User talk:Guliolopez/Archive 8

Archives

DYK for Carrauntoohil

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

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

Arklow RNLI

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

Hi. Thanks for your note. I am no expert myself, but (personally) I would avoid a "list of otherwise non-notable names". Which could be interpreted as a concern relative to notability, vanity or WP:NOTWEBHOST guidelines. If individual boats are notable, and "encyclopedic", then perhaps (if well-referenced) that might be appropriate. Guliolopez (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. There are members who have been awarded/decorated for services, that would probably be worthy of inclusion, and I can get references for them. Thanks for your help. I also have noticed you have edited a few articles related to Arklow, are you from here? Or a regular visitor? (Ignore if I am over stepping the mark). Arnkellow (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Arnkellow: If you don't have access to the harbour to get a good photo of the lifeboat, there are several images on Flickr though none are freely licensed. You can always ask the photographer's if they will release one under a free license but don't hold your breath as I have waited more than a year for a favourable reply. I'm not even in Ireland now, much less County Wicklow, so cannot help you myself. ww2censor (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Arklow, the user name might have given that away, but I'm only leaving the house if necessary. I have one on my Insta but its daybreak and not very defined. I will get one or two. I know a man who has old pics, including one of my grandfather and great-grandfather working on one of the old lifeboats, 20s/30s I'd say. Will check my facebook as well. Thanks Arnkellow (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. RE "native or frequent visitor to Arklow". Neither really. I'm from Cork. And I couldn't say when I was last in Arklow. Certainly not this decade. Perhaps not even this century :) I've got well over 2000 (mainly Ireland-related) articles on my watchlist. Many for a decade or more. I think the Arklow-related articles are a relatively recent addition. Prompted by a review that I did, of all the articles about towns/villages in Wicklow, back in March. The Arklow article seemed to need a chunk of work (to remove outdated or seemingly inaccurate stuff). And so I kept it on my watchlist. If you need help with anything let me know.... Guliolopez (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Arnkellow: Don't forget that any photos you acquire must be freely licensed by the copyright holder and not by the subjects. If you need advise on copyright just ask. I suspected your Arklow connection from the username but I too have not been to the town for many years even though I did live on in West Wicklow back in the 1980s and travelled around the county a lot but now I might visit Ireland once a year at most. I'm out of the picture, so to speak, as you might tell from some of my photos. When the lockdown allows for greater travel perhaps Sarah777 can go there though I don't know her transportation situation but she was very prolific with Irish images but edits infrequently now. ww2censor (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very restricted at the moment! But I have a car ready to go when the lock-down is lifted...a wee bit of cabin fever is setting in - I've taken a humongous number of pictures of the dogs, kids and the back garden (yard in American)... Arklow is tantalizingly close! Sarah777 (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a back yard in Arklow too Sarah777, if I get down first I will let you know, thanks for your help.Arnkellow (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help guys, I have managed to upload and add an image. Hopefully it's good. Arnkellow (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request

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

Sure. No prob. Will do so shortly. Guliolopez (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya @Ceoil:. I've done about as much as I think is necessary with that. Mainly, per your request, to consider any potential NPOV and ATTRIBUTEPOV issues. But also to link the refs in a few places. To aid with my own VER efforts. And those, potentially, of others. Otherwise looks grand. Good luck with the DYK and FAC stuff. Shout if any of my edits or edit summs were unclear. Guliolopez (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated. To me the band are up there with Joy Division, so am aware I'm skirting NPOV, I kind of need you to keep me in check, ha ha. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have mentioned you here; as an incumbent, given you have command of the hist sources. Ceoil (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re the FGDTTS FAC, "You are mixing c1 and c2 templates in the Sources" - geniounly don't know what this means. Make any sense to you? Also, edits much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either TBH.

Perhaps it's the mixed use of manually formatted refs (<ref>Smith, John. ''Important Book''. Harvard Press, 1990, p. 18.</ref>) and automatically formatted refs (<ref>{{cite book | last=Smith | first=John | title=Important Book | publisher=Harvard Press | year=1990 | page=18 }}</ref>).

Or perhaps it's the mixed use of shortened footnote templates ({{sfn|Smith|1990}}) and longer named-ref templates (<ref name= "smith1990"/>).

If it's the former, that's easily fixed. I'll take a look and standardise those.

If it's the latter, that's perhaps less easily fixed. While I can perhaps standardise a few, I'm not sure it's actually appropriate for "{{cite web...}}" references for example to use the shortened (sfn/harv) footnote template format.

While ref format consistency is great, it seems an impossible standard for FAs that are open to editing by anyone/everyone. As should be the case....

Anyway. I'll take a look. And see if there are a few examples that we can standardise. And we can see from there....

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sound as always. I'm clueless with this stuff :( Sorry to impose. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've made quite a few changes since. And, largely, the only refs not now following the "{{sfn|Smith|1990}}" format are those few that (in my view) probably shouldn't. I'll leave it for now. And if the "FAC gods" suggest that more is needed (and can be clearly specifically on what is needed), then I'll take another pass.... Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It passed FAC today; many thanks again for the edits and help. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy to be able to help. Guliolopez (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subedi

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

Hello @Jimmy810920:. Thanks for your note. And welcome to Wikipedia. A couple of quick points:

TONE. Thanks for your explanation on why the tone was so flowery. However, I would note that, while it is OK to use "awards press releases" as sources (and they may be, necessarily, somewhat non-neutral in tone), it is our role (as editors on this project) to ensure that the text here reflects a neutral tone. And, if we are representing the subjective/flowery/non-neutral opinions of others, that it is clear whose opinion is being expressed or whose position is being described.

> Duly Noted. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy810920 (talk • contribs)

REFS. Thanks for your attempt to address some of the {{citation needed}} tags in the article. However, I would note that, in this edit you removed a tag (attached to text covering imprisonment while attending Tribhuvan University in Nepal) and replaced it with a link to this webpage. The implication being that this webpage supports that text. It doesn't. That webpage does, perhaps, support the text about the subject's attendance of Tribhuvan University. But it makes NO MENTION of the subject's studies being interrupted by imprisonment. Please do not do that. Please do not remove {{citation needed}} tags if the text is not supported by the reference offered. If there is no available reference to support the text, then the unsupported text should simply be removed. Anything else, deliberately or otherwise, is a misrepresentation of the sources.

