User talk:Guliolopez

Semi-retired

Per my user page, I am largely "retired" from the EN project, and so won't be checking this talkpage that frequently. If you want a more immediate response, please try my GA project talkpage instead.

Elaborate...

Why did you revert my recent edit to Christian Brothers College, Cork? It is most certainly not a hyperbole. All the information was sourced and it is very notable, having received coverage in many newspapers, national and local. -- Jack1755 (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't revert it. I summarised it to temper the wording and remove the quote (which should stay in the newspaper and isn't significant enough to re-quote in the article). "Hyperbole" was possibly the wrong word to use in my edit summary. However using the term "kidnapping scandal" seemed at least an overstatement of the actual events. Finally, while I understand your comment on "significant coverage", I'm not sure - in the fullness of time - that this event is really encyclopaedically/historically notable. Hence I didn't actually remove. Just tempered it a bit. For now. Guliolopez (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Impressive explanation, thanks! -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

well

I read that the charles fort is haunted It says it in derek acorahs most haunted britian and ireland (sorry im just a beleiver I think there just skeptics getting rid of it) I am from mitchelstown and i know that Its the first town in ireland to get electricty and that the dungeons and wine cellers are still there but the locals think its haunted besides think of places like charles fort the white lady killed herself after her husband got shot. user--Stephendwan (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

GS talk page

I've raised some points at Talk:Garda Síochána, if you care to respond. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow. There have been no new comments (by you or anyone else) at Talk:Garda Síochána in months. Guliolopez (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's my point. I replied to your last request for diffs here; I'm still waiting for you to get back to me. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think I get it now. However, given that you seem to be advocating a reversion to a version of the page all the way back to Oct 2008, I think it would be best to open a new thread (or refresh the old thread) on the talk page, and lay out what changes you want to make to the current ver. Personally I think that the Corrib stuff is dealt with (as it should be) in the relevant sub-articles. And that the Garda involvement in the whole mess is dealt with (as it should be) in a reasonable summary on the Garda page - hitting the main points without going into too much depth. Anyway, given that speaking about changes that occured somewhere along the line more than 10 month old ago, it might be best if you raise your points on what you think is missing. (not here, but on the relevant talk page) And why it needs to be dealt with on the core Garda page. Guliolopez (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth Fort

On August 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Fort, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Chriost Rí

There is no need to be snide in your editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Townendterrace (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if my edit summary seemed sharp, but I simply stated the facts: If, in adding those notes, citations or some kind of reference had been provided, I could have helped clear it up and ensure the topic was covered correctly in the article. Without cites however that section could not be cleaned up. Adding cites and avoiding opinion/commentary are two mainstays of this project. Pointing that out in a factual way was actually intended as help/assistance. Other editors would frankly have simply reverted them without attempting to help. Guliolopez (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

How do you Cite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Townendterrace (talk • contribs)

You cite by stating where you read/heard about what you are adding. In most cases it's a link. The help page WP:CITE will explain in more detail, but essentially. You just stick the relevant link in a <ref> tag like this:

The school celebrated it's 50th anniversary in 2009 with a book launch.<ref>http://www.therivierawoman.com/index.php?module=articles&page=getLong&id=65</ref>

Simple as that really - though you really should read the WP:HELP pages. Guliolopez (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

hello guliolopes,this is philip cummings [username pcummin] i deleated some names you put on the artical st cummin[i presume it was you] because i have not seen them in any irish history books that i have read. am i dooing the rite thing or the wrong thing, maybe you can help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.140 (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Guliolopez! At this time of year, I would like to extend seasons greetings to the Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past year on Wikipedia. I wish you a wonderful holiday season! --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs)

Irish Defence Forces

No, but be sure to re-redirect all the pages that originally redirected to That article, such as Irish Defense Forces.--RM (Be my friend) 19:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Citing for Erris

I see that you say that you have stopped looking at English (language) Wikipedia. Your user name does not sound very Gaelic and I am well aware that the ga wikipedia had Iorras on it - but - it was less than two lines in length.

Not that it's at all relevant, but I'm Irish, an Irish speaker, and an Admin on the Irish language project. Guliolopez (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you object to the fact that I lifted those two lines in Gaelic and put them onto the top of the Iorras/Erris article which was on the English language Wikipedia?

The objection was simple - this is the English language project. Copying and pasting content from the Irish project isn't appropriate for that reason. Content here should be in English. Guliolopez (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you have lifted all the new references I put on. I do not consider that they were inappropriate and I am beginning to think that the only inappropriate thing is for you to have removed every one of them. The area of North Mayo is hugely unrepresented on Wikipedia.

