User talk:Guliolopez

Names of Parliament of Ireland constituencies changed

Dear Guliolopez, wise man. I wondered whether you noticed the RM that changed the names of 30 county constituencies of the Parliament of Ireland. It is on top of the talk page of what is now called the County Antrim (Parliament of Ireland constituency), formerly Antrim County (Parliament of Ireland constituency). It seems that went through without discussion whatsoever. Were not the original names the official ones that are reported in the literature? e.g. this report What do you think about it? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes Schade. Apologies but I overlooked your note. In honesty, while I'd seen the RM (or the gist of it) on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Article alerts, it wasn't something that I had a strong opinion on or specific expertise or knowledge to apply, and so I left it for others to discuss. It does appear that the RM was closed/actioned without much input. Personally I'm not sure what to suggest. I was going to suggest that you engage the proposing editor on their User Talk page. But you seem to have already done so. And they seem to have suggested, after some initial language issues/miscommunication, that there is room for compromise or discussion. If you feel I have something specific to add I'm happy to contribute. But, in all honesty, I'm not sure I have much to offer here. Guliolopez (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coláiste Íosagáin, Ballyvourney

Please can you hold off and stop creating edit conflicts? Your latest intervention has just wasted fifteen minutes of my time, in an edit which I will have to discard. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Sure. Seems a bit of a sharply framed request. As edit conflicts are common. And as I'd made pretty much just that one edit. And I'd made it nearly a half-hour after your previous. And hadn't planned on any others. But sure.... Guliolopez (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You made 5 edits.
I was working away adding bits which took time to assemble. What's the rush? Why not wait until the following day? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. Sure. I made 5 edits. In two blocks. Hours apart. With gaps of between about a half-hour and an hour from your own edits. In that context, I'm still very confused as to where the sharpness in tone is coming from. But there is (as you note) absolutely no rush. Indeed. Guliolopez (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhills

What youre doing with the greenhills page is disrespectful, locals that are from the area are adding useful information and you are just taking it down. Ive looked through all your edits and some are acceptable but most are completely relevant to the topic and you just erase them, why? Im not sure but i just want you to be a bit more careful when you start erasing useful information that people who just want others to learn about this beautiful neighbourhood 2A02:8084:4262:5980:65B8:92E8:6D67:F965 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2A02:8084:4262:5980:65B8:92E8:6D67:F965. I'm not sure which edits you consider to be "disrespectful", but the only two edits I've made this year are this one (in which I removed nonsense about a road named "St Spunknuggie Road"). And this (in which I removed content which had been tagged as uncited for a year). If you can provide reliable references for any of this content, please add those references inline and feel free to update the related text to match those refs. If doing so, please consider WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. Guliolopez (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The spunknuggie one wasn’t real sure, but why get rid of the other ones? 2A02:8084:4262:5980:CDA7:3599:3FEF:CD6B (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because they were not supported by any references. And were tagged as such for a year. Without reliable references that be verified by readers/editors, hoax material and "real" material are indistinguishable. As per my note above, if you are aware of reliable/verifiable references (to support that text) then please feel free to find and add it. Guliolopez (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion involving you

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Timfoley50 and the explorer Tom Crean. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White Irish demographics on Republic of Ireland page.

Hi @Guliolopez. I agree that linking White Irish to Irish People is not ideal, however I felt it was the best choice as currently the White Irish page is about the 2011 UK census. Do you think it warrants a section on the ROI talk page? Ideally the White Irish page could do with an overhaul, but that of course takes time and effort, so for the time being I felt it was Irish People was the best fit. -Regards Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. RE: "White Irish (as target)". 100% agree that shouldn't be the target. RE: "White Irish (as article)". While I have no strong opinions, it does seem a bit odd for that title to exclusively deal with Irish migrants/diaspora to Great Britain. That said, personally I have no interest in reworking it to cover other potential uses of the term. RE: "Irish people (as target)". While also not ideal, given that the Irish people#Genetics section deals largely with the genetic history of native/Gaelic/Celtic peoples, it is possibly an interim compromise. Otherwise I wonder if we necessarily need to link each term in that section. As if each needs/has/warrants a directly relevant article. Guliolopez (talk)

Suibne of Skellig

Any pre-schism saint (such as our friend here) is venerated by both Churches👍 East and West said or otherwise Robert444444 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But can that assertion be supported? As expected by WP:VER? (You've read WP:BIT right?) Guliolopez (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello Guliolopez!

  • The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Paudie Sheehy Edits

You have made some serious errors in your edits of my additions.

Most puzzlingly, you deleted my (valid though uncited) elaboration of the role of Secretary in Irish companies, particularly state companies, in the years prior to the 1970s. The Secretary then - and legally even today - may be delegated non-administrative, i.e. executive, work by the Board at the latter's discretion. In fact the Secretary, if also a director, may even vote at Board meetings and make Board level decisions. https://www.nathantrust.com/company-secretarial Nowadays the formal obligatory side of the major Secretary's job is done by people approapriately qualified persons who generally advise on little else outside their sphere of expertise, i.e. corporate governance. The role of adviser and/or enforcer of the managing director and Board's decisions is nowadays generally accorded to a chief operating officer (COO) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_operating_officer

You also de-capitalized the S at the start of this word, making the role seem of no more importance than that of an office secretary. This is most inappropriate.

I am wondering why you cut my final paragraph on Paudie Sheehy's career, a sort of coda on the man's life in its totality. I accept it was strong in its admiration of Sheehy - someone most people, even those born since the 1950s in Kerry, associate purely with Gaelic Football. Indeed I was no wiser than they until last Saturday when I decided to check up on old newspaper stories to see the nature of his sudden death. Growing up near Tralee in the 1960s and 1970s one always felt people held Sheehy in awe. This was strange as far more awesome players - notably Mick O'Connell - never evoked the same mystique.

