User talk:Mulpatrick

Welcome!

Hello, Mulpatrick, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Agricolae (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O' Maol Phadraig - O'Mulpatrick - Mulpatrick - Fitzpatrick

I have nominated this page, which you recently created, for speedy deletion. It is full of copyright violations. It is absolutely prohibited to copy and paste text from other web pages, even from other Wikipedia pages. When adding content to Wikipedia, it all must be expressed in your own words, not by copy-pasted from other pages. Agricolae (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Whilst I was carrying out the changes to the 3 ( of the 13 entries ) that had "copyright violations" you decided to delete the entire page. Can you provide a reason for this?Mulpatrick (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive COPYVIO is a serious violation, endangering the legal standing of the entire Wikipedia project, and is, in and of itself, sufficient reason for a page to be deleted. Further, the page had already been deleted as duplicating the topic of existing pages, so what was left were someone to go through and remove the copyvio would not have been page-worthy. Wikipedia is not just a web host for interesting stuff. Agricolae (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

This is research into a family name to assist those interested in it. What is your specific issue here?Mulpatrick (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what Wikipedia is for. It is not a web host for genealogical data. Agricolae (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page I am attempting to set up is about the surname O Mulpatrick. What is the difference between this page and the Fitzpatrick surname page? Are these your personal views or those of Wikipedia?Mulpatrick (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name Fitzpatrick is right there in the page name - if you are writing an article about the Mulpatrick surname, then call the page simply Mulpatrick and begin the page with a statement what the page is about. Likewise, though, your census summary begins: In the 1659 "Census of Ireland " the recorded distribution of the surname Fitzpatrick/Killpatrick /O Mulpatrick and Mcllepatricke. Fitzpatrick is the first variant listed, and the clustering clearly considers all these names to be variants of the same surname, so how is it about something different? Agricolae (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are stating that they are variants , no inference is made by me . In fact one could interpret the data to reflect that they are separate unconnected names in different location in Ireland. Why should the page I am attempting to create exclude the angclised version of the surname in its current format . Why are you restricting the information sharing I am attempting to provide ? Is this a Wikipedia policy? Mulpatrick (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that sentence uses the word "surname", not surnameS. That is clearly indicating that they are variants of a single surname. If they are not, there is no reason to include the Fitzpatrick and Kilpatrick information on a page about Mulpatrick. As to "restricting information sharing", Wikipedia is not a formless collection of indiscriminate information. There are rather clear policies about what Wikipedia is intended to be, and what it is WPNOT. Agricolae (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have removed the 's' but then why are the data about Fitzpatick and Kilpatrick included at all. It cuts both ways - are they variants or not? If they are, there is no reason for a separate page. If they are not, then there in no reason to include information on the 'distinct' families. Agricolae (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1659 "Census of Ireland " the recorded distribution of the surname Fitzpatrick/Killpatrick /O Mulpatrick and Mcllepatricke were as follows :

Fitzpatrick - 184 Co Kilkenny 29 Queens County 139 Co Tipperary 8 Co Meath 8

Killpatrick - 11 Co Antrim 8 Co Fermanagh 3

O Mulpatrick - 22 Co Fermanagh 11 Co Longford. 11 (The census records does not include Co Cavan, where the name O'Mulpatrick was prominent in the 1641 rebellion in Belturbret and the occurrences of the name in the census are in baronies that border Co Cavan).

Mcllepatricke - 10 Co Down 10

is the above acceptable to remain on the Wiki page I have set up ?Mulpatrick (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are violating WP:OR by drawing conclusions from a collection of primary data. Agricolae (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What conclusions are being drawn , please expand ?Mulpatrick (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are concluding where the family is located. Unless the ccompiler of the page specifically draws these conclusions about the FitzPatricks, you are conducting Original Research to extract the information yourself. Agricolae (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

