User talk:Man From Midfield

test

Sources and detail
Hello, and thanks for your note. As to the content, everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable from a reliable published source: it doesn't matter whether we personally know something to be true, it has to be verifiable. The policy is summed up at No original research. What it means is, you need a source: without a source, the information will be removed.

As to excess detail, no, I don't own the article. The fact that Mr McDonagh's father was Irish is obviously relevant to the footballer's international career, so it needs including, with a source that confirms it (matter of interest, was it just his father who he got the Irish qualification from, or his mother as well?) And the name of where the father came from (Midfield, Co. Mayo) might be interesting or relevant enough to include. But the article's about Mr McDonagh the son, and the local geography of exactly where in Co. Mayo the place is that his father came from seems to me a step too far for the general reader, which is who we're writing for.

Had you considered starting a page for Midfield, Ireland? Most articles for places have content about notable people with a connection to that place, and this might fit better there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Midfield Co. Mayo moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Midfield Co. Mayo, does not have any sources and citations as written. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

To Mr Dreamy Jazz,

If you check the following pieces of writing below in my Midfield Wikipedia page you will be able to see links to the articles to cite any sources of proof. Brackloon School closed in June 1965, St. Joseph's National School, The Midfield Development Association, Midfield entered into the Guinness Book of Records, A Story Told to Us Last Night.

The other stuff is local knowledge that I know from growing up in the area and I am a direct relative to all of the famous people that are associated with the area (apart for Jack O’Shea Greg Rusedski and the Aspell brothers whom I am related to through marriage). I hope that satisfies your concern.

Man From Midfield
 * Hello. We don't allow original research on Wikipedia, so everything you write needs to be supported by reliable and independent sources. You can find these by searching in Google for "Midfield Co. Mayo". Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Midfield Co. Mayo (May 13)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dreamy Jazz was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Midfield Co. Mayo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Midfield Co. Mayo, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Midfield_Co._Mayo Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dreamy_Jazz&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Midfield_Co._Mayo reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Midfield
Hello.

Please do not add text which is not supported by the claimed reference. This page (relating to the Brackloon Electoral Division) does not make any claim in relation to the size of Midfield parish. In fact, the words "Midfield" and "parish" do not appear anywhere on the page. Do not misrepresent sources or extrapolate from them.

Please also do not add text which is not supported by any reference. This edit (relating to the infobox) made the claim that Midfield had a population of 300 people. And, in the same edit, that claim was tagged as uncited. Do not add unsupported claims to articles.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The Brackloon Electoral Division is Midfield, I wish you would stop messing around with this page, as I have to have local knowledge and as there is nothing nefarious or sinister, so at least allow me time to prove what I know, also I put up pictures that you removed, these are from Public Websites and are factual photos. So if you have any concerns it's best to contact me rather then assuming.

There are plenty of pages on Wikipedia that are far more inaccurate and dare I say nefarious that you should spend your time investigating OK!

Regards, Man From Midfield (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2019


