Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Active items

lostexpectation

is it here that you discuss changes to a page with another user? excuse me if its not.

Thanks for reviewing my entry, my first one, I guess you shortened it to relfect the length of the rest of the page, you kept my meaning mostly, I was wasn't sure how long it would last but Im not sure about the 'crticised by some in other INGO', if you get rid of the heading criticism then you are just noting what he said, its more then the INGO's who have criticised him for advocating invading Sudan ((I think most sane people would criticse him for saying such), note I didn't say invasion in the piece that was my attempt at NPOV, even though that's what _he_ means), infact I hadn't got around to adding criticsm to that, I don't think there is much out there which is why I logged on to highlight it knowing it was fact and I could back it up with his own words, there's a lot of stuff about his arguement with other NGOs re corrupt africans and aid) but in relation to interventism I wanted to hang him with his own words. Also in relation to comparing it to liberal imperlism and neoconvservatism I took that precedent form the criticism section of the save darfur campaign page...? I wanted to add comparisons, I thought it added relevent comparison, if you leave in humanitaian intervention why not liberal imperlism? There's some intersting discussion of interventionism in the neocon page. I'd be happy to put more stuff on the page to reflect other things he done, or maybe it should be added to the GOAL page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.72.231 (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noticed you moved the link for DiscoverTramore saying it was "commercial" and not a "town website". What exactly would you classify as a town website, if "tramore.ie" was allowed up in the first place? Its the exact same site considering "tramore.ie" does exactly the same as "discovertramore". Its only commercial in the sense that businesses must pay to get listed - as was with "tramore.ie".

Cheers. :) Sully —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. The simple short answer is that "Tramore.ie" shouldn't have been (to use your phrasing) "allowed up in the first place". As you might note from the Dublin or Galway or Dungarvan articles, the "web" field in that template is intended for use for the "official" site of the relevant municpal authority (or similar). Not for promotion of one commercial website or another. Cheers. Guliolopez 13:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for the response. I would have to disagree with you, as both Tramore.ie and DiscoverTramore.ie do the same thing - promote the town. You can find out about the town on these websites, can you not? The websites listed from the other sites go to Count Council pages, which to me, doesnt have very much to do with the town. Your not going to get much out of it! Sites like Tramore.ie and DiscoverTramore.ie are more geared towards promoting the town and informing people about the town. Council pages are not. I dont understand, why do you use council sites as a website for a town or city?

--Sully 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Again, for fear of sounding blunt about it, I think you are missing a key point about what this project is about. (Or - for that matter - what it is not about.) Wikipedia is not set up to promote ANYTHING. Not a town, tourism in that town, a book, a type of fish, or anything else. This is why the links in the city summary box for New York City (and everywhere else) should go to the official entity, and not some Tourist Board literature (official or not) "selling" the subject.

Under the Wikipedia:External links policy, if the primary purposes of Tramore.ie and DiscoverTramore.ie are promotional in nature, then NEITHER OF THEM should be listed in the article. And certainly not in the town summary box. Guliolopez 15:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That explains it a lot better, I understand now where your coming from with the edits. In that case, the link should be the same as Dungarvan. (As its an offical government site, and not an unoffical site about the site)

Thanks. --Sully 16:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was doing some work on the page when I noticed your input. I see now that of course the article should perhaps be about Vivas Insurance. Unfortunately, I have run out of time today, so I may have left the page in a rather messy state merging my latest work with your contribution without taking care to blend them properly. I will remedy all of this later if I get a chance, or feel free to do so yourself. :) Gondooley 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Got around to it myself! Gondooley 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As can be seen from the links to the advocates for the above topic, I intended to show both points of view in summary. However , due to limited time on the internet, I only got to show the anti position.

Will endeavor to write articles offline, and publish them once complete to avoid this issue in future.

Maybe a definition item can be created to act for people who want a summary of a particular phrase in its usage towards a particular item such as this? Eiri Amach 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Viewed edit on page. 100% good. Thanks for the edit. Future articles to be created as seen above. Eiri Amach 19:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can this be seperated to include history of the comission etc., and each-way-linked to Shannon town? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ojis (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Possibly. I redirected because the content as it stood did not define the relevance of the article or provide for a good stub upon which other editors could build. (It didn't say what the Town Commission did, what brought it into being and when, under what authority it operated, etc). Therefore, you may want to improve the article to stub standard before pulling it out into an article of it's own again.