Where I am drawing conclusions? I am just relaying the results of the census taken in 1659 which indicate the distribution of the names. A similar article was on the Fitzpatrick surname page with no issues from an editorial perspective. Why was that? That article drew conclusions and was inaccurate in its data.Mulpatrick (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have said this several times now. Please don't play WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to extract information from primary data. Full stop. While we are at it, the argument 'it was on another Wikipedia page is not a valid argument. Sometimes inappropriate material finds its way onto pages, but that does not miraculously render it appropriate. (And again, please don't just add your comments to the end of existing paragraphs - start a new paragraph and use indents.) Agricolae (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What conclusions are being drawn , please expand ? - You have not answered this question Mulpatrick (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors are prohibited from extracting information from primary data. Full stop. Agricolae (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes inappropriate material finds its way onto pages, but that does not miraculously render it appropriate" - Point taken but you were the one who replaced my article with a very smilier one which extracted data from primary data . Maybe an oversight which is understandable . Mulpatrick (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what did I say in my edit summary when I did that? I said that prose sentences are preferable to lists. That edit had nothing to do with content, just presentation. It was only later that I realized the material itself had no business being there. Agricolae (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don't play WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT" - I am not playing at anything.

"Please note that sentence uses the word "surname", not surnameS. That is clearly indicating that they are variants of a single surname. If they are not, there is no reason to include the Fitzpatrick and Kilpatrick information on a page about Mulpatrick". - The sentence has been amended so that there is no confusion for any possible viewers of the page . Mulpatrick (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my response elsewhere. If they are not surname variants, there is no reason to include the other surnames. Agricolae (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page vs. User page

Based on your recent edit to your user page, you seem to be placing your question in the wrong place. Your User page is for you to identify yourself and share information about your participation on Wikipedia, if you choose to do so. It is not meant to be a blog, but some users use it to track pages they are editing and subjects in which they are interested. Except in very particular circumstances, other editors are barred from editing your User page. Your User Talk page is where you hold discussions with other editors. When you place a question for another editor on your User page, not only is another editor unlikely to see it, they are prohibited from responding there. Here, on your User Talk page, is where such discussions should take place. Agricolae (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the indenting used to clarify sequential contributions on a Talk page - I have added them in. When you just add to an existing paragraph, it is frequently overlooked. Add a 'return' to start a new paragraph, and indent it using colons (:) to place it one step farther in than that to which you are responding. Agricolae (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, O' Maol Phadraig - O'Mulpatrick - Mulpatrick - Fitzpatrick

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, O' Maol Phadraig - O'Mulpatrick - Mulpatrick - Fitzpatrick. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Fitzpatrick (surname). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Fitzpatrick (surname). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

My page does not cover the topics covered in the page Fitzpatrick and there will be no duplication Mulpatrick (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC). Are you able to respond to this point ?Mulpatrick (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your page gives no indication what it is even about, but it contains information about the distribution of the Fitzpatrick surname and variants. Fitzpatrick (surname) is the appropriate place to cover this, if you have appropriate secondary sourcing for the conclusions. If you don't then it is inappropriate anywhere. Agricolae (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Your page gives no indication what it is even about", - the page has an introductory statement. Mulpatrick (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an improvement, but Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web host for genealogical data. Agricolae (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"it contains information about the distribution of the Fitzpatrick surname and variants." - have you any historical documentation linking the surname Fitzpatrick with the other names listed and used by me in my surname breakdown?

