User talk:Guliolopez

I don't see why the dates the Listowel Races are held are inappropriate for an entry on in in an encyclopedia. The article was virtually dead before I added to it. Show some courtesy from now on and use the talk feature before changing something.

Lisa Gerrard

Thanks for giving the Template:CC-2.0 code to put on the image pages.

Glitter1959 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

Níl a bhuíochas ort! (No thanks needed) Guliolopez (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RoI page

I saw the page on RM (I was going to request a move myself, but didn't) - the reason I put that sentence in was because the one I replaced looks too... forceful with its italics. How does "the descriptor "Republic of Ireland" is sometimes used to differentiate the state from the island." sound? It's as NPOV as I can think of, and it might help a reader know why the article is at that title. Will ^(talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The fundamental issue with that is that the term "the Republic of Ireland" is not used to "differentiate from the island". The term "the Republic of Ireland" is used because it's how the Irish Constitution describes the state! So, it's not about NPOV. It's about factual accuracy. Guliolopez (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback rights

... added! Thought you'd find that useful :) - Alison ^❤ 15:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! :) Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary Sniping

I am afraid Guliolopez that unnecessary sniping, by User:Bastun, against other editors is an NPA issue. If you cannot see that as a little problem, well what can I say. "Little by little, little problems into bigger problems grow". 78.19.65.254 (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. In my view, one user was simply making a polite request to another user to avoid describing other people's opinions or suggestions as "Bull". This request was not a personal attack. Removing that polite request (as you did) under NPA was unnecessary and inappropriate. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah's use of the word "bull" was an "ad contentum" remark. Bastun's remark about being civil was an "ad hominin" remark. In the cut and thrust of Wikipedia, language often becomes a bit colourful regarding content especially. Bastun overstepped that line by making an accusation about Sarah being uncivil. Use of the word "bull" would be likely to elicit a response, nevertheless, technically it is not an uncivil term. 78.19.65.254 (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just plain subjectively selective. Arbitrarily choosing to define one user's comments as an attack, and another's as a "context based rebuttal" is not applying NPA appropriately or fairly. Anyway, I'm not getting into this with you, as it's not progressing the issue. If you are interested in gaining consensus in the discussion, then join that discussion (instead of just "editing" other people's comments). And, if you are interested in making long-term constructive contributions to the project, please consider creating a profile. (Or log-in to one that you might already have). Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"That's just plain subjectively selective.". Agree, editors do it all the time on Wikipedia. I think you just made my point. Baiting other editors does not do the project any good, and leads to other problems down the road, such as ArbCom etc. Have a nice day ;) 78.19.65.254 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Turner's Cross & Munster Football Association

The Munster Football Association don't exist,so why did you put it in red again?That's all I did to Turner's Cross.--Jonmccarthy (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually Jon, it's not all you did. This is the change you made. As you can see, you reverted considerably more than a simple link. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Four Green Fields

I think not many people visit Four Green Fields. Those who do can now read about the window and the song. I don't really see a problem and leaving it as it is would be my preference. It means more people are likely to find both (and easily). But if you wish to change this I won't raise any dispute. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael McDowell

I have reverted your removal of Image:Replace this image male.svg from the article Michael McDowell.

This a widely-used device to request images of people, and you made mo case as to why it was a bad idea on that particular article. If you want to stop use of this image, you can nominate it at WP:IFD, but please don't just selectively remove it from public figures whose articles lack images. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi BHG. Actually, I did make a case. Specifically, I noted in my edit summary that I was "removing the placeholder" because "it's an invitation to newbies to upload non-free images", or to those who will "try + include external ones". As this anon attempted to do several times.

When we invite people to upload images like that, the volume of traffic on this project invariably means that there will be those who are not familiar with the guidelines, and will attempt to react to the request by uploading images without consideration to Fair Use or other copyright issues.

In fact, we can plainly seen in the history of several images that many people (quite likely in good faith) attempted this on this page - simply because we asked them to "fill the gap".

Frankly, if we have no image for someone, then we have no image. It's not the end of the world to leave the infobox empty and see it filled in due course. Inviting someone to include a "portrait" style image is inviting copyright issues.