Consider working either in the main Wikipedia:Sandbox or in a sandbox (offline page) in your own name space (like User:Ojis/Shannon Town Commission) and build up a "good stub" before replacing the redirect with a stub article. A good stub (at a minimum) demonstrates:

• What the article is about (the subject)
• Why the subject is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article
• Wikipedia's formatting conventions - see the Wikipedia:Manual of style
• A general ((stub)) notice or - better - one of the specialised stub warnings listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs.
• Additional information that will be helpful to someone extending the article, including but not restricted to: related categories, relevant (specific) external links, etc.

So, consider extending the content to stub quality (on a sandbox or somewhere like the articles own Talk Page if you can't figure out how to do it on a sandbox) before updating the article itself. Consider a page like Ballinasloe Town Council as your template - it represents an OK stub of it's type. If you like - and if you can gather the detail, references, and rough content somewhere - I'll help structure the stub. Guliolopez 21:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been working an Edit for the RDF, Well the Army Reserve. Check out my Sandbox at User:Stabilo_boss/D'Sandbox#The_Army_reserve Maybe we could work on it together. Stabilo boss 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the invite, but I'm not sure I'm the best person to help out. While I've made a few edits of late to the FCÁ article, I was mainly spurred on by an anal need to tidy it up and reorganise a bit. (And also provide a bit more context, by creating the RDF and SluaMuiri stubs). I don't actually know a while bunch about the FCA/AR, and therefore may not be best placed to help out. That said, the article does need a reorganisation for a few reasons:

1. The reserve force isn't called the FCA anymore (as you highlight with your replacement article)
2. It's largely a copy/paste job from the military.ie pages (which is fine from a copyright point of view, but means it's a bit unstructured, and could do with summarisation).

Your initial stab seems to be setting out on the path to solve these problems.

I would have one or two initial comments however:

1. I'm sure you've considered this, but if your intent is to move the current FCÁ article to a page called History of The Irish Army Reserve 1927-2005, you will need to be careful, and manage any "what links here" links carefully. (Linking anything intended to point at the current force to the Irish Army Reserve article, and linking any references to the historical force to the historical FCA one.
2. You may want to consider putting "FCA" in the name of the history article.
3. Current sandbox effort avoids (probably deliberately) using the term FCA anywhere. Should really consider saying "Force was previously known as An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil" in the intro, and possibly in the summary History Section.
4. Should also consider rewording the opening line. "The Army Reserve (Cúltaca an Airm in Irish) is also known as The Reserve Defence Force (RDF)". If people do call it this, then they are incorrect. The AR is a subset of the RDF, and the terms are not readily interchangeable. (Given that the RDF also includes the NSR/Slua Muiri).

As I say, I may not be able to contribute a whole bunch, but if you want to assign me the odd "summarise this" or "reword this" task, I'd be happy to help. Otherwise, if you want, I could just cast that "sanity check" eye over things before you publish/finalise. Guliolopez 21:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Points There, Sorry I wrote a quick reply last night, I've been in the AR 9 Years, So I do know enough to write the article.

The Aims of the Army Reserve article should be as follows:

Disambig: The Irish Army Reserve, The Irish Reserve Defence Forces, The Irish Naval Service Reserve. The Articles can be written with these titles but refer obviously without the "Irish" Bits.

Give General Info on the Force itself, Brief Outline of History to include the Govt white paper, Steering Group and RDF Plan, Roles, Organistation, Rank Structure Training, and Cadre Staff. (With Link to a main article on the history of the FCÁ, I think the old History article is long enough as is to merit it. But an Article on the FCA with all the current info aswell as its history and Demobilisation might be a better option,)

I would then Redirect the FCÁ page to the new "Irish Army Reserve" page and the Slua stub to "Irish Naval Service Reserve". But I'm not writing the NSR one, I'm an Infantry Man not a sailor.

The "Cúltaca an Airm" name hasn't stuck and most of us call what was the Fca simply refer to it as RDF. While Technically it should be CAA and CSC, but It goes RDF and NSR for some reason! Nil Gaeilgoiri ar sa Forsai Cosanta ar 2006.