> Sorry for that. I meant to insert another citation: the preface of this book https://www.routledge.com/The-Effectiveness-of-the-UN-Human-Rights-System-Reform-and-the-Judicialisation/Subedi-OBE-QC-Hon/p/book/9780367224240, which can be seen without purchase in the "preview". Grateful if you could confirm if this citation is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy810920 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Jimmy810920:. RE:

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

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for both! Jimmy810920 (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inis Oírr

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

Hi AidanCampion. And thanks for your note.

RE: "I am Irish, live in Ireland and speak both Irish and English languages". So am I. So do I. So can I. Perhaps unlike yourself however, in addition to being an editor/contributor on this English language Wikipedia, I am also an administrator on the Irish language Wikipedia. That both of us are Irish (and can speak Irish) is, however, irrelevant to the question at hand. Claiming (or implying) that your edits are more valid than another's edits, on the basis that you are somehow more knowledgeable than another editor is not in keeping with the applicable guidelines. Including WP:10SR.

RE: "The common and official name of the island in the Irish language is Inis Oírr". So it is. That is, however, also irrelevant to the argument. This is the English language Wikipedia. Not the Irish language Wikipedia (which I look forward to seeing you contribute to, by the way, given your language expertise and interest). The common or official name in another language is not relevant here. Per the applicable guidelines. Including WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME, and WP:IMOS

RE: "The common name of the island in the English language is Inis Oírr". It is not. There are multiple reliable sources (like the Irish Times, Irish Examiner, Books, and poems like those by Seamus Heaney which come to mind) which use Inisheer as the commonname in English. If you feel otherwise, then please provide sufficient evidence of that. Per the applicable guidelines. Including WP:COMMONNAME, WP:IMOS and WP:PROVEIT.

Thanks agus GRMA. Guliolopez (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gulio. You are still missing the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The amendments that I am proposing should therefore be permitted.

Regards,

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

Hi AidanCampion. It seems that you still haven't read the relevant policies. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:IMOS#Common names are the ones that apply. As per my prior note (and edit summary), and as per the relevant policies, that "Inis Oírr" is the official name is not relevant to how we title the article. Or refer to the subject. On this project. The official name doesn't supersede the common name.

The argument, that the equivalent German language article uses "Inis Oírr" is irrelevant to the title of the article on the English language Wikipedia. There isn't a common German name for the island. And so the official name is used. There is, however, a common English name for the island. And so that's the one we use. (Arguing otherwise is like arguing that the English language article for "Germany" should be titled "Deutschland").

Anyway, I'm done trying to explain this to you now.

If you have read the relevant policies, and don't understand them, then raise a question on the relevant project talk page.

If you have read the relevant policies, and don't agree with them, then raise a proposal on the relevant project talk page.

If you have read the relevant policies, and still feel that Inisheer (or Spiddal or Moycullen or whatever other articles you have decided to crusade upon) represents the common English name for that/those places, then raise it on the relevant article talkpages. But be prepared to prove your position. With references.

Otherwise, consider turning your energies to stuff that improves the project. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulio. You really are a miserable individual.

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

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

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

Hi 51.171.33.130/AidanCampion. If you have any interest in constructively contributing this project then:

WP:NPA - don't play the man, play the ball
WP:LOUT - don't forget to log in
WP:IMOS - don't imagine the guidelines aren't applicable to your crusade

Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ardee edits

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

Cavan hurling championship 2016

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

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

Thanks Eleutherius. Totally understood. If someone asked me about edits I'd made 3 or 4 years ago, I'd probably struggle too. I agree that other evidence suggests that Mullahoran's "win" didn't stand. (Including the 2017 article that you highlight. And another from 2017 which I found that described Cootehill as the "holders".) However, I'm struggling to find a definitive reference which supports the specifics of when/why/how the result was queried. And overturned. Not least as I/we can't really rely on SYNTH of sources to make the claim that the result was overturned.

I also note with some interest that the Cavan Senior Hurling Championship and Mullahoran GAA articles ascribe the 2016 title to Mullahoran (rather than Cootehill). While the Cootehill Celtic GAA article claims it for Cootehill (rather than Mullahoran). Given this discrepancy (in multiple different articles), I was hoping to find some kind of reference that would clear it all up. One way or the other.

In honesty though, if we can't find a definitive reference one way or the other, I'm not sure what to suggest. As, if the winner of a competition hasn't been important enough to be recorded (by those who run it and participate in it), then one has to wonder whether that competition is important enough for us to have an article about it. Clearly hurling isn't particularly important in Cavan. Certainly the Cavan GAA don't even have a "roll of honour" page. Recording club hurling competition winners. In the way they do for their multiple football competitions. And they didn't even mention the competition in their Sep 2016 and Oct 2016 news feeds. Not to mention who won it.

Anyway, I'll keep looking. But might just abandon my goal of clearing this up. As, frankly, it seems like even the people/clubs/county board involved don't care. So I'm beginning to wonder why I'm bothering.... Guliolopez (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party for Animal Welfare

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

Hiya. Thanks for your note. RE:

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

In any event, if you disagree with the PROD, just remove the tag. If you can add more references that actually establish WP:ORGDEPTH, then please do. And, if you can add references to support the actual text of the article, that would be ideal too. (As much of it is not supported).

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hiya.

