User talk:Guliolopez

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

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)

DYK for Vernon Mount[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 15 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vernon Mount, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1797, a wealthy Irish heiress was abducted to Vernon Mount and subjected to a forced marriage ceremony? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vernon Mount. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vernon Mount), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Great job at giving a start to Abraham Hargrave: lots of good source, and exhaustive coverage of the information from them. Keep up the good work! Sadads (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
[1] - well spotted!! Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Cormac Devlin[edit]

Hi Guliolopez, re the above change (photo, possible copyviolation) I had agency to publish. Sorry I see my mistake. Reproduction was allowed but requires a credit. With that is it ok to re-upload? DublinHistoryBuff (talk) 01:37, 19 Sept 2016 (UTC)

Hi. In relation to the:
  • Cormac Devlin image - You should follow the process described at Commons:OTRS. See the section relating to the process when someone has "[...] received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons." Only once the permission from the original author has been verified will it be possible to reupload.
  • Loughlinstown/Dolmen image - You should consider doing the same. The EXIF data for this image lists a different author than the author which had been listed for the above (copyrighted) image. This begged questions from Commons administrators whether there was a similar licence issue. To prevent that image from being similarly deleted, you should follow the appropriate OTRS process. If you are the author/photographer for that image, that should be quite straightforward.
In general, don't upload images with a claim of "I own this, I took this, I release it under a free licence" if that claim is perhaps not accurate. Guliolopez (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ALONE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artane (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) 11:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thwack (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hey Guliolopez! I did a procedural close here and just wanted to let you know. This needs to be nominated at WP:RFD where redirects are discussed. Pinging K.e.coffman as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone of you willing to nominate it at RFD? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your helpful contributions on the Katanga secession. Special thanks for bringing in 21st century new sources, while I'm rooting around for 1960s material!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Noel O’Mahony[edit]

Thanks for your comments regarding above article Djln Djln (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Guliolopez. 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)

Kinsale Cloak[edit]

Kinsale Cloak: I got rid of the entire sentence where the source I quoted said the cloak is "graceful". It really didn't add much to the article anyway. Anybody who looks at the pictures can see the cloak is graceful, so nobody needs to tell them that, I guess. Thanks so much for your help. LynnMGallagher (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)LynnMGallagher

Good idea. As you note, if something is strong enough, it can stand on its own, and doesn't need "interpretation" on the reader's behalf. This is a key tenet of the WP:FLOWERY guideline, which is essentially based on the premise that objective phrasing will generally carry greater weight than subjective phrasing. (As the reader will come to their own conclusion - and not feel railroaded to a particular point-of-view). Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC) is not a reliable source[edit]

Hi Guliolopez . I'm in the process of removing as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sure you're right (that it's not reliable). And thanks for the courtesy note. But I didn't add that ref/source. It was already there. I just moved it. Remove it if you like. The content it supported (born c.1990, filmography) is already covered by other more reliable sources. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
My mistake. My apologies. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ar an Vicí eile[edit]

Not being too CANVASS-y, but there's this going down. I don't want to weigh in as I'll end up closing it out, most likely, but just though you might want to add your cúpla focail. It's pretty quiet on that request :) - Alison 20:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sir John Rogerson's Quay[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Sir John Rogerson's Quay 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! SounderBruce 04:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sir John Rogerson's Quay[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 11 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sir John Rogerson's Quay, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sir John Rogerson's Quay, a private development in 18th-century Dublin, became home to a 19th-century diving bell used to further develop Dublin's quays? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sir John Rogerson's Quay. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sir John Rogerson's Quay, 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.

— Maile (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Null Island[edit]

Hello! About the reversion of the edit on the Null Island page. According to WP:RS, "... audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." Therefore I felt that the YouTube video was an adequate reference/citation. The channel which the video comes from 'Minute Earth' is a reliable, good quality channel with accurate information. I shall not take any further steps till I hear back from you. However, I would like to reinsert that section. The current page on Null Island is very short and does not have too much information. Thank You!ParkerS (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. I personally often follow the MinuteEarth channel (and Tom Scott) myself. So I would agree that it is one of the more reputable/reliable channels or sources on the YT platform. However, it doesn't inherently meet WP:RS criteria. In particular, that specific YouTube video only references one supporting cite. This one. Which doesn't actually use the term "null island" anywhere in the body. I agree that the article is perhaps a bit "thin" on some aspects of the concept (which is why I'd added/left a cut-down version of the material you proposed to add). But I think we'll need to find more and better cites before we can bulk up that content further. Guliolopez (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Henrietta Street[edit]