Anyway let me know what you think. No one else seems to be willing to fix it. Stabilo boss 11:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like your map. I think you did a good job. I think there's a bit of trouble with the contrast, notably the red-on-green, which makes the letters difficult to read. Is it possible to redo it with black instead of red? ℬastique▼^talk 17:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point - thanks - done & done. Guliolopez 17:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Liking your work there. SeanMack 17:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - (apologies changed your river image - felt boardwalks shot was more appropriate to context) Guliolopez 18:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries about the pic I had it in for a few liffey related pages hoping it would stay only until someone came up with a better/more appropriate one, which you have done. I'm never sure about people in photos though. Do you think it's worth cropping that girl out of the pic you added? I'm sure I read somewhere if someone is recognisable you need their permission. Any thoughts on that? On a separate note, I might use that quote template you added to the lifey page on the Derry page as it's been in more than a few songs. Did you make it or find it? SeanMack 23:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Crop of person: will review that - might just find another pic which doesn't require edit.

RE: Quote template: found it and thought it was useful - was created by User:Kevin Myers early this year. Template_talk:Quote_box

Guliolopez 16:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 03:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have created the category Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Ireland, please add yourself to an institution or create a new category for your institution if neccessary. If you need help leave a message on my talk page. Spread the word. Djegan 00:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You think thats odd, I just had an edit on Derry that tried to change history - such as claiming that the majority of people didn't call it Derry. Right... --Kiand 17:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work with the info-box. I also added the motto you needed :) Grimhelm 14:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for correcting my mistake. Next time, I will check links, before I save the page.ant_ie 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for adding an image to this article!Notjim 19:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NP Guliolopez 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

guilolopez Stuaic is a village in Donoughmore. which is 25 km northwest of cork city. i dont have a citiation ( where would i put it if i did?) as i lived in donoughmore i thought that i would not need one. Eleutherius 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh - You were referencing "Stuake"!.

OK. That makes matters clearer. The concern on Stuaic's inclusion in the list was largely because I could find no reference to it as a town/townland/village anywhere (on the web/in maps/etc), nor does it appear to be notable enough for inclusion in an article of it's own.

While you have now (indirectly) satisfied the first part of this concern, the second part remains.

As Stuake is quite small and probably (no offence intended) not notable enough for an article of its own, it may be more appropriate to include a link to the Donoughmore entry in the "List of Towns/Villages" instead. (However, please see note below on the Donoughmore article)

• RE "i dont have a citiation ( where would i put it if i did?). Sources may be referenced either in the "Sources" section of an article (if they form a significant basis for the article) - OR - if you are only making a minor addition - source information/links/etc should be included in the Edit Summary, so they appear and can be referenced by others from an article's History.
• RE "as i lived in donoughmore i thought that i would not need one. I'm afraid this in itself was (A) unknown to me and (B) not really relevant. Even if a notional poster ("wikipedianX") believes himself to be an expert on a particular topic/subject/whatever, he is still expected to post references so his contributions can be validated.
• RE Donoughmore article you created. You may want to flag this article as a stub, and flesh it out a bit more. Consider reading the Wikipedia:Stub guidelines, with reference to how to create a "Good Stub".

(FYI - The above advice is intended to be just that, and not intended to be an admonishment of your contribution(s)/etc. Please take it in the spirit of helpful advice.) Guliolopez 15:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you for taking the time to reply so completly and i have indeed taken it as helpfull advice. i would say that this episode is a lesson in sourcing as "stuaic" is not even how the locals say it, they say stuake!! so much for being born and raised there! Eleutherius 22:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pity you removed the links to the Scottish Gaelic language and Talk Scottish Gaelic, there is a cracking debate going on there at the moment, and thought Irish Wikipedians would like to peek at it. 83.70.213.80 13:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed these from the List of Ireland-related topics because this was already included in the list. FYI. I read from the above that your intent of including these in the list was to draw attention to the discussion. Please note that the List of Ireland-related topics article is not a notice board. Consider posting to the "news" section of the Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board instead. Guliolopez 15:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:IrishAntiConscriptionComittee 6of9members.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You removed the GB from the list. It'll only get nicked by the other side.86.42.143.21 16:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Pipes!Reply[reply]