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

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin reversion

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

Baile Mhic Ealagoid

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

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

Arklow/Aaron Barry

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

Looks good Arnkellow. That ref is absolutely solid enough. Is it possible to do the same for the other entries you'd added also? And perhaps even some that were there before? (A similar concern was raised recently, about lack of refs in Mallow's "people" section. Only took 20 mins or so to address. Hopefully similar here. I've just added one or two refs myself....) Guliolopez (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah I say I can do. Would copying the references from the articles themselves be ok? Or shall I try to get fresh ones? Arnkellow (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If there are refs in the linked articles which confirm the association (and are verified) it is absolutely OK to "reuse" them. In honesty, however, I'm not sure all the linked articles have readily identifiable or verifiable refs. So Google maybe the quickest. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been busy, thank you. I will try to find refs for the ones left, Erik Eir might be his own website; would that be reasonable? Arnkellow (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have. There's only 2 or 3 "left". In all honesty I don't see the point in wasting time with the entry you mention. That article should be deleted. If the only available biographical source is the subject's own website, then it is an indicator that they do not meet the notability criteria. (IE: If there are no biographical sources, which confirm even the basic details of a subject's life, then WP:ANYBIO would suggest that they probably aren't notable.) In short, I wouldn't worry about that entry. Yet. If the community considers that the article should be retained, and sources are encountered as part of that process (AfD or otherwise), then we can address. Otherwise I wouldn't worry. Byrne, le Blond and Travers remain outstanding however.... Guliolopez (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have this google book search for le Blond. But I can't turn that int a ref can I? Arnkellow (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Course we can... Guliolopez (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guilolopez you are an absolute diamond. Thank you very much. Arnkellow (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling on Garret/Garrett Byrne, turning up more results for his Grandfather, and mentions that the family settled in Arklow; but not one that could be used. Tried the Times archive, no luck there even though the Byrne article uses that as a reference. There are a couple of local history books that could help. A trip to that shop is required. Arnkellow (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ya. I gave up. Added the {{cn}} tag and have moved on :) Guliolopez (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you so much for your diligence in rescuing and hugely improving the article on Máire Rua O'Brien! You deserve a good tea break :) Smirkybec (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Smirkybec. In honesty, I found it an interesting exercise. To separate the history from the folklore. And, in doing so, to see where the former probably influenced the latter.

While it is entirely my opinion, and hence not something to reflect in the article itself, I found the exaggerations on the subject's life to be both understandable. And annoying. In the sense that the folklore seems to derive from the storyteller's moralistic (and perhaps misogynistic) perspective on how a woman/widow of the period should have behaved.

("She married too often for my liking"; 3 husbands = harlot. "She married too quickly for my liking"; days/months = heartless. "She married people I didn't like"; Parliamentarian/Protestant = traitor. Etc.)

Combined with the fact that she doesn't seem to always have had the best relationship with her Irish neighbours (trying to keep them off her lands - by closing gates and rights of way) or non-Irish neighbours (trying to unseat the "planted" families from their lands - by stealing sheep and stuff), I can understand how her perceived failings were exaggerated into cartoonish hyperbole and local myth. Probably by the same local neighbours. Or their descendants.

Anyway. While the folklore (the fiction) has a place in the article, it should be framed in a way to distinguish it from the history (the facts). Which I think it now is. Or at least better than it was.... Guliolopez (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She's an interesting woman! I remember reading about her years ago in a book about haunted sites in Ireland, and was quite surprised to find her in the DIB and then not on Wikipedia already! You can feel like a little bit of a spoil sport taking a more sober look at her life, but she was formidable even without the embellishment. She is a very striking case of the vilification of women too, I'm surprised there were no allegations of witchcraft thrown in there for good measure. Thanks again for getting stuck in to the article, it was quite disheartening to see the quality decline, but speaks to her legacy! Smirkybec (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

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

Coote

Hi,

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

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

1.kapremont-upgrade.ru › ...

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

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

Hi Clonloumbog123. What book/journal, exactly, are you proposing to use as a source?

In the above, you seem to mention something titled "Coote Coat of Arms and Family Crest Notebook Journal". According to Amazon, this is a blank notebook. With 100 empty lined pages. If you are proposing to use a book which contains only 100 blank pages (and a coat of arms), then I am not sure whether you intend that as a joke, or some form of trolling. Either way I'm not especially interested in engaging with it.

If, on the other hand, you have copy/pasted the wrong title, and are aware of a reliable (non-blank) work, then please advise (specifically) what ISBN it has, who authored it, who published it, etc. And I can take a look. And see if it forms a reliable and verifiable source.

Otherwise, I have no idea what to do with your comments above. Guliolopez (talk)

sorry... I pasted wrong title Clonloumbog123 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What is the correct title then please Clonloumbog123? Or is it a secret? Guliolopez (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It won't work for me , I'll try get it working Clonloumbog123 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly your keyboard is working. Am I to understand that you know the words, but they can't be typed? Other words can? Just not those ones? Even the most naive sub in the world wouldn't sustain this level of ball-hopping. Not interested. G'bye and g'luck. Guliolopez (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dundalk article - thank you

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

Hi. Our talk page notes seem to have crossed. I've dropped a note into Talk:Dundalk/Archive_1#Full_rewrite_and_Good_Article_nomination. As it's a content discussion, might be best to cover things there. (Personally I'm not sure what the criteria should be. But, as you note, "15km" is far too broad. Especially when it starts to "claim" buildings and sites that are in another town/place entirely.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Defence Forces

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

Shannon Free Zone

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

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

Related pages about Shannon are just as badly sourced. This will take a while. The Banner talk 22:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People (redirected from Haz-Zebbug page)

Hello Sir,

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

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

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

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

Hello @Jonathan.Magri:. Thanks for your note. And contributions to Wikipedia. If you wish to improve the relevant article (or any article on Wikipedia), please do take a look at the guidelines on notability and verifiability. In short:

"I am from there, it is true" is not, unfortunately, sufficient reason for adding or retaining content. The WP:IKNOWITSTRUE essay summarises the project's approach here.
"I will individually email any/all editors with articles published by local clubs" is also not, unfortunately, sufficient to allow for other editors to verify the accuracy of content. The WP:RELIABLESOURCES guideline describes the project's approach here.

If adding or re-adding content to the relevant article, please ensure to refer to published and reliable sources that other editors can identify and verify.

If adding or re-adding entries to the "notable people" section of the article, please ensure to refer to the guidelines on notable people. In general. And for lists of "notable people" in articles on populated places specifically.

If you need help with either of these things, please consider contacting the Teahouse. Which is a friendly place for new editors to ask questions and seek help.

(Please also consider reviewing the editing/etiquette guidelines. In particular those which deal with not "reverting" the good faith edits of another editor without explanation. WP:REVEXP.)

