User talk:DublinDilettante

Ronnie Whelan Snr
Great work on that page. I'll add to the Pats bit when I get a chance. Glad to see I'm not the only one trying to fill the Irish football blanks here. Dodge 11:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Conan Doyle
Sorry, didn't see the source -- I just looked at the article (which has not a word about his cricket career). I reverted to your version, but you might want to add a sentence to the article to clarify that. Thanks, NawlinWiki 16:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Newbridge, County Kildare
Mia culpa! Would you please accept my most profuse, sincere and humble apology.

I mis-read the edit and thought that you had added the comment.

Sorry!

LittleOldMe 14:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

David Tennant
Regarding your removal of Tennant from the list of notable supporters on the Derry City FC page; he attended the Brandywell for a game in the past year to offer his support as his grandfather, Archie McLeod, played for the club in by-gone days. I have also seen a photograph of him sporting a Derry City scarf. I'm sure that qualifies as supporting the club in some way or another, if even just financially in a minor way.

As the League of Ireland is an interest of yours, I've been wondering what exactly the league 'split' during the 1992/93 season entailed. I'm too young to remember, but possibly you'd know?

Also, funnily enough, I created a Roddy Collins page just last week.

Cheers.--Johnfullerton 01:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Irish Football
I'm just alerting your attention to the new WikiProject on Irish football as you may be interested in taking part. Danny InvincibleTalk 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Examples of meta-references
Come, let's get some real references in--any librarian can help you find them. See what you can do. Let's save the article--argument alone will not do it. This may be easier to save than the others--it's a little more restrictive a list.DGG (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 20:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Snopes
Thanks for your Snopes edit, but it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether or not something is "politically partisan" (even if it seems obvious), as this is original research. We should instead quote a reliable source that calls them out on it. --McGeddon (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Referencing
Hi

Your contributions list shows that you have been mass-undoing my edits to a whole series of articles relating to Dublin.

Some of the edits which you have undone have have removed cleanup tags such as primarysources, or unreferenced, both of which I have added where appropriate to articles to articles which I have assesed for WikiProject Ireland. Those tags indicate that an article needs to be improved to meet wikipedia's quality standards &mdash; see in particular WP:V and WP:RS. Please do not remove such tag until references have been added to sources independent of the subject.

Some of your edits (such as this one) have also removed valid biographical categories.

I will now restore all my edits which you have undone. Please help wikipedia by improving articles and adding sources where you can rather than removing valid categories and removing tags to indicate needed improvements.

Thank you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would politely request that you refrain from reverting the damage I have undone to your edits to articles concerning Irish football. I think your stance on the notability of the Leinster Senior League article confirmed that, with respect, you have little expertise in this field and should refrain from casting aspersions (for such is the effect) on the work of editors who do. One of your edits demanded a citation for an article which stated nothing other than a player's name, club, and date of birth - these are matters of public record, one might as well tack a citation notice on an article proclaiming "A" the first letter in the alphabet.