I would also respectfully point out that there is already a picture of McDowell on that page. It's not "portrait quality" enough for an info box, and nobody has cropped it into something acceptable. However, inviting someone to upload something "better" is (as noted) inviting people to source them from official or copyrighted sources.

Anyway, I understand why those placeholder images exist, and that it is a "a widely-used device". And I can even see a case for them in certain circumstances. However, I do not think they are appropriate for use:

• Where an image already exists. (Even if not "perfect portrait quality")
• Where there is a lengthy history of people uploading inappropriate images in an "answer to the request".
• Or in the middle of articles and outside infoboxes. (Like this silliness where we have a "please replace" image in the middle of a non-bio article for no reason.)

Hence, I was not being arbitrarily selective, I was applying specific method to my approach. (And not just blindly following "convention", where circumstances would dictate another course.) Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Clifford T. Reid

Thanks your delightfully acerbic comments at the AFD debate on Reid, and for the link to that amazing election poster. There must, surely, be some sort of political equivalent of a Darwin Award for that! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

IMOS

The Mos refers to giving irish translations to names - not descriptions. Where does it mention the need for Irish translations for things other than names?WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 16:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See: The remainder of the article should use only the place name as titled in the article. The exception to this is when a portion of the article is providing information specific to the naming of the place.

Semi-related friendly suggestion: In the few months that you have been contributing to the project (apart a handful of exception edits to your favourite band, and a dispute at Wales) the vast majority of your changes have been to eradicate any mention of "Republic of Ireland". (In the case in question, to an Irish translation). This is bordering on WP:SPA, and this constant "contrariness" is not helping improve the project overall. Please consider doing something else for a while. Write an article on something you are interested in or otherwise contribute something substantive. 1000 edits to pipe "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland" takes a lot of energy - energy that might be better served to create something valuable.

And, a final point. While it may make sense to use the official state name where DAB is not an issue, SPECIFICALLY removing references to "Republic of Ireland" from DAB headers (where confusion with the island of Ireland is all but inevitable) is NOT a helpful change.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough. However I do see it as a fatal flaw of wikipedia considering the name's history. I shall refrain from inputting it into DAB headers.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

John Gray (Irish politician)

Just spotted John Gray (Irish politician). It's a fine article — well done!

I hope you will nominate it as a good article candidate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I walk past his statue every day, and I've been meaning to write the article for a while (always seemed a strange omission that he didn't have one - but then I suppose, not everyone knows who he was :). I'm personally unsure whether it's a GA candidate just yet (I'm having some difficulty reconciling some conflicting sources on DOB, alma mater, etc) but I may nominate it in due course. Thanks for the note (glad that at least one person read it :) Guliolopez (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added some details and a section to your excellent article. Actually you beat me to it, I was about to make a start myself. My added contribution is largely from the Oxford Directory (National Library, public shelf), which contained more Irish political substance which I felt needed to be included. It may clash with some of your notes, but I'm sure you can sort it out. Greetings Osioni (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK - thanks. I've rationalised some of the notes (based on the clash that you mention), and done a little copyediting to keep the "flow". Otherwise looks good. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I wonder if you could double verify how many sons he had, the Oxford Dictionary claims five children, three sons, 2 daus., just to have it correct ?. Regarding the slimming of the introduction to Edmund Dwyer Gray (below), just to explain, - I was instructed "ages ago" that the introduction should contain an overview of all relevant material from the body, which of course means some duplications. I have worked through near all the MP biographies to also make sure the constituencies are mentioned in the introduction for the added reason that search machines are as good as the content of the first three lines of any article or biog., that means when someone in the public domain googles for earlier MPs in a certain constituency, it needs to be in the opening section for a positive result to come up (so an "expert" informed me). That just to my reason for including his constituencies in the introduction. Gray's pages are yours -- best wishes Osioni (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Edmund Dwyer Gray

Thanks, I think I got motivated to write it when you added the wikilink to Edmund Dwyer-Gray. I certainly think Gray's relationship with Charles Stewart Parnell is worth mentioning and there was plenty of detail in the DNB, but it was quite complicated so I started the article intending to work on a Parnell section later. I think the Freeman's Journal reaction to Parnell's divorce scandal was actually when it was run by his son Edmund Dwyer-Gray, as the scandal was after Gray had died. --Canley (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You might be right. I think that I may (myself) be confusing father and son in my reading of the Parnell sources. As you say, it's a complex area, so may better left alone for visitors to resolve with "further reading" themselves :) Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for formatting. I have been hacking my contribution to bits myself to try and get what I mean across. It is hardest to make an argument when you are not really passionate about it at times. Narson (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Irish (Gaeilge) language speakers

