User talk:Guliolopez/Archive 6

DYK for Spit Bank Lighthouse
 —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  00:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 00:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Cork Public Museum
Hi – I've left some comments at the DYK nomination. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!)  21:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As it happens, the museum building was used as both (it had shelter facilities and was used by the municipal officers who identified/nominated shelters under the 1939 act). But I'll try and clarify/support in the article and in the nomination. Guliolopez (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's on my watchlist, so I will aim to respond promptly.  The air raid shelter usage hooks are my favourite, and I will recommend they are used once the sourcing is sorted out.   Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  19:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thady Quill
It is a song, indeed about a person, but as a song it should not appear on a list of people. Murry1975 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand the point, but don't agree. Plenty of articles are structured in a way where two things are covered. In this case, a song and a song's subject. Take the Molly Malone article for example - this article also covers a song and a song's subject. And indeed also covers a statue and a statue's subject. And the folk-story and the folk-story's subject. Etc. Should the Molly Malone article be delisted from List of public art in Dublin, because the lead says that "Molly Malone is a song" - not "Molly Malone is a statue"? Or should it be delisted from List of courtesans because it doesn't lead with "Molly Malone is a folk-story character"? I wouldn't have thought so. Because an article opens with "Foo is an A", it doesn't (in my view) follow that it can only find itself listed in "Lists of As". If Foo is also a B (and many Foos are), then it could equally find itself in a "List of Bs". A subject and derivations/personifications of a subject become indivisible - so giving them separate articles wouldn't seem to make sense. Nor (in my view) would delisting or split-listing each associated meaning. Guliolopez (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But would we list Molly on a list of people from Dublin? We do disagree on this one bud, if it is a list of people they should themselves be notable, not linked by other means. Murry1975 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi.
 * RE: "Would we list Molly Malone in a 'list of people from Dublin'". No. Because Molly wasn't/isn't a real person. I'm not arguing that all people who are subjects of songs should be in lists of people. I'm highlighting that many articles cover 2 associated topics (A and B), and sometimes each topic finds its way into separate lists (list of things like A, list of things like B). Sorry if my Molly Malone example didn't mirror the exact same scenario. It wasn't intended to. I was just highlighting that because the article opens "Molly Malone is a song", doesn't preclude the article (as it also covers the statue) from being listed in a list of statues. That the subject is a person/personification is nearly incidental. (Hence my attempt to abstract it with the Foo/set-theory reference). We could just as equally have been talking about how Adidas appears in List of fitness wear brands and lists of retailers, and lists of companies. It is A, B, and C, and therefore legitimately listed as such - even if the lead of the article focuses on one from A/B/C over the others...
 * RE: "people should themselves be notable". If the main reason for removing from "list of people" is "because article doesn't titularly deal with person", on primarily WP:BLP1E / WP:1E grounds, I would note that the guideline specifically provides for subject and subject-event/subject-association to be dealt with in the same article. Splitting articles, just so they can be listed atomically wouldn't seem to be in keeping with the intent of BLP1E guidelines.
 * Anyway, happy to agree to disagree. Guliolopez (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Cork Public Museum
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert of my removal of "pretend" apologists at Intelligent falling
I think they are real apologists; they're certainly not pretending to be apologists, they actually are apologists. Yes, the "theory" is a deliberately nonsense one, but those promoting it have a real point to push (not the surface one of course) and are really doing that, they're not pretending to do it. Si Trew (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was amused by this, by the way, I hadn't heard of it before. I certainly wasn't taking out the "pretend" in any act of ill-humour. Si Trew (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. While I initially hit RV (thinking it was a mistake or attempt to present a joke as fact), I recognised during my edit that the text could perhaps be clearer. And so I didn't actually rollback your change, rather tempered/clarified the original text to account for your note. As I'd hit the RV button though, it likely showed-up in your notifications as a straight-revert. Apologies for that. Guliolopez (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Garda Síochána revert
Hello,

Just a quick note on your revert of my edit. You mentioned in your edit summary that ''This is quote. Your script or helper or whatever it is should possibly be updated to ignore quoted txt. Quoted text shouldn't be changed in this way''. I think quoted text should be updated when what is being quoted isn't what the source says. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also I'm using AutoWikiBrowser as my script or helper or whatever, but I review each edit before I save. ~ Ablaze (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Apologies. In honesty I had noted this edit first. And recognised that (after your change) the quote not longer reflected the source. (And so the "sic" note also no longer made sense). I had assumed (and shouldn't have) that the similar quote edit which you made immediately afterwards had the same problem. As you note, the second edit did not have this issue. Apologies. Guliolopez (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries, and sorry about the first mistake. I usually catch them. ~ Ablaze (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

