User talk:CeltBrowne/Archive 1

Archive 1

Irish Soviets

Irish Soviets is a really nice and informative article. Just thought I would tell you that.80.111.232.116 (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Poole's Land

Hello! Your submission of Poole's Land 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CMD (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Poole's Land

On 23 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Poole's Land, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the town of Tofino on Vancouver Island was host to a hippie commune called Poole's Land where residents could exchange their labour for accommodation and drugs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Poole's Land. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Poole's Land), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, CeltBrowne! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time.

Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Patrick McGrath (Irish Republican)

Hello. You made great changes to Eoin McNamee page and I wonder if you could take a look at draft page of Patrick McGrath. Thanks.

• @Palisades1: I'd suggest taking contents from your intro and putting them into the body of the article. The intro is meant to summerise the contents of the article rather than introduce new information. Also when referencing websites, you might want to take a look at Template:Cite web. - CeltBrowne (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Ive taken your suggestions and made changes . Ive also Tagged the article to "Irish Republicanism" in hopes that it might get a quicker review (it was submitted several months ago). Again, thanks.Palisades1 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Well after three months my draft article on Patrick McGrath (Irish Republican) was declined. Some good suggestions were offered and I've incorporated them and resubmitted the article. If you have a chance can you take a look at the revised article? I appreciate it. Palisades1 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sean Dunne

I know you are interested in articles on socialists so I just wanted to let you know that this article had been confined entirely to his parliamentary career with no mention of his trade union activity. Because he is in the news this weekend (featured in the Mother Jones Festival) I have filled that gap. If you go to reference 5 you will see a photo. I don't know if it is available for uploading. It looks to me as if it is an old newspaper photo. Also, you may be interested to know that smirkybec recently uploaded an article on Kay Keohane-O'Riordan , wife of Michael O' Riordan. Aineireland (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aineireland: I'm interested in people of all political strains, its just that often times those on the left have more dramatic backstories that make them interesting to write about. I might give Dunne a look when I get a chance. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Paddy Holohan

Cheers for that fix. Not sure exactly how I ended up changing "Sinn Féin" to "Iéin" (suspect it was an error involving Ctrl+F) but glad it was spotted! ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Ireland Wikiproject

Welcome to the Ireland WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

John_Joe_McGirl.jpg

Can you upload this image to Wikimedia Commons please? This will wnble it to appear on Wikidata!Ériugena (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ériugena: As a non-free image, it can't be uploaded to the Commons. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Richard O'Carroll

Thanks for bringing much needed balance to this entry.CanK9 (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Photos for Irish people pages

Hi you have helped me in the past and I'd appreciate another assist.

I've been working on the last 3 Irish hunger strikers (who died as a result of hunger strikes) that dont have pages. I have alot of difficulty inserting images in the pages - I understand copyright issues but I seem to spend alot of time working on inserting a photo and failing.

Of the 3 pages one has just been approved: Andy O'Sullivan (Irish Republican). A good photo of him exists on Find a Grave.com.

There is also alot of photos of another draft page for: Jack McNella.

I cant find photos of the last draft page: Joe Whitty. I also have a draft page for another Irish Republican Seamus Woods.

Any help/advice is appreciated. Thanks Palisades1 (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Palisades1: So, the easiest way to get an image of a person on an article is the following method. If someone is dead, you're allowed upload a fair use image of them if they already have an article. While on desktop, go to the article of the person you'd like to upload an image of and scroll over to the left side of the page, and click "upload file" in the "contribute" section. From there, click "Upload a non-free file". Follow the onscreen instructions and fill out Step 1 and Step 2. When you get to step 3, click "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use". For the rationale, select "This is an historic portrait of a person no longer alive." Fill out all the sections with red asterisks beside them. For "Please explain why a free alternative to this image cannot be found", state that you can't find a free alternative. For "Please explain why you are confident that our use of the file will not harm any commercial opportunities of its owner", state that the use of the image will be purely informational. And for "In view of this, please explain how the use of this file will be minimal", state that the image will only be used to visually identify the subject of the article.

If you've correctly filled out all the required sections, the system will upload your file and you can insert the filename into the article to make it appear.