Good work nominating that category for deletion; I have added my support at the CFD debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thx

Thx for helping me to categorize the images. I usually do that about a week later.--Sanandros (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason we have judges and juries

This is the first line from Extrajudicial punishment:

Extrajudicial punishment is punishment by the state or some other official authority without the permission of a court or legal authority.

Gardaí aren't entitled to convict and sentence people, that's what the judiciary is for. Gardaí are entitled to arrest, detain and charge anybody they catch breaking the law. They are not entitled to punish them. When they start doing just that, it's extrajudicial (from exterus, outward, outside, and judicalis, of or belonging to a court of justice), as well as illegal.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What you are failing to recognise in that definition is the term "punishment". I'm not condoning the approach, but there is nothing in the Garda behaviour in Mayo that would allow it to be (objectively) classified as "punishment"? Anyway, I'm not getting into this with you. You're making this a discussion about the behaviour in Mayo. Rather than about YOUR behaviour. My point is that you need to stop using Wikipedia as a Soapbox. I'm personally a member of several advocacy groups. But you don't see me brandishing their values here. You need to do the same. Or - frankly - I'll be opening an RfC against your continued POV editting. You need to operate within the mores of this community - or move your soapboxing to another outlet. Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

From Punishment:

Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal in response to an unwanted, disobedient or morally wrong behavior.

People are being punished, with physical violence, for protesting in Mayo, especially the more voluble. There is a deliberate policy of circumventing the judiciary (see the link to the Garda Review article excerpt). Many people have been hurt, some have ended up in hospital. The idea is simple: if you protest, you risk being hurt. Due process is not being followed, which makes it a civil rights issue now. To claim that none of this behaviour constitutes punishment is ridiculous, when dissuading people from protesting by using violence is the primary motivation for that violence. I'm making this a discussion about what happens in Mayo because that's what my edit was about. I'm happy to discuss both that and my own edits with you anytime, either here or at an RfC. I'm disappointed you believe I'm using Wikipedia as a soapbox, but your argument about these edits has not impressed me. You're right, what is happening in Mayo is not on the same level as Abu Ghraib etc. What it is, is the thin end of the exact same wedge.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Look. As stated, I am not getting into a philosophical debate on the events in Mayo with you. Because that suggests we are on different sides. What I will repeat however is that - as I've already stated - the term "physical force" is perfectly fine as it is. It's not interpretive, subjective or open to "debate about definitions in interpretation". Your re-classification of the events to sit within the same category as torture and state terrorism however is a frankly classic case of soapaboxing. As, in fact, are most of your edits. Your claim of "surprise" at being considered a partisan editor is more than a little weak, given the fact that your talkpage is RIFE with warnings from other editors, details of a ban, previous RfC and several blocks for exactly the same thing. Clearly you are failing to acknowledge the mores of the project, are ignoring other editors requests to tone it down, and are just bullying your way through every difference of opinion. Please don't change the wording again - at the very least without a reputable source to back up your assertion on the label for the Garda behaviours in Mayo. Guliolopez (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident Garda tactics fall under Wikipedia's definition of extrajudicial punishment, for the reasons I've outlined above. I'm not surprised at being considered partisan, what surprises me is that you consider me so. Four out of the six blocks I've received were from two editors with whom I was involved in content disputes with, a clear (although apparently unpunishable) violation of blocking policy. Needless to say, I reject your description of me above. Unless you can demonstrate that the violence visited upon that community in Mayo is being done within the judicial system, or is not a punishment, please don't change the wording again.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you are "confident" in your definition. But it's your definition and your opinion. It's not a sourced fact. The existing wording is fine, and is based on factual rather than interpretative practices - which is what Wikipedia is based on. I can see no reason to change it - except as an exercise in pushing an agenda. (And turning the tables on me to "prove" that it's not "state terrorism" is the most backward definition of WP:VER that I've heard in some time.) Anyway, if you insist on changing it again, I won't revert your change (because this is turning into an edit war on a small point that - frankly - you shouldn't be pushing). However - if your do pursue this - I will be requesting administrator intervention. Guliolopez (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia's definition, not just mine. There's nothing in the extrajudicial punishment article that suggests it can only be applied to violations on the scale of torture. I never described the Gardaí's actions as state terrorism. My argument is simple: the Garda tactics involve punishing people extrajudicially (have you read the GR excerpt yet?), therefore, that constitutes extrajudicial punishment. I'm having great difficulty understanding what more you want me to do to prove my point, and far from it being small, I consider it a very important point. Requesting administrator intervention is a shrewd move on your part, Gulio, as I have an unhappy history with that particular tribe. However, it doesn't say much for your argument.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with this now. Claiming that "definition A" doesn't explicitly preclude X, therefore X is valid under "definition A" is not a logical argument. Under either mathematical, set or debate logic theory. Claiming that my argument is weak on that basis is therefore laughable. Anyway, I'm not discussing this anymore with you. It's quite clear that you have no interest in finding a balance. Either in your dealings with other editors. Or with the "facts" as they are presented on this project. The fact that you constantly ignore requests and comments for other editors to follow the project's guidelines (including my initial friendly suggestion) is precisely why you are not popular with those who are charged with helping support them. I'm not getting into a war with a bully. I'll wait and see what happens with my request for impartial input. Guliolopez (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, and hope that you might come to change your mind.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

