User talk:Guliolopez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] LIT

Perhaps you could explain further why you think that LIT's sporting prowess (2 Fitzgibbon Cups in the past 4 years) and the fact that the Millennium Theatre (a major concert venue in the city) is located at LIT, are not relevant to an article on Limerick City? I tried to keep the information in the context of its relevance to the city and thought it was rather ok.--Corcs999 (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It's simply that "Parent" articles shouldn't contain all the content from the "Child" articles. The section in question is about "Education in Limerick" in general. Users can and should click through to the relevant "sub-page" to get more information. If that detail is relevant, it should really be in the Limerick Institute of Technology page. Could you consider putting it there instead? If (for example) LIT has a "very strong focus on Rugby", shouldn't that be mentioned in the LIT article? Ditto for the Millennium Theatre, which also isn't mentioned anywhere in the LIT article anywhere. Guliolopez (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense

Fine. If you will have a shot at improving these articles, I'll leave them alone. Personally, I think that my edits were improvements. The articles are packed to the brim with laughable, ridiculous claims and made-up trash (longest main street, largest celtic cross, etc), along with bullshit history, and I was just editing in the same vein. I find it strange that you think that they are free from nonsense in their current state. Why remove half the nonsense from them? PiggParp 19:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think you know this already, but the solution to "nonsense filled articles" is not to add yet more nonsense, and make them even more laughable. The solution is to remove the nonsense, reword it, temper it or otherwise correct it. It is not appropriate to disrupt the project to illustrate a point. Doing so is likely to end in a block. With regard to your question: "why remove half the nonsense". I am only one editor, but have been trying to edit the more obviously extreme assertions. Instead of hindering the effort of good faith editors, perhaps your energies might be better spent chipping in. Why not help improve rather than engaging in disruptive edits. (And the assertion that any of this type of thing is "an improvement" is an insult to your intelligence and mine.) Guliolopez 20:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You're right of course. I shouldn't have been hindering your efforts, and once you started working to make them into better articles I should have left them alone. Still, was fun while it lasted. PiggParp 14:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] apologies

My mistake.Traditional unionist 21:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal

Gulio, thanks for that! I dragged it out from the article and though - feck it just leave it in - but you were bang on: just the facts, man :)

Anyho, I guess you've seen my mini-project for weekend. I'd like to keep it updated daily (come on, we've so many article, it should be doable!), but would like to recruit you for the cause. If nothing else, could you recommend a couple of things here? But what would be really nice would be if you could lend a hand keeping it updated!

Your views on my re-working are appreciated also. --sony-youthpléigh 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits, articles and others stuff

I think you have the delete buton pressed before you ever read many of my articles that I have started. The one about myself was not self publicity: it is part of articles on candidates and members of local athorities in Offaly, particularily the Birr area, for which I stood in 1999. Hence articles for Tony McLoghlin, Seamus Fanneran, etc. I note mine is the only one you got a problem with. As for "repeat sins" as you call them: it is the work of people like myself who put down the foundation stones on many topics, that are built on by others. Whereever suited: the articles have been suggested for mergance or redirection to similar topics, which I fully supported. This often happens where a name has a few different spellings, and where redirection has been suitable I have welcomed it. Go easy on people, your attitude borders on bullying. If in doubt, refer it to a superior of yours on the site, and let them sort it out. Eiri Amach 22:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mountains, lighthouses, forts

I see you spotted Joan D'Arc with the huge Mountain boxes on lighthouse pages. A few days back I left a note on her page and Gavigan's (who is at the same lark) but I might as well have been talking to myself. Gland to see you taking stern action! (Sarah777 23:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Testing?

Gulio, how do you know that stuff you are deleting are test edits?!(Sarah777 02:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Which edit in particular are you asking about? Most edits that I have reverted (or tempered) recently, and to which I have ascribed an edit summary of "reverting test edit", have been (somewhat) good faith edits - like this. Others have been people "playing" with stuff that would better have been completed in a sandbox or similar. Like this or this. The latter of which was a (somewhat) goodfaith "test" edit by someone who didn't really know what they were doing, didn't cite, added in a little bit of "silliness" at the end and where - frankly - the addition had no value. (There are taxis and a bus in Donegal? Is this notable?). Frankly Sarah it's the usual stuff we get over the midterm break. Do you ask because you think I did something "wrong" per sé? Guliolopez 14:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No - I was just being facetious. Gotta hand it to User:Gavigan 01 putting the "Mountain" template on a sandbank!! That guy obviously must have a sense of humour! (Sarah777 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC))
Btw, being serious for a mo - fully support you cleaning up the info-box abuses. Regards (Sarah777 20:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC))


