User talk:Foxhunter22

John Gray image‎

Hi. Thanks for adding the John Gray image. However, until/unless we can confirm a definitive source for that picture, it's probably best if we don't use it. Specifically: How do we know that it's actually a representation of John Gray? Was it in a book? Somewhere else? The cite on Commons says "own work". However, unless you're nearly 150 years old it seems unlikely that you created the original of that image entirely by yourself. If you can advise where you got it from, and we can confirm that it's verifiably a representation of Gray (and not misattributed from someone else in that book/whatever) then happy to put it back. (FYI - Doesn't mean anything per sé, but I've researched Gray quite a bit, and while there is a likeness to other images I've seen, I have never seen that particular image before now...) Guliolopez (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Gandon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drumcondra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rainsford

Hi. Thanks and well done for all your contributions to the Mark Rainsford article. However, a couple of things:

Date of birth. You recently changed his date of birth to 1650. From 1660. Without explanation or reference. Every other reference I can find gives his date of birth as 1660. Why this change? What source/reference do you have for this?
Statue. You have repeatedly added an entry about Rainsford's involvement in the unveiling of the King William statue. Firstly, there's nothing in the cite provided to indicate that Rainsford was involved at all. It only states that the statue was unveiled WHILE he was mayor. This is a very tenuous link. And certainly not strong enough to warrant putting 5 or 6 images of the same statue on the page. (The statue is not of Rainsford. Was not sculpted by Rainsford. Was not commissioned by him or started under his tenure as mayor. And, even if he was at the unveiling, it's so tenuous a link as to not warrant image inclusion). Why the insistence on adding this text and imagery multiple times?

All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guliolopez, I was wondering if you could add this to the reflist section.

It is more detail on Sir Mark Rainsford I found on an Irish Historical Website. See here http://comeheretome.com/2012/11/12/a-former-lord-mayor-sir-mark-rainsford/

From what I see, it is an excellent historical source ! Kind Regards Foxhunter22

Done I have added this link as an in-line reference to the "statue" assertion(s). While the site is a nice aggregator of historically interesting info (and has many active history buffs and bloggers), as a "blog" it's not strictly an ideal source. Not according to guidelines at any rate. (That particular blog is a little concerning as it appears to take a lot of it's content from the Wikipedia article itself. I get the impression the author used the Rainsford article as a source. Hence it's somewhat "self-referential" to use it as a source here.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guliolopez, Excellent work thank you!

Yes I got that too - the guy who swiped my stuff is this guy - Donal Fallon http://www.historicalinsights.ie/guides.html From what I see he is a 22 year old UCD History Grad and works as a Tour guide in City of Dublin.

So your right again.

However I did see some new stuff in it and it adds an interesting account of Sir Mark. I thought it would look good on the page.

Thats about it!

Kind Regards foxhunter22

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Thomas Rainsborough (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to St. John's Church

William Rainsborough (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MP

William Rainsborowe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MP

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. 1 St John's Church Wapping London. I could not find the exact link in wiki for this anywhere. Your right it led to different St John's. If a page detailing St John's Church in Wapping appears then it should link to that. 2 MP Thomas Rainssborough was made MP for Droithwitch Gloucestershire UK in 1647 Hope this helps. Foxhunter22

Image edits

Hiya. Me again. I want to talk to you about the new image you've created and used as the primary infobox image here. Your editsum indicates that the new image you've created (below-left) is an "improved" version of the original image (below-right):

"Photoshopped" image

"Photoshopped" image
Original unadulterated image

Original unadulterated image

I am concerned that the image is so heavily edited that it (bluntly) is no longer representative of the the subject. Or, to put it another way, the man on the left doesn't really look like the man on the right.

We seem to be going down some kind of "Fashion Magazine" photo-shopping path where we are slimming him down, giving him fuller hair, making his cheeks a bit rosier, and generally changing the subject appearance. This is NOT appropriate. Wikipedia is an encylopedia that attempts to represent as close as we can to the verifiable truth. In the same way that it isn't appropriate to "airbrush" the truth in the text of an article, the guidelines expect that images (lead images and infobox images in particular) are to be:

natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic

Your manufactured image is not a "natural and appropriate" representation. It is - at best - a kind of fashion magazine style "airbrushing" of the original. Or - at worst - some kind of Chinese-style fabrication or historical revisionism. Neither is appropriate under the guidelines.