 * Hiya. RE:
 * "The Brackloon Electoral Division is Midfield". Please read WP:VER. In short, if that is the case, then please add a reference to support the claim. Otherwise please do not make inferences on the readers behalf. Or misrepresent what a source actually states. Or, indeed, misrepresent what the source is even titled. ::This Page is under construction proof will be provided in due course.
 * "I wish you would stop messing around with this page". Please read WP:OWN. If you do not want other editors to assist in improving an article, then consider requesting that it be moved back to your own draft/sandbox space. ::I never asked for your help and I don't know who did either.
 * "I have to have local knowledge". Please read WP:BIT. If an editor or reader "have to have local knowledge" to understand or to verify the claims, then we shouldn't be making the claim in the first place. Content which relies exclusively on "local knowledge" or "stuff in my head" doesn't meet the project's expectations for verification/inclusion. Again This Page is under construction proof will be provided in due course.
 * "there is nothing nefarious or sinister". Smashing. Delighted to hear it. ::No need to be sarcastic!
 * "allow me time to prove what I know". The article was in draft for some time. Typically that would be the time to add references. If you need additional time to add references (and are not happy to move it back to draft or ), then please consider adding a "work in progress" tag to the top of the article. So that the reader (and other editors) are aware that significant changes are underway and the article is otherwise "not ready" relative to the VER guidelines. Otherwise please simply source references before you add content. And make sure the content reflects those references. Rather than a subjective interpretation of those references. (Or, flatly, a misrepresentation of them.) ::This article has not as you state been in draft for some time, this page is a week and a half old I created it on May 13th 2019 Ok. I have the following notice on top of the Page: "This article or section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring". Also, I don't want anyone touching it till I get all the relevant proof finalised in the coming days and weeks, once it is done then I will remove that notice. Also done state that I have flatly, made a misrepresentation of Anyone, this is that 1st page I have created on here and it is only for the purpose of the people of Midfield and our Diaspora to use for research and learning. As I stated already I am putting together the information to legitimise my claims.
 * "I put up pictures that you removed". I didn't remove the pictures. A bot removed the pictures. Because they were deleted from Commons. Where an uninvolved administrator had removed several images which were just "grabbed" from around the internet. I do not have rights to delete images. Only admins have that right. ::Well in Wikimedia Commons your name is against the removal of the 4 pictures OK, so, therefore, I was lead to believe that you removed them and not a bot.
 * "these [images] are from Public Websites". Please read WP:COPYVIO. Just because an image appears on a "public website" does not mean that the author has released it to the public domain. As per the umpteen messages that appear in the editing pages of Wikipedia (and the upload pages of Wikimedia Commons), we should not upload images (or add text) that we have no rights to release under a Creative Commons licence. Adding content, to which we have no rights, is a copyright violation. And is taken very seriously. ::I also take this project seriously, therefore, I will take my own pictures then so as not to violate it ok, as I stated earlier that only for purpose of this page is for the people of Midfield and our Diaspora to use for research and learning.
 * "There are plenty of pages on Wikipedia that are far more inaccurate". Please read WP:OSE. You are absolutely correct. There are problems elsewhere. But that isn't a licence to create problems here. "Two wrongs don't make a right" and all that. ::I never stated that my intention was to create problems here. or did I every state that "Two wrongs don't make a right" There are others that are way worse than mine for example Chris Kamara's page has the following statement: "His mother Irene sometimes plead for money from neighbours in order to provide food for Chris and his brother George and sister Maria" yet the article in support of it has nothing to back such as degrading dare I say slanderous statement about him and his family.
 * Otherwise, if you need help, just ask. Guliolopez (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If I need your help I will be sure to let you, otherwise please bear with me till I get this finalised as you need to bear in mind I am an amateur with this kind of thing and if you see anything that should not be there please point it out to me as opposed to removing it, thank you.

Regards, Man From Midfield (talk) 11.52am 23 May


 * Hi again.
 * RE: "I never asked for your help and I don't know who did either". I do not know where to begin with that statement. Either you haven't read WP:OWN yet, or you have fundamentally misunderstood what Wikipedia is about.
 * RE: "This article has not as you state been in draft for some time". At least one other editor raised concerns about the levels of sourcing in the article. And it was moved "back" into the draft space. This was done to give time for the concerns raised to be addressed. After a day or more (which, by any measure, is "some time"), the article was moved back into the main space. Unlike articles in the draft space or a user sandbox (where editors can take time to bring the content up to scratch), articles on the main space are supposed to uphold the core project principles. The fundamental one being that claims can be verified.
 * RE: "I was lead to believe that you removed them and not a bot". Per the deletion policy on this Wikipedia project (and the equivalent on the sister Commons project) "only administrators can perform deletion[s]". Here is the log of the administrator on Commons deleting the copyright violation there. And here is the log of the Filedelinkerbot removing the link to the file on Wikipedia. Neither of which is/are me.
 * RE: "others that are way worse than mine for example Chris Kamara's page ...". I have absolutely no idea what the article on Chris Kamara has to do with anything. Other than as an fantastically glorious example of whataboutery.
 * RE: "please point it out to me as opposed to removing it". I did. I took the time to review and "point out" a number of referencing concerns. And, without addressing ANY of those concerns, you took it upon yourself to remove the tag which highlighted them. I also raised concerns (and corrected rather than removing) some text which appeared to misrepresent a specific source. And, rather than addressing or acknowledging what I had pointed out, you just flat out reverted my attempt at compromise, and put the same misrepresentation and synthesis back again. Whether in error or otherwise, this is not on. It just isn't. (The same is the case with the, frankly, almost laughable claims about Greg Rusedski's wife's second-cousin-once-removed's grandmother. Or whatever ludicrous stretch is being made to connect Rusedski to the article. Which I had tagged as problematic. And, yet again, has been restored without any attempt to address the concerns that have been raised.) In the face of that kind of carry-on (and in line with umpteen guidelines), removal is a perfectly reasonable course of action/escalation.
 * RE: "please bear with me till I get this finalised". As per the terms of the "under construction tag" (which I had recommended and which you have now since added), it is not unreasonable for "several days" to be afforded for the article to be improved. I am more than happy to give you that window. If, after that time, the article contains the same uncited content, unverifiable claims, misrepresentation of sources, and other codology that is beyond project scope, then I will be removing it. And will make absolutely no apologies for it.
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Listen I have already stated that this is my first time doing this and I am not going to get things right 1st time ok, so I am putting this together for histroical purposes I don't need your sarcasim or opinions in regards to "fantastically glorious example of whataboutery" or your nasty comments about what I stated in relation to Mr Rusedski, His wife's mother is a 2nd cousin to Seamus McDonagh I know this from growing up in the area and been related to both Mr McDonagh and Mrs Rusedski, so if you spent time to understand the term 2nd cousin once removed instead of been a keyboard warrior with me, you might understand my claim. I already told you that your name is againist the removal of those photos on Wikipedia Commons, so if you did't do it then why is your name againist the record of the photos removal. Like I said before this is my first time doing this and if I don't get that information together within the next 2 weeks to verify my claims then I'll remove this whole page myself, as I have not come on here to recieve abuse from keyboard warriors and know it all's like you, or anyone else for that matter.

