User talk:IrishSpook

ERU MOS
Hi. Thanks and great work on the recent changes to the ERU page. A couple of quick notes however:
 * INFOBOX - I have a minor concern about the use of the "military" infobox template (as the ERU obviously isn't military or organised on military/paramilitary lines) but I guess readers won't see the template name, so I suppose it's OK to use.
 * You're right, the ERU is not a military unit. The reason I added the "military unit" infobox is because it provides the best infobox for this type of unit ("SWAT", etc). I was heavily guided by the Hostage Rescue Team and Specialist Firearms Command article layouts, as you'll see, they are not military units either, they are law enforcement, and they are probably the most similar units to the ERU in the western world. IrishSpook (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * MOSFLAG - You'll note that I removed a few flags. If you read WP:FLAGCRUFT you'll probably understand why. However, in short, unless flags are particularly meaningful, they should be avoided. (While it might be important to highlight a flag next to (say) a listing for a football team in an international competition, it really isn't relevant to an equipment list to note the country of origin. Per the guideline, flags give undue weight to "nationality" in a way that has undue influence on reader.)
 * No problem. If you'll forgive me, I am not very well acquainted yet with Wikipedia policy, I'm more focused on the content. I'm learning though! IrishSpook (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * MOSBOLD - Also, you might notice I removed some bolding. Again, read WP:MOSBOLD for rationale, but you might note that if you need to highlight something in an article (save for headings of the topic itself), bold is to be avoided. It's kind of "reserved" in that way.
 * No bother. IrishSpook (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * SYNTH - You added a sentence which implied that the ERU was responsible for reduction in firearms incidents - but the supporting cite doesn't support it (the news article doesn't mention the ERU at all). Is this something you could look at? Else I suspect it needs to be reworded or removed. (You may want to read the guidelines on WP:SYNTHESIS)
 * I'll look into that. It's very true that there is a direct correlation between the deployment of the ERU and so-called "in your face policing" and the massive drop in crimes rates in Limerick, but if I cannot find a reference online that backs this up, I may remove it as you've suggested. IrishSpook (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Spook, it doesnt have to be on-line, a magazine or book, qoute the name of the publication, page and ISBN in the reference and it will be viewed as being sourced. On-line try the RTÉ website for an interview or news report or even the Iriah Times if you have a subscription. Murry1975 (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I've sorted it now, thanks four your help. IrishSpook (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * CITES (in general) - As you might note from the relevant talk-page, there has been some issues and questions in the past about providing verifiable and appropriate sources for the article. You've added a lot of stuff, which while I expect it's true, strictly should be cited. Is that something you think can be addressed?
 * I've tried to stay as general as possible, and not give too much detailed information for security reasons, but rest assured everything is in there because it's true and relevant. There's not a huge amount online about the ERU for obvious reasons, I've exhausted the references and resources, but I will continue looking and if I find any further information I will add it along with the appropriate reference. IrishSpook (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise - all great stuff! Guliolopez (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers! IrishSpook (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for getting back to me on the above. I'm still not sure about the flag in the infobox (especially given that there's a specific guideline against), but will leave that lie. I am however still a little concerned about refs. As you will note from the relevant talk page, this was a topic of some discussion before. Granted it was about 7 years ago ( crap I'm old ), but you will note that there is some concern among editors that, while the ERU are hardly likely to have a homepage where all this stuff is publicly declared, we do have a guideline around verifiability. I won't make a massive issue of it now (as I do expect your edits are correct), but as they are not currently verifiable, they may not last long-term without supporting cites. I would however question this type of thing. I had moved the cite so that it supported the claim "the ERU have a pool of vehicles" (as the cite JUST ABOUT supported that). You moved it to the end - suggesting that the cite supports claims about command and control vehicles, assault vehicles, etc. The cite in no way mentions any of that stuff. Moving cites around to give the impression that content is supported is not cool. If there is a cite available, let it support what it actually supports. "Fudging" stuff is really not on, and will only expedite any impending actions from other editors who come to review content. (Also - FYI - I strongly suggest you have a look at the COI policies as well. You edits, though generally positive, may read to some as a little "promotional" in tone. You need to watch that.) All the best! Guliolopez (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I'll just support the flag in the infobox by noting that; Hostage Rescue Team, Specialist Firearms Command, Recherche Assistance Intervention Dissuasion and National Gendarmerie Intervention Group articles are all Special Weapons and Tactics teams (police/law enforcement) and all have the flag of their respective country, setting a precedent. It's the only remaining flag on the article now, and since the Garda ERU is from Ireland, I think it's perfectly reasonable. As regards the references, I will also say the article has more references than the above articles already mentioned. There's now 35 references, all directly related to the Garda ERU. Like I said before, I've exhausted the citations, but if I find more I will add them. I've specifically left out some information because I couldn't find any references to back it up online, even though it's correct. I'll also strongly defend