Did you read my note on your talk page about this issue? Put simply, the references added didn't support the assertions made. (EG: Claim of last eagle being seen in *North* Mayo was referenced with a link to a page that said the last eagle was seen in *South* Mayo. Claim of popularity with birdwatchers was referenced with a link to 6 images - none of which showed birds or birdwatchers.). In that sense representation, coverage or otherwise has no relevance. Simply that one of the basic tenets of this project is that content and references should be verifiable.Guliolopez (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that ga Wikipedia reaches virtually nil audience because when you click the translate button on Irish language articles, all you get is a load of nonsense.

I agree with the fact that Google translate produces grammatically nonsensical Irish, but don't see the relevance. Similarly I'm not sure of what it has to do with references, but it's worth pointing out that the GA project receives 10s of thousands of hits a week. Guliolopez (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My voluntary task was to put Erris on the map. It appears that you have undone all I have tried to do.

Your intentions are laudable and applaudable and (let me assure you) that I'm not trying to "undo" anything. My only intent is to keep the content on this project (and the GA project) within the relevant NPOV, OR and VER guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You may cite it as you feel fit. Every little thing is not citable. Some is a general opinion, not necessarily written down.

OK - Now this indicates a fundamental misconception about what this project is about. As I said in my note on your talk page earlier, we need to be very careful about including opinions (mine, yours or anyone elses) in articles. See WP:WEASEL. Guliolopez (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious for instance that the Erris coast is highly suitable and much used for watersports. Its blatantly obvious that the scenery is stunning. Why am I not allowed to tell viewers these facts?

For the very reason that they are not objective facts. Words like "stunning" are subjective adjectives and best avoided. If we want to impart the touristic draw of a location we don't write "guide book" style hyperbole extolling it's virtues. We describe how many visitors come to the place, what they come for, etc - and we BACK IT UP with citations. Guliolopez (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you have been very unfair to me and I hope that when I next check up on the article I spent so much time and energy on (without pay) that you will have brought it back to what it was before or improved it vastly instead of expecting me to start all over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comhar (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We're all here voluntarily. None of us get paid. We are all however held accountable to the guidelines of the project. You don't have to start all over again - you just have to pay attention to the advice and guidelines which several editors (myself included) have pointed you to. Guliolopez (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the two requirements for me to give you citations for my small section on Erris Head - I actually took them from some other Wikipedia article which somebody else had put onto Wikipedia. Are you going to go to their article and ask them where they got their information?

I didn't realise that the VER and CITE issues had been introduced in another article, but - to coin a phrase - "two wrongs don't make a right". Just because someone else introduced problematic content elsewhere doesn't mean it's OK to do the same. Guliolopez (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, everybody knows that Erris Head is one of the weather forecasters areas that they're always talking about. And so are mariners. I've done my best to back these up, even though I didn;t come up.

If "everybody knows" it, then it should hopefully be relatively easy to find a cite on the forecasters point.Guliolopez (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just trying to link articles on the general area together. The author of Erris Head also said that the scenery from there was nice. I agree wholeheartedly with that comment - now you ask me to cite it. If you knew this area it would be blatantly obvious to you that the scenic views are magnificent. Where do you expect me to cite it from???

As above, cite from a tourism report or something. State factually that lots and lots of visitors come for the views, the food, the fresh air or whatever. But back it up with a Bord Fáilte report or something. Guliolopez (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Now you have gone and destroyed all my work. Thank you very much!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comhar (talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was as careful as I could possibly be to avoid undoing too much of your good work. Rather I focused completely on the most problematic areas. Frankly certain other editors would have just reverted the lot. I can see however that you are frustrated and will attempt to help where I can, but please consider reading the guidelines about "assuming good faith" before we go any further. Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, OK, I've recovered from my annoyance now somewhat! Could I please ask you to take a look at the article on Bangor Erris. I have tried to rectify it a little but it was pretty bad and I didn't think I am qualified enough to remove the inappropriate content. I tried to make the page a bit more sensible with adding some historical content etc.... but there are portions remaining from previously which really need to be dealt with by somebody experienced. Thanks.

Re: removal of dolphin picture. I'll try and get a picture of bottlenose dolphins actually photographed in Broadhaven Bay but I think it is likely that bottlenose dolphins photographed off Scotland are one and the same who visit Broadhaven Bay regularly. And, I don't think I was suggesting that the picture was taken in Broadhaven, just that those animals pictured are the same as those seen regularly in the bay. However, I know other people that have taken pictures of the dolphins and porpoises in Broadhaven so I will have to chase those up if you won't allow the picture already on Wikipedia Commons of the species. I thought that Wikipedia Commons pictures were for use if required to show a particular species which is what I used the pic for. (Comhar)