Granted the original contemporary artist may have taken some artistic licence (by selectively fudging "warts and all" out of the portrait). But if anything that makes it LESS appropriate to airbrush things even further.

Anyway, I am sorry, but I really can't let the heavily editted image remain. I understand you've put some energy into the photoshopping, but it just isn't appropriate under guidelines.

All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guliolopez,

1 New Photoshop Image

I did up the image last night but your view on it rings true I think. Chinese-style HAHAHAHA. That's funny !! However I must agree with you: its crap!

2 Solution Maybe if you can put the color one that was in all along. I think this one File:Mark Rainsford.jpg|Sir Mark Rainsford Profile Improved with Photoshop

2A Reason: Well about me- I love history and maybe i'm crazy but I try and make color ones to say something about the past; almost bring them alive. Improve in a word or just make it more interesting.

3 Future Photoshop work on image. If I do and I probably will- I will run it by u first here. Attach image here for you to view and critique !

Conclusion:

So if you can put back the color one as it was before that would be fine. Also thank you for your critique. It made me laugh but also made me see the truth. There's no doubt it's a total mess!

Kind Regards Foxhunter22

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francis Johnston (architect), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GPO. 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.

Hi there, and thanks. Yes i meant the GPO - General Post Office in Dublin. Right next to Nelson's Pillar. I had a look at the wikipage and found it has been changed already. I had noticed it pointed to the wrong GPO and had meant to change it but must have forgotten to! I hope you like the Nelsons Pillar Gallery I put in there. I think it is important for history and also to have some color pictures of what was a brilliant architectural achievement by Francis Johnston. However Nelson's Pillar was blown up by the IRA in 1966 and no one got to see it! Thanks to wikipedia we can have a good idea of what it looked like, even in color! Hope that helps Foxhunter22 It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson's Pillar

Hi. I just happened to see a conversation you had last month regarding the adding of an image gallery to the Nelson's Pillar article. I just thought I'd let you know there's a "cheat" you can use. If you link to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson%27s_Pillar&oldid=653328414 it will take the person to your version of the page, with the gallery included. I hope that helps. Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scolaire - thank you very much for that. We really needed the gallery to show to Students and to a Conference we were doing. The Gallery we feel is of utmost importance when understanding Monuments. In particular Historical Monuments such as 'Nelson's Pillar' which was blown up in 1966 and so no longer exists!!

We will copy and paste this link and use it in our next Conference and for other thing were doing. We use a overhead Projector and the images are so clear and brilliant that it brings Nelson's Pillar back to life, showing it's scale and the Detail in the pictures and so on.

Thank you for that - it helps us a lot. Very grateful thank you.

You're very welcome. I am old enough to have very fond memories of the Pillar. I remember going past it on the bus and asking my mother to take us up. She said, "next time." A week later it was just a stump. Scolaire (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really WOW! Were not old enough here to have seen the Pillar. The eldest in our group was born in 1972. Was it really as Big as they say in reality? We have good idea of the Scale of it from all the Pictures and in particular the Videos we found and posted on wiki this year! We all think the Monument was superb for Dublin - but we do realize and acknowledge the Political Pressure also of course.

I see from the article that it was shorter than Nelson's Column in London, but it seemed bigger – probably because it was in the street rather than in a square. There was actually little or no political pressure at the time. We knew who was up there but we didn't think about it. Nelson's Pillar was where all the buses stopped, except for a very few cross-town routes, and it was where you would arrange to meet if you were going into town. There was very little republicanism in Dublin, or indeed anywhere in the South, although the 1916 leaders were revered by everybody, and nobody foresaw what was going to happen in the North just a couple of years after the Pillar came down. Right up until the Spire was built, people of my age and older were saying they should just rebuild the Pillar, and put Patrick Pearse or Nelson Mandela on the top. Scolaire (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Foxhunter22. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions.
Message added 20:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Foxhunter22. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]