It's very daunting to fill out the non-free upload form the first time you do it, but once you get the hang of it it's a breeze, because more or less just writing the same thing every single time.

I don't think you can upload non-free files to draft articles, but you should be able to for any article that's already live.

CeltBrowne (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I would have never figured out the process. The old saying is true: A picture is worth a thousand words. Cheers. Palisades1 (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Tadhg Barry

I see you created this article just over 2 yrs ago. Just thought you might like to know that a biography of him has just been published Utter Disloyalist Tadhg Barry and the Irish Revolution by Donal Ó Drisceoil , published by Mercier Press. Aineireland (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aineireland: Thanks for the update CeltBrowne (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Curley (Wisconsin general), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Chattanooga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Buddy Rogers.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Buddy Rogers.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please add the appropriate fair use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Political party module

Hi, I see now why you moved the conversation into the archive. I'm sure there's a good reason for the change, I missed any such discussion of this, and I suspect many of the Irish contributors did. It's somewhat unsatisfactory that we have to request changes rather than be able to make them ourselves given our particular knowledge as Irish contributors, but we'll take it from here I suppose! Iveagh Gardens (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Timothy John Dacey

Hello. Your recent edits on Timothy Deasy in the 1874, 1875, and 1876 Massachusetts legislature refer not to Deasy but to someone called Timothy John Dacey (1849-1887) of Boston.[1][2][3] Would you please correct the error? Many thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@M2545: I've undone those edits now. My confusion arose as some sources suggest that he (Timothy John Deasy) and Timothy John Dacey are one and the same. I'm still confused as to why Deasy is not listed separately in articles such as 1874 Massachusetts legislature when his biography points in that direction, but I'm not American, so I'm not really familiar with the exact nature of state legislatures in the US and do what role he had exactly.

@CeltBrowne:. I've often gone down a similar path-- it is easy to mix up names. Thanks for those edits! As for Deasy: the Massachusetts State Library offers a reference service that might help to clarify his story: https://www.mass.gov/ask-a-librarian. Cheers. -- M2545 (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Declan Costello, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael O'Leary, Desmond Fitzgerald and John Healy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election

On 14 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election, voters were asked to bring their own pen or pencil? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Dublin Bay South by-election. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Declan Costello

On 29 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Declan Costello, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jackie Kennedy teased former love interest Declan Costello that a 1955 double date involving them and their spouses had almost broken up the Kennedys' marriage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Declan Costello. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Declan Costello), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: Ella Young

I reverted your edit to Ella Young, which removed a long standing non-free image with accurate and specific copyright information. I can see no evidence for the claim that the new image you added is free and in the public domain. If memory serves, this might be a photograph by Ansel Adams or some other photographer. I’m more curious why you believe the image you added is free and in the public domain. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

So I haven't used this license much before, but it is my understanding that PD-US-no notice covers photographs published in the US between 1927 and 1977 without an explicit copyright notice, regardless if the photographer is known or not. As Young died in 1956, I thought the photograph would fall into this time frame. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I understand your argument, but there are several issues with it. For example, I am assuming you are making this argument because you or someone else uploaded the image to a blog in 2011 without a copyright notice? That doesn’t make any sense to me. We know, for example, that bloggers upload uncredited images all the time without copyright notices. That doesn’t change the license. Maybe I’m missing another assumption you are making? I think it would be more instructive for you to source the original image. When I did research on Ella Young many years ago, I believe the image you uploaded came up as copyrighted, if memory serves correct. Also, a Google reverse image search on my end shows nothing, but I’m currently on mobile which has issues, so if you could do a comprehensive reverse image search that would help. In any case, I’ve seen this image before, and I’m fairly certain it has been published previously with a copyright. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

For example, I am assuming you are making this argument because you or someone else uploaded the image to a blog in 2011 without a copyright notice?