WW1 US NAS Wexford
The references to actually official cruise book to WW1 US NAS Wexford are correct, as is Wexford The American Connection by Liam Gaul, PhD VM321 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your note. Unfortunately I do not understand your note however. You say that those two references are correct and valid. I do not understand therefore why you removed them from different places in the article. If they are correct, then why remove them? If it was an error, and your note above is just acknowledging that, then great - thanks. If not, and your note above has some other intent, then can you let me know what that might be? (As a reminder, my only edit to the article in recent months was to restore the reference that you had removed without explanation). Thanks Guliolopez (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Vernon Mount
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * - well spotted!! Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Cormac Devlin
Hi Guliolopez, re the above change (photo, possible copyviolation) I had agency to publish. Sorry I see my mistake. Reproduction was allowed but requires a credit. With that is it ok to re-upload? DublinHistoryBuff (talk) 01:37, 19 Sept 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. In relation to the:
 * Cormac Devlin image - You should follow the process described at Commons:OTRS. See the section relating to the process when someone has "[...] received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons." Only once the permission from the original author has been verified will it be possible to reupload.
 * Loughlinstown/Dolmen image - You should consider doing the same. The EXIF data for this image lists a different author than the author which had been listed for the above (copyrighted) image. This begged questions from Commons administrators whether there was a similar licence issue. To prevent that image from being similarly deleted, you should follow the appropriate OTRS process. If you are the author/photographer for that image, that should be quite straightforward.
 * In general, don't upload images with a claim of "I own this, I took this, I release it under a free licence" if that claim is perhaps not accurate. Guliolopez (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ALONE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artane. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Thwack (2nd nomination)
Hey Guliolopez! I did a procedural close here and just wanted to let you know. This needs to be nominated at WP:RFD where redirects are discussed. Pinging as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is anyone of you willing to nominate it at RFD? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Noel O’Mahony
Thanks for your comments regarding above article Djln Djln (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Kinsale Cloak
Kinsale Cloak: I got rid of the entire sentence where the source I quoted said the cloak is "graceful". It really didn't add much to the article anyway. Anybody who looks at the pictures can see the cloak is graceful, so nobody needs to tell them that, I guess. Thanks so much for your help. LynnMGallagher (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)LynnMGallagher
 * Good idea. As you note, if something is strong enough, it can stand on its own, and doesn't need "interpretation" on the reader's behalf. This is a key tenet of the WP:FLOWERY guideline, which is essentially based on the premise that objective phrasing will generally carry greater weight than subjective phrasing. (As the reader will come to their own conclusion - and not feel railroaded to a particular point-of-view). Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