I'm sorry - I'm don't know what you mean... Which list? What "GP"? Guliolopez 16:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh - OK - Yes, I did. I removed the redirect page with label Great Bagpipes from the List_of_Ireland-related_topics. I did this because it was a duplicate. Great Bagpipes is simply a redirect to Great Irish Warpipes, and the article Great Irish Warpipes was already on the list. (I explained this in full in the Edit summary.) (FYI - I'm not sure what you mean by "nicked by the other side") Guliolopez 10:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright mate? Not that it's of any real consequence, but how do you know Tom says Dog? Do you have the script book or something? Everyone I've asked thinks it is Dad and that's probably funnier. Subititles are very unreliable.--Crestville 10:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - It is true it's probably an incredibly inane thing to want to revert, (and certainly not worth an edit war), but - per my note in the edit summary for last change - I verified from 2 separate sources that it's very definitely his dog that give's Tom the scar/injury.

Specifically the sources were: Closed Captioning from teletext during Good Luck, Father Ted repeat as shown on RTÉ Two last night. 21.30 29/05/2006), and English subtitles from Series one DVD (Specifically: Father Ted - The Complete 1st Series - 1995).

Beyond that, and again there are likely a few other more important things to worry about, I also asked a few people to be sure that it wasn't just mistyped or misheard by whoever did the Closed Captioning. They coroborated my own understanding.

Also, and I know it's unscientific (and again a waste of time better spent actually contributing something to society), but a google search on "me/my own da did/done that to me" and other variants returns zero results. A similar search replacing "da" with "dog" returns a few similarly sorry souls who reference the quote. Guliolopez 10:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha ha, don't be so negative mate. It's easy to go to lengths with frustrating little things like that. Anyway, it's Father Ted, of course it's important! It's not like it's world politics or some boring shite like that, this was a very funny TV show. I'll take your word for it (though I still say it would have been funnier if the writers had used "Dad"). However, despite your wishes not to start an edit war, I regret to inform you some little begger has.....reverted your edit. Grab your gun my lad, we're off to war.....--Crestville 10:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info on "MM". I had no idea that accountants did it that way, having only ever seen it expressed with a single lower-case letter "m", e.g. €60m. Amazing what Wikipedia randomly teaches! – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup - randomly picking up useless pieces of info all the time :) Guliolopez 18:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not accuse me of being a fake. Your conspiracy theory is cute but rather annoying. I am a relatively new user to Wikipedia and the Carlo Rendell article is the first one I have had the inclination of writing in. Please remove your comments and retain some dignity.

The above comments were placed on my "User page" by User:Richardss. Moved here by me. Guliolopez 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry Gulio, made a mistake being a new user and all.Richardss 14:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is better to mark unreferenced material as needing citations rather than simply deleting it. (You deleted my section on Dublin's infrastructure problems.) --Fluppet 07:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are talking about this change (which was actually an rv of an anon user so you may not have been logged in) then I'm afraid I don't agree. Per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources: "any material that ... has no source may be removed by any editor"!

It is not appropriate to include unsourced comments and then either (A) wait for someone to challenge it and then provide a source "after the fact", or (B) wait for someone else to find a source to confirm your opinion or POV.