LP - I've reverted that as POV and OR in the extreme and moved the discussion to the talk page. Please work towards consensus on this issue as this whole Shell-to-Sea matter has already come up again and again. The main article is already a POV-piece and, while I've been meaning to address that, I've not had the time. Now might be a good opportunity - Alison ^❤ 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Happily.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Na Piarsaigh GAA

What is the reason on the editing of the clubs history with the Red Hand?--Eireabu (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comment on the talk page. Guliolopez (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can do it for me (without deleting everything) as I am quite new to the Wiki 'language' and script. Many thanks. --Eireabu (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't clean it up without deleting stuff. As I stated on the relevant talkpage, the simple fact is that the additions and embellishments aren't supported by the refs available, and so I've summarised it to the facts that can be supported. In a tone and style appropriate to the guidelines of the project. If you think there is something factual missing, please consider replying on the relevant talkpage, and we can figure out how to add it (within the guidelines). Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Republic Of Ireland

I changed the very hard to source civil-unions/gay marriage section in the Ireland article to a sourceable Irish Examiner link. Regards. Fribbler (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly a lot better. Good stuff. And thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Discover Tramore

I spotted you removed the Wikipedia link to Discover Tramore in the article on the town of Tramore Co. Waterford, Ireland. Discover Tramore is a non-profit (ie non commerical) tourist organisation. It is in fact a town website. Whatever gave you the idea it was a commercial enterprise? Link added back. --Sully (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - it looks just like any other commercial website to me, selling slots to local businesses. Per policy, can you maybe tell me why you added it to the article, and why it's encyclopedic? Thanks - Alison ^❤ 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry it seems the change was very old and the link was added as an external link later on and then removed by someone who wasnt signed in. In my personal opinion, the town link should be the Town Council link and External links should go to non-profit tourism organisations. I felt it should be added for the simple reason of it being non-profit, its got lots of information such as history & pictures. Indeed there are (none in Tramore that im aware of) organisations that are taking money commercialy but Discover Tramore is not the case. --Sully (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

External links removals

Hi, I've noticed that you keep removing external link with picture gallery of Giant's Causeway and Antrim Coast. Can you explain why? This article is very interesting however it lacks pictures visualising it. From my experience when people look for new places to visit they search for pictures to see if it is worthy to visit. I have the impression that you delete something you didn't put yourself without even bothering to see what it is. I'll keep additing this link as in my opinion it is important to show how the Ireland really looks like and my pictures are orignal.Ijkfoto (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. A couple of quick things.

Firstly, you state that you are adding this link to the Giant's Causeway article because "it lacks pictures". This is neither accurate nor appropriate. There are already 10 images appropriately supporting the article text directly. And 88 other images linked on the Wikimedia commons project. Therefore the argument that "your" pictures are better or more appropriate is inaccurate.