Reading old newspaper issues enlightened me a lot on Sheehy's mystique. It is unusual for many sportsmen (apart from track athletes) to concurrently combine successful academic/professional and sporting pursuits. Sheehy was one of the few field sportsmen who did. Moreover journalists in national papers spoke at the time of his death of the courtesy with which Sheehy received them for interviews and his assistance to younger sportswriters in getting to know team members, understanding the preparation customs of the Kerry football squad and helpful suggestions for accommodation when in Kerry. I shall be adding a citation for those articles in due course.

This final coda on Sheehy simply had to evaluate his contribution to business in Ireland in the 1960s. It was not an indirect smack in the mouth at Tony O'Reilly - perhaps another of the few who combined a demanding field sport and professional career concurrently and whose marketing nous kept many small farmers in the game before EU entry. It was rather at those who in the 1960s built holding company businesses with borrowed money, gullible investors' funds and the relative innocence of the Irish public in business affairs. Most of these men knew little or nothing about the industries they operated in, less still about proper accounting but nonetheless knew how to charm and bluff national distributorships from major international groups by appealing to the latters' greed. These people and their practices are a matter of Ireland's recent economic history which you can research for yourself. I am happy to add references to that part of my content. The other group of businessmen I refer to - the professional administrators of largely oligarchial bureaucracies like managers of large national or international retail outlets promoted to their roles through literal seniority and orthodoxy - essentially exist wherever accountants tend to ascent to senior management roles, which today is almost everywhere. Economies need a share of such managers. But the public dispense little love toward them.

My point on Sheehy's "team player" approach to management is fair, I feel. I suppose the fact that a Kerryman schooled in Tralee when his memories of Sheehy were still fresh in people's minds didn't know his business achievements is evidence of that; others of my era and older were no wiser I have found. The final point about his having a hold on an almost personal warmth from the Kerry public during his life is an evident fact from the scale and diversity of his funeral. Photos of men's expressions at that funeral speak to the truth of that. https://www.kennellyarchive.com/id/NVP014/

Frankly, aside from a few extra citations to be rightly added to the text, I see no reason for your excising the last paragraph from my final edit of midday 1 August 2023. But if you feel otherwise then please elaborate specifically why.

Tamjk (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) tamjk[reply]