Timeline of Irish revolution

Hiya, i proposed that joke of an article for deletion and thankfully it has been. Your criticisms were never answered by proponents of the article and none tried to prevent its deletion and i hope it stays gone. Neologist POV debatable terms have no place on Wikipedia. I've done my best to remove all article links to it (about ten so far) and appreciate your aid in removing it from the Easter Rising article. No doubt a few more will remain hidden away somehwere. Northern Star ^(talk) 11:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh and on that navbox, the one prior to it i swore was titled "Irish revolution" not "Independence and partition of Ireland (1912–1922)" which is why i removed it. Ah well the proper one is there now or maybe i was seeing things lol :-) Northern Star ^(talk) 11:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Grand. FYI: Per my comment at the time, I'm not strongly/religiously opposed to some means of "grouping" the various events leading to partition/independence. My problem was (and still is) the use of "Irish rebellion" as a term [without qualification] where it could be interpreted as meaning that the Easter Rising, War of Ind and Civil War were all part of some contiguous/combined/integrated/all-encompassing "rebellion". (In fact my original proposal was that the article actually be renamed to something like "Timeline of events leading to Irish independence/partition". Or similar). In that vein I'm not sure it's strictly necessary to rip the navbox out of every article. Now that the label is less misleading it's probably OK. Guliolopez (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted one navbox only and accepted my mistake on that :-) I agree with your opinion on the labelling of the grouping, which is why i saw the article as a joke as it wasn't a continuous revolution as was being made out but distinct related periods that ultimately led to Irish independance/parition. I'm not against an article that could group the periods together and your proposal sounded a lot better and avoided the neologism and POV that was in place and linked to throughout Wikipedia but the authors/editors of the articles avoided to discuss it. Yet the article also had several POV and source issues which made the article a sorry mess and required more detailed and verifiable sources to attest which events and moments should actually be even considered as part of it instead of events that were added at the editors discretion. Northern Star ^(talk) 12:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox replacements

Excuse me but I've mostly been adding infoboxes to articles which don't have any infoboxes and finding coordinates for them to boot. If the Irish infobox is so desirable, personally I see it as grey and ugly and an unnecessary use of space, then why do all of the main cities Dublin, Cork etc not use it? Ballycotton looks perfectly fine to me... Allihies infobox looks quite pretty I think with the map and lovely coastline pic. Don't you think it looks attractive? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I recognise that you are mainly adding infoboxes to articles that don't have one already. This is fine. Great in fact. Knock yourself out. Great work. However you've replaced at least 4 infoboxes on articles that just happen to be on my watchlist (and probably more besides). These - to my understanding - already had perfectly good infoboxes. I get from your tone that you don't see any issue with this. And while it's probably not a ground-breaking problem, there are a couple of small issues which all add up to something bigger:

1. If the only reason for doing this is because of a subjective perception on design/colours, then its probably best to discuss the issues on the template's talk page. Or address the issue. Not just replace the template in a unilateral fashion.
2. You point to the fact that the major cities use a different infobox. This is because these cities have different/more data to encode. A dataset which is not fitting for small rural villages/towns/etc.
3. The Infobox Ireland Place template encodes data specific to Irish places (Irish language name, Dáil consituency, etc.) These elements are not covered by the generic template. (Note that for similar reasons there are custom templates for places in lots of other countries.)
4. Because of the above, you've had to "squeeze" elements into fields not designed (or not appropriate for) the generic template. Take Bandon, County Cork. You've "reclassified" the "rural population" (as defined by the Irish census boundaries/terminology) as an "urban population". This is not an appropriate classification for a place like Bandon.
5. In other cases the "sub-division" section has been adjusted to show the country as "Republic of Ireland". I have no strong feelings on this, but using this standard (instead of the naming standard used on the Ireland template) is likely to incur the wrath of anyone policing for WP:IRE-IRL issues.

Anyway - Long story short - while it's great that you're adding Infoboxes to places that have none (a noble and useful enterprise), I think it's probably best to leave those that already have one alone. Unless there's some justification for a change that I'm not seeing. (Save for the subjective argument that "I think it looks better"). Guliolopez (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Giving up?

It would be a pity. A number of articles to which you have contributed are in sore need of some discipline before things go completely pear-shaped, as no doubt you are aware. RashersTierney (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ya. I've been watching it. Frankly this is the kind of noise and nonsense that prompted me to scale back my involvement in the project before. For a while I thought about "fighting" to retain the integrity of those articles. But now I'm about ready to just remove them from my watchlist. I may find the time to review all the recent noise, and may even be able to find the energy to negotiate a happy medium between the SPA/COI motiviated edits and what (frankly) was already perfectly good content. Or I may not. I havn't decided yet. Guliolopez (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep my fingers crossed anyway. I was thinking I may just concentrate on less 'dramatic' articles myself (Kosovo, Irish Travellers, Nazi eugenics etc). Who needs the grief? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