[edit] Sorry

Thank you for the information you sent me , im sorry for the trouble i may have caused i was only trying improve wikipedia and help out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.whiskers (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 November 2007

[edit] Spanish roots in Galway from Armada

You have removed references to Spanish Armada roots in Galway; on what basis in particular? Have you a refutation? PD (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I did no such thing! If it is this change that you are referring to, you will note that it was made by an anon from IP address 24.212.69.189.
If you are having difficulty reading/interpretting the "page history" to discern who did what and when, you might want to consider reading Help:Page history. Alternatively, I can help if you like. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Sorry For The Trouble .. Just trying to help

When ever i write an articale it gets deleted c an you prehaps give me a soloution to go around this ?

Mr.whiskers (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Whiskers. Without knowing more specifically what you wrote about, and how you wrote about it, I'm not sure what advice to give you on "avoiding article's being deleted". However, in general, you need to make sure that any new article you create refers to reliable sources, follows NPOV guidelines, and is generally well formed from a style perspective.
I'd be happy to help you work through some more specific issues, so let's do this:
  • Go ahead create yor own "sandbox" at User:Mr.whiskers/Test (which will be your own "private" sandbox), and
  • Start writing the article that you want to write on this page.
  • I will give you some pointers and advice on how to add references/etc (as above), and
  • When it's "ready" I'll show you how to copy it to make a "real" article.
Agreed? Guliolopez (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Thanks alot, i will do that

--Mr.whiskers (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish speakers

Hi, in a recent edit summary you wrote, "-frankly- seems dubious that there are *90,000* fluent Irish speakers outside island". However, when Ethnologue speaks of "Ireland", it means the Republic of Ireland only, not the whole island, and I could easily believe there are 90,000 fluent speakers in Northern Ireland. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 05:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I agree and understand the comment about the "Ethnologue definition of Ireland". However, the key point I was trying to make in that note was that there is no indication in the "Ethnologue" of where he/they got their numbers. I think a secondary source for both the "260,000" number in RoI, and the "95,000" in UK (NI) would be helpful. In particular given that neither number meshes terribly well with the census numbers from either jurisdiction - as laid out in the intro section.
IE: If the Ethnologue didn't get its numbers from the recent census sources, where did they come from? And can they be corroborated? Frankly the 260,000 number for RoI appears to come from the 1983 census and is therefore both out of date, and too "general" in its definition of "fluent". The UK (NI) number looks to come from 2004 source, but I'm not sure what source that is.
Anyway. I'm not sure what to do about it, because - although we probably need a way of "summarising" the census data into something managable (like a singular "fluent" category) - I can't think of a "fair" model myself. But I think the Ethnologue summary is oversimplified. Guliolopez 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The real problem is there is no NPOV way to define who counts as a speaker of Irish and who doesn't, and there are as many different estimates of the number of Irish speakers as there are entities doing the estimating. The latest census seems to count everyone capable of pronouncing the word sláinte as an Irish speaker, and therefore gleefully reports millions and millions of Irish speakers. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link removal

Could you explain why you removed "www.milaviapress.com/orbat" ext. link from the majority of the air forces articles? It would be a quite good reference.. Best, Eurocopter tigre (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. These links were removed for many reasons. Here's four:
  1. because it fails WP:EL for relevance to the various highlevel topics,
  2. because it contained no additional detail not already included in the text of the relevant articles (also WP:EL),
  3. because it appeared to represent WP:COI,
  4. because it was added "en mass" for the purposes of promotion by a WP:SPA account. (That has since been blocked for SPAMing behaviours.)
To be blunt, the link (and the manner in which it was added) represents SPAM of a kind most inappropriate to this project. I appreciate that you have readded it in one single instance, but, if there is any question of why 82.157.235.243's addition of these links to 20 articles is inappropriate, I would direct you to WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and WP:LINKSPAM. Guliolopez (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hacketstown

Hi. Saw your edits to Bantry - could you check out Hacketstown - is the airport really an airport? (Sarah777 (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

Suspected that! Tidied up the mess left at Weston Airport but I was wondering about this map which is being plonked into every article about any place that has large field beside it. Does it add anything to the articles from an aviation perspective? I ask, because I am considering deleting it rather then trying to tidy up after it; that's difficult because it doesn't "auto-size" for user settings. (Sarah777 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Quick note: your recent 3RR report