It is one of the basic premises of Wikipedia that additions should be verifiable from the outset. Le meas. Guliolopez 13:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— Indon (reply) — 02:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's interesting - looks like the Flick user changed the copyright status after originally posting it. Ah well... Delete away. Guliolopez 11:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless of whether Cork is ultimately at Cork, Cork, County Cork, or anywhere else, no policies or guidelines are violated by changing Cork links now to be Cork, County Cork links, as long as Cork, County Cork redirects to Cork (which it does - no harm, no foul). However, if consensus turns out to be to move Cork, then all the current links to Cork will definitely have to change. With that in mind, I decided to investigate the size and scope of the task (especially because the amount of work has been noted as a reason to not move the article), including actually changing a few of the links (again, no harm, no foul). I did not mean to cause any consternation. What naming guidelines do you think I was ignoring? --Serge 15:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My point wasn't that you're ignoring the naming guidelines. My point was that you're ignoring the move guidelines (WP:RM), by going ahead and making changes before a concencus was agreed. I'm particularly bothered by this because you've continued to point out to other users (including me) throughout the discussion that reference to guidelines is an important part of the process. And then you go and demean all that by preempting the discussion you started and moving ahead with a rename. (You may not be renaming the original article, but you created the redirect page, then then set about changing links to the "new" page). Please tell me you understand why this might be perceived as preempting the result of the concencus discussion? Guliolopez 15:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not ignoring the move guidelines either. Creating a redirect is not a violation of the move guidelines. Changing a link to point to a redirect instead of the article directly is not a violation of the move guidelines. Yes, I understand now why this might be perceived as preempting the result of the consensus discussion, but I did not see that when I was doing it, since I was not actually doing anything that would preempt the consensus discussion. But once that perception was brought to my attention, I stopped. Please tell me you understand that I did not actually ignore the move guidelines or any other guidelines in doing what I did. Thanks. --Serge 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I acknowledge that you may not have ignored any documented guidelines. However, you did preempt the result of the discussion by creating the article and replacing existing links. Guidelines are not everything you know - Integrity in actions stands for something too. Speaking of which, I perceive an antagonistic tone in your note above. And so, to avoid getting into a debate which will not enhance the discussion, I'll step out of this now. (To the extent that, where I have attempted to help direct the discussion - which you started, and which I wanted to see resolved within the guidelines you laid out - you're on your own from now.) No response is required. Verbum sap. Guliolopez 17:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize for coming off as antagonistic. I did feel defensive, as I'm prone to do. But thanks for bringing it to my attention, as I'm also prone to being unaware of this when it occurs. Cheers. --Serge 18:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey regards my unexplained deletion on the cork topic. Sorry about that when i created the new water sports section i thought i had deleted all the references to rowing in the next piece, while i hadnt. I'll make sure to add a note about what i'm up to next time. :) Burklert 11:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made the alterations, thanks for the tips. However, you deleted the piece on Confetti on the confetti movie article, this was in error as the film does in fact feature the magazine. --User:Rory Deegan 22.25, 14 November 2006

Rory, you are headed at some speed towards a bad place. Please back off. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there's anything I can do to help with an admin peer review (of the behaviour of the admins involved in moving Cork) please let me know. I think pschemp and samsara behaved shamefully. They bullied and made fun of people who opposed them, and simply ignored the work that had gone into trying to reach consensus. There was no consensus to do what they did, but they chose to ignore that. I am appalled. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Per my various notes on this, while I disagreed with the need to more Cork to a DAB page, I recognised the need to uphold NPOV tenets and had made my peace with the move. I would even go so far as to say that I respected the intentions of those editors/admins who were driving the change. (In the context of upholding DAB guidlines and NPOV naming). I am however very VERY frustrated with the way in which the move was implemented, and am very VERY disillusioned with the admin behaviour. Guliolopez 19:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remain truly sorry that you were unhappy with the action I took. It reflected consensus as I saw it and I hope you will accept that I acted with the best interests of the encyclopedia we are writing together at heart. In changing 732 of the links (as I promised), I think I also added much valuable information to it. See Special:Contributions/Spellmaster and Image:Awbtrawlofcorkdone.jpg for details. Best wishes, --Guinnog 04:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose the following message should have been put here rather than on Humanitarian crisis discussion. Thanks for the cleaning up etc. I am not sure how the "explosive" howler crept in. I am, however, a little puzzled at the rearrangement of the category section. It makes more sense to me to lead with statement of how concrete experience affects categorization, and put the pandemic sentence as a subpara since it is an example re: the health community. It still seems a bit peculiar to have that in the lead paragraph of the category section as it is not really a typical humanitarian crisis.

I have put in the full name of the IFRC since the link directs to Movement site and it is then clearer to new arrivals at that site that it is not a list of the Movement but of the IFRC, a part of the movement.

I quickly edited this article to expand the examples of humanitarian crises. I may add more later when I have time.

I toyed with putting in footnotes--it does look neater, but since the list mentioned in footnote 1 is two links away if footnoted and only one if the link was in the text I left it imbedded. In my mind I tend to use the footnotes as a reference for somebody who wants to know where that idea comes from, (i.e. justifies the statement) most readers probably don't, and the imbedded link for something which expands or clarifies. But I am afraid that this is my inner style sheet and I guess that I should take the time to learn the standard one.