External Links 360 Eire

Bhain tú amach na links ar fad a chur mé isteach do Co. an Chlár, caith tú admhail go dtugann na griafanna seo tuiscint níos fearr do daoine a bheadh suim acu san aiteann atá luaite sa leathnacha wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dialinn (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Marking of areas rather than precise locations on infobox maps

Just a question Guiliolopez if you don't mind. I have been wondering for a long time how I can mark an area on the infobox maps (with a box or an oval or something) rather than the 'point' which is marked when the pixels are set as currently. Point in case is 'Erris'. Its rough location is marked with a point now but it is quite a large area and I would prefer to mark its approx area with a box instead - but I can't figure out how to do it. Area extends from Ballycroy in the south west to just west of Belderrig in the north east. Thanks if you can help. Comhar (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but I think you're saying that, instead of using this green "pin" image, you want to use another "broader" pin image with Template:Infobox Place Ireland(?) If so, then I'm not sure there's a lot of options. The Infobox Place Ireland template does not have a configurable pin - is always the small green pin. Only thing I think you could do is create your own map image (based on free sources) and NOT pass pin coords to the template. If you want to create a sandbox template on your own page somewhere I can try help "play with it" with you. Guliolopez (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Irish Army

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Must was the word I should have used. Apologies for my bad spelling and grammer. MFIreland (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Larry Murphy

Hello, I'm looking for a little advice on this from experienced Irish Wikipedians. I'm sure you know this guy. I'm thinking of starting an article on him, I believe he is notable on the basis that his early release is stimulating debate on sentence remission and how sex offenders are dealt with. What do you think? I don't want to write what could be a large enough article only to have it AFD'ed. GainLine ♠ _♥ 09:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. Personally I'd have WP:BLP1E and WP:RECENTISM concerns. If there is a related article it should (as you note) probably relate to the events rather than the individual. And - even at that - it may raise WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ATP questions. Guliolopez (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, think i'll leave it. GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Castles in Tipperary

Yes, they're castles and yes they're in Tipperary. Why the move? To follow through on the agreement in Wikiproject Ireland. This agreement centred on the question of the merger of the 2 Dublin categories. The decision was to not do this but to create 4 new categories for each of the admininistrative jurisdictions of the former County Dublin. By analogy, the same logic applies to the former County Tipperary. New categories and sub-categories have been created for north Tipperary and South Tipperary. I'm slowly getting around to filling these out with appropriate sub-categories. this takes time. For the moment, the castles are in the generic sub-category of "Culture in North Tipperary" etc. If there is a sufficiend population , further sub-categories of "Castles in ..." might be reasonable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Fair enough on the split between North/South ridings. However, I would argue that there is already sufficient reason to create the "Castles in North/South Tipperary" cats. "Culture in North Tipperary" is not a sufficiently specific category to be using to categorise architectural sites/etc. Guliolopez (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because such categories exist in other counties is hardly sufficient reason to impose them of all counties, is it? Like I said, I'm not averse to the creation of such categories in the future in principle. But they take time to create. All help would be gratefully received. But right now, the sparcity of the population does not warrent them (IMHO). And yes, a low population count really is a sufficiently strong reason to stop the creation of zombie categories willy-nilly. They will quite happily sit in "Culture" until/if they find a more suitable home. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand that point (forcefully put as it was). However, if there is not to be specific "Castles of North/South Tipp" cats, then AT LEAST, the constituents should be listed within a suitable "Castles of Ireland" cat or sub-cat. I suggest this because your suggested replacement cat ("Culture of X") is not (and I'm sure you'll agree should not) be a sub-set of any "Castles" cat. Guliolopez (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Point taken. Go ahead with "Castles of Ireland". Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Irish Army est

Hi Gulio,

WHat should I do if MFIreland doesn't respond on the talk page? Not much choice but to revert I would have thought. Jdorney (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

He's not one for responding on talk pages it has to be said. Give it another day. If no response, I would recommend EDITing the page to address the concern. (As discussed I wouldn't "revert", and I don't think there's much need for a whole block of copy/paste text from the act. Just a note clarifying that the act gave legal standing to the existing force, and provisions for its restructure. Not a whole new force as could be read from current wording.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okeydoke. I'll give it another day and then edit. Jdorney (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Section 235 of the DEFENCE FORCES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1923 is relevavt, but you need to read section 234 PART IV of the act to understand it.

234 —"Until the Forces have been established under Section twenty-two of this Act, the provisions hereinafter mentioned shall have effect".

The Act was passed on 3rd August 1923. The Forces where established on the 1st October 1924. The "provisions hereinafter mentioned" is all of PART IV of the act (thats articles 234-246). Part IV of the act was to make the National Army the legal military force of the state from the passing of the Act on the 3rd August 1923 until the 1st October 1924 when the Forces was established.

The history section of the Irish Army clearly article traces the origins of the force from 1913.