famousbirthdays.com is not a reliable source
Hi Guliolopez. I'm in the process of removing famousbirthdays.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm sure you're right (that it's not reliable). And thanks for the courtesy note. But I didn't add that ref/source. It was already there. I just moved it. Remove it if you like. The content it supported (born c.1990, filmography) is already covered by other more reliable sources. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake. My apologies. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ar an Vicí eile
Not being too CANVASS-y, but there's this going down. I don't want to weigh in as I'll end up closing it out, most likely, but just though you might want to add your cúpla focail. It's pretty quiet on that request :) - A l is o n  ❤ 20:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sir John Rogerson's Quay
Hello! Your submission of Sir John Rogerson's Quay at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Sounder Bruce  04:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sir John Rogerson's Quay
— Maile (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Null Island
Hello! About the reversion of the edit on the Null Island page. According to WP:RS, "... audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." Therefore I felt that the YouTube video was an adequate reference/citation. The channel which the video comes from 'Minute Earth' is a reliable, good quality channel with accurate information. I shall not take any further steps till I hear back from you. However, I would like to reinsert that section. The current page on Null Island is very short and does not have too much information. Thank You!ParkerS (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your note. I personally often follow the MinuteEarth channel (and Tom Scott) myself. So I would agree that it is one of the more reputable/reliable channels or sources on the YT platform. However, it doesn't inherently meet WP:RS criteria. In particular, that specific YouTube video only references one supporting cite. This one. Which doesn't actually use the term "null island" anywhere in the body. I agree that the article is perhaps a bit "thin" on some aspects of the concept (which is why I'd added/left a cut-down version of the material you proposed to add). But I think we'll need to find more and better cites before we can bulk up that content further. Guliolopez (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Henrietta Street
Mmm, yes. . . Silly me, used to think of this as a co-operative project. Eddaido (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh... What? Did I cause offence by pointing out that incomplete "placeholder" content (that hadn't been populated/completed in more than four years) should perhaps be addressed? Or that I may a (perhaps indelicately) highlighted a possible WP:SEP issue in doing so? Or is the concern that I then addressed the placeholder content?
 * Yes, Wikipedia is a collaborative project - as evidenced by the way the "placeholders" were addressed - in line with the relevant policies. Wikipedia is not however a repository of half-completed indiscriminate list content - as per the relevant policies, etc.
 * In any event, if your concern arises because something in my edit-note (in which I pointed-out an issue) somehow caused offence, then I can but apolgise.
 * If, however, your concern arises because you disagree that there was an issue to be addressed in the first place (and that the placeholders should remain for another 4 years), or that it should have been addressed differently, then I do not know what to suggest.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Mark O'Sullivan
Don't edit my pages. BluesFan1930 (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They are not 'your pages'. And they will be deleted if there are too many issues relative to project norms. Guliolopez (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm following the guidelines shown by a different Wikipedia user. I'm no expert on Wikipedia but I'm doing my best to be consistent for all Waterford FC related pages and you are destroying that by your misuse of Mark O'Sullivan. Please stop editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluesFan1930 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hiya. Thanks for your note . On each point:
 * "following the guidelines shown by a different Wikipedia user" - Can you help me understand please which guidelines those are? The 'first occurence' guidelines for example suggest that we should only link the first occurence. And the 'transparency' guidelines suggest that a reader shouldn't necessarily be surprised with where they end-up after clicking on a link. (Clicking on a link that says Wexford for example, one might expect to end-up somewhere different than a link like Wexford Youths F.C. perhaps).
 * "you are destroying that by your misuse of Mark O'Sullivan" - I'm afraid I don't follow your point here. Can you elaborate on what you feel is being destroyed or misused?
 * "please stop editing the page" - As noted prior, you really should please consider revisiting the 'ownership' guidelines. Demanding that other users stop editing (for the reasons implied) is contrary to project norms. I would also note that, if I had not edited the page from its original form it would have long since been deleted for copyvio reasons.
 * "I'm no expert on Wikipedia but I'm doing my best" - Great. Fantastic that you are doing your best. It's all any of us can do. As per my various notes on your own talk page, if you need any help or guidance on that front, please do let me know. And please do so in line with the core tenets of the project - which expect 'consensus editing' and not editing by 'brute force' (as the latter will never be successful in the long term).
 * All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Joseph McColgan listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Joseph McColgan. Since you had some involvement with the Joseph McColgan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. You've not been involved directly on this one but believe you dealt with Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016 December 5 previously and this is related. I've also edited the McCoglan entry in the Ballymote page after trying to discuss on the talk page and hope it now looks more suitable, I'm blundering around this related area of content and hopefully making the best of it I can. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Familar editing style
Could you take a look at these contributions? The editing style, especially the addition of line spaces, seems very familiar, if you know who I mean. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup. WP:QUACK. Guliolopez (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought. Is there a registered account that this can be connected to that isn't stale that we can take to SPI? - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you want to take it to SPI, I will contribute. However, if every incident resulted in SPI, it would amount to 10 per year. Every year. For the last 7 years. Guliolopez (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This user really hasn't done anything blockable, so RBI really doesn't apply. I don't see any other avenue available other than SPI, and I'm not familiar enough with the user to file a behavioral report. Btw, I know of several sockmasters who have well over 10 SPIs per year filed against them, so it's certainly doable. - BilCat (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Now the typical IP, User:86.168.95.90, has shown up, with the normal edits to Irish Army. - BilCat (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Dublin
Two images in the Dublin landmarks section is hardly too many but having images dislodge headers is bad though I agree is indeed not worse than sandwiching but that hard break is an acceptable way to deal with such matters especially when it makes very little extra white space at the end of the section. What harm is there in it? Personally I disagree with your revert and its not the first time you have reverted acceptable formatting I made where it is actually useful. ww2censor (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hiya.
 * 'it makes very little extra white space at the end' - Perhaps on your display. On my own (which may be wider) I see about two inches of white space. Which is perhaps why keeping markup simple (and avoiding forced formatting) is sometimes recommended.
 * 'what harm is there in it' - I guess the risk that it affects readability through an impactful break in content. Which may not be evident to all readers. But perhaps those who consume content on different display types or via different UIs.
 * 'not the first time you have [made edits we disagreed upon]' - In honesty, in the 12+ years we've been editing largely overlapping articles (and the >200,000 edits we've collectively made on those articles) it would be amazing (and perhaps even slightly worrying) if each one had been perfectly aligned :)
 * Apologies if any offence was caused. That (obviously) wasn't the intent. Guliolopez (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * True, true, true and thanks. So many people are using laptops but I suppose for big screens it may cause a big space. I generally try to just move such images to the right if possible without cluttering the sections. Though we do have several, not just Irish articles, that have too many images for the prose. I see you are also active on gawiki, so perhaps I can suggest an occasional translation of additions to existing ones I edit here. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

DCU Students' Union
Hi guliolopez. The DCU Flat Earth Society is planning a DCU Students' Union referendum in 2018 to ratify the SU's stance Flat Earth Theory. You might think the society is a BS hoax or a joke, but it is fact that this referendum is planned. What references should be included to support this? This information is available on their official public Facebook page. Would support from an independent website satisfy the requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.206.121.70 (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. On each point.
 * "The DCU Flat Earth Society is planning a referendum in 2018 to ratify the SU's stance Flat Earth Theory". Frankly, so what? How does that align with this project's inclusion criteria, guidelines on news material, and norms for avoiding speculation on future events?
 * "What references should be included to support this". It's not solely a question of references (although obviously a Facebook page with two dozen "likes" falls so far short of WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV it borders on laughable). It is however a question of lasting relevance, permanence and triviality.
 * "Would support from an independent website satisfy". Satisfy what? Satisfy RS requirements for a statement that 2 dozen people, each of whom should know better, are bringing forth a motion in a students union, presumably/hopefully for LOLs? If there is a source that meets RS for this, then it won't be available until 2018 - after the vote. It will be easy to find. It will be in the footnotes of a student rag ("Idiotic poll defeated") or in the "fun-news" section of the Indo ("Idiots vote for idiocy - science faculty fired").
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Guliolopez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.206.121.70 (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