Hello. There is a lot there, but I will try and cover your main points:
  1. "you deleted my (valid though uncited) elaboration". Please read WP:VER and the related WP:BIT elaboration. In short, your "elaboration" (a form of opinion/editorial) was entirely uncited. As you note yourself. Per WP:BURDEN and WP:VER, "[a]ny material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed".
  2. "You also de-capitalized the S at the start of this word [..] most inappropriate". No. It's not. It is firmly in keeping with MOS:JOBTITLE. The project style is not to capitalise job titles - like "chief exec" or "headmaster" or "farmer" or "hairdresser" or "football manager" or whatever. We don't even capitalise "king" or "president" when used generally.)
  3. "why you cut my final paragraph / a sort of coda on the man's life in its totality / [that] was strong in its admiration of Sheehy". You've answered your own question. It was uncited. And non-neutral. And read as unattributed opinion and editorial. Related policies and guidelines include WP:VER, MOS:EDITORIAL, WP:NPOV, WP:NOROPED and MOS:NOTETHAT.
  4. "aside from a few extra citations / I see no reason for your excising the last paragraph". Uncited editorial, unattributed opinions, and subjective turns of phrase like "it is true to say that" or "innate God-given goodness" and "almost personal affection bestowed on Sheehy by the ordinary people of Kerry" are misaligned with any number of the the project. Including WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. WP:VER is, frankly, almost the least of the problems with that sentence/para. The only way that stuff could be restored is if, in addition to verifiable and reliable references, it is clear that what is being expressed is a set of opinions and to whom those opinions can be attributed.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the use of the adoptive verb in preterite form, i.e. "articled to a firm of accountants":
I appreciate it's not as commonly used as it used to be but it is still used by graduates of business who opt to train for an accountancy career. In the past - before college courses on accounting were offered - school leavers with appropriate grades in desired subjects would do bookkeeping and general clerical work in an accountancy practice (chartered, certified or public accountants) while taking an evening correspondance course on accountancy. This process lasts till the accountancy final exams are successfully taken - which may be within 2 years for a business graduate or 4-5 years for a school leaver.
Why not use apprenticed instead ?
The traditions of law and accounting professions play a part here. Saying "articled to" has always been a phrasing employed with trainees for these two professions.
Yes, apprenticeship is increasingly being applied to accounting trainees, especially those taken on directly from school. But the old phrasing has a reassuring quaintness about it.
https://www.google.ie/search?q=%22articled+to+%22+Chartered+accountant&ei=novLZOGWEJuxhbIPspGLsAI&ved=0ahUKEwjh3Z7ZrcCAAxWbWEEAHbLIAiYQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=%22articled+to+%22+Chartered+accountant&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIyJhcnRpY2xlZCB0byAiIENoYXJ0ZXJlZCBhY2NvdW50YW50MgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyChAhGBYYHhgPGB0yCBAhGBYYHhgdMggQIRgWGB4YHTIIECEYFhgeGB0yCBAhGBYYHhgdMggQIRgWGB4YHTIIECEYFhgeGB0yCBAhGBYYHhgdSOGNAVC3jAFYt4wBcAJ4AJABAJgBgAGgAYABqgEDMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIIEAAYogQYsAPCAgsQABiJBRiiBBiwA-IDBBgBIEGIBgGQBgU&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
I would be content to leave it as "articled to ...".
The context eliminates any serious concerns of a derogatory or pejorative interpretation for most people. Tamjk (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, and in all honesty, if you have to write an essay to explain the use of a particular word, then I wonder whether it is the best word to use. You note yourself that it is not a commonly used term that is typically only used by certain people in a narrow band. Is there not an alternative word that or term that doesn't require an essay to explain or which is otherwise only readily understood by a sub-set of readers? Guliolopez (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Lopez,
Would you please speak to an Irish or British accountant on the process of articleship and the usage of "articed" in obituaries of accountants ? I feel that nothing I say or cite, or any number of Google Search hits, will persuade you (a business neophyte) to otherwise accept it.
Doubt yourself for a change.
Take a walk on the wild side.
Tamjk. Tamjk (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I know plenty of Irish accountants. And have never once heard any use that word in that way. In all honesty I don't understand why we aren't considering the reader and are insisting on using a word that only "an Irish or British accountant" or someone who isn't "a business neophyte" would understand. Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just ASK one right now this afternoon.
It's Friday - they might have some free time for you.
Otherwise: post into askaboutmoney.com
Tamjk Tamjk (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the link you added helps somewhat, if you don't see the problem here (that the reader or other editors have to ask accountants to explain terms used in a general interest article), then I'm not sure what to say. In the meantime please stop adding links that don't directly support the text of that article. Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOST people I encounter do NOT need explanation of what "articled to a form of accountants" signifies. Most people writing obituaries of accountants certainly don't worry about using this term:
https://www.google.ie/search?q=%22articled+to+%22+accountants&sxsrf=AB5stBi_jOsr7UztuQ2dL4BsOtMNS88Rqg:1691156747660&ei=CwHNZKTUJ7GEhbIPi8SqmAY&start=50&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjkhdDpkcOAAxUxQkEAHQuiCmMQ8tMDegQIBBAM&biw=1920&bih=907&dpr=1 Tamjk (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk-page stalker, here. Tamjk, seriously, use plain English when writing for Wikipedia's general audience, not technical or industry-specific jargon. I've been around the block a few times and never came across that term before now, despite my partner being in finance. Maybe... you just hang around accountants a lot, and talk shop all the time? 84,000 ghits is actually tiny. And here, we write for readers. Please see Wikipedia:Readers first - and read the guidelines infobox. Particularly points 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to clarify the matter of appointing one's preferred successor as secretary.
In today's corporate world, company secretaries of major corporations confine themselves to statutorily defined duties and the latter may be discharged by a persons with appropriate professional training, e.g. https://www.cgi.org.uk/professional-development/study
Modern corporations occasionally give the well-remunerated and relatively low-stress role of secretary to senior managers passed over or demoted from director positions.
However the role of Secretary (excuse my capital S) over 50 years ago was a very senior and powerful role. They usually were finance, management or law qualified people and as well as performing their statutory functions also had other roles like shareholder communication in person as well as by letter, advising the board or MD on legal or financial matters and possibly general corporate strategizing according to the needs of the company and their skill set.
It is a matter of fact that a number of Secretaries to Irish state/semi-state organizations later became MD of that organization. Dictionary of Irish Biography articles on 3 such persons are cited among my references: Joe McGough (Bord Bainne), Vincent Ferguson (Heinz-Erin) and P.J. Moriarty (ESB). I think it is easy to see how an MD favoring one of his team as his successor would use the Secretary position as a training ground for them: they could observe how divisional interests were defended, personalities engaged and compromises attained.
I thought that the comparison with today's role of chief operating officer was fairly (though not totally) valid insofar as the 1960s Secretary was as much a servant of the MD as of the board. But if you are not happy with this I will excise this point.
The size of the funeral was something for which you asked citations. I have added three. You will appreciate that in Ireland there are three different stages to an orthodox funeral: the waking in the deceased's home; the removal from the deceased's home to the church; and the final requiem service and interment. My principal reference (Kerryman Aug 1967) describes 2 days of waking followed by a huge attendance at the removal - perhaps because it was on a Sunday evening when most people were free and could travel long distances to Kerry. The requiem service and interment occurred on a Monday so it didn't quite match the removal attendance. Nevertheless the deceased's final journey from the church to the cemetery via the main streets at least was well observed, although the crowd seen at the cemetery was clearly much less - no doubt many people could not get off work to go that far. Tamjk (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paudie Sheehy Wiki Page

RE: The statement that appointment to secretary position was a preparation for an MD position. =============================================================================================

I have made amendments to the Business Career paragraph.

This elaboration is provided in case your objections to my assertion is more than how I phrase it but rather in its reasoning. I have a feeling that you are unfamiliar with business management practice and do not instinctively read the footprints of management decisions for likely motivations.

The persons referenced who were appointed secretary, i.e. Paudie Sheehy, Joe McGough, Vincent Ferguson, were all senior executives and highly qualified in such fields as accounting, management, law, etc. Clearly these people were far overqualified for the mere statutory duties of a company secretary position alone. Moreover, ambitious people would only accept such a move "sideways" in their career were its duties augmented to embrace more executive and/or strategic advisory duties - otherwise their careers in their organizations would rise no further. In the case of Sheehy, we must ask why the Irish Sugar MD (Costello) would expend so much state money in sending him to (the very expensive) top US management schools were his executive talents to be mothballed indefinitely in the largely administrative role of secretary ? Sheehy's predecessor as secretary had been in that role for close to 20 years before his death in a car accident.