I blocked the user, seeing as it truly did look like a sock, but I left a caution for you in doing so. Just be sure that in the future you, too, avoid possibly violating 3RR in reverting socks, as generally the only exception to the 3RR is clear vandalism. In this case it looked like there were socks involved, but just a friendly heads up for next time. :P Also, if there's an influx of socks using various accounts, you might consider requesting page protection, though it doesn't look like it needs it there yet. *shrug* anyway, cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Accepted. Thanks Guliolopez (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Burke

Why did you remove William Burke from the list of significant Strabane people? He is a very famous person and is from Urney, a townland of Strabane, which is now virtually part of Strabane town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.90.220 (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I removed it largely because while Burke is from Urney, and while Urney is in the Strabane District Council, it's not really within the bounds of Strabane town. (As you note yourself) I was also a little unsure about the "infamous" moniker, as it's a little POV. It is perhaps a little pedantic to debate the town bounds, and so I'm happy to leave him in the list. However, I'm going to relabel it slightly, to temper the "infamous" adjective, and to clarify Urney v. Strabane. Cheers. (And apologies for not adding edit summary to explain). Guliolopez (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erin Go Bragh

Dear sir, I believe you are making a mistake. If the song is indeed related to the Erin Go Bragh article then someone who did a professional cover of it also is important. I'm sure someone will read that article, see theres a song and want to hear that song. By me telling people that Dick Gaughan did a cover of it it saves them having to Google it. I'll try and write it in a more accessible way to see if you understand my logic. user:DeargDoom1991

Hi DeargDoom1991. To clarify why I removed this. The article is not actually about the song named "Erin Go Bragh". It is about the phrase. And so a singular cover of a 200 year old song is not relevant at this level. (And frankly - even if it was about the song, it's not really appropriate to include every recording of it over it's 200 year existence) Further, the sentence you introduced contains POV terms. And so, the inclusion of this recording in this manner is possibly to appropriate in the context. Guliolopez (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I'm still a learner. Its the only recording of the song I've come across and it is done by a Scotsman, thats why I thought it was useful. Please recheck the page, I tried again without using POV terms.--DeargDoom1991 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked slightly for language/POV. (FYI "famous" is an objective term, and should be avoided unless a cite is given). All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I understand why. I'm glad it can be a part of that article, especially seeing as his cover is what brought me to that page in the first place. If you could tell me anyone else who covered the song I'd be grateful. Slan --DeargDoom1991 (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional Irish music

Unfortunately the link to "Traditional Irish music" goes to "Music of Ireland". Today I created a new article called "Folk music of Ireland" which focuses on "Traditional Irish music". Therefore I have gone through many articles changing "Traditional Irish music" to "Folk Music of Ireland", in order that the user can be directed towards the more appropriate article. It wasn't an act of vandfalism on my part. It was an attempt to link to the more appropriate article. Ogg (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But it would have been much easier (as I did) to change the redirect. Irish traditional music now redirects to the new article you created. (An "Undo" does not infer vandalism. It's also used for other purposes.) Also FYI. I added a note to the Folk music of Ireland article recommending a name change. Would appreciate your thoughts there. (Ahead of a possible move). Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You are spot on. I had not anticipated anyone would come up with such a bright idea. Great. Ogg (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enniscorthy

OK Gulio, I will concede that your layout is better here - just don't launch a jihad against left-top photos; they are often the best bet in short articles especially. You know what they say about guidelines :) Sarah777 (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of starting a holy war. AgF? :) I was just citing the guideline because (for longer articles which have TOCs) you have to start including HTML to try and maintain a reasonable layout if the opener is left aligned. I fully agree that short articles (in particular articles where the infobox is "longer" than the content) are better served with left-aligned images. (As soon as you bring in a TOC however, it gets messy.) Anyway. I'm all about applying the best practice with consideration to the specific context. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paddy More

Hi, you've left messages on User:Paddy More's talk page regarding issues with images he has uploaded. A lot of his photos have been deleted in the last couple of hours and I have nominated the remaining photos to be deleted at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 20. Regards, Thuresson (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And he had some really good ones...what was wrong? Sarah777 (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
OK Thuresson - Thanks for the follow-up. Sarah - the issue's pretty straight forward. He was applying invalid/incorrect/inappropriate tags. In most cases, he was sourcing images on Flickr and elsewhere, and then claiming own-work/GFDL. (When most were clearly published elsewhere by somebody else under more restrictive licencing.) In short: he was releasing other people's work as his own. Guliolopez (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Not good. Thanks Sarah777 (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preview button?