Why are you stating that the names are variants of the surname Fitzpatrick? Mulpatrick (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is in you own text: "In the 1659 'Census of Ireland' the recorded distribution of the surname Fitzpatrick/Killpatrick /O Mulpatrick and Mcllepatricke were as follows". Agricolae (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"if you have appropriate secondary sourcing for the conclusions". - once again what conclusions are you referring to ? "appropriate secondary sourcing" - a similar article on the Fitzpatrick surname page was not required to provide secondary sourcing . In addition are you suggesting that the published census is inaccurate? Mulpatrick (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, Wikipedia editors should not extract primary data from sources. The statement that there are 22 Mulparticks, 11 here and 11 there, has to have been explicitly made by a secondary source, not drawn from primary records. A similar article on the Fitzpatrick page should not have had that information either (again, the argument that 'it is on another Wikipedia page' is not a valid reason, as it could just as well be inappropriate at the other place, and just hadn't yet been noticed). Finally, as I said already below, accuracy has absolutely nothing to do with it. Agricolae (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The statement that there are 22 Mulparticks, 11 here and 11 there" - where is that statement ? Are you saying that if I referred to a website which carried out their analysis of the same census and referenced them in that article then that would provide the secondary source? Mulpatrick (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"O Mulpatrick - 22 Co Fermanagh 11 Co Longford. 11" is a statement that there are 22, 11 in one place and 11 in another, which is obviously what I was referring to. And yes - if you had a secondary source that looked at the data and drew that conclusion, and you used the secondary source as the source for the statement on Wikipedia, that would resolve the problem with violating WP:NOR, but not other possible issues. First, if that other place was a web page you yourself created, that is considered 'gaming the system', and it still qualifies as Original Research. Likewise, 'just some web page' is generally not considered a reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia. Further, it opens up questions of WP:UNDUE weight. Wikipedia bases page content on the level of coverage received in published secondary sources. If there is a published book on surnames that includes this family, Wikipedia aims to mirror that level of coverage. It uses the judgment of a book or journal's editor to appropriately weigh the level of detail that is proper. Anything that is self-published has not gone through this independent weighing, and so even though the material is accurate and reliable, it may still be inappropriate for an article, representing undue weight (in other words, being trivia). Agricolae (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Agricolae (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC0

The Wiki page has been updated. Can you provide any reason why it should still be deleted or where it doesn't meet the Wikipedia guidelines?Mulpatrick (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT Agricolae (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is the issue?Mulpatrick (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained. Agricolae (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is the issue is not an unreasonable question to ask. I will make any amendments to comply with the guidelines but need to understand what specifically is causing the issue.Mulpatrick (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzpatrick (surname)

I have not reverted your recent deletion to Fitzpatrick (surname) but felt compelled to make a comment here because your rationale is completely invalid. The material you deleted was not copy/pasted. It was summarized in the words of the Wikipedia editor. That is completely valid. Likewise, you complain that the material lacks source documentation, but this fundamentally misunderstands what Wikipedia editors do. It is not the role of editors to consult original source documentation - indeed it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to do so, being a violation of WP:NOR. Wikipedia editors take their information from secondary sources, and that is exactly what was done with this material. On those grounds, it is perfectly valid. That being said, the cited sources are arguably not reliable, and hence potentially fail WP:V. For the first, this is unambiguous, as it is a web page not published by an expert or with any indication of references. The latter two are published works, but based on their character, an argument can be made that they are not reliable. However, this is my own judgment, and I doubt that most editors would agree. I point this out because if you want your edits to stick, you need to provide rationale that actually matches the situation. That you just don't like the information is unlikely to be very persuasive, if the reasons given are invalid. Agricolae (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"That you just don't like the information is unlikely to be very persuasive" - can you expand and provide evidence for this statement . I questioned the validation of the historical accuracy of what had been uploaded onto the page.Mulpatrick (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As perverse as it sounds, 'accuracy' plays no role in evaluating the appropriateness for inclusion, only 'verifiability'. To evaluate accuracy, one would consult the original records and see if the claim is consistent with those records. This is not what Wikipedia editors do. Rather, they evaluate whether the information is verifiable - whether it has appeared in cited secondary sources that are considered reliable. Again, 'reliable' has a particular definition for Wikipedia, and has more to do with the nature of the publication (the editorial process) and the author than whether or not the information is accurate. See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR. Agricolae (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"That you just don't like the information is unlikely to be very persuasive" - can you expand and provide evidence for this statement ? Mulpatrick (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"That you just don't like the information is unlikely to be very persuasive" - can you expand and provide evidence for this statement ? Mulpatrick (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the rationale for removing information is based on policy and is consistent with the action taken, that is the kind of action that other editors are less likely to challenge, and if they cannot provide a rationale as strong as yours why the material should stay, then the overall community is more likely to go along with your change. In this case, your rationale did not match the action taken, because it did not violate the standards you provided for your reason, and this suggests to others that you simply don't like the information. A rationale that is a non sequitur is rather unlikely to sway others for the same reason that a well-founded rationale is likely to win them over. Agricolae (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification and your response is noted . The lack of any evidence to support your unfounded statement is also noted . Mulpatrick (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried being helpful, but you are not listening. So be it. Agricolae (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken onboard your advice in respect of the Wikipedia guidelines . However I am allowed and entitled to challenge any statements that infer what I like or do not like. Mulpatrick (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you really feel that is the most productive use of time on Wikipedia, if it is really the most important thing you can think of to do here, challenge away, but I won't be joining in the exercise. Agricolae (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mulpatrick