A secretary's statutory job required attendance at all board meetings. Although busy making notes of various members' points, a secretary could nonetheless absorb the nature of board decision making and use insights gained if applying for and acting in the top job. It is a common practice for MD's to find ways to involve them as early as possible in the major decisions of the organization and the competing interests within the company as it makes them. What better way for demonstrating this that have the aspiring leader have a minor role at board meetings where all decisions are played out ?

Wikipedia, you say, is about information - factual information. But factual information is not merely a listing of cited facts. It is also about rational and sensible deductions from those facts in the light of common experience. I believe that my reading of state company appointments vis-à-vis is reasonable synthesis from the facts available here.

I've removed the COO comparison as it adds little for the controversy that it raises.

I shall augment the Death & Legacy paragraph later when more people have been consulted - and when I recover from the demands of your tight editorship ! People say to me that I am taking a lot of time looking into Mr Sheehy's career. I am but I am a Kerryman who is not preoccupied with Gaelic football but rather with more socially conscious endeavours. But your endeavours to monitor this Wikipedia article seem to me to go beyond the mere call of duty in its stickliness on details, phrasings and even words - and you are not even from Kerry !

Tamjk. Tamjk (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A few quick points.
  1. WP:TLDR. I like long posts as much as the next editor. Probably more so. But, while you've taken the time to write a lot of words above and with every respect, I haven't read them all. In order to address the tags raised in the article, you would ideally address the points raised in those tags. Actually addressing the points (in the article) will "move the dial" in a way that writing essays to me (here) cannot.
  2. WP:TALKPAGE. If you would like to discuss the content of an article (or its references, or how to use the references to improve the content, or whatever), then please do so at the relevant article talk page. Not here. This is my User talkpage. Monitored (for the most part) only by me. In general, if you want to talk about a specific article the best place to do that is the article Talkpage. Like Talk:Paudie Sheehy. Allowing, hopefully, other interested editors to contribute.
Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Croagh/Kilfinny wiki page

Dear Gulio,

I have searched for every single reference I could find regarding our local sports club Croagh/Kilfinny. We will not appear in any article of the New York Times or even the Irish Times! We are a small rural local club, so reports in local papers are the only references that are out there. But they are references. There are literally thousands of wiki pages with no references or citations at all, that seem to remain published. All I have gotten from Wikipedia since I tried to upload our page is disdain and rejection. Despite giving all the citations/references that are available to me. Hoping you will understand and look at it from our point of view,

Regards, Colm Sully1865 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In terms of:
  1. "Our club / our point of view / our page". If you have a connection to the subject that you are writing about, please ensure you have read WP:COI, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:OWN. If you're hearing concerns from other editors, and taking it personally, you should perhaps re-read the bit of the COI guidelines which covers why editors, with a close connection to the subject and who find it difficult to separate their own goals from those of this project, might feel that way. (In short, it is not "your page". And the only "we" here is the Wikipedia community. If you've got different definitions of "we" and "ours", then that's likely the cause of your misalignment with others here.)
  2. "not appear in [..] even the Irish Times". If there are insufficient reliable references to support the basic facts, then that may explain why the reviewing editor raised WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG concerns on the earlier draft article.
  3. WP:COPYVIO. Please don't upload non-free (and clearly commercial images which are being licenced/monetised by the rights-holder) to Wikimedia Commons. Certainly not with a questionable "own work" tag. WP:NONFREE and WP:FAIRUSE images can only be uploaded to Wikipedia (with a valid rationale.)
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gulio,
Just regarding ‘insufficient reliable references’, the match reports I have included are from The Limerick Leader which is a highly reputable newspaper in Ireland’s Midwest. I cannot see where the issue would be on that one.
I got permission from Oisin Keniry to use the image of the Playing Grounds, but as I cannot prove this, then I shall upload my own image in the coming week. Regarding the club crest, I will have the club contact Wiki directly with permission to use same.
Regards,
Colm Sully1865 (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. RE:
  • Images. As you note, if you do not have evidence of ownership/permission for copyrighted/commercial images, then please don't upload them to Wikimedia Commons. The instructions, for the club to provide evidence/permission for the "crest" image and/or "donate it" to Commons, are linked from the template added to the file itself.
  • References for match results. I have no issue with the Limerick Leader or related sources. And have left them in place. My concern with the other linked sources, as per my edits, is that the GAA.ie, Limerick Diocese and Patrickswell Ballybrown Parish do not support the text they were placed alongside. Making zero mention of the subject. (You might also note the distinction between sources as a means of supporting the text and sources as a means of establishing notability. Trivial or run-of-the-mill coverage of Junior or Intermediate matches in the West Limerick division are perfectly fine when used to support content (like a sentence). But they may not be sufficient to support notability (my local parish choir has been mentioned in the paper - doesn't mean it's notable...)
If you want to continue to discuss the related issues, please consider doing so at Talk:Croagh-Kilfinny. So that other interested editors can contribute. Rather than here on my UserTalk page (where they can't).... Guliolopez (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kilfaul

I just found the Kilfaul page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutlasterGuto (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. OK. Sure. Guliolopez (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shoneenism

Please see talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shoneenism&action=edit

Kind regards. Tyrsóg (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Church of St. Anne, Shandon -- do we need another picture?

Hi @Guliolopez, many thanks for looking into many of my county Cork-related submissions. Regarding your question about whether or not we need another picture of the Shandon Bells tower, I'm not extremely attached to the idea of having it there. I just thought it made sense to show the tower -- regarded as one of the city's symbols -- as seen from the streets of the city itself; show it with context rather than in isolation. To me that gives better topical context than the panoramic view which is also there in the article. But again I'm not dead set on having this either way. More than anything else, I wrote on your talk page to thank you :) Podstawko (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Podstawko@ and thanks for your note. RE:
  • "looking into many of my county Cork-related submissions". To confirm, I wasn't "looking into" your edits directly or specifically. I have >4000 pages on my watchlist. Many of which are Ireland/Munster/Cork-related. A number of your recent edits just happen to overlap with my watchlist.
  • "not dead set on having this either way". Me either. Which is why I left the image in place. If additional images are added to that article, however, I wonder if some others should be removed. "One in/one out". In particular if they start getting too numerous or stacking and impacting the layout/readability of text.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portarlington GAA Club

I've noticed you have removed a lot of the work that I did on the Portarlington GAA Club wikipedia, I don't see the reason why you have removed this all?