Mmm, yes . . . Silly me, used to think of this as a co-operative project. Eddaido (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Eh... What? Did I cause offence by pointing out that incomplete "placeholder" content (that hadn't been populated/completed in more than four years) should perhaps be addressed? Or that I may a (perhaps indelicately) highlighted a possible WP:SEP issue in doing so? Or is the concern that I then addressed the placeholder content?
Yes, Wikipedia is a collaborative project - as evidenced by the way the "placeholders" were addressed - in line with the relevant policies. Wikipedia is not however a repository of half-completed indiscriminate list content - as per the relevant policies, etc.
In any event, if your concern arises because something in my edit-note (in which I pointed-out an issue) somehow caused offence, then I can but apolgise.
If, however, your concern arises because you disagree that there was an issue to be addressed in the first place (and that the placeholders should remain for another 4 years), or that it should have been addressed differently, then I do not know what to suggest.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Mark O'Sullivan[edit]

Don't edit my pages. BluesFan1930 (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

They are not 'your pages'. And they will be deleted if there are too many issues relative to project norms. Guliolopez (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm following the guidelines shown by a different Wikipedia user. I'm no expert on Wikipedia but I'm doing my best to be consistent for all Waterford FC related pages and you are destroying that by your misuse of Mark O'Sullivan. Please stop editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluesFan1930 (talkcontribs) 23:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for your note @BluesFan1930:. On each point:
  1. "following the guidelines shown by a different Wikipedia user" - Can you help me understand please which guidelines those are? The 'first occurence' guidelines for example suggest that we should only link the first occurence. And the 'transparency' guidelines suggest that a reader shouldn't necessarily be surprised with where they end-up after clicking on a link. (Clicking on a link that says Wexford for example, one might expect to end-up somewhere different than a link like Wexford Youths F.C. perhaps).
  2. "you are destroying that by your misuse of Mark O'Sullivan" - I'm afraid I don't follow your point here. Can you elaborate on what you feel is being destroyed or misused?
  3. "please stop editing the page" - As noted prior, you really should please consider revisiting the 'ownership' guidelines. Demanding that other users stop editing (for the reasons implied) is contrary to project norms. I would also note that, if I had not edited the page from its original form it would have long since been deleted for copyvio reasons.
  4. "I'm no expert on Wikipedia but I'm doing my best" - Great. Fantastic that you are doing your best. It's all any of us can do. As per my various notes on your own talk page, if you need any help or guidance on that front, please do let me know. And please do so in line with the core tenets of the project - which expect 'consensus editing' and not editing by 'brute force' (as the latter will never be successful in the long term).
All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Joseph McColgan listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Joseph McColgan. Since you had some involvement with the Joseph McColgan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. You've not been involved directly on this one but believe you dealt with Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016 December 5#People of the Year Awards previously and this is related. I've also edited the McCoglan entry in the Ballymote page after trying to discuss on the talk page and hope it now looks more suitable, I'm blundering around this related area of content and hopefully making the best of it I can. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Familar editing style[edit]

Could you take a look at these contributions? The editing style, especially the addition of line spaces, seems very familiar, if you know who I mean. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup. WP:QUACK. Guliolopez (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Is there a registered account that this can be connected to that isn't stale that we can take to SPI? - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. If you want to take it to SPI, I will contribute. However, if every incident resulted in SPI, it would amount to 10 per year. Every year. For the last 7 years. Guliolopez (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
This user really hasn't done anything blockable, so RBI really doesn't apply. I don't see any other avenue available other than SPI, and I'm not familiar enough with the user to file a behavioral report. Btw, I know of several sockmasters who have well over 10 SPIs per year filed against them, so it's certainly doable. - BilCat (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Now the typical IP, User:, has shown up, with the normal edits to Irish Army. - BilCat (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


Two images in the Dublin landmarks section is hardly too many but having images dislodge headers is bad though I agree is indeed not worse than sandwiching but that hard break is an acceptable way to deal with such matters especially when it makes very little extra white space at the end of the section. What harm is there in it? Personally I disagree with your revert and its not the first time you have reverted acceptable formatting I made where it is actually useful. ww2censor (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

'it makes very little extra white space at the end' - Perhaps on your display. On my own (which may be wider) I see about two inches of white space. Which is perhaps why keeping markup simple (and avoiding forced formatting) is sometimes recommended.
'what harm is there in it' - I guess the risk that it affects readability through an impactful break in content. Which may not be evident to all readers. But perhaps those who consume content on different display types or via different UIs.
'not the first time you have [made edits we disagreed upon]' - In honesty, in the 12+ years we've been editing largely overlapping articles (and the >200,000 edits we've collectively made on those articles) it would be amazing (and perhaps even slightly worrying) if each one had been perfectly aligned :)
Apologies if any offence was caused. That (obviously) wasn't the intent. Guliolopez (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
True, true, true and thanks. So many people are using laptops but I suppose for big screens it may cause a big space. I generally try to just move such images to the right if possible without cluttering the sections. Though we do have several, not just Irish articles, that have too many images for the prose. I see you are also active on gawiki, so perhaps I can suggest an occasional translation of additions to existing ones I edit here. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