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Durrus

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

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

Hi. Sorry. I had my head in something else when I saw your note the other night. And then I forgot to come back to you. RE:

Durrus. I might try a merge and redirect the series of three (overly detailed, indiscriminate and "mirror"y) component articles (early/mid/modern history) into the Durrus and District history title. And then link that. But, yes, otherwise we seem to be prioritising excessive and indigestible detail (dotted all about the place) to something that a reader could actually digest (in the main place the reader might actually expect to see it). At Durrus#History. I've got other things on right now. But will hopefully remember to come back to it.
Inflation. Indeed. Even after I found the thing, it probably had 20 "trial and error" attempts. Mashing the preview button each time. Before I could get the thing to return something usable. In honesty I wonder if that template is overly complex for most use cases. I won't be rushing back to it again myself any time soon.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a few books of the Sheep's head that mention a number of standing stones in and around the Durrus area, and will add shortly. Re Inflation, it seems you have saved me from quite a bit of frustration and angst. Some of these templates are very good, quite a few other seem to be very badly designed and containing very poorly written or needlessly complex code, syntax, or whatever. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I probably have similar books somewhere. Mainly walking books of the Beara Way and Sheeps Head. But they do cover the main "brown signpost" sites. Goodness knows where they are though. In the meantime I will likely keep tweaking the History of Durrus and District article. Piece by piece. It may end up being completely pared back. But I wanted to see if at least some of it could be rescued. At least, in the meantime, the "main" Durrus#History section covers the basics. At least to the level of other/similar articles. Guliolopez (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability & query?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you said isn’t fact

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

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

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

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

Hi.

"You are biased against the Cork Collins family". Not true. If I have an issue it is with editors using Wikipedia as a soapbox. For specific causes with which they have an association. And creating or expanding multiple articles about themselves or their family members. In support of those specific interests. Without consideration to the interests of this project.
"Only the Collins family have identified their family member [or campaigned for investigation]". Not correct. The Justice for the Magdalene Research campaign, the Coppin's family and others have also called for the same site to be investigated.
"You should really focus on elements you know about". Not appropriate. Unilaterally declaring that I (or anyone else) doesn't know enough to contribute (with the implication that you know more and hence your inputs are somehow more valid) is not only incorrect, it is also contrary to the related guidelines.

If you're interested in improving the project (as you have stated before), then I'm happy to assist. If you continue to have difficulty separating your own interests from those of this project (and feel the need to diminish the contributions of anyone who priorities the interests of the project over your narrower interests), then I'm not happy to accept that. Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Regards.

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

Hello. In all honesty, that you seem to be taking this all as some form of personal affront suggests you're still having difficulty separating your own goals from those of the project.

If I misread a source to the extent that its appropriate to change "The family members of some of those buried in this grave" to "The family members of some of one of those buried in this grave", then that type of edit is fine with me.

Otherwise I am less comfortable with edits which seek to mention only one victim (and the members of one victim's family) across any number of related articles. And with edits which seek to create articles on multiple members of that family. As if one victim (and that victim's family) somehow have more relevance, notability or importance over others.

If you have specific edits or content you want to discuss (or if want to discuss the best way of making those edits), then I'm happy to contribute. I'm not really otherwise happy to be attacked for some perceived "bias", to being advised against editing specific articles or topics, to being accused of untruth, or anything that comes from the presumption of bad-faith.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cork City W.F.C.

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

Hiya. Thanks for your note.

Firstly, apologies, I hadn't actually spotted your revert of my earlier change in that series of edits. If I had, I likely wouldn't have removed the links again.

Secondly, in general terms, yes a guideline absolutely does have precedence over an essay. My concern has been that we don't go back to the situation we had recently where every single squad member was red-linked. Or where some are red-linked while others are not. And where it is not at all clear why that would be the case.

In honesty, perhaps it is my own acknowledged ignorance of the task force's goals, but (having overlooked your edit summary) all I could see on the face of it was 2x list members linked. Without any clear reason why those were "selected" over others. And where there were no backlinks (from any namespace) to one of them and where the other link/article had been deleted. Absent any other information, I didn't see how these looked to be links to articles that were likely to be created or retained.

Anyway, if you want to restore the links then that's fine with me. I don't have enough wherewithal to contribute to the taskforce directly or generally. But I look forward to helping with those 2x articles. When created. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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

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

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

Reverted changes to articles

Hi Guliolopez!

I hope this message finds you well.

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

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

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

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

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

Chungju

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

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

Irish Memory Orchestra

Hello, it has come to our attention that you removed the separate page of the Irish Memory Orchestra and merged it into a small paragraph relating to its founder Dave Flynn. Please undo this as the Irish Memory Orchestra is a separate entity, featuring numerous professional musicians, a principal conductor and staff. The orchestra plays compositiosn by other composers and has done events without Dave Flynn involved. Please view https://www.irishmemoryorchestra.com/about.html to understand more about the orchestra. We did not create this page and we are unable to edit it as we represent the orchestra. However the wikipedia page is an important reference point for the orchestra and we were sadended to see it removed. If you are concerned that the wikipedia page did not have enough citations we hope this page on our website provides ample evidence that the orchestra is worthy of its own wikipedia page. https://www.irishmemoryorchestra.com/press.html Many orchestras and ensembles have been founded by individuals, yet have their own wikipedia page so this request is fair and reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishMemoryOrchestra (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

RE: MERGE. The action taken was consistent with Wikipedia:Merging guidelines. In that, well over a month ago, I proposed the merge, I created a discussion thread, I tagged the relevant pages, the proposal was highlighted to related projects and several editors accordingly contributed to a discussion on the merger. The consensus outcome of which was to go ahead with the merge.

RE: NOW. If you do not agree with the consensus outcome, then please open another discussion thread. Whether following Wikipedia:Splitting guidelines or otherwise. Providing a rationale and explanation. Personally I have no reason to believe that the consensus outcome was "wrong". Or should be overridden. Certainly the arguments proposed ("we have a website/webpage", "the Wikipedia page is an important reference point for us", and "we are sad to see it merged") are not points made with Wikipedia's content or notability policies in mind. To the extent that the outcome of the merge discussion should be unilaterally overridden. (I would note that the article stood largely as a collection of WP:NOTWEBHOST content for several years, was tagged for improvement in all that time, and - until relatively recently - stated that the orchestra and its founder were inexorably linked).

RE: USERNAME. You seem to be aware of the applicable COI guidelines, which is great. But you may want to note that your username doesn't meet the WP:USERNAME guidelines. (You may also want to stop using the word "we". Wikipedia users are expected to represent themselves. And perhaps this project. Not orgs.)