Do not template regular editors. It is disprespectful and rude, as was the '?' in the section title. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, nothing personal (or rude) was intended - seems a little thin skinned to get excited about a question mark. Secondly, I possibly should have paid more attention, but I didn't realise that you were a "regular". 52 consecutive edits in the same article within the same editting session (without recourse to the preview button) suggested a newbie editor at first glance. I possibly should have checked, and I apologise. Finally, with regard to the templates you removed. Was there a particular reasoning for that? I couldn't discern from the edit summaries the true reasoning. Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries, Guliolopez. The cordinates was probably a bad remove to be fair. The dab I thought was tenuously related. The info in the box I had planned to work into the lead, but its fine as it stands, not worth arguging about. Whatever, nobody died. Peace be with you, and sorry about being so tetchy!. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geography of Ireland

Any chance you could help out with Geography of Ireland during the featured article review. We could do with some more people involved in putting more inline citations in before the FAR finishes. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Headliner (concert)

An editor has nominated Headliner (concert), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headliner (concert) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use Images

I noticed that when you reorganised the images on Students Harness Aid for the Relief of the Elderly, you removed one on the grounds that there can be "too many images" when "all are non-free and claim FU." However, the image removed was in fact the only free image in the article, with a GNU-license. What Ealdgyth suggested was "trying to find a couple of free images" as replacements where possible, not necessarily removing them. With that said, the picture of the Day Care Centre is the most easily replacable with a free image.

As a side note, the two crib images display two slightly different things. One is a better picture of the crib itself, with the 24-hour faster outside; while the other focuses on the younger members of SHARE, who (as far as I know) are considered too young to collect. It's a subtle difference, but it is there.

--Editor of Podium 2008 (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, well done on the GA status. Secondly, apologies - I should have checked the license on that img. Have since restored. Finally, with regard to FUR images in general. I appreciate that free images are not always easy to find/create. However, "Non-free/Fair use" images are generally expected to add significantly to the understanding of the article, and have no free available equivalent. Many of the images in the SHARE article (and apologies if this sounds strong) are a little "trite". For example, the two images of daunt square don't add that much. We have 3 images which are all conveying roughly the same message. That "SHARE is a popular charity which manifests at a particular time of the year with Students on the main street" is just as earnestly (and possibly best) covered by the "30 year/group shot". The other two are just padding. (And - although this is very unlikely - if anyone questioned the FU assertion on them, you'd be hard pressed to explain what the other two impart that that one doesn't). Similarly, the McAleese and Ahern photos show that "SHARE's importance is recognised at the highest offical national levels". But wouldn't one image convey that? And - finally - as you note, the image that supports the "SHARE provides sheltered housing" assertion is readily replaceable. And maybe it's worthwhile for you (if you have there wherewithal) to stroll down the Mardyke and take your own snap for upload. Let me know what you think. (Less is more. And a little reduction in "padding" will help retain the GA status long-term). Guliolopez (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the first Crib picture is the best to represent it historically, although I feel a picture from Daunt Square is equally needed to show the Crib's current location. The third picture is probably more appropriate for the PBC article, as it illustrates Preslink as much as SHARE. However, I wouldn't plan on moving it until I locate suitable image of something else to replace it. One of the obvious problems is that, as a charity most active at Christmas, it is hard to get another picture without waiting a year, but I'll look into a free picture I can get in the meantime. And of course, I will also try to get a picture of one of the SHARE buildings myself on some fine day. --Editor of Podium 2008 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Gerrard

Thanks for giving the Template:CC-2.0 code to put on the image pages.

Glitter1959 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

Níl a bhuíochas ort! (No thanks needed) Guliolopez (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RoI page

I saw the page on RM (I was going to request a move myself, but didn't) - the reason I put that sentence in was because the one I replaced looks too... forceful with its italics. How does "the descriptor "Republic of Ireland" is sometimes used to differentiate the state from the island." sound? It's as NPOV as I can think of, and it might help a reader know why the article is at that title. Will (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The fundamental issue with that is that the term "the Republic of Ireland" is not used to "differentiate from the island". The term "the Republic of Ireland" is used because it's how the Irish Constitution describes the state! So, it's not about NPOV. It's about factual accuracy. Guliolopez (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback rights

... added! Thought you'd find that useful :) - Alison ❤ 15:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! :) Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary Sniping