DCU Students' Union[edit]

Hi guliolopez. The DCU Flat Earth Society is planning a DCU Students' Union referendum in 2018 to ratify the SU's stance Flat Earth Theory. You might think the society is a BS hoax or a joke, but it is fact that this referendum is planned. What references should be included to support this? This information is available on their official public Facebook page. Would support from an independent website satisfy the requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. On each point.
  1. "The DCU Flat Earth Society is planning a referendum in 2018 to ratify the SU's stance Flat Earth Theory". Frankly, so what? How does that align with this project's inclusion criteria, guidelines on news material, and norms for avoiding speculation on future events?
  2. "What references should be included to support this". It's not solely a question of references (although obviously a Facebook page with two dozen "likes" falls so far short of WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV it borders on laughable). It is however a question of lasting relevance, permanence and triviality.
  3. "Would support from an independent website satisfy". Satisfy what? Satisfy RS requirements for a statement that 2 dozen people, each of whom should know better, are bringing forth a motion in a students union, presumably/hopefully for LOLs? If there is a source that meets RS for this, then it won't be available until 2018 - after the vote. It will be easy to find. It will be in the footnotes of a student rag ("Idiotic poll defeated") or in the "fun-news" section of the Indo ("Idiots vote for idiocy - science faculty fired").
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Guliolopez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


Over on the commons I noticed some of your work on NLI categories. It has concerned me for quite a while that many of the NLI image may not be freely licensed, even though the NLI knows of no restrictions, but especially due to the death date of the authors, such a W.D. Hogan's who only died in 1956 but we have several of this images on the commons though some have been deleted due to Unclear copyright status, specifically Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Collins "Free State Demonstration" March 13, 1922.jpg. Yes, I was in instigator of that deletion nomination though obviously i would have preferred to keep the image. I suspect Hogan's images should be deleted until 2027. Other photographs, such as those of Robert French would appear to be ok as, from my searches, he died in 1920 a few years after he retired. Irish copyright law is pretty clear per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Ireland; 70 years pma and 70 after publication if anonymous. For instance File:Ireland, Sligo - Walsh's Royal Mail and Day Car.jpg does not really need a licence check which I see you added to c:Category:Images from the National Library of Ireland (check needed) today. Your thoughts on what needs doing and what is clearly not a problem. ww2censor (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