All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays

		Season's Greetings
		Seasons greetings. Hope you and yours are safe and well during this rather bleak period, though I think we will get through it. You got me through two FACs this year, with skill and aplomb on your behalf. Thanks a lot. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ceoil. And many happy returns to you and yours! Guliolopez (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Rostellan

On 9 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rostellan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the demesne of Rostellan contains an 18th-century folly, built by the landowner in honour of the actress Sarah Siddons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rostellan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rostellan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synger

Hi. Thanks for your help with the Synge Street CBS article. I do have a citation for this content you removed but I wasnt sure where to place the reference in the content. If I placed it against the first list item it might be indicating that only one item was referenced. Adding it after every item seemed overkill. Where would be the best place for the ref? I agree it might not be best placed within the article where I had it. Would you suggest an alternative location if it was referenced? Fob.schools (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fob.schools. You may wish to take another look at that edit. And edit summary. I didn't remove any content. I may have moved some content. But did not remove any content. In terms of "where to put a reference", if you add an introductory sentence to that subsection (something like "there were N superiors between 18NN and 19NN:"), you could easily stick a ref or refs on the end of that sentence. That sentence would also be useful in establishing the inclusion criteria for the section/list. Which all lists should have anyway. Otherwise I'm not sure what help I can be. G'luck. Guliolopez (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Aidan Walsh: Master of the Universe

On 4 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aidan Walsh: Master of the Universe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the documentary Aidan Walsh: Master of the Universe explores the life of the musician who signed "Ireland's fastest ever record deal"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aidan Walsh: Master of the Universe. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Aidan Walsh: Master of the Universe), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clonlea

Clare County Library was willing to verify the dodgy source:

Reflections from home and abroad = cuimhní cinn sa bhaile agus i gcéin 2019 / Tulla Reaching Out Tulla Reaching Out Committee, author. Book | Tulla Reaching Out | 2019

The Banner talk 14:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sallins

Many thanks for your editing of my changes (and those of others), with educational citations. My editing skills have obviously atrophied some time ago. I'd like to re-add the cultural section, but this time with a proper REF to Sult Na Sollain in the References section, as you noted. Should I also adjust the Sallins GAA link, which is also inline, to be a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalc (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donalc. And thanks for your note. While I'm not sure I'm following your comment/question fully, in terms of the:

Culture section, if you want to reinstate something (that is properly formatted and referenced) then that's fine with me. I would, however, recommend that you take a quick look at WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTQUOTE. Because it was not just the multiple inline links that made the previous incarnation more than a little "spammy". The text itself was also at least quasi-promotional.
Sallins GAA link, if you are proposing to remove the link to the Sallins GAA article, then I am not sure why you would do that. There are no external links (inline or otherwise) associated with that subject. Links (from one Wikipedia article to another Wikipedia article) are a bit part of the project. I do not know why we would remove that one. And I don't know how it could be "adjusted" to become a ref regardless.

If I've completely misunderstood what you were asking me, then (with apologies) do let me know. Guliolopez (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Shandon Castle, Cork

Hello! Your submission of Shandon Castle, Cork at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Flibirigit (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Shandon Castle, Cork

On 18 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shandon Castle, Cork, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Shandon Castle was destroyed in the Siege of Cork in 1690, and sandstone from its ruins used to build the Church of St Anne in 1722? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shandon Castle, Cork. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Shandon Castle, Cork), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Dunne, Snr.

Very boring question, that I haven't found guidance on. For the name of this article, surely having a full-stop after a contraction is not ideal? Would it be better as Ben Dunne (Senior) or Ben Dunne, Senior? I ended up on the page from Darrers, as that relationship between Dunne and Darrer is one that is still unrecorded! Thanks so much :) Smirkybec (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found the answer! Smirkybec (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great Smirkybec. I have my own opinions (although not very strong ones). But if there's a definitive policy or guideline, then that's great.

(On "whether to show the suffix" my own thought (FWIW), was that it's probably not needed in this case. The current status seems perfectly fine. I note, for example, that Brian Lenihan Snr is just referred to as Brian Lenihan when there's limited chance of confusion with his son (like before his son was born or became a public figure). Same would seem to apply here.)

(On "how to show the suffix", my own thought (FWIW) was that the full-stop would be ugly and disruptive. As you suggest. And, in all honesty, the full-stop probably shouldn't be part of the article title in the first place.)

Anyway. Glad it's sorted. Guliolopez (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the reply. I plumped for just changing him to plain old Ben Dunne, as when I was searching for more information on him, he was actually rarely referred to as "senior" - but that might be a bit of a recent thing. If someone feels strongly about adding the senior back in we can thrash it out. Given how little interest the article has attracted over the years, I doubt that will happen!

On a side note, I have made contact with the Darrers family about looking to record some of the history of the stores in a local history journal (Carloviana) - so fingers crossed we might have some more information to go on. There was always a bit of local legend about why towns with a Darrers didn't have a Dunnes (like Carlow) based on some sort of gentleman's agreement between Ben Dunne and Des Darrer, but with no source or definitive answer on it. I'm hopeful that we'd be able to get some of the social history recorded while some of the family members are around. I'll let you know if that eventually comes to anything :) Smirkybec (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, made a mistake.

I added a wrong information in Santhosh George Kulangara. I didnt read the full source, instead saw this from an online news channel. Really sorry for that and thankyou for correcting. And by the way, please try to assume good faith. I did not do that intentionally. We all are humans and we make mistakes. Nobody is perfect. Since you are a veteran editor here, I expect you to be more civil.Regards.Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kashmorwiki. And thanks for your note.

RE: Mistake. OK. Thanks.
RE: Good faith. I made no assumption or assertion about any editor's motives. So I'm unclear how AGF is relevant.
RE: Civil. I'm not sure which part of my edit or summary you consider offensive. But, in terms of wording, the term "rubbish" (to my ear) is on the more civil end of the scale. When referring to an overt fallacy. Otherwise, in terms of framing, I appreciate that I shouldn't have used caps for emphasis. That was unnecessary in the context. Apologies if that contributed to any perceived incivility.