Secondly, I would encourage you to read this project's guidelines on using external links. In general, external links are to be avoided where (to pick just three):

• there is a conflict of interest (this - apparently - is your site, so YOU shouldn't be adding it),
• the site is a personal webspace, blog or similar (as is the case here),
• the site does not represent content that can appreciably be included in the article directly. Which - as above - given that there are already dozens of freely available images ALREADY ON THIS PROJECT is not the case.

Thirdly, if you are so interested in contributing to this project (which is based on open and copyleft principles) you really should consider releasing your images on Commons or elsewhere. Instead of linking from a free content site to yours - which you have apparently copyrighted.

And finally, your statement "I'll keep adding this link, regardless of the guidelines" is inappropriate and not representative of this projects mores on consensus and measured editing. I will be removing your link again for these reasons. Guliolopez (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No

I am most certainlly not the subject. I am her agent, but yes i do want her article deleted because she is not ready for the exposure and you are right she should be concentrating on school. Hopefully this will be removed, as it is a mistake to put an article about a young person on this website. The pictures are from her agency portfolio and are not used to commercialise her. Romanda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanda (talk • contribs)

OK. Frankly I'm a little bit shocked and surprised that an adult (and one charged with the wellbeing of a child in particular) would use this project in such a shortsighted and - frankly - stupid fashion. (Stupid in the sense that it represented lies, overstatement and promotional nonsense of a kind unsuited to this project. And in the general sense that posting pictures and details of a minor on a website of this type is stupidly negligent.) I would strongly recommend that you find another way to promote your clients. And I would also strongly recommend that you avoid editing any other article on this project which represents a conflict of interest. Or - possibly - consider avoiding editing on this project entirely. Guliolopez (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

' Speedied' - for a number of reasons, and thanks for looking out for her too, Guliolopez - Alison ^❤ 18:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for expediting Alison. Per my note in the AfD, I would have retagged for speedy deletion (under A7) were an AfD not already open. Romanda, my comments on your editing practices remain. You should "cop on" and apply some common sense in your editing. Or find some other outlet. Guliolopez (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Euro Currency Ireland and Major Rivers

I see you removed my references to major rivers and currency in Ireland. I have moved the currency section to republic of ireland page based on your comments, I never seen the reference to major rivers previously, apologies on that. Can i list the major Rivers in the Republic of Ireland page under Geography, climate, and environment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.carpenter (talk • contribs)

Hi. Robert

RE: Currency. It's probably OK to move there, but - frankly - I'm not sure it adds much value there either. The Republic of Ireland article already mentions in two other separate places that "the Euro is the currency of the country". And the relevantly linked Economy of the Republic of Ireland section already has a decent "monetary system" section that deals with it more completely.

RE: Rivers. No - I don't think you should add it there either. Again, there is already a general reference to the main river systems, and the relevant sub-articles deal with it more completely.

Levels of detail in general. Please note Robert that not ALL information relative to a subject should be included in the highlevel articles. The Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles should cover the main key points on the major topics and any "micro-detail" (like lists of rivers and detail on the vagaries of coin minting practices) should be left to the relevant sub-articles.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unidare

Guliolopez, your pedantic editing out the Unidare Youth development section is tiresone, pointless and intensly annoying. We are involved with promoting a culture of sport and fairplay in the Ballymun and Finglas area. You are preventing our efforts with your time wasting. Please cease your ludicrous tampering and might i suggest that you find a more productive means of spening your time.

unidare —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unidare (talk • contribs) 00:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Your efforts in promoting youth development through sport are to be applauded, but you are clearly missing the point of this project and obviously havn't read the guidelines I pointed you to. Wikipedia is NOT geared towards advocacy of any cause, is not a noticeboard for your group (or any other) and is not an "advertising" channel for gaining more members or participation to your club. You need to reword your submission to focus on the VERIFAIBLE assertion that the groups efforts had some sort of news coverage, and temper all the other stuff per the explicit recommendation I made on your talk page. I will be taking up the 3RR issue elsewhere. Guliolopez (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Song lyrics

Thanks for the information. The lyrics have now been removed. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Cuil

Thanks, hit save rather than preview by mistake. Verbal chat 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

thankyou

Thankyou for Wikifing the Irish Orienteering associations Gaelic page . sorry don't speak Gaelic . thanks again.. PS are you an OrienterARBAY TALKies