RE: "I noticed some of your work". Cool. Nice to be noticed :)
RE: "many of the NLI image may not be freely licensed". The NLI operates a program where they overtly release images from selected collections (including some of those you list) under Commons licences. See here and here. While some of the collections in scope of this program (like the Lawrence collection or the Clonbrock collection) would meet Commons criteria anyway (70 years pma/etc), in the case of other collections (like the Hogan collection or Wiltshire collection; which don't meet 70 years pma automatically) they have released them to Commons. They do this because they (in effect) own the copyright. And can do so. As such, while there are some images in the Commons NLI category that need licence review (like this one - which to my understanding wasn't overtly released by the NLI under an open licence), the 2000 images released to the Flickr Commons project mainly do not need additional review.
RE: "I see you added [X] to the NLI-check needed category". I created that category a few years back. Mainly as quite a few editors were using Flickr2Commons and other tools to migrate images. And, the volume was such that I couldn't keep on top of it. And so I needed a "parking lot". That category being one such parking lots - for my sins I have others too (most of which thankfully are much reduced than they were before). I now put files in that category not (just) to double check the licence (which - if it comes from Flickr Commons - is typically OK), but to check the categories and name applied as well. (Sometimes the images are migrated with names and categories that are not appropriate, not self-descriptive or otherwise make them difficult for Commons users to find).
RE: "what needs doing". I'd be delighted with a little help on the categorisation and name-checks. But the licencing checks are all largely automated (at least for the images migrated using Commons:Flickr2Commons.
If you need any more information on the NLI Commons program, shoot me a note or send a Flickr Mail to volunteers who manage the NLI Commons stream, or I can put you in contact with the lovely people who manage the NLI Outreach program (if assurances are required for example on how those Hogan images meet Commons licence expectations).
Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I think your understanding of the NLI's "no known copyright restriction" is overly generous, especially as a blanket acceptance for all 2000 images. If you read their statement it clearly notes that the National Library of Ireland is not aware of any current copyright restrictions on the photographs, usually because the Library owns the copyright or the term of copyright has expired but on their uploads there is no indication which apply if either. Perhaps I'm being picky here but the NLI has not released the images to the wikimedia commons but to Flickr under a no restrictions known tag which is an entirely different thing which is why we review such images to check their copyright status as far as possible. Just because the NLI has been donated photographic collections does not mean the copyright has been transferred with the donation and may still remain with the heirs until the copyright term runs out. The one thing we can be sure of is that photos whose photographer is identified and has been dead 70+ please are certainly in the public domain and should be tagged appropriately. The template we use for such uploads {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} which notes that one should Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to have all their images here and not have them deleted, so based on those statements above and without any confirmation about specific collections, which, based on previous discussions of their image I don't think the NLI can give, I personally think we need to be more circumspect about allowing every NLI image to be transferred to the commons, especially where we know for certain that the author is not dead long enough.
As I stated above I have reservations about the W.D. Hogan Collection and I am certain there are others. While I don't want to get into any too specific discussions at this stage and would prefer to deal with the general aspects, I'm surprised you appear to consider File:Irish Citizen Army on Rooftop.jpg freely licensed based on the uploader's claim. It is copied from a recent book without any author attribution and while it no doubt dates from 1916 there is no backlink of any sort to the NLI to verify anything stated in the image page. Neither the uploader nor you are commons reviewers, so I would prefer, despite it apparent age, if this image had a proper license review. Anyway enough for now and thanks for your detailed response. ww2censor (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
RE: "No known copyright restrictions != Commons licenced". Fair enough. Do you want me to talk to the NLI team about their understanding or applicability of the licence to a Wikimedia Commons context?
RE: "surprised you appear to consider File:Irish Citizen Army on Rooftop to be freely licensed". Actually I don't. Apologies if my note wasn't clear, but I was actually (attempting) to highlight that that image (and others that were not released by the NLI explicitly) may NOT be freely licened. (That's what I meant when I said that that image wasn't "released by the NLI under an open licence"). And hence that it probably SHOULD be reviewed. As with any others that weren't released by the NLI themselves - to a commons/free/no-copyright-restrictions type licence.
RE: "add additional copyright tags". That's a good idea. Some of them will be easy to do (and could even be scripted/automated - based on their verified membership of specific collection sub-categories). If you want to help with that, that'd be great.
In general terms, there are a number of collections which the NLI include in their Commons program. Most can likely be tagged as PD-old-70 or PD-1923 by default. These include those in the collections for:
  • Stereo Pairs - taken and published 1860-1883 (mainly by unknown photographers)
  • Lawrence - taken and published 1870-1914 (mainly by Robert French who died c.1920)
  • Poole - taken and published 1870-1914 (mainly by Arthur Henri Poole who mysteriously disappeared/presumed dead c.1929)
  • Hargrave - taken and published late 19th C (by JH Hargrave who died c.1924)
  • Clonbrock - taken and published mid-/late- 19th C (often by Augusta Caroline Crofton Dillon who died c.1928)
I have a meeting next week with the outreach team at the NLI, and can ask for their opinions on the other collections (like Hogan, Clarke and others).
Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Guliolopez, anything we can do to verify the copyright status of images is what wikimedia needs. If you are meeting with the NLI, I would pose the question in terms of the actual known copyright status as opposed to the no known restrictions claim which as we know does not actually verify them being in the public domain. The collections mentioned certainly do seem to be public domain based on Irish law and maybe we can get someone to mass tag them with a bot as opposed to manual tagging. I'll ask around some people though maybe even the "Batch task feature would work for that though not all at once.
I must have misread your File:Irish Citizen Army on Rooftop.jpg comment, so I will tag the image for review but perhaps you have some more details that will allow us to keep it, if so add them before it get reviewed if possible.
Really the no known restrictions tagged images from all institutions should be reviewed, even if in passing to confirm the claim, many of which are certainly old enough. It's really the author deaths post-1946 that are an issue for the NLI material. Some institutions are fairly precise about their images, while others commit copyfraud by claiming copyright over images that are clearly in the public domain: NLI seems to be one of the better institutions donating material to the Flickr commons project. BTW, I've found the free site can be useful in determining some death dates and now that the Irish registry is online as well as the military archive pension records, these are great resources but take time to investigate. I even found my grandmother's 1988 death cert attached to my grandfather's military pension records! Regards ww2censor (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Afterthought: in your meeting next week you might mention that several, maybe all, backlinks to the NLI site from Flickr image pages no longer work. I suppose this is because they have moved the pages without leaving a redirect. So, images on the wikimedia commons don't link anymore either. Just a small point that webmasters should be cognisant of. ww2censor (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


hello guliolopez, this is user name pcummin. I have been to Dublin and can not find any trace of cuimin of lacken. I paid a professional Irish historian [ dr. Paul MaCotter]to trace, cuimin of lacken. He could find no such person. I am going to delete that piece of the article next week. who ever put it there has had about two years to cite that comment. You know who he is SO tell him what I m going to do, and tell him my user name. pcummin. thank you. user name [pcummin]2A00:23C1:43A3:CD00:5DBB:ECA4:5F91:74DE (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:43A3:CD00:5DBB:ECA4:5F91:74DE (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Guliolopez (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)