The notable players are listed as notable players by the club and the current panel is the panel of the most recent game, so I don't see your need to remove my work. Gaa 165678 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping with the Curraghkippane Cemetery article

Just saying thanks here. I almost started relying on your edits after article creation... quite a few more articles are coming. Mostly places listed in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage, but not only. Mostly County Cork, but not only. Again, big thanks for all the work you're doing. I would like to give you the Barnstar of Diligence if you're OK with this, but I'm asking you here first because this would be my first barnstar ever given, and I'm not sure I'm not stepping over some boundaries by doing this.  Podstawko  ●talk  20:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Thanks for your note. RE:
  • "Help on cemetery article". I came across it, FYI, as cemeteries in Ireland and Gerald Goldberg both happen to be on my watchlist. Generally it looked good. Albeit that while some of the editorial ("picturesque", "providing panoramic view[s]", etc) might appear in the sources, didn't seem quite in keeping with Wikipedia's tone. Also, when describing people as "notable", ideally they'd meet Wikipedia's definition. (One of the people mentioned, for example, doesn't have an article and so isn't "notable" in entirely the same way as the others...)
  • "More articles coming / Mostly listed in NIAH". Sounds great. If you want any help just shout. I'm sure you're aware, but do note that the NIAH isn't a list of protected or automatically notable structures. And certainly not all meet WP:NBUILDING. (We wouldn't, for example, have standalone articles on this 1970s phonebox or 1990s postbox or sewer vent or even this private house.)
  • "Barnstar". Thanks very much for the thought/suggestion. But I don't put a lot of stock in barnstars myself. The note of acknowledgement is more than enough :)
Happy editing! Guliolopez (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay :) And yes, I do realize not everything on NIAH list is notable. There are tiny bridges listed in NIAH that are mentioned literally nowhere else! (And I mean the entire Irish Newspaper Archives.) But on the other hand, there are surprising absentees on that list which are not yet on the Wikipedia. As an example, I'll be working on St. Vincent's church in Cork next.  Podstawko  ●talk  10:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good job saving The Corkman! Would love to see your articles (and those of any page watchers) up on the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - Podstawko, you’ve found a good mentor; Guliolopez has helped me out before now with the sometimes complicated issue of NIAH listings. Look forward to seeing your future articles. Although I’d agree that the private house doesn’t look very notable - though the fanlight’s quite pretty! KJP1 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List pages

Hi Guliolopez,

You've reverted a few edits I made adding the List of tourist attractions in Ireland to the see also sections of the articles listed on the list. You said not to overdo it.

When browsing Wikipedia, both as a user an editor, I see lists included in the "see also" sections all the time, when the article is included in the list. I'm just wondering what you mean by overdoing it.

Would you only include the best or most popular tourist attractions? But then what's the point in the list? I've only made around 200 edits on Wikipedia and I enjoy adding the lists to the see also sections as I find repetitive tasks fun (weird, I know), so I'm keen to learn so I know what to do in future.

Cheers, Ilovetotravel12345 (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. And welcome. As you note, I did (indeed) remove some of those links. As a little overdone. I removed, for example, the "see also" link from the Midleton article as it didn't seem especially relevant (per the linked source, the "tourist attraction" in question is the Jameson Experience, Midleton - rather than the town of Midleton as a whole). I also removed the back-link, along with some other redundant or duplicated "see also" links, from the University College Cork article. As it seemed somewhat anachronous (UCC is, primarily, a university - rather than a tourist attraction like the Guinness Store house or Leprechaun Museum or Emerald Park). Further, UCC's inclusion in the List of tourist sites with >100,000 annual visitors isn't, technically, supported by a reference. Nor is St. Anne's, Shandon.
In general terns, and per MOS:SEEALSO, while a "see also" section can be a useful (additional) way to interlink related articles, a "see also" list is not required, shouldn't replace in-body links and would ideally contain relevant links that are limited in number. Back-linking/cross-linking every single word or entry mentioned in the list is, to my mind, a little "overdone". (Like linking from Lough Neagh - which just happens to be a mentioned in the list article. But where the "tourist attraction" is the marina/reserve in one corner of the lake. The other 400 square kilometre expanse of Lough Neagh is not, in its entirety, a tourist attraction. To the extent that tourism isn't even mentioned within the article that is now cross-linked)...
Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five Go Down to the Sea?

OMG, the article is minor youtube fame adjacent! His vid mentions the page has 883 views and counting (eh), but glad somebody else got it :) Hope you had a good trip in Ireland. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry - I meant to post this on Guerillero's page. Late at night, will get my coat. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I thought something was up alright as I had to question myself before I saw your correction/clarification ("'good trip'? was I away and I forgot?" :) ). I've bumped up the views there anyway as I gave it a watch. While I did wince at the creator's pronunciation and self-correction issues, was definitely worth a watch. Thanks! Guliolopez (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never did claim to be the brightest spark, haha. Anyway, given new year and all, just to give appreciation for all the work you do around here; ever vigilant and helpful, and as have said before the dry and precise edit summaries never fail to amuse me on wet winter mornings. An old tune out of respect. Ceoil (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what does this image convey/describe/illustrate that isn't already covered by the existing facade image?