Links deleted

This shows deletion of external links.. Anyway if the current version is OK, then we're OK... -- Evertype·✆ 14:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I deleted the external links which were not directly associated to the titular subject. You reverted those changes, and re-deleted them verbatim. The external links however are not in question. Your edit summary on the revert suggested that I'd deleted some wiki links. Which, clearly, I didn't. Guliolopez (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Naas

Indeed!!! Naas is not the only Irish town with loads of unencyclopaedic data, much of which is uncited, but it is too much work to keep an eye on them all. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Vote on "Republic of Ireland"

Hi. Snowded's reformatting of the Move Request on Talk:Republic of Ireland makes it look as though "supports" and "opposes" at the bottom of the page are for the "package deal" and not the original proposal. I think there is a danger of those votes not being counted when the RM is closed. I have moved my vote back out into the previous section. You might think about doing the same. Cheers. Scolaire (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Irish top division

The Irish top division is nowhere near fully-professional. Have a read of this interview with Shelbourne's manager, who says "We are coming out of a league that's 70% part time". Could you reinstate the prods? Cheers. пﮟოьεԻ 57

Eh. No I won't. Tagging every player who plays in the league based on one comment from one manager is totally inappropriate. While I certainly wouldn't claim that ALL LOI players meet notability automatically, a blanket tagging is inappropriate for several reasons. Firstly, full-time professional football was brought in to the FAI LOI in 2003. (If you had taken 2 minutes to follow any of the links from the articles, you would have read this.) Secondly, even if it WASN'T a fully-pro league, WP:ATHLETE allows for "competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports". Which (even pre-2003) several of the players you have tagged meet - given that the FAI Premier Division is the "highest level" of the football league in Ireland (sending as it does, teams to the UEFA Cup, etc.) Again, I have only removed the tags from the players and managers who definitely meet the criteria under this context, but frankly you might want to reconsider your approach to this tagging. (I note for example that you didn't tag Ryan Casey. Is this because he spent time with Swansea as a trainee? Seems like an arbitrary approach to take to me.) Please consider applying a little bit more of a scientific approach than just tagging every LOI player. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Casey actually played 61 games for Swansea - hardly a mere trainee. The highest level in amateur sport thing doesn't count here, because football is not an amateur sport (if you read the footnote from the criteria, it says sports including, but not limited to "poker, bridge, chess"). пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, please don't use caps when addressing other editors as you did in this edit summary, as it is considered to be the online version of shouting, and therefore quite rude. For info, I did read the article, noting that he had not in fact played for a fully professional league (which is why I prodded it). Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If my use of caps in one word was construed as shouting, I apologise. I simply was trying to emphasise that editors tagging with PROD/NN should read the articles before doing so. Guliolopez (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. And I just read your reference. It's from 2004. And was a "historical" comment. (IE the quoted person was speaking about the past). The premier league has since become full-time pro. This again reinforces to me that you just went and tagged stuff without taking the time to read up-to-date sources. Guliolopez (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's simply not true. Can you provide up-to-date sources that it's fully pro now? пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a source from 19 August 2008 which states that the league has both full-time and part-time clubs (four or five of the 12 are part time), and therefore is not a fully professional league. Will you reconsider now? пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(DEINDENT) Reconsider what? Reconsider the contention that every player from the LOI Premier Division automatically fails WP:ATHLETE? Certainly not. Per my note above, the players should be taken (per WP:ATHLETE) on a case by case basis for notability. The players/manager that I removed the tag from meet the criteria. Alan Mathews as a fully professional manager, with a fully professional club who has played in the domestic league in Ireland at the highest level. Dermot Keely, a fully professional football manager who meets WP:ATHLETE for the same reasons. John McGuinness may be questionable I'll grant you, but shouldn't be tagged as part of some blanket "culling" of all Irish domestic football players. Guliolopez (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider reinstating the prods, as your reasoning for removing them has been proved moot. And why shouldn't there be a culling of a mass of articles which clearly fail our guidelines? Contesting the prods just created extra work for everyone involved. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am contesting two prods. On Alan Mathews and Dermot Keely. And I'm afraid I can't in good conscience remove them just to "avoid creating work for people". Per my note on the Alan Mathews talkpage, I firmly believe that professional football managers with professional football clubs who play at the higest domestic level meet the criteria. I have personally tagged and pushed NN LOI players for deletion in the past, but deleting these two as NN just doesn't fly. Guliolopez (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with the criteria, then work to get it changed - there was an attempt a while ago to allow players at fully professional clubs (rather than leagues) articles, but it was rejected by the wider community. Until it's changed, then articles that don't meet the criteria are deletion candidates. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly disagree with the application of the criteria in this manner. I would be the first to agree that the football player and manager article pool is full of NN crud, vanity and other nonsense. However, the blanket application of this criteria without consideration to other basic BIO criteria (coverage/etc) would seem an inappropriate way of cleaning it up. Certainly if it means keeping a stubby on a player that signed 5 minutes ago for a NN club in a NN league that happens to be "fully-pro" - in particular where that player could easily not have even kicked yet. And a blanket delete on other players/managers that may have played professionally at the highest level of a national league "automatically" get deleted. Without consideration to other criteria. Guliolopez (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand your comment. WP:ATHLETE is very simple - "fully professional league". It's not a fully professional league, as shown by the evidence above. How does he meet it? пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Topical

