User talk:Guliolopez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

DYK for Fort Templebreedy[edit]

Harrias talk 17:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Deich bhliain inniu[edit]

Chomhgáirdeas leat!! :) - Alison 02:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


Yes, guilty, I've been a bit bitey - but then, check his userpage. I and others have tried engaging on multiple occasions and been completely ignored, even when there was serious disruption such as article moves that managed to lose page histories. The editing pattern is similarly annoying - dozens of edits, reverts and re-edits, in a short period, ignoring the MoS, and making it impossible to do a simple revert. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ná bac leis. To be honesty while I veer into spoonfeeding myself, it's becoming clear that we're in idealistic naïveté (possibly even Ógra/YFG) territory - and so there may be no helping anyway. Guliolopez (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cove Fort, County Cork[edit]

Thanks for this Victuallers (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral[edit]

Thank you for your edits. You are quite right, it is "a shabby apology for an (article) which has long disgraced (the cathedral)." It should be FA, and fully merits this as Burges's first major work and for its architectural and historical importance to the City of Cork and to Ireland. One day, perhaps. KJP1 (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I put it in quite those terms.... did I? Whatever the case, there are some areas where the article could be improved (and I've highlighted those on the talk page). If other editors don't have a chance to address them in the regular course of editing/improvement, I'll likely come back to them myself (some day). Guliolopez (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding Tuam Golf Club[edit]

Hi Julio, there are some outstanding issues with Tuam Golf Club which I have explained in the Talk page. What is the process for those two issues being corrected.? Should I make the changed, or it that up to the person that raised the issue. Poshpaddy (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I expect that the two issues you reference are the "cites could be better" and "notability isn't established" flags. On the former, if you can provide a source for the "wildlife sanctuary" claim, then yes please do so. Otherwise, if other editors can't verify the claim independently, it should likely be removed. (Per the WP:VER guidelines, other editors should be able to verify claims.) If the only available evidence of the claim is signage on the land itself, then perhaps a photo of that signage would be useful - otherwise the claim can't be verified. On the latter, notability issues generally come-down to the general notability guideline (which suggests that subjects should be covered in non-trivial reliable sources) and the specific guideline for clubs and orgs (which expect that, where a club's activities are local in scope, there would ideally be "substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". In short, if there are more sources (for example of the level of the Indo and Irish Times coverage), that might help address concerns there. Finally, as regards, "who should fix it", the responsibility lies with the editor who adds the info (or wants to remove any challenge tags). Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Hello, Please note that the link William provided on Cork Airport is not valid as it was not a proper disscussion if you look at it. RMS52 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Let's try and have the discussion on the relevant talk page. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


Point taken, perhalps I was being nostalgic. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Happens to all of us. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
You were dead right of course in your first message. Correcting. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Just curious: why haven't you opened an SPI on this guy? Scolaire (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Because I'm jaded from it. And SPI would really only confirm that it's a sock IP. Which anyone could tell - don't need an SPI for that. I've opened an AN3 notice instead. If you were inclined, it might be useful for you to add a note. From there I'll think about something at WP:LTA or ask for thoughts on WP:ANI. Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Note added. Scolaire (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
As you have probably noticed this sockpuppet is also "editing" under (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs).Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Ya. I know. See here for more detail. Going back 5 years. Guliolopez (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for your edits. I accept your expertise on this website as gospel so I am happy enough to take on board your changes. However I find very frustrating that my article is getting edited constantly whilst other gaa club articles Like , Castlemartyr GAA, and Ballyhale Shamrocks GAA Article (for example) remain untouched although they have the same mistakes as I had when I wrote the Lisgoold GAA Article.

Why is this so? They have been on wikipedia much longer than the Lisgoold one, so why is it, that the Lisgoold GAA article keeps getting picked on? I'm just being curious, Don't take offence, i am Honored it is getting so much attention I just want to know why.

Also With your expertise, I have put in the code for Blue shorts with gold trim and Blue and Gold Hoop Socks but no result (as you can see in the info box), Could you please advice in how to fix this?

regards, Mossdaniels (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Moss 15:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossdaniels (talkcontribs)

Hi. Thanks for your note. Great to hear from you. To your points:
  1. Kit - Fundamentally this was because the GAA Club infobox didn't support patterns for socks and shorts. Only solid colours. I've added that support[1]. And made a minor tweak to the template as used on the article itself[2]. Hope this helps.
  2. Expertise - I'm not king of the universe by any stretch. While I've been around a while, the only reason the Lisgoold articles are on my watch list is that they suffered from some silliness in the past. And now it's kind of on the radar. (For similar reasons every Irish Wikipedian "of a certain age" has Swinford on their watchlist. To address longstanding silliness about werewolves.)
  3. Why is there crap on Wikipedia - Unfortunately this a fundamental tenet of a project which is open to everyone. And many guidelines and essays are written on the topic of why there may always be articles with suspect content, and low quality articles, etc. While I can appreciate how this may be frustrating (especially from the perspective of an editor who sees other low quality articles and might then feel like their efforts are being singled out), I would note that there are policies (and perspectives) against WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type arguments. Fundamentally it comes down to that phrase everyone's mother uses: "two wrongs don't make a right..."
  4. What do we do about it - In honesty this is simpler. We make our articles better. And hold others to that yardstick. Rather than the other way around. For GAA Club articles, this means avoiding using it as a personal webspace, free webhost for match reports, editorial forum for commentary and opinion pieces that cannot be supported by cite, and generally not adding stuff that isn't what the project is about. Again, to extend the overused parental phrase: "if they were all jumping of a cliff..." So don't jump off the cliff. Keep the high-ground.
Happy editing. Guliolopez (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)



Thanks for all your edits!! :)

I know its a 'low' status but in all honesty its a GAA club wont expect much higher..