I am afraid Guliolopez that unnecessary sniping, by User:Bastun, against other editors is an NPA issue. If you cannot see that as a little problem, well what can I say. "Little by little, little problems into bigger problems grow". 78.19.65.254 (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. In my view, one user was simply making a polite request to another user to avoid describing other people's opinions or suggestions as "Bull". This request was not a personal attack. Removing that polite request (as you did) under NPA was unnecessary and inappropriate. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sarah's use of the word "bull" was an "ad contentum" remark. Bastun's remark about being civil was an "ad hominin" remark. In the cut and thrust of Wikipedia, language often becomes a bit colourful regarding content especially. Bastun overstepped that line by making an accusation about Sarah being uncivil. Use of the word "bull" would be likely to elicit a response, nevertheless, technically it is not an uncivil term. 78.19.65.254 (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That's just plain subjectively selective. Arbitrarily choosing to define one user's comments as an attack, and another's as a "context based rebuttal" is not applying NPA appropriately or fairly. Anyway, I'm not getting into this with you, as it's not progressing the issue. If you are interested in gaining consensus in the discussion, then join that discussion (instead of just "editing" other people's comments). And, if you are interested in making long-term constructive contributions to the project, please consider creating a profile. (Or log-in to one that you might already have). Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
"That's just plain subjectively selective.". Agree, editors do it all the time on Wikipedia. I think you just made my point. Baiting other editors does not do the project any good, and leads to other problems down the road, such as ArbCom etc. Have a nice day ;) 78.19.65.254 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turner's Cross & Munster Football Association

The Munster Football Association don't exist,so why did you put it in red again?That's all I did to Turner's Cross.--Jonmccarthy (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually Jon, it's not all you did. This is the change you made. As you can see, you reverted considerably more than a simple link. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Four Green Fields

I think not many people visit Four Green Fields. Those who do can now read about the window and the song. I don't really see a problem and leaving it as it is would be my preference. It means more people are likely to find both (and easily). But if you wish to change this I won't raise any dispute. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael McDowell

I have reverted your removal of Image:Replace this image male.svg from the article Michael McDowell.

This a widely-used device to request images of people, and you made mo case as to why it was a bad idea on that particular article. If you want to stop use of this image, you can nominate it at WP:IFD, but please don't just selectively remove it from public figures whose articles lack images. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi BHG. Actually, I did make a case. Specifically, I noted in my edit summary that I was "removing the placeholder" because "it's an invitation to newbies to upload non-free images", or to those who will "try + include external ones". As this anon attempted to do several times.
When we invite people to upload images like that, the volume of traffic on this project invariably means that there will be those who are not familiar with the guidelines, and will attempt to react to the request by uploading images without consideration to Fair Use or other copyright issues.
In fact, we can plainly seen in the history of several images that many people (quite likely in good faith) attempted this on this page - simply because we asked them to "fill the gap".
Frankly, if we have no image for someone, then we have no image. It's not the end of the world to leave the infobox empty and see it filled in due course. Inviting someone to include a "portrait" style image is inviting copyright issues.
I would also respectfully point out that there is already a picture of McDowell on that page. It's not "portrait quality" enough for an info box, and nobody has cropped it into something acceptable. However, inviting someone to upload something "better" is (as noted) inviting people to source them from official or copyrighted sources.
Anyway, I understand why those placeholder images exist, and that it is a "a widely-used device". And I can even see a case for them in certain circumstances. However, I do not think they are appropriate for use:
  • Where an image already exists. (Even if not "perfect portrait quality")
  • Where there is a lengthy history of people uploading inappropriate images in an "answer to the request".
  • Or in the middle of articles and outside infoboxes. (Like this silliness where we have a "please replace" image in the middle of a non-bio article for no reason.)
Hence, I was not being arbitrarily selective, I was applying specific method to my approach. (And not just blindly following "convention", where circumstances would dictate another course.) Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clifford T. Reid

Thanks your delightfully acerbic comments at the AFD debate on Reid, and for the link to that amazing election poster. There must, surely, be some sort of political equivalent of a Darwin Award for that! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IMOS