Hello @Guliolopez. The building looks different with decorations. The image conveys a key difference in appearance depending on the time of year. Ear-phone (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Thanks for your note. Per my full edsumm and WP:NOTGALLERY, I don't think a gallery section is needed - especially when it contains only a single image taken from a slightly different angle than the existing "main" image. If you feel really strongly about it, then feel free to restore the single-image gallery. But, in honesty, I'm not sure what additional information or context it imparts to the reader. Any more than duplicating these two images would improve a reader's understanding of St Mary's Church. Or these two images would do anything but clutter the Temple Bar pub article. Guliolopez (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you for your response @Guliolopez.
Ear-phone (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you share my concerns...

...about the state of that article. I was thinking about doing what you are doing now, but I'm not even sure that the subject is notable independent of the band he's played in. His best shout might be as an author per WP:NAUTHOR, if another review of his work could be found. Thanks for taking an interest anyway. Girth Summit (blether) 20:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Girth Summit. After removing the uncited stuff about a "clatter load of goal{s}", I also removed the text about how fast the subject's great uncle could run on grass (as the speed of his grandparent's brother/brother-in-law, on any surface, is not relevant to the subject of that article). I note, with some interest, that the subject's bio on the "official" band website makes "jokey" claims about the subject being "the man that IBM hired to hide inside the box they called Big Blue when they beat Kasparov at chess". To the extent that I don't see how we could reasonably use that bio as a reliable source. For anything else it contains. And, in all honesty, I also wonder if someone associated with the subject continued this tone/approach in the WP article. Certainly there are more than a few contributions to that article from profiles usernames that suggest a possible COI. Including a few who couldn't seem to stop themselves from adding unattributed opinion and editorial and less-than-encyclopaedic ("jokey"?) descriptions of "Sandymount's snot-green-sea". I have already contributed to the related AfD. While I recognise the NAUTHOR possibility, it seems to me that the subject's notability is associated with the (family) band of which he is a member. Hence, as an AtD, my redirect suggestion..... Guliolopez (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap - that's worse than I'd realised. I hadn't actually read all of it very closely (didn't see the point until I had established whether we'd be keeping it). What drew my attention was the now-oversighted stuff which, without going into too much detail, revealed the name and location of the school attended by a minor associated with the school. It was all very positive - apparently he's thriving - but I have no doubt that it was written by the subject or a friend of his, who is somewhat uncertain as to the distinction between an encyclopedia and a round-robin letter slipped into a Christmas card. Girth Summit (blether) 21:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical red-light districts in the Republic of Ireland has been nominated for merging

Category:Historical red-light districts in the Republic of Ireland has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killiney Castle

Are you happy with the article now? You're the only editor since it was created by a sock. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doug Weller. Thanks for your note. In honesty, no. I'm not entirely happy that the COPYVIO/CLOP issues, raised at Talk:Killiney Castle by the apparent rights-holder, are fully addressed. Not yet anyway. Per my related note at the article's Talk page, I was hoping that the other involved editor/rights-holder would provide more information on what they described as "glaring errors". And, based on that, I'd try to address remaining any errors of fact and/or CLOP issues. In one "swoop". If the other editor doesn't come back on my latest "ping", then I'll go ahead (unilaterally if needs be) and excise much of the CLOP text. And any obvious errors. Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Were they added by the sockpuppet who created the article? If you hadn 't edited it I would have deleted. Any of their original edits can be freely deleted. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not sure I follow fully @Doug Weller. If by "they", you refer to those comments on the Talk page (by "Cavantownlands"), then it's not implausible/impossible that these are sock-related. If by "they", however, you refer to the CLOP/COPYVIO issues, then - yes - those edits were all made by the now-blocked profile.
If you wanna give me an hour or so, I am happy to pare-back the article significantly. To remove most of the CLOP, COPYVIO, SOCK-added stuff. And you can then REVDEL that crud. Leaving a smaller stub. (While I understand the point about deleting on WP:G5 grounds, I think the topic meets WP:GNG/WP:NBUILDING. And I don't think the nuclear option is the best one here.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sock who created the article. I"d prefer not to delete, I agree it's notable. It would be good if you pared though. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Doug Weller. I've since removed all the COPYVIO, CLOP and (I think) factually questionable material. While, for good order, I'm happy to tag for REVDEL myself (anything/everything prior to 1207873724 being a viable target), feel free to cull up to the current revision. Guliolopez (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Feudal Baronies

Attention Wikipedia editors,

Guliolopez has recently shown an interest in pages related to Irish feudal baronies, but there appears to be a confusion from him between feudal baronies, administrative baronies, and baronies in the peerage.

Feudal baronies are a specific type of hereditament (property) that can be owned and possessed. Like all forms of property, including feudal titles, claims to ownership are based on the current possessor's assertions. Therefore, disputing the validity of ownership claims, when the source is the owner themselves, becomes a moot point (i.e., who else would the source be?).

It's essential to note that Wikipedia editors are not responsible for adjudicating the truthfulness of these claims, merely citing the source. Any disputes regarding ownership should be addressed through legal means, such as a court of law or by demonstrating a factual prior use and the absence of a valid transfer. It should also be acknowledged that the existence of these feudal baronies is a matter of law, confirmed by legal documents. These documents are not likely to be released for the benefit of Wikipedia editors, and any legal standing should be ascertained through appropriate legal channels.