However, I just noticed the article got a rating of C! which i was delighted get.

I was wondering what is (realistically) the highest rating this article can get, how does one go about achieving it??

I want to have an article in which all GAA clubs can look and mirror so to improve the whole project. Hope you understand.

Moss 10:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. As you note, the importance-scale rating ("low" in this case) is not typically fluid. Unless a subject gains significantly broader relevance, then - yes - it's likely to remain "low". In terms of quality, a "C" rating on the quality scale was assigned by the assessing editor on the basis that the article:
is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
Hence, if your goal is to strive for a higher quality rating, then you might work on excising or summarising the "irrelevant material" (match reports and the like), adding more and better references (and removing stuff that can't be reliably referenced), cleaning-up any remaining tone, commentary and POV issues.
As I mentioned before, if these things can be done, then the article can stand-out as a "best case" to which other GAA club articles might aspire. And so, rather than lowering the quality-bar to that of the existing articles you mentioned before, we raise the bar for them.... Guliolopez (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


Well I wholeheartedly agree to all this, I am just looking for three more suitable photos at the moment (one for 1994 team & the other two for club development paragraph) I probably need to add a small bit more in history for juvenile and ladies football clubs, apart from that I'm open to whatever changes have to be made to ensure it gets the highest grading possible. I agree with you, lets raise the bar to highest standard. In cork in Ireland, I'm delighted to say there is a lot of talk about the article so it is getting noticed. So, I am willing to develop this article to its full potential. Looking forward to your reply, Mossdaniels (talk) Moss 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello, Thank you for your advice; I know ReFill exists but am unwilling to spend time learning another process which other editors hava already mastered. Within a day or two of the tagging as "bare urls" a editor familiar with the process usually comes along and fills up the references, sometimes also improving the article in other ways.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's every editors' prerogative I guess. We each contribute in our own ways. Though, I must admit, when I read "unwilling to spend time learning another process" (when the "process" involves 2 clicks), a slight chill told me a WikiLove fairy had died somewhere :) Guliolopez (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you but after seven and a half years I tend to do fairly minor changes, copy editing and assessment mostly. I expect there are some newer editors who would get into using ReFill more readily.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Magazine Fort[edit]

Allen3 talk 12:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join MILHIST[edit]

Linda Kavanagh[edit]

Do you remember this image: c:File:Linda kavanagh.jpg to which you made this edit. You never edited it previously so how do you know it was actually released under a free licence? The original uploader wrote full permission from WPI but there is no knowledge of what that really means. Does it mean wikipedia use, which you know we don't accept or something else. It's obviously a professional portrait whose copyright is usually owned by the photographer. ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not knowingly remove the permission tag. It was removed automatically (and completely unbeknownst to me) by the HotCat tool. commons:Help:Gadget-HotCat tool. Would seem to be a bug in that tool. All I had (intentional) done was add a politicians category. Anything else that occurred was a background behaviour of the tool. I have restored the flag. Guliolopez (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually. Sorry. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here, but it was you who removed that flag yourself surely???? All I did was add a category? Your edit history above spans your own edit(?) My edit was not the one that removed or asserted or changed anything relative to permission tags? So, can you help me understand your problem with my edit? Guliolopez (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Whatcha talkin bout Willis?
In this talk page edit you ask why I changed a permission tag on a file. I didn't. You removed that tag yourself. A full year before my edit. The edit history you provide for context spans your own edit - so it seems pretty clear there's some confusion somewhere. To confirm, my edit just added the image to a politicians category. It was your own edit that was permission/copyright status related. Guliolopez (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Who is this Willis person anyway? I see it has been tagged again but being an old image it should really be listed under a FFD. Indeed there was some confusion on my part and it was still on my watchlist for a year so popped up after your edit and the edit link I gave you excluded the intermediate edit I had made. Thanks anyway for responding and clarifying. Maybe I was just too tired at the time. ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I was on the cusp of opening a bug-report for the HotCat tool, so am glad to have checked and confirmed that the edit in question was not triggered by me or that tool. Would've had eggy faces all round. Guliolopez (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Spit Bank Lighthouse[edit]

—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 00:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 00:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Cork Public Museum[edit]