Hi, thank you for your message. With regards to the 2008 Kerry bogslide, I did not immediately jump on the bandwagon as such, in creating it. Indeed I waited for some time to pass and then searched for references in relation to the topic. I believed that due to the nature of the event and, since repeated reference was made to the event by reputable news sources such as RTÉ, The Irish Times and Irish Independent, that it merited inclusion even in an encyclopedia. By coincidence as I had written the article I discovered there had been further developments that day which reaffirmed my belief that it was notable. I took into account the lack of loss of life but thought that it would be ridiculous if such an event were to be judged on a death count. I considered the major infrastructural damage (roads, bridges, water supply, etc) and the ecological aspect of the disaster noteworthy enough in itself. Rereading the article now I can understand that it certainly needs some work and I accept that due to time constraints and other issues I may have been excessive and over-descriptive in my use of language. However I do not believe that the article should be removed entirely because it is seen as not being notable. Had I thought there was any reason to believe it was so I would never have considered for a moment creating it. There are lots of events that occur on a local, national and international level which I would consider "topical" and would not be bothered creating an entire article for but this was one that struck me as being more than topical. Thank you. --Candlewicke (Talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. Don't get me wrong. There was some great work on that page. Just that I think maybe it might have been better suited to Wikinews than here. I suggest this because I don't think it means notability under Wikipedia:EVENT#Disasters. All I'm saying is that sometimes its better to try and give an event more context when creating an encyclopaedic article. Like for example, instead of just synthesizing the content from the various papers and creating an article on that one event, it might have been better to extend the mudslide article, creating a "bogslide" subsection, dealing with the environment and/or manmade or environment causes and impacts of such events, and writing two or three lines to use this event as an example. Frankly that would have been much more encyclopedic than (say) dropping in oddly over-stated quotes from people only very slightly impacted by the event.

That people have to drive the long way around to the shops doesn't really warrant the inclusion of a (frankly) overblown and hysterical comment from some woman: "We dread to think that we’ll never see home in the future or if it will be ever again safe to pass in case the danger occurs again". I mean come on. I appreciate that this woman was upset, but her comments and this article really need to be put in context of (for example) the 1999 Vargas mudslides where up to TENS OF THOUSAND OF PEOPLE died. :Anyway. Long story short - I just don't think it's notable enough for an article on its own. Wikinews - yes. Wikipedia - no. Not per WP:EVENT at any rate. Guliolopez (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