NLI
Over on the commons I noticed some of your work on NLI categories. It has concerned me for quite a while that many of the NLI image may not be freely licensed, even though the NLI knows of no restrictions, but especially due to the death date of the authors, such a W.D. Hogan's who only died in 1956 but we have several of this images on the commons though some have been deleted due to Unclear copyright status, specifically. Yes, I was in instigator of that deletion nomination though obviously i would have preferred to keep the image. I suspect Hogan's images should be deleted until 2027. Other photographs, such as those of Robert French would appear to be ok as, from my searches, he died in 1920 a few years after he retired. Irish copyright law is pretty clear per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory; 70 years pma and 70 after publication if anonymous. For instance File:Ireland, Sligo - Walsh's Royal Mail and Day Car.jpg does not really need a licence check which I see you added to c:Category:Images from the National Library of Ireland (check needed) today. Your thoughts on what needs doing and what is clearly not a problem. ww2censor (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hiya.
 * RE: "I noticed some of your work". Cool. Nice to be noticed :)
 * RE: "many of the NLI image may not be freely licensed". The NLI operates a program where they overtly release images from selected collections (including some of those you list) under Commons licences. See here and here. While some of the collections in scope of this program (like the Lawrence collection or the Clonbrock collection) would meet Commons criteria anyway (70 years pma/etc), in the case of other collections (like the Hogan collection or Wiltshire collection; which don't meet 70 years pma automatically) they have released them to Commons. They do this because they (in effect) own the copyright. And can do so. As such, while there are some images in the Commons NLI category that need licence review (like this one - which to my understanding wasn't overtly released by the NLI under an open licence), the 2000 images released to the Flickr Commons project mainly do not need additional review.
 * RE: "I see you added [X] to the NLI-check needed category". I created that category a few years back. Mainly as quite a few editors were using Flickr2Commons and other tools to migrate images. And, the volume was such that I couldn't keep on top of it. And so I needed a "parking lot". That category being one such parking lots - for my sins I have others too (most of which thankfully are much reduced than they were before). I now put files in that category not (just) to double check the licence (which - if it comes from Flickr Commons - is typically OK), but to check the categories and name applied as well. (Sometimes the images are migrated with names and categories that are not appropriate, not self-descriptive or otherwise make them difficult for Commons users to find).
 * RE: "what needs doing". I'd be delighted with a little help on the categorisation and name-checks. But the licencing checks are all largely automated (at least for the images migrated using Commons:Flickr2Commons.
 * If you need any more information on the NLI Commons program, shoot me a note or send a Flickr Mail to volunteers who manage the NLI Commons stream, or I can put you in contact with the lovely people who manage the NLI Outreach program (if assurances are required for example on how those Hogan images meet Commons licence expectations).
 * Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think your understanding of the NLI's "no known copyright restriction" is overly generous, especially as a blanket acceptance for all 2000 images. If you read their statement it clearly notes that the National Library of Ireland is not aware of any current copyright restrictions on the photographs, usually because the Library owns the copyright or the term of copyright has expired but on their uploads there is no indication which apply if either. Perhaps I'm being picky here but the NLI has not released the images to the wikimedia commons but to Flickr under a no restrictions known tag which is an entirely different thing which is why we review such images to check their copyright status as far as possible. Just because the NLI has been donated photographic collections does not mean the copyright has been transferred with the donation and may still remain with the heirs until the copyright term runs out. The one thing we can be sure of is that photos whose photographer is identified and has been dead 70+ please are certainly in the public domain and should be tagged appropriately. The template we use for such uploads Flickr-no known copyright restrictions which notes that one should Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined.


 * Don't get me wrong, I would love to have all their images here and not have them deleted, so based on those statements above and without any confirmation about specific collections, which, based on previous discussions of their image I don't think the NLI can give, I personally think we need to be more circumspect about allowing every NLI image to be transferred to the commons, especially where we know for certain that the author is not dead long enough.