Bye and happy editing. Guliolopez (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez:, thankyou for your apologly. I am not an advicer but I just want to say one thing. Users from different parts of the world contributes here and their culture and practises varies. In my place, phrases like "What a load of rubbish" is almost considered as offensive. All people might not have the same perspective as yours. Thats why I meant by becoming more civil. You might not have meant anything offensive. But others might not take it in that way. Please consider this as a small piece of suggestion. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 04:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez:, WP:AGF states that unless there's evidence that proves otherwise, assume that the people are trying to help out, even if they make a mistake. The way your summary was written can, and in most cases will, make other people think you aren't assuming good faith. And, for that message that I sent (but also was deleted), I might have said "welcome to wikipedia", however, I was justified to send that message in this circumstance. Acronymical (Stay home. Save lives. Stay 2 metres apart.) 16:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both. Thanks for your comments and follow-ups. I welcome and am happy to consider your input. Otherwise Acronymical, repeated accusations of anything other than good faith on my part is less than welcome. In this or any other circumstance. In the same vein, relative to your comment about deleting templated messages, you may not be aware that WP:OWNTALK covers the removal of messages as a means of indicating that the message has been read. If you have comments on (or need input on) any other policies and editing norms, then I am happy to assist. Otherwise I am happy that this thread has run its course. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch!

I stole the infobox params from the Persian WP article ;) - Alison ^❤ 00:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Reduce, reuse, recycle" :) Guliolopez (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty

Dear Guliolopez. I think you remember me. Thank you again for helping me start off in 2017. I am trying to improve the article "Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty" by nominating it for an A-Class review (see WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty). Your expertise on Irish language and Irish names is needed. Donough's father was known as "Cormac Oge" and I try to explain the "Oge" to the reader. User Buidhe challenges the following sentence: "His father carries the distinctive epithet 'oge',[29] which is anglicised from Irish óg, young.[30]". I cite MacMathúna's dictionary for óg meaning young, but Buidhe says this is not enough; the citation needs to show that the "Oge" in "Cormac Oge" is derived from that Irish word and that the change from "óg" to "Oge" is in fact anglicisation (it could be that we are dealing with the comparative of the adjective "óg"). I suppose that problem has occurred in other articles about Irish people that carried the epithet "Oge" that you know about. With many thanks and greeting, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes Schade. I do, of course, remember you. Hello again. In all honesty I'm not sure I know how to help.

In terms of the use of "Óg" (as a suffix to an Irish name) it is used exactly as you note. To distinguish the younger family member from an elder relation with a similar name. As such it is equivalent to "Jr" or "Junior" (with English names). Or "der Jüngere" (with German names). Examples like Martin Luther King Sr./Martin Luther King Jr. and Hans Holbein the Younger/Hans Holbein the Elder come to mind. In all honesty I don't see that there is any specific controversy here.

In terms of the use of "Oge" (as an anglicisation of "Óg") this is also fairly common. And used as you note. As an anglicised version of "Óg". Where the "e at the end" is used lengthen to the "o". So the anglicised version is "Oge" (rhymes with "brogue") rather than "Og" (rhymes with "hog"). Examples like Niall Oge O'Neill, Conn Oge O'Donnell, and Rory Oge O'More come to mind. In all honesty I don't see that there is any specific controversy here either.

While I'm not entirely sure I know what you're asking me to do, it seems to me that the other editor's concern is that this footnote relies on a source that doesn't mention the subject. While I'm not sure we need a reference at all for such a general statement, I also see the other editors point. As the linked source doesn't mention either subject, it is - technically - OR/SYNTH to apply it here.

Personally I wonder if the problem is simply solved by just removing the statement. Why are we getting into it at all? Why not let the Charles MacCarthy, 1st Viscount Muskerry (Cormac Oge) article deal with him and his name. Or, at the very least, maybe describing it as a "distinctive epithet" is not necessary. (It's not really a "distinctive epithet" when its as ubiquitous as names with "Jr" in them....)

Anyway, while I'm not sure what you're asking me to advise specifically, I wonder if just removing that footnote would address the issue. Or perhaps replacing most of the footnote with a link to Suffix (name)#Generational titles instead.... Guliolopez (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Guliolopez. Thank you so much. Your remarks are very much to the point and have helped me. I think the reviewer means that I must find a citation that says the "oge" found in Irish names cited in their English forms is derived from the Irish "óg"and means young. I found a remark about that in *{{Cite book|last=Matheson |first=Robert E. |date=1901 |title=Varieties and Synonymes of Surnames and Christian Names in Ireland |publisher=His Majesty’s Stationery Office |location=Dublin |url=https://archive.org/details/varietiessynonym00math/}} page 12, but unluckily in his case it was Og and not Oge: 'Shawn Og—'Young John.' I do not believe the reviewer will accept this as good enough. - Delete, yes but ideally we should make the article better, not worse to pass it through a review. With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honan Chapel scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Honan Chapel article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 2, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L

Gargatuan L non-idolo — Preceding unsigned comment added by mikeluhghthv7Mikeluhghthv7 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? Guliolopez (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant what I said.

Sock

Hi Gulio, hope all's well with yerself. You might wanna have a look at this IP's contributions lately, as it seems to tie into the Manfromnewmexico sockpuppet investigation. Seems to have an editing pattern pretty consistent with the blocked socks re editing the same articles (Timothy Quill, Michael O'Riordan for two) over the last few days, and historically also has contributions to draft of own article. Duck test seems passed anyway, so I said I'd pass on for your attention. Cheers. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. I had noted the same thing. I don't have the patience to track every sock. In the meantime, WP:NOT3RR (#3) applies. Guliolopez (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair. I'll continue keeping an eye out in case it slips again, in case that SPI case may need reopening some time soon. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ser!. Sigh... Guliolopez (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh indeed. It's a near-constant stream of socks at this stage. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit and the Irish border

The edits were to improve context and create a clearer, simpler introduction for this complex topic. i disagree that the word “particularly” is essential in this introduction - it makes the introduction more convoluted and if necessary can be discussed later. Joe Jackson (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Simplicity should not be prioritised over accuracy. The sources (and the body) are clear that "historical/political sensitivities" are not the only consideration. Per the AP source for example: "Both sides agree there must be no hard border that could disrupt businesses and residents on both sides and undermine Northern Ireland’s hard-won peace process". Emphasis mine. Changing this to "All parties said that they wanted to avoid a hard border, due to this border's historically sensitive nature" (with no mention or implication of other considerations) is neither reflective of the body or those sources. Clarity is a laudable goal. Clarity at the expense of accuracy or consistency is not an appropriate tradeoff. If you wish to discuss proposed changes to content of the article, then please open a thread on the relevant article talk page. Which is where content discussions should occur. So that other editors can also contribute. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner

Why did you remove my contributions to the Irish Examiner page? It was properly sourced.Aerchasúr (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aerchasúr. Of the two changes you made I removed one - because it was grammatically problematic. And I moved (but not removed) the other - because it was misplaced in the lead, unattributed, and representative only of one source.