Sorry for putting the message in the wrong place. I am learning the ropes. Joel Mc 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem - Response left at Talk:Humanitarian crisis. Cheers. Guliolopez 12:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for troubling you there. Additions to Kerlin Gallery would be welcome, particularly media coverage. Tyrenius 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem - I was "too quick off the mark" :) Guliolopez 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite understandable! I was relying on no one being quite that efficient... However, I notice in passing there doesn't seem to be much on contemporary Irish art galleries... Tyrenius 20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Guliolopez. I'm wondering if you'd be able to help me in preventing ongoing, subtle vandalism to the Ennis article, mainly by just putting it on your watchlist (if it's not there already) and reverting vandalism if you come across it.

Often the vandalism is pretty obvious, like this, but sometimes it's more subtle and it's not obvious even to me, such as this edit. It appears to me there is one person who is persistently trying to undermine the Ennis article by adding disinformation. Note that the vandal sometimes appears to be impersonating myself.

Before you suggest it, I have considered whether the article should be semi-protected. However, I dislike the "in-your-face" protection notice that gets slapped at the top of articles, and anyway the actual rate of vandalism is probably too low to be considered worthy of semi-protection.

Hoping you can help... cheers, A bit iffy 07:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will add to my Watchlist. Guliolopez 10:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you've stepped in a couple of times now to revert that vandal - thanks. (I hope he/she/they won't start impersonating you instead!) Cheers, A bit iffy 14:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I've sorted out all the redirects as per your comments. -Halo 20:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup - just noticed that you'd made the changes. Very conscientious of you (pardon the pun) for running through all links and updating as needed. Cheers and thanks. Guliolopez 20:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:IrishConscription1918_JohnDillon_RoscommonRally.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the ((GFDL-self-no-disclaimers)) tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as ((Non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK - Thanks. I have updated to provide additional detail on the source, description and the copyright status. Guliolopez 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I mentioned to IrishGuy, Katohatch doesn't reply to talk page messages, and in fact, I'm not sure he even reads the page. Instructions on how to internally link have been given more than once and have been ignored. Lexicon (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood. In that case (and as much as I would hate doing it for something as "silly" as this), it may be worth pursuing action under the 3RR guidelines. Including that link 3 times within an hour - as Karohatch did - is a breach. Whether done out of "ignorance of the rules" or otherwise. After I left the note on his/her talkpage, I realised that several other editors had attempted to draw attention to the standards, so (if it is included again - without consideration to the "help" offered) the 3RR block process may be the only recourse. Guliolopez 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy, I think it was deleted because I deleted it. It has an improper license because the source states that no derivative works are allowed. However, upon deleting it I discovered that it is also at Commons, which I can't delete. I tagged it for speedy deletion there, but as far as I can tell no one is paying attention to that at Commons. Some images have been tagged since March. So, I'm betting we are safe leaving the links to the images in for now. Sorry for the mix up. --Spike Wilbury 19:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. Makes sense. So - I suppose the reason it still shows is because it's "inheriting" from commons. Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Guliolopez 19:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Redfm radiostation logo blackred.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Have added FU raionale. Guliolopez 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello

Yes..that is indeed a nuisance..the problem is that it is a bug in all the interwiki bots..you can check the bug report here..we hope it will be fixed soon..thank you..--Alnokta 14:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the edits. I'll get around to those additional citations - I agree, they're needed. I just need to modify one of your corrections concerning hedgerows.

I was dismayed to see you had contributed to deleting my entry. Try checking the news: (http://www.gaelport.com/index.php?page=clippings&id=1974&viewby=date), (http://www.daltai.com/events.htm) list it, (http://www.lennoxandaddington.com/buzz/arch.cfm?a=showone&EID=41) shows it, I was personally at the opening, here is the official invitation(http://tribes.tribe.net/diasporagael/thread/247c1da6-f749-42e6-9508-604737b5e63a), we got an official recognition letter from Eamonn O Cuiv, Mary McAleese, and TG4 was present. I resent being called a crank for telling the truth. I am from Tamworth (the actually site, Erinsville is the closest town), I speak Irish and I live on a hill called Bailehack since the 1700's. Its nice to see that all my hard work in making an information page has been deleted by people who don't look into things. I will repost this, if only someone with more experience will tell me how, as now the page name is blocked by Wikipedia from being recreated. If necessary, I can provide more transcripts of the letters we received on our opening. User danjdoyle—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danjdoyle (talk • contribs) 17 August 2007.