Hi – I've left some comments at the DYK nomination. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. As it happens, the museum building was used as both (it had shelter facilities and was used by the municipal officers who identified/nominated shelters under the 1939 act). But I'll try and clarify/support in the article and in the nomination. Guliolopez (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It's on my watchlist, so I will aim to respond promptly. The air raid shelter usage hooks are my favourite, and I will recommend they are used once the sourcing is sorted out. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thady Quill[edit]

It is a song, indeed about a person, but as a song it should not appear on a list of people. Murry1975 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand the point, but don't agree. Plenty of articles are structured in a way where two things are covered. In this case, a song and a song's subject. Take the Molly Malone article for example - this article also covers a song and a song's subject. And indeed also covers a statue and a statue's subject. And the folk-story and the folk-story's subject. Etc. Should the Molly Malone article be delisted from List of public art in Dublin, because the lead says that "Molly Malone is a song" - not "Molly Malone is a statue"? Or should it be delisted from List of courtesans because it doesn't lead with "Molly Malone is a folk-story character"? I wouldn't have thought so. Because an article opens with "Foo is an A", it doesn't (in my view) follow that it can only find itself listed in "Lists of As". If Foo is also a B (and many Foos are), then it could equally find itself in a "List of Bs". A subject and derivations/personifications of a subject become indivisible - so giving them separate articles wouldn't seem to make sense. Nor (in my view) would delisting or split-listing each associated meaning. Guliolopez (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
But would we list Molly on a list of people from Dublin? We do disagree on this one bud, if it is a list of people they should themselves be notable, not linked by other means. Murry1975 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
RE: "Would we list Molly Malone in a 'list of people from Dublin'". No. Because Molly wasn't/isn't a real person. I'm not arguing that all people who are subjects of songs should be in lists of people. I'm highlighting that many articles cover 2 associated topics (A and B), and sometimes each topic finds its way into separate lists (list of things like A, list of things like B). Sorry if my Molly Malone example didn't mirror the exact same scenario. It wasn't intended to. I was just highlighting that because the article opens "Molly Malone is a song", doesn't preclude the article (as it also covers the statue) from being listed in a list of statues. That the subject is a person/personification is nearly incidental. (Hence my attempt to abstract it with the Foo/set-theory reference). We could just as equally have been talking about how Adidas appears in List of fitness wear brands and lists of retailers, and lists of companies. It is A, B, and C, and therefore legitimately listed as such - even if the lead of the article focuses on one from A/B/C over the others...
RE: "people should themselves be notable". If the main reason for removing from "list of people" is "because article doesn't titularly deal with person", on primarily WP:BLP1E / WP:1E grounds, I would note that the guideline specifically provides for subject and subject-event/subject-association to be dealt with in the same article. Splitting articles, just so they can be listed atomically wouldn't seem to be in keeping with the intent of BLP1E guidelines.
Anyway, happy to agree to disagree. Guliolopez (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Cork Public Museum[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 8 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cork Public Museum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Cork Public Museum building was used to host visiting royalty in the 1900s, and as an air-raid protection office in the 1930s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cork Public Museum. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert of my removal of "pretend" apologists at Intelligent falling[edit]

I think they are real apologists; they're certainly not pretending to be apologists, they actually are apologists. Yes, the "theory" is a deliberately nonsense one, but those promoting it have a real point to push (not the surface one of course) and are really doing that, they're not pretending to do it. Si Trew (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I was amused by this, by the way, I hadn't heard of it before. I certainly wasn't taking out the "pretend" in any act of ill-humour. Si Trew (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. While I initially hit RV (thinking it was a mistake or attempt to present a joke as fact), I recognised during my edit that the text could perhaps be clearer. And so I didn't actually rollback your change, rather tempered/clarified the original text to account for your note. As I'd hit the RV button though, it likely showed-up in your notifications as a straight-revert. Apologies for that. Guliolopez (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Garda Síochána revert[edit]


Just a quick note on your revert of my edit. You mentioned in your edit summary that This is quote. Your script or helper or whatever it is should possibly be updated to ignore quoted txt. Quoted text shouldn't be changed in this way. I think quoted text should be updated when what is being quoted isn't what the source says. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also I'm using AutoWikiBrowser as my script or helper or whatever, but I review each edit before I save. ~ Ablaze (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Apologies. In honesty I had noted this edit first. And recognised that (after your change) the quote not longer reflected the source. (And so the "sic" note also no longer made sense). I had assumed (and shouldn't have) that the similar quote edit which you made immediately afterwards had the same problem. As you note, the second edit did not have this issue. Apologies. Guliolopez (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
No worries, and sorry about the first mistake. I usually catch them. ~ Ablaze (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

WW1 US NAS Wexford[edit]

The references to actually official cruise book to WW1 US NAS Wexford are correct, as is Wexford The American Connection by Liam Gaul, PhD VM321 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. Unfortunately I do not understand your note however. You say that those two references are correct and valid. I do not understand therefore why you removed them from different places in the article. If they are correct, then why remove them? If it was an error, and your note above is just acknowledging that, then great - thanks. If not, and your note above has some other intent, then can you let me know what that might be? (As a reminder, my only edit to the article in recent months was to restore the reference that you had removed without explanation). Thanks Guliolopez (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)