The article Mulpatrick has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOT/WP:OR

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kleuske (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the page to read :"The surname Mulpatrick originates from the Gaelic surname O' Maol Phadraig . It became O'Mulpatrick and Mulpatrick and the first recorded instances of the surname appear in records from the late 16th century. Its current form is Fitzpatrick" . Can you please confirm whether this conforms with the Wikipedia guidelines . Thanks for your assistance.Mulpatrick (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2017 (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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Upper Ossory—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Branches of the Cenél nEógain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bradley. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bradley" - ? Did I ? Mulpatrick (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Upper Ossory. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JalenFolf, This not vandalism . At the period of "In late Gaelic Ireland it was the túath of the Mac Giolla Phádraig" the translation of the Irish Mac Giolla Phádraig into the English would have been Mc Gilpatrick . Thank you. Mulpatrick (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late response, but since I do not watch others' Talk pages, I tend to miss these without a ping. Anyway, regardless of your claims, you need a reliable source to back it up. I humbly request that you provide that in your next attempt to restore the content. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 21:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise. "regardless of your claims, you need a reliable source to back it up" - Well from the wiki page itself "In 1442, the Irish Treasury and Exchequer were petitioned to award 100 shillings to the Norman-affiliated inhabitants of the town of Kilkenny, for their military service against the neighbouring Gaels and "especially in breaching the castle of McKilpatrick [sic]". Is that not a reliable source? Mulpatrick (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late response, but not only is this an unreliable source as per WP:CIRCULAR, this contradicts the linked Mac Giolla Phádraig dynasty, which sources "Illustrations, Historical and Genealogical, of King James's Irish Army List, 1689" by J.R. Smith with references to Fitzpatrick, but none for McGilpatrick or McKilpatrick. Do you have something else? Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 19:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"but not only is this an unreliable source .................. this contradicts the linked Mac Giolla Phádraig dynasty, which sources "Illustrations, Historical and Genealogical, of King James's Irish Army List, 1689" by J.R. Smith with references to Fitzpatrick, but none for McGilpatrick or McKilpatrick" - (1) So just to confirm are you stating that the official documentation, see below, recorded at the time and held by TCD is unreliable ??? (1 July 1442). "Close Roll 20 Henry VI [RCH 263] No.23". CIRCLE: A Calendar of Irish Chancery Letters, c. 1244–1509. Trinity College Dublin. (2) "Do you have something else"? 12 Aug 1537 - "we sent for the Earl of Ossorie to us, and marching through O'More's and McGillipatricke's lands," - THE LORD DEPUTY and COUNCIL to HENRY VIII. [Their letter to Cromwell of the same date is printed in "State Papers," II. 468.] | The National Archives. 1549 - "McGylpatryk of Ossory" - WHAT IRELAND IS, AND HOW MUCH. | The National Archives 15 Dec 1575 - "On the west side lieth the countries of Ophali or O'Connor's country, Leix or O More's country, Upper Ossory or McGillpatricke's country" - https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/364dc705-e8ec-4b42-9bdf-4a66ebdfaa4e (3) - "this contradicts the linked 'Mac Giolla Phádraig dynasty'," - after submitting to Henry VIII in 1537 Brian Mac Giolla Phadraig ( McGilpatrick) - "The submission of Mighell Patrick to the King's Majesty in obeisance" (LINK AVAILABLE IF REQUIRED) - and in 1541 he - "FIRSTE, the said Mc Gilpatrike doth utterly foresake and refuse the name of Mc Gilpatrike, and all claymes whiche he might pretende by the same ; and promyseth to name him self , for ever hereafter , by suche name , as it shall please the Kings Majestie to gyve upon him" .(LINK AVAILABLE IF REQUIRED). As part of the colonial process the surname Mac Giolla Phadraig and its English translation, McGilpatrick, were ovetime replaced by Fitzpatrick, as per "King James's Irish Army List, 1689". Mulpatrick (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]