this type of thing, by stating that all ERU vehicles are "modified high-performance vehicles", which is absolutely correct and fairly obvious. As regards armoured vehicles, command and control vehicles and tactical assault vehicles, here's an example of two armoured ERU vehicles (BMW X5), a picture of command and control vehicles (the unmarked/grey Mercedes Sprinter is dedicated to the ERU), an ERU Ford Ranger Tactical Assault Vehicle (TAV) and a Nissan Navara Tactical Assault Vehicle used by the ERU and Irish Army Ranger Wing. I can't include references to photos, obviously, but this clearly shows I'm not "fudging" as you suggest. And about moving the citation, that wasn't my intention whatsoever, and sorry if I somehow offended you. You're perfectly entitled to tone down any "promotional" language if you see it. I expanded the John Carthy controversy paragraph, and also included information about an ERU member accidentally shooting dead a member of the NSU, which previously wasn't even on Wikipedia. That's certainly not "promotional" in my opinion. Anyway, thanks for your guidance. IrishSpook (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Article assessment
Per this edit you can just make a reassessment request on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Espionage project's talk page if they, or any other project, don't have a dedicated assessment team/page/area but you should understand that the class rating is a measure of the class of the article which is an article rating not a project rating, so it remains the same for each project and is normally inherited from other project is not already done. However some projects have not upgraded their assessment banner templates to inlcude C-class so they don't recognise it. In that case it will show up as B-class in those instances. ww2censor (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, it was my first time with regards to the article ratings on Talk pages, I think I'm getting the hang of things. Thanks for your help! IrishSpook (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruption
Hiya. I'm expect you're unphased, but don't sweat that guy. He's been at that for years. I'll chip in if it gets silly(er) or doesn't get blocked in normal course. Unfortunately, despite claimed affinity, he sees the DF as some kind of republican (almost exclusively anti-British) force. And here you had the gall to upload a picture of a joint training exercise. Pity is probably the best stance to take. Its where I am at this point. Sadness and pity. Guliolopez (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the heads up. It's just getting tedious with his continual unexplained removal of certain sentences and references from a few different articles. Honestly, he actually makes one or two contributions to articles that makes sense, before ruining the good work by letting his obvious political views get the better of him. I'd imagine he has a decent handle on history, but just doesn't like the way it happened and wants to change it retrospectively! I've reported two of his IP addresses, and one has since been blocked, but only for a short period. Thanks for the help! IrishSpook (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ya. I have to agree with you. I've spent 4 years (maybe 5?) trying to suggest "using powers for good", but the coin inevitably lands wrong eventually. Anyway, try and stay zen if at all possible. Night! Guliolopez (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * IPs tend to be blocked for short periods, unless it can be seen to be a static IP. This lets other people not to be restricted by a block on one distruptive editor on a dynamic IP or IP range. Murry1975 (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Might be better to get the article(s) protected in that case. Army Ranger Wing will be semi-protected for a week, and I'll lobby to get it extended if the same problem occurs again. Cheers. IrishSpook (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Same guy you reverted today Spook, long term disruption (longer than I am on here even). Guliolopez has made a list that he will use for an ANI thread or SPI. Murry1975 (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Great, cheers for that lads. IrishSpook (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Witness Security Programme (Ireland)
Hi, I'm Lstanley1979. IrishSpook, thanks for creating Witness Security Programme (Ireland)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hi. Nice work, but we really need good reliable sources for this if possible.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. LouiseS1979 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sciathán Fianóglach an Airm insignia and shoulder flash.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Sciathán Fianóglach an Airm insignia and shoulder flash.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Irish Aid.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Irish Aid.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

University College Dublin Students' Union
University College Dublin Students' Union has been nominated for deletion - it needs support - can you assist?   &#127866;  Antiqueight  chat 11:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Murphy (Irish republican)
Yourself and Asarlaí have both breached the WP:1RR on the article, just a heads up to be careful and discuss things on the talkpage or directly with each other. Murry1975 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one who is trying to change history. I'm the one who has actually contributed to the Thomas Slab Murphy article, added sourced content and kept it up-to-date. Asarlaí has perpetrated a campaign of bias and softening of wording (and downright removal and blanking of articles) relating to Irish republican crimes and terrorism in an attempt to somehow reflect differently on past facts and events — and no one is taking him to task over it. IrishSpook (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, no matter what reasons the reverts are done for, if someone took exception with either of ye, it would be a problem. If you feel someone is being biased, grab a cup of tea, have a think about and politely ask why one thing is being omitted/entered, or whatever the case maybe, on the talkpage. Be open to giving it time. I know, personally I let some things creep into my editing, like a recent edit war, that if I drank tea or fecked off for awhile, it would benefit me, my editing on here and the project.