It would be prudent for Guliolopez to defer these matters to professionals rather than engaging in amateur assessments. LordRockall (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC+2:00)

Hah. That's funny. RE:
  • "Wikipedia editors are not responsible for adjudicating the truthfulness of these claims, merely citing the source". If the only source is a self-published, recently created, non-independent website (which is not backed-up by other independent/reliable sources), then it absolutely is the role of other editors to verify related claims. And not just cite/follow obviously questionable sources.
  • "prudent for Guliolopez to defer these matters to professionals rather than engaging in amateur assessments". Together with your recent vandalism of article namespace and user namespace content, that's another interesting dalliance with civility/ownership guidelines and the like.
  • "appears to be a confusion from him between feudal baronies, administrative baronies, and baronies in the peerage". To confirm, I am more than aware that it is your contention that (in addition to declaring himself "Chief Regent of the Name" [with airs over everyone called Barratt], and "Baron of Irrus" ["feudal lord" or Baron or whatever over everyone in northwestern Mayo) that Louis Allan Barratt has declared himself "Baron of Tirawley". And that it is your assertion that the these "feudal baronies" and "feudal titles" are separate and distinct from the historical "administrative baronies" (incl. the Barony of Tirawley) and the defunct "peerage titles" (incl. Baron Tirawley). Your assertion is (now) understood. There is no longer any confusion as to what claims are being made. My contention, however, is that the only sources which support these claims are the websites created by the claimant. Websites created recently (in Oct 2023, Nov 2023 and Jan 2024 respectively). Seemingly to support these "I'm feudal lord of north Mayo chief of all people called Barrett" claims. And to hawk Aran jumpers and PDF templates to people who want to buy "titles" from the "Baron" on Etsy. As per the issues highlighted on the related article and Talk pages, there are no independent/reliable/verifiable sources which support these claims.
Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Guliolopez,

Your concerns regarding source reliability are duly noted. In the context of asserting ownership claims, it's akin to proving ownership of an item stolen from you – the police wouldn't expect you to provide independent reliable and verifiable third party sources.

Just as one wouldn't seek independent, reliable sources to prove ownership of a toaster, the onus often falls on legal documentation and the disputing parties themselves. In the case of feudal titles, the matter is particularly nuanced, involving historical and legal dimensions.

Valid points have been raised about source reliability and independence. In the interest of fostering clarity and understanding, could you please specify which sources you find problematic and elaborate on why they are deemed invalid or unverifiable? Additionally, in making these claims you should possess evidence or sources supporting your viewpoint, and sharing those details would contribute to a more comprehensive discussion.

Constructive dialogue on these matters can help refine the content and ensure accuracy in our collaborative efforts.

LordRockall (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained (in tags on the relevant article, article Talk, user Talk and AfD) which sources are potentially unreliable (namely those brand new personal websites all created to promote interests of the person claiming to be the "Current Baron"). And which sources, though potentially reliable, do not support the text they are place alongside. Please take this to Talk:Baron of Tirawley. And you can leave the newly found "interest of fostering clarity and understanding" and nods to "constructive dialogue" aside. You have already shown the community who you are. Nobody, not least me, is falling for that feigned attitude. Guliolopez (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, hopefully it won't be necessary to take this further, but in the event that it is, please note that there is a related file on Commons, [[File:Arms of Louis Barratt, Baron of Irrus.png]]. I've flagged a query at the Commons helpdesk, Arms of Louis Barratt, to check on the appropriateness of its hosting the image. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LordRockall (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is. Thank you. I opened it myself. Bye bye. Guliolopez (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A real pie for you...

...for tireless dedication to the encyclopedia by catching every vandal with a keen eye for obvious vandalism. Your commitment to quality edits rivals the most thorough admins, making Wikipedia a haven for the vigilant. May your watchful gaze continue to elevate the art of the project to new heights. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 20:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I needed that laugh/smile :D Right back at you. Sincerely appreciated! Guliolopez (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an unfortunate fact that Wikipedia, like every internet site, attracts its share of loons and wackos. Fortunately, I see this latest one has now been blocked. KJP1 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Tyndall

It would be much appreciated if you would kindly desist from tampering/"correcting" this article while I attempt, yet again in coming days, to address your concerns. Take a break. 2001:BB6:18E7:1800:7D5A:6604:81CA:91A9 (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2001:BB6:18E7:1800:7D5A:6604:81CA:91A9. Thanks for your note. As you might read in the summary about "acceptable no-edit orders", if you need time to make changes to an article, you can tag it with one of the WP:INUSE templates. Generally speaking these wouldn't be in place for "days" however. Otherwise, if you're still gathering sources and framing text and the like, you can do so in a H:SANDBOX someplace. And then, if any (for example) referencing and other issues are covered, you can cover in the main/Article namespace. Beyond that, and in all honesty, the very (very) minor copyedits that I have made to the Mona Tyndall article (removing unneeded quotes from a reference title, tagging a small number of unsupported sentences and consolidating a duplicated reference) are HARDLY justification for declaring the need for a "Moratorium on edits [..for..] at least for a week". Also, "tampering" is a very loaded term. And, while I won't rise to it, you should consider reading WP:ETIQ. Guliolopez (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PRADO - European Commisson

Hi there, I saw you flagged the image I uploaded of the for speedy deletion. Not sure what your edit summary meant when you said Eh. COPYVIO? PRADO section?. As far as I can see it's tagged correctly and is a public work published by the Council of the EU: its copyright notice is here: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/about-site/copyright/

"Reproduction is authorised, provided that the Council of the EU is always acknowledged as the original source of the material, unless otherwise stated and that the original meaning or message of the content is not distorted."