The Mos refers to giving irish translations to names - not descriptions. Where does it mention the need for Irish translations for things other than names?WikipÉIRE\(caint) 16:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See: The remainder of the article should use only the place name as titled in the article. The exception to this is when a portion of the article is providing information specific to the naming of the place.
Semi-related friendly suggestion: In the few months that you have been contributing to the project (apart a handful of exception edits to your favourite band, and a dispute at Wales) the vast majority of your changes have been to eradicate any mention of "Republic of Ireland". (In the case in question, to an Irish translation). This is bordering on WP:SPA, and this constant "contrariness" is not helping improve the project overall. Please consider doing something else for a while. Write an article on something you are interested in or otherwise contribute something substantive. 1000 edits to pipe "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland" takes a lot of energy - energy that might be better served to create something valuable.
And, a final point. While it may make sense to use the official state name where DAB is not an issue, SPECIFICALLY removing references to "Republic of Ireland" from DAB headers (where confusion with the island of Ireland is all but inevitable) is NOT a helpful change.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fair enough. However I do see it as a fatal flaw of wikipedia considering the name's history. I shall refrain from inputting it into DAB headers.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Gray (Irish politician)

Just spotted John Gray (Irish politician). It's a fine article — well done!

I hope you will nominate it as a good article candidate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I walk past his statue every day, and I've been meaning to write the article for a while (always seemed a strange omission that he didn't have one - but then I suppose, not everyone knows who he was :). I'm personally unsure whether it's a GA candidate just yet (I'm having some difficulty reconciling some conflicting sources on DOB, alma mater, etc) but I may nominate it in due course. Thanks for the note (glad that at least one person read it :) Guliolopez (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added some details and a section to your excellent article. Actually you beat me to it, I was about to make a start myself. My added contribution is largely from the Oxford Directory (National Library, public shelf), which contained more Irish political substance which I felt needed to be included. It may clash with some of your notes, but I'm sure you can sort it out. Greetings Osioni (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK - thanks. I've rationalised some of the notes (based on the clash that you mention), and done a little copyediting to keep the "flow". Otherwise looks good. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I wonder if you could double verify how many sons he had, the Oxford Dictionary claims five children, three sons, 2 daus., just to have it correct ?. Regarding the slimming of the introduction to Edmund Dwyer Gray (below), just to explain, - I was instructed "ages ago" that the introduction should contain an overview of all relevant material from the body, which of course means some duplications. I have worked through near all the MP biographies to also make sure the constituencies are mentioned in the introduction for the added reason that search machines are as good as the content of the first three lines of any article or biog., that means when someone in the public domain googles for earlier MPs in a certain constituency, it needs to be in the opening section for a positive result to come up (so an "expert" informed me). That just to my reason for including his constituencies in the introduction. Gray's pages are yours -- best wishes Osioni (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edmund Dwyer Gray

Thanks, I think I got motivated to write it when you added the wikilink to Edmund Dwyer-Gray. I certainly think Gray's relationship with Charles Stewart Parnell is worth mentioning and there was plenty of detail in the DNB, but it was quite complicated so I started the article intending to work on a Parnell section later. I think the Freeman's Journal reaction to Parnell's divorce scandal was actually when it was run by his son Edmund Dwyer-Gray, as the scandal was after Gray had died. --Canley (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You might be right. I think that I may (myself) be confusing father and son in my reading of the Parnell sources. As you say, it's a complex area, so may better left alone for visitors to resolve with "further reading" themselves :) Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for formatting. I have been hacking my contribution to bits myself to try and get what I mean across. It is hardest to make an argument when you are not really passionate about it at times. Narson (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Irish (Gaeilge) language speakers

Good work nominating that category for deletion; I have added my support at the CFD debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thx

Thx for helping me to categorize the images. I usually do that about a week later.--Sanandros (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There's a reason we have judges and juries

This is the first line from Extrajudicial punishment:

Extrajudicial punishment is punishment by the state or some other official authority without the permission of a court or legal authority.

Gardaí aren't entitled to convict and sentence people, that's what the judiciary is for. Gardaí are entitled to arrest, detain and charge anybody they catch breaking the law. They are not entitled to punish them. When they start doing just that, it's extrajudicial (from exterus, outward, outside, and judicalis, of or belonging to a court of justice), as well as illegal.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What you are failing to recognise in that definition is the term "punishment". I'm not condoning the approach, but there is nothing in the Garda behaviour in Mayo that would allow it to be (objectively) classified as "punishment"? Anyway, I'm not getting into this with you. You're making this a discussion about the behaviour in Mayo. Rather than about YOUR behaviour. My point is that you need to stop using Wikipedia as a Soapbox. I'm personally a member of several advocacy groups. But you don't see me brandishing their values here. You need to do the same. Or - frankly - I'll be opening an RfC against your continued POV editting. You need to operate within the mores of this community - or move your soapboxing to another outlet. Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


From Punishment:

Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal in response to an unwanted, disobedient or morally wrong behavior.

