbook, but this is a self-published vanity project. There is a 2005 article here, based on his own words' interview, but as you might say this hardly represents the required 'multiple with reliable' for notability. There is other stuff on the web in typically non-notable sources, which is largely derivative and/or mirrored text. I have left this article alone for a while hoping something more substantial would emerge, but as it stands I suspect that it does not meet our necessities for notability. Acabashi (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If you don't open an AfD thread, then I will. If you open an AfD thread, I am happy to contribute. Sounds like you've done the WP:BEFORE already. Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

AfD is now opened. I'd actually completely forgotten about this discussion before opening it. And undertook BEFORE all over again. Without realising/remembering that you'd already done the same. In any event, AfD is the correct place for this discussion now. So closing this thread. Guliolopez (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for Help

Is there any way I can request your help in a dispute or would you be able to help me in any way or direct in me to the right place on this?

In essence I feel that the pages relating to Irish tax and corporate tax appear to be highly biased and I do not seem to be able to edit these without edits being immediately deleted by the user Britishfinance.

I have now been blocked from editing the page Tax haven for trying to delete one of five links to the page leprechaun economics which was created and is largely edited by Britishfinance

For reference Paul Krugman cited the user's work on Twitter. Surely this user is hence a bit too close for comfort to be editing articles related to Paul Krugman and a phrase he coined?

I started on Wikipedia about 6 months ago and have been editing pages to varying degrees ever since. Financefactz (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi.

RE: "request your help in a dispute". In honesty I'm not really in a position to assist. There has been more than one community discussion about the balance of Britishfinance's edits. And no indication of impropriety. I have had my own discussions with the editor. And agreed something of a compromise on some of the areas that were perhaps leaning towards imbalance. In all honesty, from my own point-of-view, while I think the editor leans a little too far in one direction (to the extent that it received quite broad attention), I have found the editor somewhat open to discussing NPOV/balance/UNDUE concerns. I would encourage that you do the same. Otherwise I'm not really interested in participating for canvassing for one perspective or another.

RE: "direct in me to the right place on this". Disputes on content should be addressed on the relevant article talk page(s). Disputes on editing practice should be addressed on the relevant editor talk page(s). The incidents noticeboard is available if direct and reasoned engagement with an editor is not possible.

RE: "trying to delete one of five links to the page leprechaun economics". I am not sure what you are asking of me here. I do not have this article on my watchlist. If there is overlinking, then you can discuss the MOS:OVERLINK policy on the relevant article talk page. I have nothing else to suggest here.

RE: "started on Wikipedia about 6 months ago". Great. Welcome.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanksFinancefactz (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom

Hi Guliolopez. I see you have removed the 'Approved' and 'Proposed' sections in the list of tallest buildings in the UK. I see why you have done this and have concerns regarding citations. When I updated the list however, I based the update on the latest information from the list of tallest buildings of each cities wiki page, which I have updated/checked for all relevant cities over the past few months. Each building would have a citation on that page. Therefore I do believe with regular maintenance we do have a mechanism for keeping this fairly accurate. I would like to reinstate these sections, with citations for each building mentioned if necessary. Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisClarke88 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi.

"I see why you have done this". Great. We're on the same page.

"I based the update on the latest information from the list of tallest buildings of each cities wiki page". Wikipedia cannot be source for itself. It just cannot.

"Each building would have a citation on that page". No. The vast majority do not. Demonstrably so. (The Leicester list-article for example relies on two entirely inadequate and out-of-date sources for example. In which projects (proposed more than a decade ago and never progressed) remain listed. Standing only therefore as an example of why we have WP:CRYSTAL guidelines.)

"I do believe with regular maintenance we do have a mechanism for keeping this fairly accurate". While this is an admirable belief, I do not understand what this belief could be based upon. The fact is that, when I removed the previous "incarnation" of this list it was chock full of "proposals" that had been demonstrably and verifiably cancelled. Years and years before. I do not therefore share your belief. As the evidence shows that these inaccuracies remain in place for some time. And actually get "worse" over time. And not better. As the mere existence of a "proposed buildings" section invites unsupported speculation. Regardless of the well-meaning intentions of editors to keep things "up to date", many imagined and proposed things simply do not come to pass. Without getting all philosophical about it, that is the nature of existence. And time. Plans don't work out. Which is why we have guidelines against devoting too much time to things that are proposed, but which may never come to pass.

"I would like to reinstate these sections [..] Please let me know your thoughts". My thoughts are that I do not agree with the restoration of uncited, speculative projections on potential/future events. It never works out well.

If you must, then please open/reopen a thread on the relevant talk page. And I will contribute. (As content discussions should happen on the talk page of the article to which the content is proposed to be added/changed). I would note however that, as is presumably clear, I am not supportive generally.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Britain Quay

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)

Rathfarnham

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 Quarter

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 Ireland

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)

Kerlin

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'.[3]". 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 portmanteaus

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 flag

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...

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)

Baltinglass

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 34D7C42

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)