So please let me verify my claims and find someone else to take issue with over the their claims on other pages.

Have a good day now. Man From Midfield (talk) 13.09 24/05/19.


 * Hiya.
 * I know what "2nd cousin once removed" means. My point is that it is not relevant or notable. That there are 5 degrees of separation between a famous person and a subject is irrelevant (Celebrity > Celebrity's Wife > Celebrity's wife's parent > Celebrity's wife's parent's second cousin > Place). By that kind of measure almost every populated place on the planet has some connection to some celebrity somewhere. It's beyond silly. You may find my way of highlighting that to be sarcastic. But that is because I find the claim so ludicrously tenuous as to be laughable. And I do not know how to communicate that without highlighting how laughable it is.
 * It is not "keyboard warrior[ing]" or "abuse" to highlight the policies and mores of this project. It is however counter to abuse policy to call other editors names. As you have now decided to do. (Play the ball. Not the man.)
 * "if I don't get that information together within the next 2 weeks". You have several days to address and remove the "under construction" tag. Not several weeks.
 * "I'll remove this whole page myself". You can blank "this whole page" (this talk page) whenever you want. You do not have the authority or permissions required to remove the article that was created. As before, only admins have that right.
 * "why is your name againist the record of the photos removal". My name is on these advisories because I was the one who was advising you that the files were problematic and would be deleted if the problem wasn't resolved.
 * "Have a good day now". You too!
 * Slán. Guliolopez (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Listen I don't need your opinions or attitude and what you deem to be so ludicrously tenuous as to be laughable, or even highlight how laughable it is. As I have said to you before I like most people on here are only creating these pages for educational purposes, we are not doing it to please you or anyone else for that matter and yes mistakes will be made when these pages are been created but there is a way of communicating these things to people that are civilised and not to be arrogant about it and make them feel like a fool.

Further more I have not engaged in name calling for the sake of it as you like to make out, I have stated that I deem you to be a keyboard warriors and know it all as your behaviour towards me is far from acceptable. Also who are you to tell people that they cannot take down a page that they put up and how long they have to correct or verify any of the information that is on there.

It clearly states it is under construction so that should inform people that the information on there is subject to change. Also your claim that not in citation given for the break down of Men and Women in the Parish is laugable as if you could be bothered to look at the link properly you would see that Theme 1: Sex, Age and Marital Status gives it to you clearly so the citation is given for the break down of Men and Women in the Parish. But that whole example sums your behaviour up, I suggest you find something else to do with your time, if can not be more decent and understanding of people who create or add stuff on here for the benefit of others instead of harresing and been needlessly sarcastic with them.

To be honest I don't want to have anymore contact with you as you are extremely rude and arrogant, with your one word of Irish to try and be smart.

Make sure you have a good day now won't you.

Man From Midfield (talk) 00.09 31/05/19.


 * "I don't want to have anymore contact with you". Rightyo then. Guliolopez (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)