Hi Dan. I rarely let things bother me in this project, but your post has managed to do so.

Imagine how dismayed *I* am by *your* comment to me, given that *I* was the only one who advocated keeping the article?

Take your own advice, revalidate your sources, and re-read my post on the subject[1]. I explicitly defended the posting (and poster) as NOT being fantasy (or crank) respectively.

You will also note that, as a user HEAVILY involved in the Wikipedia project as Gaeilge, I have (in good faith) helped cleanup the corresponding article there.[2]

I would then ask you to rethink the assertion that I "contributed to the deletion".

Now. With that sorted out, I hope you will accept some advice. That article was deleted under AfD in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability and Notability.

As a result, if you are going to create that article again, you need to be very sure you add verifiable sources - which confirm notability. In particular, as you will have noted, the concern of other contributors was (not that there isn't a collection of likeminded Gaeilgeoirí le fáil sa cheantar), rather that there was no source confirming the status of "Gaeltacht". In particular, the "officially sanctioned" references in the article caused concern because they were "not verifiable". This (per Wikipedia's verifiability criteria) is what prompted the AfD.

So, if you are planning on reposting, please consider listing (or linking) the relevant sections of the letter from O'Cuiv (or whoever) which confers the "Gaeltacht status". As I noted in my comments, without this, the project may remain notable for inclusion as "North American Irish College", "North American Irish Project", or "Gaeilgeoir Project of North America". Or something that focuses on "college" or "project" or similar. But - without your "official" source - the title "Gaeltacht" may remain questionable to some.

The other contributing factor to the AfD was that one of the key sources linked was that of gaeltacht.ca/. Which remains "down". If this is your website, (or you have an association with it) you may want to consider restarting the server or something. Because it's not accepting traffic. That will also help "your cause" (in more ways than one).

Le meas. Guliolopez 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I give you my most sincere apologies. This was a message I sent to everyone who had contributed, I was not singling you out personally. I did recognize that you were helping to defend my position (in my absence which is even more commendable) but the result was unfortunately the same. Frankly, I was quite blinded by firstly having my article questioned, and secondly by being called a liar and a crank by certain individuals, which led to me simply responding to everyone in a like manner. The gaeltacht.ca site was up, but is now down. I am not connected to this and have no idea why. My sources are mostly offline, and I don't know how this would work. This is a gaeltacht, not a college, as we were conferred that status by Uduras na Gaeltachta (how to show this, I don't know, I only live there I don't run the place). Honestly I didn't think this would be such a big issue.I am starting a deletion review on this issue, if I can figure out how. Thank you for your support, and I am sorry for any hard feelings.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danjdoyle (talk • contribs) 17 August 2007.

Hi Dan. Firstly, there are no hard feelings. Secondly (with regard to "offline sources"), you may want to read the guidelines on adding sources. In this specific case, given that the offline sources are likely not accessible to anyone else, possibly the "easiest" way for you to address the Verifiable problem is to scan in whatever sources you have. And publish them somewhere publically. Depending on the content, you may even consider uploading scanned copies of your docs to the Wikipedia itself. Beyond that (and I'm not sure whether you have the time/energy/patience/impetus for this) it may be worth writing to or emailing the Údarás offices for some kind of verifiable confirmation also. (Coz there is nothing on udaras.ie). And finally, don't forget to sign your posts... Guliolopez 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if Louis Walsh is based in Dublin (I don't know), we could always list them either under business successes, or under "artificially manufactured and marketed bands targetted towards the female tweenie market, who mostly sang cover versions of other people's work and never actually sang live at all at all." Though that may be the teeniest bit PoV... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I have absolutely no problem listing them (given that they're all from Dublin) under the Culture->Entertainment->Music section someplace. However (as I'm sure you know) the group were not appropriate for inclusion in a sentence which was talking about bands who were prominent in, or grew out of, the city's music scene. If they were listed, it would definitely have to be under a much differently worded sentence. (Possibly under "manufacturing", as you suggest :) Guliolopez 20:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]