 * Spook you have probably came across much worse things in life than what someone does on here, so in the greater scheme of things, someone leaving in or out something that can sorted out with discussion is not really that bad, is it? Murry1975 (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Revert
Hi. I'm not sure of the intent of referencing JW GROM for precedent, but the guidelines on using bullets are pretty clear that they aren't necessary if prose-based paragraphs can stand-alone. (I would note that any similar lists in JW GROM are single sentence lists. Rather than the multiple sentence paragraphs in the ARW article). Can you help me understand why perhaps bullets are required or preferred? Also, you reverted the removal of uncited adjectives and commentary like "historic" and "significant". This type of editorial isn't appropriate. As per guidelines, any facts should be left speak for themselves. Editorial isn't in keeping with the mores of the project. Happy to discuss on relevant talk page if required. Guliolopez (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I get the bullet points is a guidelines issue, fair enough, just wanted to break it down similar to JW GROM article as I think it is much easier/clearer for someone reading bullet points when referring to specific date-related operations rather than trying to get information from a jumble of sentences. The word "historic" is unnecessary, even if true, but I strongly believe "significant" or other similar word indicating how large a security operation the Queen's visit was with regard to the ARW. They had sniper and spotter teams in 3 helicopters, 20 armed close protection bodyguards and counter assault teams in vehicles in the motorcade. That definitely constitutes a significant role, compared to just a normal or minor/bit-part role and that should be emphasised. Thanks. IrishSpook (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Happy to leave "significant" in place. Although "key" or "major" may be less loaded. In general, as per the Dillon example given in the WP:FLOWERY guideline, if the facts are provided (and cited), the reader can make their own interpretation on whether what is stated is "significant" or not. As the paragraph already mentions (and references) the 3 helicopters, 20 CP members, etc, then - frankly - I would expect that to be strong enough for the reader to make their own judgement. As per the WP:EDITORIAL guideline, it's best to avoid unnecessary adjectives and adverbs - as it can lead to WP:SYNTH. Sure, we should ensure any facts are readable and structured, but "just the facts" is a helpful mantra. Guliolopez (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Revising Army Ranger Wing article
Hello, I am currently revising the Army Ranger Wing article. I have checked sources and added new sources. Accidentally, I saved without finishing.You undid the revision "unexplained changes, removal of sourced content". A lot of the source content was not from unofficial sources, dead websites and multiple citations to the same newspaper article for example. I will finish and save again. I will document on your talk page any substantial changes.--Melbguy05 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I checked all sources and removed many such as the fianoglach and specialoperations.com which were taken from the official ARW website. In the introduction, I emphasised that the unit was a dedicated counter terrorist unit however that has changed. I removed the works with the intelligence service, I haven't seen that in other special forces unit articles that also work with intelligence, not sure of the relevance. Counter terrorism is hostage rescue and close personal protection is a skill that can derive from counter terrorism. In the roles, there was a lot added that was not in the source from the official ARW so I removed such as type of counter terrorist training which is a given for a counter terrorist unit. Not sure why there is "communications" in command and control it is more equipment. Training and recruitment - I removed the old information that related to the previous selection course whilst keeping the citations so that a person can still read it. Information could go back into, if a citation was provided. I removed information without a citation. I found newer information on Facebook for the new SOFQ. I could not find any information on "Hostile Environment (RTÉ One)". RTÉ Television - so I removed. In equipment, I found a lot of the citations were wrong and there was no reference to that specific equipment on a webpage. I updated the sniper rifle and added new watercraft. --Melbguy05 (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I placed citation tags because I could not locate the information within the references. Tagging is important and not frivolous. If it can be substantiated please provide citations. Regards --Melbguy05 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Hi, your quote, "since the units inception 11,000 soldiers had attempted selection, but less than 400 completed training". I believe the less than 400. In 2012, that was 32 years since the unit formed. In 2005, http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2005120700039 "The military authorities have advised that detailed records of the number of applicants for the Army Ranger Wing are not maintained." "Since 2000 approximately 240 personnel, including one female, undertook the Army Ranger Wing selection course". Between 2000-2005, roughly 48 a year attempted 240/5=48. Your statistics of 10,000 in 32 years would 10,000/32 = 312.5 a year. That would mean between 2000 and 2005 there should of been roughly 1562 applicants. I suggest not to use that in selection but for training - "In 2012, less than 400 have become Rangers" completed training. --Melbguy05 (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are of course records kept, it's the military!, the Dail debates referring to such records not being kept was obviously not to give away sensitive or restricted information. There is a difference between undertaking the selection course and attempting "Tango One", the first three weeks of it. I've no doubt 11,000 personnel have attempted selection since the unit's founding, that number potentially referring to the "Ranger course" which goes back to 1969 rather than 1980, whereby Rangers were distributed across the different Army brigades whereas since the '80's it has been one centralised unit. You can't just cherry pick information out of the references and you are frivolous in tagging numerous sentences. IrishSpook (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits. 1. You removed quote "fewer than 75" personnel dated December 2005 for strength. Without out providing an explanation why it was removed. 