User talk:Guliolopez/Archive 2

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)

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)

apologies

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

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-youth^pléigh 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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))

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))

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)