Can you clarify? Drumstick21 (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. And did you read the bit that followed that? On the exact same copyright page? Which you seem to ignored/overlooked? Which talks about the stuff from the "PRADO" section of the website? The "Public Register of Authentic identity and travel Documents Online" section? In which the passport documents/samples are found? IE: consilium.europa.eu/PRADO/en/IRL-TO-01003. That copyright policy text, dealing with travel documents, reads:
Copyright limitations for the PRADO section of the website
You must under no circumstances:
  • distribute, use or make copies of, or otherwise duplicate any materials contained on the PRADO section, except as expressly authorised here below or authorised by the GSC
  • sell, loan, rent, lease, re-license, sublicense, forward, distribute, re-distribute, or timeshare the PRADO section or parts of it, or "frame" or "mirror" the material or services contained in or accessible from the PRADO section on any other server or Internet-based device without prior express written authorisation from the GSC; [..]
  • harvest, collect, gather or assemble any material for other than official and non-commercial use
The images you have uploaded are taken from the "PRADO" section of the website. And are therefore covered by the restrictions above. And, unless you have express written authorisation from the GSC, then their use on Commons is non-compliant. Also, FYI, per COM:Licensing, Commons doesn't accept "Media licensed exclusively under non-commercial only license".
Hope that's all clear. Guliolopez (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I genuinely didn't notice that section. (I looked straight past the big title saying PRADO). Drumstick21 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx

Thanks for this FYI, and in return here's an FYI for you that it taught me: as WP:MENTION says, "Mention templates don't work in edit summaries." I only saw the FYI by happening to review the article history. I personally use format [[User:Foo12345|.]] in edit summaries to ping a user discreetly, e.g. here. jnestorius(talk) 16:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always learning. Thanks! Guliolopez (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Bridgetown College source

As you have been editing this page for many years, and have been on Wikipedia for many years, I have a question. I have located a source for the 50th anniversary text, but am unsure if it is okay to cite this given its age and other factors, what are your thoughts?

My apologies if this is the wrong way to go about this, I am new to Wikipedia.

Thanks. AlfonsoBourbonCream (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. In honesty, while that source isn't brilliant (those homepage.tinet.ie sites being WP:SELFPUBLISHED/WP:UGC-style pages that anyone could create back-in-the-day; almost GeoCities-style), it depends on what you propose to do with it. If you're planning to use it to address the {{cn}} tag, alongside the "In 2003 Bridgetown College celebrated its 50th anniversary" text, then I think that's reasonable. Given that, per WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:ABOUTSELF, it's seemingly published by the subject org about themselves. And is hardly an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sourcing. If that's what you intend to do with it, then knock yourself out. If you intend to do something more with it, then consider whether it meets the guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I intend to do is address the citation needed tag, so it'll work fine I gather.
Thank you! AlfonsoBourbonCream (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Honan

I will not attempt to add further information to this piece about Isabella Honan. At least the erroneous information on her place within the family is now omitted - though other interesting details have once again been edited out. Normac2024 (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. RE:
  • "not attempt to add further information to this piece". Fine. If you change your mind, and decided to add additional content, you might consider opening a thread at Talk:Honan Chapel first. Not least given the apparently conflicting sources.
  • "erroneous information on her place within the family is now omitted". As you will note, and given the apparently conflicting sources ("In some accounts, she is a sister-in-law of the Honan brothers, rather than a sister"), it seemed best to pare back to the established (non-contentious). Just stating that she was "heir". Without giving "sister" or "sister-in-law". It is worth noting that, where sources conflict, it is often best to note that conflict. As McNamara does himself. Rather than just selecting one over another. Otherwise, where sources conflict, such a conflict would ideally be raised on the article talk page (so other editors can weigh-in on whether/if/where/how to address).
  • "other interesting details have once again been edited out". The only other thing I removed (other than simplifying to "heir" as above), was the stuff about the Honan brothers being unmarried and without children. Personally I'm not sure how relevant that is to the chapel itself. That she was heir seems sufficient. The details of how/why she was heir is perhaps less relevant. Especially if there's uncertainty or conflict on the point. As elsewhere, if you feel it is relevant and should be added/re-added, then take it to the article Talk page. Where other editors can contribute. Rather than here. On my User talk page. Which isn't for article/content-specific discussions.
Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leitrim, County Down

this is not a criticism of your work, I’d like to make that of upmost clarity.

Firstly I’d actually like to thank you for touching on these pages, a lot of things you corrected where my old, sloppy work, although some of it wasn’t, like the piles upon piles of unsourced information in the GAA clubs page, no idea who added that. History is an extremely important topic and shouldn’t simply be taken word for word,( Not to blow my own trumpet or anything but the only sourced information in that entire article comes from yours truly of all people )

although there is but one criticism, or more so question, on the actual page for the village I noticed that you renamed “Locations” or whatever it was called to “history” although there is a case can be made to defend this change, wouldn’t any other title be more fitting than history? Sure both locations are definitely historic, but look at it in comparison to say Castlewellan’s history.

Bullet points vs paragraphs here. Mooedlorre (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mooedlorre. Thanks for your note. While I'm delighted to hear that your note isn't intended as criticism, I'm not sure what I am to do with it. If you are asking me to make (or assist with) specific changes I'm happy to help. But I'm not sure what you're proposing. In terms of:
Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you’re trying to educate me on this topic, can you possibly, remove some of the Wikipedia jargon on this reply, I understand you clearly know your way around this website but I haven’t a clue on what you’re talking about when you write like this. Mooedlorre (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That's probably fair @Mooedlorre. Rather than trying to make sense of my jargon, just read the WikiProject UK geography guideline on "How to write about settlements". Or perhaps the WikiProject Cities/Settlements guideline on "Article structure (for settlements)". Either of will explain why I moved the "places of interest" content to a "history" section. And why you shouldn't use the Castlewellan article as an example or template for other articles. Guliolopez (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guliolopez&oldid=1219572221"