2. You removed the citation required tag for the structure of the Wing of platoons and teams. Without providing an explanation. You added a citation for the August 2007 magazine which does not have any information on the structure of the Wing. 3. You removed the citation required tag for support platoons of the Wing. Without providing an explanation. 4. You removed the citation required tag for conducting intelligence operations in "Besides sanctioned international military missions". Without providing an explanation. You added a citation to the Winter 2015 edition of Signal Magazine. The Winter 2015 article does not state the Wing conducts "intelligence operations" in non sanctioned international military missions. 5. You removed the citation required tag for "The Army Ranger Wing Intelligence Section has the ability to remotely intercept electronic and telephonic communications, working with the Directorate of Military Intelligence (G2) and Army CIS." Without providing an explanation. You provided a citation to a Sept 1999 article in the Irish Times that states they are skilled in "electronic surveillance". It does not state they work with Military Intelligence or CIS. Nor does it state they have the ability to intercept electronic or telephonic communications. 6. You removed "Selection courses run on an annual and bi-annual basis as required". Without proving an explanation. 7. You added in Selection and training "Usually 40 to 80 candidates attempt selection annually." from a dubious website http://survincity.com/ that appears an unreliable source. Also, later "The average age of a member of the ARW is 31 years old". 8. You removed the citation required tag for "On average, a member of the ARW spends between 5 and 10 years serving with the unit". Without providing an explanation. You added a citation to the August 2007 magazine which does not state an average of years of service. You added further information, the statement "it is not uncommon for some to spend 15 years in the unit" which is supported on page 12. 9. You removed the citation required tag from "3 Star Privates (and equivalents) who are successful in completing the SOFQ course pass out at the rank of Corporal, other ranks retain their rank". Without providing an explanation. You added a citation to for the August 2007 magazine which does not state this. Also, you added "and the lowest commissioned rank in the unit is that of Captain" that is not relevant to completion of training. 10. East Timor you changed the size of the platoon from 30 to 40. Without providing an explanation. The number of rangers deployed was 30 and there was an additional 10 not rangers - some based in Darwin and some based in Dili not with the NZ Battalion - you have reverted my change to 30 now several times. --Melbguy05 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Young Fine Gael, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (International Operational Service Medal) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating International Operational Service Medal, IrishSpook!

Wikipedia editor JustBerry just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for creating this article!"

To reply, leave a comment on JustBerry's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

JustBerry (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Garda ERU patch.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Garda ERU patch.jpg. 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Imageedit 1 8223556131.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Imageedit 1 8223556131.gif. 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Logo of National Cyber Security Centre Ireland.png
Thanks for uploading File:Logo of National Cyber Security Centre Ireland.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of National Cyber Security Centre Ireland.png
Thanks for uploading File:Logo of National Cyber Security Centre Ireland.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Establishment V Active
Hiya. My concern (as indicated in the RDF and AR articles) is whether the reader would understand what "establishment" means from the context. In particular when that context means we have an "establishment" number within the "active personnel" section. (And, by definition, "establishment" it doesn't related or refer to "active personnel"). Is there a better (and perhaps potentially less confusing) place to put it? Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PS. I don't disagree that the "gap" between the establishment number and active number should be highlighted. I'm just not sure we're doing it in the right place or in a way that is clear to the reader. In honesty the only article/infobox which has this problem ("active number includes inactive/unfilled numbers") is the RDF article. What do you think - are we using the right infobox in that article?Guliolopez (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Garda ERU patch insignia.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Garda ERU patch insignia.gif. 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. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2019 (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) 01:27, 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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"G2 (Republic of Ireland" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G2_(Republic_of_Ireland&redirect=no G2 (Republic of Ireland] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)