People are being punished, with physical violence, for protesting in Mayo, especially the more voluble. There is a deliberate policy of circumventing the judiciary (see the link to the Garda Review article excerpt). Many people have been hurt, some have ended up in hospital. The idea is simple: if you protest, you risk being hurt. Due process is not being followed, which makes it a civil rights issue now. To claim that none of this behaviour constitutes punishment is ridiculous, when dissuading people from protesting by using violence is the primary motivation for that violence. I'm making this a discussion about what happens in Mayo because that's what my edit was about. I'm happy to discuss both that and my own edits with you anytime, either here or at an RfC. I'm disappointed you believe I'm using Wikipedia as a soapbox, but your argument about these edits has not impressed me. You're right, what is happening in Mayo is not on the same level as Abu Ghraib etc. What it is, is the thin end of the exact same wedge.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Look. As stated, I am not getting into a philosophical debate on the events in Mayo with you. Because that suggests we are on different sides. What I will repeat however is that - as I've already stated - the term "physical force" is perfectly fine as it is. It's not interpretive, subjective or open to "debate about definitions in interpretation". Your re-classification of the events to sit within the same category as torture and state terrorism however is a frankly classic case of soapaboxing. As, in fact, are most of your edits. Your claim of "surprise" at being considered a partisan editor is more than a little weak, given the fact that your talkpage is RIFE with warnings from other editors, details of a ban, previous RfC and several blocks for exactly the same thing. Clearly you are failing to acknowledge the mores of the project, are ignoring other editors requests to tone it down, and are just bullying your way through every difference of opinion. Please don't change the wording again - at the very least without a reputable source to back up your assertion on the label for the Garda behaviours in Mayo. Guliolopez (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm confident Garda tactics fall under Wikipedia's definition of extrajudicial punishment, for the reasons I've outlined above. I'm not surprised at being considered partisan, what surprises me is that you consider me so. Four out of the six blocks I've received were from two editors with whom I was involved in content disputes with, a clear (although apparently unpunishable) violation of blocking policy. Needless to say, I reject your description of me above. Unless you can demonstrate that the violence visited upon that community in Mayo is being done within the judicial system, or is not a punishment, please don't change the wording again.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you are "confident" in your definition. But it's your definition and your opinion. It's not a sourced fact. The existing wording is fine, and is based on factual rather than interpretative practices - which is what Wikipedia is based on. I can see no reason to change it - except as an exercise in pushing an agenda. (And turning the tables on me to "prove" that it's not "state terrorism" is the most backward definition of WP:VER that I've heard in some time.) Anyway, if you insist on changing it again, I won't revert your change (because this is turning into an edit war on a small point that - frankly - you shouldn't be pushing). However - if your do pursue this - I will be requesting administrator intervention. Guliolopez (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


It's Wikipedia's definition, not just mine. There's nothing in the extrajudicial punishment article that suggests it can only be applied to violations on the scale of torture. I never described the Gardaí's actions as state terrorism. My argument is simple: the Garda tactics involve punishing people extrajudicially (have you read the GR excerpt yet?), therefore, that constitutes extrajudicial punishment. I'm having great difficulty understanding what more you want me to do to prove my point, and far from it being small, I consider it a very important point. Requesting administrator intervention is a shrewd move on your part, Gulio, as I have an unhappy history with that particular tribe. However, it doesn't say much for your argument.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with this now. Claiming that "definition A" doesn't explicitly preclude X, therefore X is valid under "definition A" is not a logical argument. Under either mathematical, set or debate logic theory. Claiming that my argument is weak on that basis is therefore laughable. Anyway, I'm not discussing this anymore with you. It's quite clear that you have no interest in finding a balance. Either in your dealings with other editors. Or with the "facts" as they are presented on this project. The fact that you constantly ignore requests and comments for other editors to follow the project's guidelines (including my initial friendly suggestion) is precisely why you are not popular with those who are charged with helping support them. I'm not getting into a war with a bully. I'll wait and see what happens with my request for impartial input. Guliolopez (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm sorry you feel that way, and hope that you might come to change your mind.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

LP - I've reverted that as POV and OR in the extreme and moved the discussion to the talk page. Please work towards consensus on this issue as this whole Shell-to-Sea matter has already come up again and again. The main article is already a POV-piece and, while I've been meaning to address that, I've not had the time. Now might be a good opportunity - Alison ❤ 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Happily.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Na Piarsaigh GAA