The change I removed (your change from "an Irish [newspaper]" to "a Irish [newspaper]") was because "a Irish" breaks the standard English grammatical rule of using the preposition "an" (not "a") before words that start with a vowel sound.

The change I moved (your change to describe the newspaper as liberal) was because that was a bold statement to include in the lead when it only relied on a single source. And didn't attribute the opinion. And because other sources describe the subject's editorial policy as everything from "centrist" to "conservative". Your text (and the source which supports it) remains in the body. Alongside other similarly sourced text.

In short: The only thing I removed was a grammatical error. The other text was moved (and actually expanded). Not removed.

Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So what you seem to be saying, Guliolopez, is that content that's well written, neutrally worded, balanced, referenced, attributed and due appropriate coverage will get included in articles. And the opposite presumably also applies - content that doesn't meet those criteria will be removed. I wonder do we have any policies on any of that? ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coolera Peninsula

Is a packed gallery instead of a centered one the consensus, or was it just personal taste to change it? Jacobfrid (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies for not including a more descriptive EDSUMM, the main impetus for my copyedit change was to consolidate two galleries into one. One that will scale with the page width. As a "packed" mode does. (In a way that a break between two separate centered galleries does not. Which will result in arbitrary breaks and wrapping depending on screen size/scale/etc.) If you feel that the "centred" gallery should be restored, then that's fine. But ideally there wouldn't be an arbitrary break between two separate galleries. (If we have so many images that we have to have multiple separate galleries, then we'd have to ask ourselves the question as to whether there are too many images. Guliolopez (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer the packed gallery in this instance. I was just wondering if it was deemed consensus, as I can see situations where it would not look well, eg. when there's a gallery in the middle of a page instead of at the end. However, you answered this concern as well, because if a mid-page gallery had so many images that it required multiple breaks it would likely need to be removed / reduced anyway. Cheers. Jacobfrid (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit. Thank you. Vnosm (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chairperson in infobox?

Hi. I wanted to know what you thought about including county board members (such as the chairperson) in the county board infobox.

I am asking because a team page for the Mayo ladies' footballers was recently created. The page has its own special infobox, with the chairman included. When I attempted to replace this infobox with the one used on other team pages I encountered opposition from the page's creator whose infobox "had more pertinent info than the cutback version you've replaced it with" - which I suppose it did, but it also has the chairperson. Do we include these now? My guess (based upon our previous exchange) would be 'no' but I thought I'd ask anyway in case I'm somehow wrong. It did not seem worth the dispute so I left it after removing the "social media" section of the infobox, complete with Twitter and Facebook (these have since reappeared at the bottom of the page in the form of an "external links" section).

When I checked the infoboxes used in other sports (such as baseball or association football) I noticed they included the "chairman" or "president" of the club. But these appear to be notable people with their own biographies. This will not be the case with Gaelic games in most cases of course, as we previously touched upon. I think the only two chairmen with biographies might be Michael Duignan (the former Offaly hurler) and Peter Fitzpatrick (the Louth TD). Gaois (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Position on Covid and Lockdowns.

Change wording from "misinformation" to "unsubstantiated claims". "Misinformation" would require evidence of intentionality and/or direct scientific based evidence showing her statements are wrong. Some of her claims may be shown to be factually incorrect, while others can be shown to be correct, scientifically. I would expect reference to primary scientific literature to support the loaded term 'misinformation', not newspaper article by journalists who are neither medically or scientifically qualified. You know well that some newspapers support the left, other support the right. So reference to a newspaper article is not appropriate to conclude anything in terms of medical science.

The article is a bit biased overall. I've no idea if this is correct wiki procedure to make this point here, but it reads more like an attack on Prof. Dolores Cahill and I think that appears intentional. The author of the page clearly opposes the Irish Freedom Party. That's fine - personally I might oppose their party views myself - but if you want to attack the scientific statements you must do so using reference to scientific journals and articles or else appear biased.

So much for wikipedia being open and unbiased. It's just possessive editors who publish based on their own ideological stance...

I had no idea wikipedia was just like all the other social media stuff, the so-called 'editors' may as well spend their time on twitter being openly subjective.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.112.169 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 29 May 2021

Hi. While I'm not sure how to address most of the above, in terms of the suggestion that:

"A newspaper article is not appropriate (as a reference)". The Irish Times is considered a reliable source by this project. Other available, reliable and verifiable sources have described the subject's statements as "unsubstantiated" or "misinformation". Therefore that is what the article reflects. Per WP:VER.
"Some claims may be shown to be factually incorrect (or correct in the future)". If future scientific studies support the subject's claims (that kids' IQs were impacted by masks, that vaccines were unnecessary, that masks were advocated so that people could be oxygen-deprived and better-controlled by globalists), then we can add them. When they area available. Changing content, on the basis of what some future scientific journal might state, is otherwise WP:SPECULATIVE WP:OR.
"The author of the page clearly opposes the Irish Freedom Party". The page has been expanded by upwards of 80 different contributors. Who have edited the page in line with this project's guidelines. There is no one/single author.
"Editors may as well spend their time on twitter being openly subjective". The suggestion that an edit, which uphold the policies of this project (including WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:FRINGE), is somehow the same as Twitter rant, is a false-equivalence. And then some.