 * You'll note that, unlike cricket biographies which benefit from a comprehensive statistical archive, no sources beyond those which would be considered "primary" are available in support of many footballers' biographies. You'll also note that I didn't revert edits which I considered warranted (such as where subjective statements were apparent.) I apologise for accidentally reverting at least one valuable edit, I did my best to avoid this but the task of manually undoing what, frankly, amounted to a mass campaign of script-based vandalism was onerous and laborious; but I think the net effect was beneficial to the encyclopaedia. Once again, I would appeal to you to refrain from mass editing articles on this subject and necessitating further intervention. Thanks. DublinDilettante (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be blunt, but I think you misunderstand the issues here.
 * This is nothing to do with football or cricket or any other subject; it is to do with one of wikipedia's core policies, that of verifiability. Upholding verifiability is not a matter of "casting aspersions" as you put; it is asking editors to comply with one of the encyclopedia's core content policies. The fact you describe as "vandalism" and "damage" the application of an unreferenced tag to an article which has no sources suggests that you urgently need to read both Verifiability and Vandalism.
 * You make my point very well when you "One of your edits demanded a citation for an article which stated nothing other than a player's name, club, and date of birth". It's quite true that the article on Paul Byrne contained only those few facts ... but the point is that a source is needed per WP:V, and if it is (as you claim) "a matter of public record", then please improve the article by explaining where on the public record the information has been sourced from. If there is no evidence that the player existed, then the article should be deleted; but if there is evidence, then the references should be included. If you seriously believe that you were right to remove the unreferenced tag, and that my application of the tag was vandalism, then please report it at WP:AIV.
 * Here are some of the edits in which you removed referencing tags:
 * Micheal Dempsey (footballer), an article which has only one reference on a minor point, and that ref is to a undated football match programme. Yet you removed the refimprove tag. Sorry, but if you think that a match programme is a reliable source then please read WP:RS; and note that there are no references to any of the other points in the article, such as when he was born.  Where did this information come from? References are needed to establish that, so a refimprove tag is needed.
 * Michael Keane, a completely unreferenced article from which you removed the unreferenced tag
 * Keith Foy, also wholly unreferenced, yet you removed the unreferenced tag
 * John Byrne (Irish_football) from which you removed categories and a stub tag. Do you think the categories were inaccurate? Do you think the article is not a stub?
 * Eddie Gormley, a 500-word article removed a primarysources tag. The article is almost largely unreferenced, yet it claims that Gormley is currently manager of a club which plays in the Eircom Premier Division. Are you seriously claiming that there is no coverage of him other than in primary sources? That the manager of premier division club has never been written up in the sports columns of the newspapers?
 * Dave Tilson, who the article claims scored the only goal at the 1992 FAI cup final ... yet your removed the primarysources tag. Are you seriously claiming that someone who scored the only goal at a cup final received no newspaper coverage at all?
 * I could list another dozen or so in the same vein, but I think those examples make the point clear.
 * As to the rest of the primarysources tags, you say that there is no "comprehensive statistical archive". That may well be the case, but a "comprehensive statistical archive" is not the only possible source. Such online statistical archives are very easy to use, but there are also books and newspapers &mdash; the papers usually provide comprehensive coverage of the higher divisions in any league. If you don't have the energy or inclination to go to the library and scour the archives, that's fine ... but even if no such source exists, it doesn't alter the fact that the articles concerned are still not adequately referenced.
 * I have no objections at all to a cleanup tag being removed if it has been applied in error, but unfortunately you seem to think that any tag indicating a lack of sources is inherently not just an error but an act of vandalism. Please read the relevant policies (WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR) and try understand what these tags are for: they are an invitation to editors to improve an article so that it meets wikipedia's core policies for inclusion. You may not like the intrusiveness of the tags, but removing them is simply shooting the messenger rather than fixing the problem.
 * Your contributions list shows that in the last month you have made about ten edits to wikipedia, but dozens in which you have removed cleanup tags. You don't have to contribute to wikipedia if you don't want to, but please stop disrupting efforts the efforts of others to identify articles in need of improvement.
 * Meanwhile, I will continue to assess articles, and regardless of whether they relate to football, hurling, astronomy, poetry, politics, agriculture or whatever ... and I will continue to tag articles which lack proper sources per WP:V. I have tagged thousands of such articles in the last few months' assessment drive, and you are the only editor to take it as some sort of insult, let alone to try to cast it as "vandalism". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your lengthy and punctilious response. It is obvious that I'm urinating into a hurricane if I expect any common sense to be applied to this situation. As my admittedly paltry contributions have been declared worthless by so eminent a personage, I won't bother making any more. I would, however, like to continue to use Wikipedia (if that's okay) so please refrain from deleting the entire encyclopaedia in my absence. And if someday you come to the realisation that the dissemination of information to the previously unreachable masses is more valuable than adherence to the strictest interpretation of arbitrary rules, so much the better. Cheerio. DublinDilettante (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Applying commonsense would lead to you to a very simple conclusion: anyone who has the energy and the resources to add references to articles, or otherwise improve, is welcome to do so. If you don't want to do that, then that's fine too; the problem is purely that you somehow decided that the core wikipedia policy of verifiablity is a set of "arbitrary rules", and that you have confused a request for references with a proposal to delete ... and then decided that it amounted to vandalism.
 * Wikipedia is not just about dissemination of information; it's about the dissemination of verifiable information. I'm sorry that this offends you, but you have created new articles yourself, so you should be aware that at the top of the edit screen for new articles, it says clearly"As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted."
 * It's a pity that you prefer to leave articles unreferenced, and hence liable for deletion, than to see requests to improve them. It's a pity that you choose to read a request to stop impeding article improvement as meaning that your "contributions have been declared worthless". My objection is solely to your mass undoing of edits which took me a long time to do. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. TerriersFan (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Wayside Celtic F.C.
An editor (not me) has nominated Wayside Celtic F.C., an article that you have contributed to, for deletion. He does not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why at Articles for deletion/Wayside Celtic F.C.. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TerriersFan (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of legitimising a deletionist crusade by participating in such a charade. The article's notability is self-evident to anyone with the slightest understanding of the topic. I do not embark upon deletion rampages on quantum physics-related topics simply because I do not understand what constitutes significance in that field. The article's notability is beyond dispute. Destruction and denial of information is the worst type of vandalism imaginable, and I will not be privy to it. DublinDilettante (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Eastern Bloc economies, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sander Säde 14:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey
I replied to you on the Hoxha talk page. --Mrdie (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Scratch My Arse Rock for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scratch My Arse Rock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Scratch My Arse Rock until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gary O'Neill