What is the reason on the editing of the clubs history with the Red Hand?--Eireabu (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comment on the talk page. Guliolopez (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can do it for me (without deleting everything) as I am quite new to the Wiki 'language' and script. Many thanks. --Eireabu (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't clean it up without deleting stuff. As I stated on the relevant talkpage, the simple fact is that the additions and embellishments aren't supported by the refs available, and so I've summarised it to the facts that can be supported. In a tone and style appropriate to the guidelines of the project. If you think there is something factual missing, please consider replying on the relevant talkpage, and we can figure out how to add it (within the guidelines). Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republic Of Ireland

I changed the very hard to source civil-unions/gay marriage section in the Ireland article to a sourceable Irish Examiner link. Regards. Fribbler (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly a lot better. Good stuff. And thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discover Tramore

I spotted you removed the Wikipedia link to Discover Tramore in the article on the town of Tramore Co. Waterford, Ireland. Discover Tramore is a non-profit (ie non commerical) tourist organisation. It is in fact a town website. Whatever gave you the idea it was a commercial enterprise? Link added back. --Sully (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - it looks just like any other commercial website to me, selling slots to local businesses. Per policy, can you maybe tell me why you added it to the article, and why it's encyclopedic? Thanks - Alison ❤ 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sorry it seems the change was very old and the link was added as an external link later on and then removed by someone who wasnt signed in. In my personal opinion, the town link should be the Town Council link and External links should go to non-profit tourism organisations. I felt it should be added for the simple reason of it being non-profit, its got lots of information such as history & pictures. Indeed there are (none in Tramore that im aware of) organisations that are taking money commercialy but Discover Tramore is not the case. --Sully (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links removals

Hi, I've noticed that you keep removing external link with picture gallery of Giant's Causeway and Antrim Coast. Can you explain why? This article is very interesting however it lacks pictures visualising it. From my experience when people look for new places to visit they search for pictures to see if it is worthy to visit. I have the impression that you delete something you didn't put yourself without even bothering to see what it is. I'll keep additing this link as in my opinion it is important to show how the Ireland really looks like and my pictures are orignal.Ijkfoto (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. A couple of quick things.
Firstly, you state that you are adding this link to the Giant's Causeway article because "it lacks pictures". This is neither accurate nor appropriate. There are already 10 images appropriately supporting the article text directly. And 88 other images linked on the Wikimedia commons project. Therefore the argument that "your" pictures are better or more appropriate is inaccurate.
Secondly, I would encourage you to read this project's guidelines on using external links. In general, external links are to be avoided where (to pick just three):
  • there is a conflict of interest (this - apparently - is your site, so YOU shouldn't be adding it),
  • the site is a personal webspace, blog or similar (as is the case here),
  • the site does not represent content that can appreciably be included in the article directly. Which - as above - given that there are already dozens of freely available images ALREADY ON THIS PROJECT is not the case.
Thirdly, if you are so interested in contributing to this project (which is based on open and copyleft principles) you really should consider releasing your images on Commons or elsewhere. Instead of linking from a free content site to yours - which you have apparently copyrighted.
And finally, your statement "I'll keep adding this link, regardless of the guidelines" is inappropriate and not representative of this projects mores on consensus and measured editing. I will be removing your link again for these reasons. Guliolopez (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No

I am most certainlly not the subject. I am her agent, but yes i do want her article deleted because she is not ready for the exposure and you are right she should be concentrating on school. Hopefully this will be removed, as it is a mistake to put an article about a young person on this website. The pictures are from her agency portfolio and are not used to commercialise her. Romanda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanda (talk • contribs)

OK. Frankly I'm a little bit shocked and surprised that an adult (and one charged with the wellbeing of a child in particular) would use this project in such a shortsighted and - frankly - stupid fashion. (Stupid in the sense that it represented lies, overstatement and promotional nonsense of a kind unsuited to this project. And in the general sense that posting pictures and details of a minor on a website of this type is stupidly negligent.) I would strongly recommend that you find another way to promote your clients. And I would also strongly recommend that you avoid editing any other article on this project which represents a conflict of interest. Or - possibly - consider avoiding editing on this project entirely. Guliolopez (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Y Speedied - for a number of reasons, and thanks for looking out for her too, Guliolopez - Alison ❤ 18:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for expediting Alison. Per my note in the AfD, I would have retagged for speedy deletion (under A7) were an AfD not already open. Romanda, my comments on your editing practices remain. You should "cop on" and apply some common sense in your editing. Or find some other outlet. Guliolopez (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)