 * As I stated above I have reservations about the W.D. Hogan Collection and I am certain there are others. While I don't want to get into any too specific discussions at this stage and would prefer to deal with the general aspects, I'm surprised you appear to consider File:Irish Citizen Army on Rooftop.jpg freely licensed based on the uploader's claim. It is copied from a recent book without any author attribution and while it no doubt dates from 1916 there is no backlink of any sort to the NLI to verify anything stated in the image page. Neither the uploader nor you are commons reviewers, so I would prefer, despite it apparent age, if this image had a proper license review. Anyway enough for now and thanks for your detailed response. ww2censor (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hiya.
 * RE: "No known copyright restrictions != Commons licenced". Fair enough. Do you want me to talk to the NLI team about their understanding or applicability of the licence to a Wikimedia Commons context?
 * RE: "surprised you appear to consider File:Irish Citizen Army on Rooftop to be freely licensed". Actually I don't. Apologies if my note wasn't clear, but I was actually (attempting) to highlight that that image (and others that were not released by the NLI explicitly) may NOT be freely licened. (That's what I meant when I said that that image wasn't "released by the NLI under an open licence"). And hence that it probably SHOULD be reviewed. As with any others that weren't released by the NLI themselves - to a commons/free/no-copyright-restrictions type licence.
 * RE: "add additional copyright tags". That's a good idea. Some of them will be easy to do (and could even be scripted/automated - based on their verified membership of specific collection sub-categories). If you want to help with that, that'd be great.
 * In general terms, there are a number of collections which the NLI include in their Commons program. Most can likely be tagged as PD-old-70 or PD-1923 by default. These include those in the collections for:
 * Stereo Pairs - taken and published 1860-1883 (mainly by unknown photographers)
 * Lawrence - taken and published 1870-1914 (mainly by Robert French who died c.1920)
 * Poole - taken and published 1870-1914 (mainly by Arthur Henri Poole who mysteriously disappeared/presumed dead c.1929)
 * Hargrave - taken and published late 19th C (by JH Hargrave who died c.1924)
 * Clonbrock - taken and published mid-/late- 19th C (often by Augusta Caroline Crofton Dillon who died c.1928)
 * I have a meeting next week with the outreach team at the NLI, and can ask for their opinions on the other collections (like Hogan, Clarke and others).
 * Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Guliolopez, anything we can do to verify the copyright status of images is what wikimedia needs. If you are meeting with the NLI, I would pose the question in terms of the actual known copyright status as opposed to the no known restrictions claim which as we know does not actually verify them being in the public domain. The collections mentioned certainly do seem to be public domain based on Irish law and maybe we can get someone to mass tag them with a bot as opposed to manual tagging. I'll ask around some people though maybe even the "Batch task feature would work for that though not all at once.
 * I must have misread your File:Irish Citizen Army on Rooftop.jpg comment, so I will tag the image for review but perhaps you have some more details that will allow us to keep it, if so add them before it get reviewed if possible.
 * Really the no known restrictions tagged images from all institutions should be reviewed, even if in passing to confirm the claim, many of which are certainly old enough. It's really the author deaths post-1946 that are an issue for the NLI material. Some institutions are fairly precise about their images, while others commit copyfraud by claiming copyright over images that are clearly in the public domain: NLI seems to be one of the better institutions donating material to the Flickr commons project. BTW, I've found the free https://www.familysearch.org site can be useful in determining some death dates and now that the Irish registry is online as well as the military archive pension records, these are great resources but take time to investigate. I even found my grandmother's 1988 death cert attached to my grandfather's military pension records! Regards ww2censor (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Afterthought: in your meeting next week you might mention that several, maybe all, backlinks to the NLI site from Flickr image pages no longer work. I suppose this is because they have moved the pages without leaving a redirect. So, images on the wikimedia commons don't link anymore either. Just a small point that webmasters should be cognisant of. ww2censor (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Kilcummin
hello guliolopez, this is user name pcummin. I have been to Dublin and can not find any trace of cuimin of lacken. I paid a professional Irish historian [ dr. Paul MaCotter]to trace, cuimin of lacken. He could find no such person. I am going to delete that piece of the article next week. who ever put it there has had about two years to cite that comment. You know who he is SO tell him what I m going to do, and tell him my user name. pcummin. thank you. user name [pcummin]2A00:23C1:43A3:CD00:5DBB:ECA4:5F91:74DE (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:43A3:CD00:5DBB:ECA4:5F91:74DE (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine. Guliolopez (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

St Patrick's Bridge
re Patrick's Bridge Cork. Hello.The Image that's currently being used if on Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/38551636@N00/387008507/in/photolist-Acw9t-UzQaPQ-snNKp-68UCU3-TTxtb1-57EAht-RJfZSS-9C78GE-Py26gS-6pDrsg-SFKtbL-9T1VXw-9NJ7g-2jFv-7vATPi-9J5Ah5-wUTn5-cUasdm-aeodoa-o4LhXs-ETACS-S21ot-8F4gZC-oUgrY2-4BZwwR-zBg7-9vndUN-oEmbKv-5dTxvn-5dXSpm-5dTxhP-p7HBEC-dvujBZ-6e12eE-5dXSM3-b1rjme-a5LurN-oEWJPP-9KFec7-4qJsWG-8z3grK-owApxn-587Fb7-5dXSzL-o4xe7r-5dTx66-9C4cdH-br9VFi-5dTwUD-Jy6qpV Authors name is different. Any suggestions? Thanks.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesolivercork (talk • contribs)


 * I would suggest that there is no evidence of an issue. File:Patricks bridge cork.jpg is clearly the original. It (a) predates the publication of the Flickr derivative by 2 years (Mar 2005 v Feb 2007), (b) is much higher resolution (2269px/300dpi v 800px/72dpi), and (c) is part of a series of otherwise kosher uploads (the Exif data for which consistently links to the same Fuji FinePix S5100 camera). In short, the Flickr image is clearly the derivative. Not the other way around. Guliolopez (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Irish sock?
Is Special:Contributions/86.179.0.173 our Irish sock? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding my question above about an SPI, it's probably Sockpuppet investigations/MFIreland. - BilCat (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup. Guliolopez (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See Special:Contributions/86.165.80.25 for another likely sock. - BilCat (talk)

Special:Contributions/Rural Lyra seems to be making similar edits as some of MFI's recernt socks, including an obsession with moving images below the lead text. Anything else seem familiar? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Corduff
In the Recent add of Demographic to Corduff,Blanchardstown,Dublin all Religious and ethnic Background was removed even thought this was carried out by the Irish Government?
 * I expect that I am (yet again) wasting my time explaining the (often basic) concepts of the project (As you have not demonstrated an ability to understand even the most basic of project tenets. Or even how capitalisation works in the English language. Or are perhaps feigning ignorance for trolling/lols). Whatever the case, I'd be interested to understand what "Irish government report" stated that Corduff had the highest number of Catholics in Dublin? What I see is a conclusion that an editor came to on their own. Which is synthesis - otherwise known as reaching "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". PS - I am done helping you. DONE! End of. Good-bye. Sayonara. Guliolopez (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral
Will be taking this to PR. Would very much appreciate you keeping an eye. Ceoil (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