The article Gary O'Neill has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. JMHamo (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of WikiProject Football/Gary O'Neill for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WikiProject Football/Gary O'Neill is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Paul Shiels until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of John Gill (football manager) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Gill (football manager) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/John Gill (football manager) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jellyman (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

April 2021
Please don't make insulting remarks about other editors, like you did in the edit summary. It's not appropriate or civil. Thank you.— Diannaa (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at 2019 Bolivian political crisis
You appear to be edit warring on this article, while using vivid language in your edit summaries. Admins are unlikely to put up with this for very long. Consider providing references for your claims, and try waiting for consensus on the talk page before adding accusations to the article. Even if the claims should ultimately prove true. Also, a claim like this one is a personal attack:. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring, it's edit-resistance. Who are you? DublinDilettante (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Qemal Stafa, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I gave an eminently valid reason. Who are you and what is your agenda? DublinDilettante (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ideological bias on Wikipedia. You know better. Doug Weller  talk 18:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It is unsourced only because the issue at hand is the bias of Wikipedia sourcing policy! If you can point to anything - ANYTHING - I added that wasn't factual, I'll listen. But it's vital context people have a right to be aware of before relying on Wikipedia as a source on international affairs. DublinDilettante (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't care if you don't listen. Add more unsourced content and if I see it I'll block you. Doug Weller  talk 20:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Is this arbitrary threatening language part of your remit? DublinDilettante (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It isn't arbitrary, and it's part of what Admins do - tell people that if they won't follow policy they'll be blocked. Actions have consequences. Doug Weller  talk 14:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

License tagging for File:The 4th Act.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:The 4th Act.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The 4th Act.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:The 4th Act.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 06:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You've been warned about this behavior before, see above. Continuing to behave disruptively will result in blocks of increasing duration.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;—  06:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask if admin 331dot is familiar with the "Mass killings" deletion debate and the forces that had been marshalled to manipulate it, and whether this has been factored into the resolution of edit wars arising from that debate? DublinDilettante (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You can ask 331dot anything you wish, as he is right here. If there is a problem with edit warring on any particular article, there are proper channels to address that. Fighting edit warring with edit warring is not one of them. You can't control what others do, but you can use proper channels to address it. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes
Things are definitely a mess there (though honestly, I do think there's broad motion in terms of improving the article, if slowly), but even if you're right that there's provable misconduct by individual editors, sweeping denouncements aren't going to go anywhere and will only be stuff other people will point back to to push the blame for conflicts back on you later on - WP:CIVILPOV / WP:TEND editing is some of the most difficult stuff to prove, while an editor who loses their temper or who outright edit-wars is dead-easy to identify. If there are conduct issues, you're better off meticulously tracking the specific problems and policies individual editors have violated, then taking them to WP:AE with a neutrally-worded but well-documented list of what they're doing wrong. Look at past successful WP:AE filings there for examples of how to write one well - most of all, be as specific as possible. Focus on one editor at a time, list specific policies they've violated, show specific diffs that violate them. Don't focus on the content dispute, that's not the point - focus on whatever policies you feel have been violated. (I would recommend AE over ANI, since the article clearly falls under discretionary sanctions, and AE tends to be more to-the-point, whereas I suspect an ANI discussion would quickly derail and go nowhere.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * WRT this, I am not sure we need an escalation of a conflict while the RfC is in progress. I propose you to wait a little bit. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of A Likely Story (1973 film) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Likely Story (1973 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/A Likely Story (1973 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2A02:1205:5000:9C00:B0F7:7BE7:16BF:8435 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:78E2:8146:4DA1:176F (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)