San Patricios' excuse was too much whiskey in a hot climate

You are right to ask for a ref. here, but this was the actual reason given by most of them after their recapture by the Yanquis. A convenient excuse, probably, and definitely disliked by those who prefer the angle of Irish-natural-sympathy-with-the-equally-oppressed-Mexicans, but there it is. I have a very soft spot for the San Ps, learning much when I was in Mexico in the 1970s. The ref is in an Irish-American academic journal.Red Hurley (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:Saint Patrick's Battalion. Best to continue discussion there if required). Hi Red Hurley. I did read an American source at one point that read something like: "offering free whiskey, promising the favours of senioritas and offering 320 acres of land, Riley enticed more than 200 Irishmen and a few German immigrants to desert and join the army of their fellow Catholics." This reference is quite significantly different from the note you added however. Where whiskey is an additional enticement, rather than the chloroform agent suggested in the other wording. "Kryptonite of the Irish" even. Frankly it sounds a little like a propagandist excuse/reason (on either side) to "blame the whiskey". Playing upon stereotypes to either avoid the gallows ("sure I'm only a cheeky Paddy who got drunk and captured") or to push a propagandist view that the men had no legitimate reason for defecting ("the Paddies didn't defect because of political/social conscience - they just got drunk and captured"). Anyway, regardless of whether it was actually given as a valid reason, if the reason was given at all a validating source would be required. And it would need to be worded in such a way to make it clear that - even if it was given as an excuse (or claimed to have been given as an excuse) - there is nothing necessarily linking it with reality in terms of actual cause/effect. Guliolopez (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Watchlistac

I suspect (but not confirmed) that this user may be an anon IP address that edited today.

See this. That users only response so far is difficult to interpret but non-the-less their for all to see. Also 194.125.21.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) edited their user page and edited the talk page of User talk:78.16.173.227? I usually have a sixth sense for sockpuppettry, but not so sure this time. Djegan (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What is clear is that wikipedia, as a system, has about as much chance of systematically preventing vandalism as a policeman with one hand tied behind the back. Djegan (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dj. I think you are probably correct in noting that there is more than one disruptive editor (and certainly more than one disruptive account) involved in this single purpose crusade. It is indeed very frustrating that someone would completely miss the point of the project, and deliberately introduce confusing or ambiguous terms (to replace clear ones that help rather than hinder a reader's understanding) just to push an agenda. However, I'm not quite willing to give up on the project just yet. I expect that the user in question is rather young (based on previous editting/interactions I believe them just out of school) and still have some hope that they will recognise that this kind of behaviour has no place in the "grown up" world, will recognise the value of seeing the other guy's perspective and discussing for compromise, and will similarly realise that constant editwarring (without recourse to discussion) will ultimately not win out. Either that or he'll just get bored and wander off. As most disruptors/vandals/etc do eventually. Guliolopez (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlistac is Wikipéire again - I just checkusered him :/ - Alison ^❤ 01:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alison. That's not terribly surprising really. What is surprising - and a little sad really - is that he clearly enjoys (or enjoyed) the project before. And made some reasonable and valuable contributions in the past. It just seems like he wandered into one of the "Does Ireland mean the island or the country" discussions at some point, got a bee in his bonnet about it, threw WP:OWN out the window, started on this WP:SPA rampage and totally gave up on editting subjects he was interested in. This last part is what makes it sad. That and the fact that I think he thinks this is some kind of patriotic issue that needs fighting - when (in a lot of cases) his crusade is actually making it LESS clear for readers who don't bring with them a full and complete understanding of the history and political landscape of the country. Or - to put it another way - I'd love if he met a less than 100% informed person (some random American or German who doesn't know about Ireland) and watch as he realises that they think we are still somehow a subset of the UK, or use sterling or whatever. And then see him quickly change his tune to add the jurisdictional clarity back in where its needed. Anyway. I'm sure he'll grow up eventually. Guliolopez (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire has another sock at 78.16.183.8. I've added it to the growing list. Snappy56 (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(from my talk page) - It's too much. Too much. I've checkusered the range above and have now softblocked 78.16.0.0/16 AO (ACB disabled) for 48 hours. There should not be a whole lot of collateral damage, but this nonsense needs to stop. It's more than just you that's up in arms about this. Let me know how things go and, all going well, we may indeed extend the anonblock duration - Alison ❤ 07:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force

Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Our pet sock puppet

Do you believe his comment, if so maybe defining some conditions then making a case to an admin with some weight? Difficult one this but I am inclined to agree with you that he is young etc. and has potential. --Snowded TALK 15:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ardclough

G, could you take a peek at the GAA section of this and the sea of redlinked people. What to do? Sarah777 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tidied it up a little. Much of that detail was uncited anyway, and the subjects were never going to meet WP:BIO for sport. Probably best dealt with in the Ardclough GAA page anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)