User Irish Republic5
Hi,Comment vous le savez,There may be similar content but these minor similarities does not mean this profile is part of a sock-puppet,which their is no wrong doing and personal attacks on other editor in which ,as i have read all kinds of Content when I was developing the article on Dublin 4.I have no need nor time to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishRepublic5 (talk • contribs)
 * "Comment vous le savez"? "How do I know"? Because it is obvious. Any claims to the contrary are laughable. Either move to have your previous user unblocked. Or go away. Guliolopez (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

All wikipedians like yourself should 1.Assume good faith ,2.No personal attacks. This is a quote from which guilopez accused me with such lack of respect for newcomers '''Here's another saying for you. You may hear it in (school)? tomorrow?. "It's your own time you're wasting". Guliolopez (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)''' I am so disapointed that people on Wikipedia treat each other with such a lack of respect and personal abuse,in which I dought you would say this to someones face would you guilopez? This is knocking peoples personal confidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishRepublic5 (talk • contribs)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Re:Irish ranks
Hey Guliolopez It is partly a mixture of both things. Firstly, the old photos were either GIF or JPG files, with low quality, by changing them to SVG files, there wont be the same problems with low quality. Secondly, I made the change from the {Irish Air Corps rank insignia} to the {Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/OF/Ireland}, as they are more or less the standard throughout the English Wikipedia, and therefore reach a wider audience, who might have information to improve the ranks. Thirdly, the photos used, were representing the shoulder ranks for the Air Corps, rather than the more commonly used sleeve ranks (see Comparative air force officer ranks of Europe). Here is an example of the sleeve ranks File:FOX 0125 (12536507925).jpg, and the official page showing an older version of the ranks. Hope to have cleared it up for you. If you feel like there is misrepresentation, please let me know. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think understand the rationale for the changes. However, I do not yet understand the scope of the changes. As it stands right now, for example, the Irish Air Corps article itself shows different rank insignia to the Comparative air force officer ranks of Europe and Irish Defence Forces rank insignia articles. You mention that you had changed the Template:Irish_Air_Corps_rank_insignia contents. But I would note that this change was not persisted. Do you have any thoughts on how we ensure we don't represent the same content differently across a range of different articles? Guliolopez (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Killoe
Hi – The www.killoegaa.ie website that you cited does not have any copyright notice on it, and the material posted on that site for community or local history is not copyright by Killoe GAA. I have now gone into that page and made sure to make that position clear. Hence the material I am attempting to show on the Wikipedia page is not subject to any such copyright. The citations I have made to the various sources (The 'Killoe - History of County Longford Parish' book which is my uncles book which is posted with full permission, and the Titanic references from the memorial project headed by my brothers, or the other local knowledge from my own living in that area and knowing information which is fully public domain) is all compiled to offer a simple open view of the community. There are no copyright breaches at work at all I can assure you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcadiakilloe (talk • contribs)


 * Hi. Thanks for your note. Three quick things:
 * The lack of a copyright notice doesn't mean there is no copyright.
 * The content on killoegaa.ie was previously subject to a notice indicating "© 2014 Killoe Young Emmets - All Rights Reserved"
 * If you are republishing and releasing the content under a new/open licence, then the statement "none of this content is subject to a copyright claim by ABC Ltd" is insufficient. As per the relevant guidelines, the content needs to be expressly released to a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence (for the same reason as #1. In other words: "lack of copyright" != "copyleft").
 * Cheers. (Also, PS, on the website you seem to have indicated that some of the content comes from a work called 'Killoe – History of a County Longford Parish' - who wrote that? Have they agreed to release that content to a Creative Commons licence?) Guliolopez (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Thanks for the response.

On point #2 & 3, that previous copyright notice on the killoegaa.ie website was there in error hence as the person who built and manages that website I removed that notice last year. The sports club which that website pertains to, do not have any copyright on any of the content on the website - I assembled the content myself and built the site myself so I have a rather unique insight into that arrangement. That site is an assembly of both public domain and researched original content/records as well as shared images etc. from club sources, members, friends and other persons none of which is subject to any copyright. The content itself was assembled by myself and family members. None of it belongs to the sporting club via any copyright hence I previously removed the copyright notice which was an error. The list of townlands for example is compiled from my own local knowledge of those townlands and conversion to Irish from my knowledge of the language. Those townland names are public domain, and my translations were checked against a published list in the 'Killoe - History of a Count Longford Parish' book.

