User talk:Guliolopez

Satellite image of Ireland

That's no problem. I have high contrast ratio, so I wasn't sure if it was an improvement. I'll probably look into enhancing the image, and those at Great Britain and the British Isles. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 10:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool. No worries. I saw the question mark ["better (?)"] in your editsum and it gave me confidence to boldly suggest that maybe it wasn't :) Guliolopez (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Charb.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

ga.wp

I'd noticed ... Hope all is well with you. Beir bua! - Alison ^❤

All's well - just crazy busy IRL. Hope all's well with you! Guliolopez (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

LÉ Samuel Beckett

Fair enough about the single point lists not really being lists but would you be open to the idea of creating a list of captains on the LÉ Samuel Beckett article once more people have captained the ship? A lot of the articles on Royal Navy ships have a list of all the people who have ever commanded the vessel and I feel it makes the article more complete. Tomh903 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Once there has been more than one, and all list items are cited and verifiable, then - yes - a list might make sense at that point. Guliolopez (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Camden Fort Meagher

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

MFIreland

Its him, I wasnt around in the day, but I know its him. Murry1975 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - as do I. The echos of some quacks can be heard and recognised by anyone. For the fourth (fifth?) time in as many years, I'm preparing yet another ANI/escalation thread. I can stand most of it - but that one person would decide who can/cannot be described as "Irish" is (IMO) disgusting and cannot be countenanced. Guliolopez (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Château de Kerjean

Hello! Your submission of Château de Kerjean 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination page. Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Château de Kerjean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Château de Kerjean

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fidelma Healy Eames

Hi Guliolopez,

I contacting you with the above article and the recent edits I've made. I'm going to remove the bit about the dispute between her husband and a plumber again. I did put an edit summary for the reasoning behind moving it when I removed it, see here but you probably missed it because I made a lot of edits to that article that day. I will open up a discussion on the articles talk page and would appreciate your and User:Snappy's in put. Thank you. --Wonkey Donkey (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Apologies - I did miss the edit summary explanation. Happy to talk it through on the relevant talk page. Thanks again. Guliolopez (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not fan of Fine Gael, but having a 'controversy' section in her BLP about car tax fines and train tickets just smacks of pettiness and character assassination by BLP. We should really just delete that stuff as trivia. Show me someone who's never got a ticket off a Garda for tax - Alison ^❤ 18:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Alison. If this was a case of pettiness or axe-grinding by Wikipedia editors, then we should strongly avoid/prevent that. However, while it's unusual for me to disagree with you on something like this, I do think there's a place for at least some of this content in the article. I say this because, in recent years the senator has been the subject of a breadth of coverage - from comments about "Frape", to the car tax issues, to train fare issues, to the civil suit. Rightly or wrongly the media covered these events, leading to the use of terms (elsewhere) like "controversial senator" (Indo/Advertiser/Indo) and even "controversy magnet"(Times/Examiner). Granted some of these references are in opinion pieces, and the senator likely has some legitimacy to suggest that some of the coverage/reaction was undue. However, given that there was significant coverage on some of these events, and while we should avoid giving things undue-weight, I feel some of this is worth at least a summarised mention. (While the lawsuit issue was dismissed, the frape stuff was more "meme" than controversy, and the alleged fare-dodging thing was likely overblown, the car tax thing wasn't just a case of getting a telling-off from a Garda - not in the judge's estimation anyway.) I would also note that the only reason this article is on my radar/watchlist at all is because of some disquieting [[::Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Fidelma Healy Eames|editing]] patterns that attempted to imbalance the article in another direction. While I strongly feel that a measure of balance is required, if we think that a "controversy" section is inappropriate for WP:UNDUE or other reasons, then perhaps some of the relevant content should be merged into other areas of the main article body? (As per related guidelines) Guliolopez (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)