If you wish to propose a change to the article, then please do. If you wish to propose a change, on the basis that "newspapers are unreliable" (or the Irish Times is unreliable specifically), then be prepared to have that rationale questioned. Guliolopez (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Lucy

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Hi:

What sort of citations do you need for these guys? Their entries all state they read English at UCC (and therefore had Lucy, since he taught all years). Does the citation request refer to the final name on the list, or all? I'm a bit confused here. Hanoi Road (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Reliable and verifiable sources, which directly support the text, are needed. For that text. As with all text. If you have a source confirming that the students attended the course (when Lucy was professor or whatever), then please add it. If you have a source confirming that the students were taught/guided by Lucy (specifically), then please add it. While ANYTHING is better than NOTHING, the latter is preferred. Otherwise, stating that "they were there when he was there" (entirely unsupported) is an example of WP:OR. And, even claiming that "there were there when he was there" (supported only with refs that mention dates but not Lucy) is an example of WP:SYNTH. Beyond that, it is not enough that other articles make broadly related claims that could be extrapolated. As Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. You might also want to read WP:BIT, WP:WTRMT and WP:BURDEN. Guliolopez (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes any difference (?), I knew most of them and they were indeed all taught by Lucy; as was I. This was unavoidable if one read English at UCC at any point during those decades. The faculty was VERY small then, and Lucy pretty much covered modern English. This is a bit like demanding proof that anyone who presently works in the west wing has ever seen Joe Biden. Its pretty much a given. The other problem is that such a citation request is likely to stand forever, unless Theo, Greg & Co have recently given interviews which specifically mention Sean's lectures, which I rather doubt. I also doubt that anyone has the energy to Google these names one by one, looking for any nostalgic recollections of UCC. The fact that they all read English at UCC during that time covers it; trust me. Furthermore, I have seen other Wiki assumptions ranging from sketchy to pretty much baseless glide through unchallenged for years. To target this one seems a little overly specific - not to mention pedantic. It is also incorrect. Sorry. Hanoi Road (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

WP:BIT - I'm not sure if you read BIT before responding, but you just acted-it-out in real time. Knowingly or otherwise :)
WP:OSE - The implication that someone (I?) am being pedantic, disingenuous or otherwise inappropriate in applying the standard here (but showhow not taking responsibility for every other issue everywhere else on the project) is silly. At best. You may not be familiar with the OSE guidelines, but you've likely heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right". Or not allowing "perfection to be the enemy of good". "Everything isn't perfect so nothing has to be perfect" is not a valid argument for seeking improvement. Wikipedia is a work in progress. That is a given. It is however not a reason to abandon the core project pillars. (I would separately note that I removed other unattributed opinion, uncited editorial, and other unsupportable stuff from that article. So the suggestion that I am "picking on" this one point is misplaced. And demonstrably so.)
WP:VER - If that claim goes uncited for some time, then that's fine by me. Ultimately, however, if it is removed as uncited by any editor, then the change/removal by that editor will be well within project policy.

(Maybe, in the meantime, you can see about publishing your own memories on the subject in/to a reliable source. Perhaps an Irish Times or Examiner reporter will be interested in publishing your recollection of those guys contributing to the same class/course together. And that'll solve the problem. Certainly they don't solve the problem languishing here on my talk page :D )

All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea as to how it might be reworded to accomplish the difficult act of simultaneously satisfying your very, very high standards whilst also making it read less like the Spanish Inquisition. I'll do it later. Please don't revert it as a reflex. Thanks. Hanoi Road (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya.

RE: "My very high standards". Thanks for the compliment. Blushing here. Shucks.

RE: "Reword to address". Thanks for that change. It will be much easier to find/add references to support the new text. (As now all we need are refs that confirm dates/etc, rather than refs that mention Lucy specifically.) We still need something however. (You mention that the other articles state that each subject attended UCC during that time. Which is great. But the supporting refs need to be in the Lucy article. Also.)

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved; I found a reliable/verifiable ref to support the text. I've added it where it was needed. Sorted. Guliolopez (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Guliolopez Hello Sir.The sources given in the Awards and honours section of the Wikipedia article Santosh George Kulangara is from the subject's own website.But it is the original copy of news from media .Please visit https://santhoshgeorge.com/mediasaysindex.php.Pachu Kannan (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pachu Kannan. While I appreciate your note (thanks), I do not understand what it is that you are asking me to do or to say.

If you are asking me for advice on how best to reflect these sources (so it is clear that the subject's personal website is republishing existing sources rather than a source in itself), then you could consider changing the ref syntax:

FROM: {{Cite news|url=https://santhoshgeorge.com/images/media-new/SundayMangalam2002May19page2.jpg |date=19 May 2002|page=2|title= SundayMangalam2002May19page2 |work=santhoshgeorge.com}}
TO: {{Cite news|url=https://santhoshgeorge.com/images/media-new/SundayMangalam2002May19page2.jpg |date=19 May 2002|page=2|title= (MUCH) CLEARER TITLE OF ORIGINAL NEWS ARTICLE | newspaper=(MUCH) CLEARER NAME OF ORIGINAL NEWSPAPER SOURCE | via = santhoshgeorge.com }}

If you are asking me for advice on whether/if/when the "primary sources" tag might be removed, I would note that the subject's own personal website (santhoshgeorge.com) is not the only primary source that is heavily relied upon in the article. Several of the other sources (labourindia.com, safaritvchannel.com, keralaism.com, etc) are operated by the subject or organisations with which the subject has an association. These are therefore not independent sources. The subject is the managing director or board member of at least two of those companies, for example. Ideally there would be less reliance on these types of sources.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Carrauntoohil

Arklow RNLI

Request

Subedi

Other articles

Inis Oírr

Ardee edits

Cavan hurling championship 2016

Party for Animal Welfare

Dublin reversion

Baile Mhic Ealagoid

Arklow/Aaron Barry

A cup of tea for you!

Precious anniversary

Coote

Dundalk article - thank you

Irish Defence Forces

Shannon Free Zone

Notable People (redirected from Haz-Zebbug page)

Durrus

Notability & query?

What you said isn’t fact

Cork City W.F.C.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Reverted changes to articles

Chungju

Irish Memory Orchestra

Best wishes for the holidays

DYK for Rostellan

Synger

DYK for Aidan Walsh: Master of the Universe

Clonlea

Sallins

DYK nomination of Shandon Castle, Cork

DYK for Shandon Castle, Cork

Ben Dunne, Snr.

Sorry, made a mistake.

Good catch!

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty

Honan Chapel scheduled for TFA

L

Sock

Brexit and the Irish border

Examiner

Coolera Peninsula

Akane Yamaguchi

Chairperson in infobox?

Position on Covid and Lockdowns.

Sean Lucy

Sources