On the referenced book, it was published in 1981 by Owen Devaney (my uncle). He is completely happy with my use of any content from same publication. I put any quoted elements within "" and then place the source underneath. All other content on that wikipedia page is public domain information compiled by me to present a summary of the locality, while the Titanic piece is from local knowledge including being involved in the memorial garden project. Here is a bit more info on the good James Farrell mentioned in that piece... https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-victim/jim-farrell.html.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcadiakilloe (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi - I don't know how to proceed here as the list of townlands for example is not on any existing online source, but that does not make it false. In fact the list is factual and the translation of it to Irish is a simple matter of English to Gaelic translation skill. Furthermore the book which I was citing (Killoe - History of a county longford parish) is not an online publication, has no website, was published in 1981 and therefore I cannot cite any online source there. Again that doesn't make it false - I have the book in my hand here, I can scan the relevant photos, but again I am not allowed to quote it simply because there is no online executive source? I'm trying to achieve the right balance here and follow rules, but i am not clear on why a list of townlands is deleted when a) the other online source (www.killoegaa.ie) allows it to be republished and has stated no copyright on that detail, and b) the list does not exist anywhere else online but that doesn't make it false or erroneous. Surely every piece of information has to start its online life somewhere? Appreciate some advice on how to proceed here.
 * Thanks for your note.
 * The first thing I might highlight is that I am not "the keeper of all things policy". And it was not I, but another user, who removed your recently added content. (In fact, I have attempted to separately source supporting references for some of it, and to readd that which can be independently cited and which otherwise meets the content guidelines).
 * In any event, while I do not know definitively why another editor felt that content wasn't appropriate, I would note that there is an essay covering exactly this type of thing which you may find interesting.
 * Without giving you a whole bunch of "homework" and reading to do, I might point you to the essay above (helpfully titled "BUTITSTRUE"), the guideline about what the project is and is not (again, simply titled "WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT"), and the guideline about when in-line credits and attributions are appropriate - and when they are not ("SIGNHERE"). I suggest reading these as, I would suspect, each of these guidelines contributed to the editor's decision to remove your most recently added content.
 * (Separately I would note that, while the project doesn't expect sources to be online, it does expect them to be reliable - and ideally not self-published).
 * In general, if seeking to improve the content in the Killoe article, you might think about:
 * The motivation for doing so - If it's to benefit the project, then great. If it's to some other benefit (like promotion of community efforts or similar) then perhaps reconsider.
 * What you are adding - If it's to add an exhaustive list or directory of townlands, then that may not fit fully with the project's goals. And may be better suited to Townlands.ie or other projects.
 * The tone of what's being added - If it's encyclopedic in tone, then great. If however it is editorial in nature or expresses someone's opinion, then think about how that is represented (phrases, similar to those used in your recent posting, like "strong GAA scene", "from the pages of a period novel", "no one who ever grew up near it ever refers to it other than Corn Hill", do not strike the expected tone).
 * In short, feel free to add stuff. But consider doing so piece-meal. Do so with consideration to more available sources. And only add stuff that meets the content and tone guidelines.
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, very much appreciated. — Preceding comment signed as by 80.169.194.69 (talk· contribs) actually added by Arcadiakilloe (talk·contribs)

Project assessment
Hi Guilio, why not just reassess this yourself instead of removing the rating? I'm absolutely certain you are well enough versed to be reasonably objective in giving it an appropriate rating. Anyway, I've rerated it a C-class because it's better than a Start-class. On the otherhand you could just request a reassessment at WikiProject Ireland/Assessment, but I'm usually the only one to do those and actually I have been lacking in even looking there as I have enough other stuff to keep me busy. I rely on the Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality log but t has been broken for several weeks but now seem to have been partly fixed. ww2censor (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I didn't reassess it because, in effect, I'd have been reassessing on the basis of my own changes/work. Which, while not technically an issue relative to best-practice for assessments, is not something I would typically feel comfortable doing. (Just feels odd to "rate" one's own changes). I do agree with your own reassessment. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, I get your thinking though I'm pretty sure you can be objective even with articles you have worked on ww2censor (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Noted. Thanks . Guliolopez (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Giants Causeway
I agree with your edit but just wanted to add that you can cite Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles or just IMOS for instances like these. Mabuska (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Noted. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Slavery in Dublin
This might be useful as a source but I don't have time to read it now and as it's a scan it cannot be searched. ww2censor (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. At first glance a very interesting text. If anything, a quick scan may suggest a tempering of some of the recently added language (not least as the author is at pains to highlight that there is no scholarly consensus on "the social and economic of this phenomenon", and that the "taking of slaves was a marginal aspect" of raids/etc). It also focuses almost entirely on the activities of the Viking settlers - and doesn't seem to support the note that it was something they "continued"/inherited from the existing inhabitants. As the recently added article text suggests. I will attempt to read it in full later. And see how useful it is to either support or supplement the recently added text. Very much appreciated. Guliolopez (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There may be some other sources in Slavery in Ireland that could prove useful to you. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Re your edit summary here
To be clear, WP:OLINK DOES NOT SAY that countries do not need linking - read it! The only examples mentioned there are the US, Japan and Brazil, as not needing links, and Tonga as needing one. Personally I wouln't normally link Ireland either (in the English WP), but the matter is debatable. Ask yourself what a reader from say Micronesia is likely to clearly familiar with. Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hiya. Like yourself, I have been doing this for a while. And have read OLINK (and indeed other related policies - and contributed to a few). OLINK speaks to "major examples of geographic features". And then, yes, lists a number of countries and cities as examples of such geographic features. These are however just that - examples. Hence the use of "e.g.". Rather than, were it an exhaustive list, using "i.e.". In any event, the policy acknowledges that there are grey areas, which vary by context. So, if you feel that a Micronesian reader (who is reading about a specific cliff-form in County Clare) would be uncertain of where that was, then please do feel free to add the country link. But please, as the AgF anon did not, do so inline with the related guidelines on the name of the country. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is "And WP:OLINK is clear that, unless reader is left confused without it, countries don't need linking" (from your edit summary), is just WRONG. Some people need lots of caps. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Suppressed SAPMAP Data
Hi, and apologies for bothering you. I was updating population statistics for Irish towns using the SAPMAP which you so courteously directed me towards a month ago (thanks, by the way!), when I stumbled on something curious. For the town of Doohamlat in Monaghan, the data has been supressed (sic) by to protect against disclosure. As the first time which I have encountered this issue, I wondered if you, as a more veteran editor, may be familiar with this predicament and know how to resolve it. Any ideas? Thanks in advance, Stormy clouds (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC).
 * Hi. The town is too small for many of the elements in the "settlement" reports to be shared - in a way that doesn't affect the privacy of the census respondents. The CSO (and other census authorities global) will suppress data where there's a risk of exposing the private information of individuals. In a census town with 2000 inhabitants, knowing that, say, 5 households have more than 3 people and/or more than 3 cars isn't a privacy concern. Coz you couldn't reasonably "figure out" which specific households were in question. But, in a town of 200 people, if there's only 1 household with more than 3 cars, and more than 3 people, and (a bunch of other things) you might be able to "combine" the data in a number of categories - to the extent that you're exposing the make-up of one specific household. Which is a data-privacy no-no.
 * The same goes for report elements like "Population by general health and sex": "Look at that, there's one person with very bad health - that must be John, I hadn't realised he'd gotten so bad....". Or "look at that, there's one lady who's had more than 4 kids - that must be Mary, I hadn't realised she'd lost one....".
 * Sometimes the CSO will suppress data for quality (reliability) reasons. But normally its for privacy (confidentiality) reasons. Or, in the CSO's own words: "in order to protect against the disclosure of data which could identify the attributes of an individual person or household". Guliolopez (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

IRL7
Not sure why you are suppressing Sapmap Data I am giving a clear insight to these communities — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRL7 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC) I am feeling threatened by guliopez using sinister language and inappropriate abuse of his power  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRL7 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Read your talk page. And grow up. Guliolopez (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok ,So for the Article you would like me to follow will an Example be Like Carrigtwohill or would it be better and more presentable if I added a Columns to the demographics section and Will I also add details like General Health ,Gender,Broadband Access etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRL7 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)  (talk
 * Hi. Read the relevant talk page. And the fundamental principles of this project. Which, FYI, do not include being a mirror for the census website. Or a random collection of every statistics from every census ever.
 * I mentioned those types of stats as an EXAMPLE. Because you were indiscriminately adding stats relating to people's race and religion only (either randomly or in support of some "crusade"). I did not mention those other types of stats as an INVITE that they should be added. The OPPOSITE is true.
 * That you have, yet again, misinterpreted this (or feigned misinterpretation of this) confirms that you are either trolling or simply lack the capacity to engage with the project and community. Either way I am not talking to you any more. I have attempted to help you for 12 months. Across multiple socks. Continuing engage with this noise and nonsense is not helping you, not helping me, and not helping the project. I am DONE.
 * Goodbye. Guliolopez (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to help this project of adding details of Population ,Place and Society eg Just like the information in the Swindon article, I needed more time to add Gender ,General Health etc and I am only helping these article and updating them I mean no disruption or harm to articles and I just wanted to show the area in a good light and understanding of the areas Society. Like the article in Carrigtwohill I will show you an Example of this detail I would like to Publish and If you don't like it you can delete it but the main purpose of this is understanding of the General Population ,many information like this is published in thousandths of article of place on Wikipedia and I Don't understand why it is a problem Here? Thanks (Talk) IRL7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRL7 (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Back to the Carrigtwohill article about gender but there are thousandths of cases where Gender has been added to town eg In Ireland like Ratoath, Celbridge and many other cases — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRL7 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

FHE
Thanks for assistance on FHE article. Just getting started on contributing to Wikipedia. I appreciate the guidance! :) Sanctaria (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Irish Landmark Trust DYK
Hello. Nice article! Forgive me coming here rather than commenting at the DYK thing but I honestly can't see how it works ... Sorry. Anyway, I just wanted to ask if there is a reason you chose "vacation" rather than "holiday" in the ??hook (or whatever that paragraph is)? Holiday is used in the cited news article, in your article, and on the ILT site itself ... it seems a bit odd to change it for this, but I am sure you will have your reasons. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Because approximately one-quarter of all Wikipedia traffic comes from the US. In short, while MOS:TIES would suggest that the ENGVAR for the article itself should be Irish-English (which it is and absolutely should remain), the ENGVAR on the Main Page (where the hook will, hopefully, be displayed) typically leans towards US-English. Favouring, as it does today, the US-spelling of "organization", etc. Given that, in Irish-English, "vacation" and "holiday" are largely analogous, but in US-English are not, I didn't see the point in having a high percentage of the audience potentially querying the intent. Guliolopez (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the interesting reply. I thought it might be along those lines ... I always worry about how far we should go with this, but I guess that in this context you have far more experience than I and, yes, people from various dialect backgrounds will undoubtedly get it just fine in this version! Thanks again and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Economy of Ireland
Hi thanks for your edits and guidance earlier. I wanted to talk to you first on the recent Economy of Ireland edits you made. I think this is an important point to make re US firms. Also, we should not be quoting GDP per cap rankings any more for Ireland as they have no meaning (the Central Bank of Ireland recommendation). I can see that you have maintained much of the factual data but what we have now has some flaws in it ? thanks Britishfinance (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Let's talk other there. Guliolopez (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Floodsmy and friend
Hi. I've opened an SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Floodsmy. Thanks for your efforts so far. Scolaire (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Saves me doing it. Will add a note. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)