No, this is not correct/not what I'm saying. PD-US-No Notice is for photos that the photographer published between 1927 and 1977 without including an explicit copyright notice accompanying the work such as a © symbol and the name of the author. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but my question remains: how do you know the photo was published without an explicit copyright notice? Most of these photos were lifted from previously published sources and added to blogs and websites, for example. Take the Weston photo, for example, which appears below your preferred image on the same blog. It was published with a copyright notice in 1966. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: I’m not sure, but my guess is that this is a photo from the famous set of Ansel Adams images taken in 1929, in either Santa Fe or Taos, New Mexico. The LOC claims they are copyrighted ("With the exception of the Manzanar War Relocation Center Photographs, Ansel Adams's photographs are protected by copyright. Privacy and publicity rights may apply") but I’m not sure if this applies to this set or not. As you can see on the Ansel Adams page, all of the photos that are used there have explicit exceptions. Then again, this might not be a photo by Ansel Adams. There was one other photographer on the trip with them to New Mexico in 1929, but their name escapes me at the moment. I believe it was a woman. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

NPOV on Daniel Garcia (wrestler), BLP policy

Please observe the WP:BLP policy and stop including cherry-picked, undue content from a podcast. You re-added that Chris Jericho and Edge's degree prompted Garcia's pursuit of it without demonstrating that this claim is highlighted in a reliable secondary source. It is inappropriate to rely on your editorial bias to determine that it is a unique detail from hearing Garcia speak for an hour. Furthermore, not only is Jericho being "simply sympathetic to the story" undue, but it reads irrelevant and promotional. You also re-added that Garcia "was asleep in the back of the car", which the Wrestling Inc transcript supported. Whether this is true or not, we should not give weight to information that only unreliable sources publish.

I noticed that our prior interaction involved you claiming BRD and that you've also pointed to it in recent disputes. Keep in mind that an exemption applies when removing BLP violations, so reincluding them is particularly improper. BRD outright says that "you must not restore your bold edit", but that's a different discussion. I'm not suggesting that these other disputes involved violations; I'm merely saying you should recognize what constitutes a BLP violation regardless of whether others refer to the policy when removing material. Thanks. KyleJoan^talk 04:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello KyleJoan

I really didn't think the original edit was or would be controversial, but when you reverted it, I did in fact take on board what you said and I thought when restoring I was complying with your request for the edit to be more thoroughly sourced.

You re-added that Chris Jericho and Edge's degree prompted Garcia's pursuit of it without demonstrating that this claim is highlighted in a reliable secondary source.

To be clear, are you asking me to provide sources that Jericho and Edge completed communications degrees, or a secondary source demonstrates that Garcia made the decision based on Jericho and Edge? Because if it's the latter, who else but Garcia is an authority on his own decision making? It would seem like an uncontroversial claim where a primary source would be sufficient.

Furthermore, not only is Jericho being "simply sympathetic to the story" undue, but it reads irrelevant and promotional.

With that language, I'm simply trying to establish that Jericho was not aware/did not know who Garcia was at that moment in time, least the reader mistakenly assume it was because of the relationship they would develop later chronologically. If the phrase "simply sympathetic to the story" comes off as too flowery, can you please suggest another way to express that Jericho donated without knowledge of who Garcia was? The claim that "prominent wrestlers" donated to the fund was supported by one of the additional sources I included by-the-way.

You also re-added that Garcia "was asleep in the back of the car", which the Wrestling Inc transcript supported. Whether this is true or not, we should not give weight to information that only unreliable sources publish.

If this piece of information is removed, I don't care, it's not something I care to die on a hill for. I would think it's a rather uncontroversial claim, and a claim that only one of the 4 people in the car could ever confirm, so I would have thought a primary source would have been sufficient. CeltBrowne (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Which source supports "prominent wrestlers" donated to the fund? That claim aside, again, if these are details that you believed were unique from listening to the podcast and not what secondary sources highlight, then (controversial or not) they violate NPOV and BLP. On top of that, we also have WP:RSPRIMARY as a guideline, and it says, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." KyleJoan^talk 09:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so reading WP:RSPRIMARY, you seemed to have skipped over a important line just before what you previously quoted to me:

Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.

You seem to have some idea that editors cannot add any information that is not already discussed by a secondary source. But as WP:RSPRIMARY goes on to clarify, this relates only to All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims.

WP:PRIMARY goes on to give some examples of what is allowed:

For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

So, taking this forward

I could add "John stated he was in New York at the time, and witnessed the 9/11 attacks" to an article about John, and could use only a primary source to support that. A secondary source to further support that would be preferred, but it's still allowed. Here, I'm stating a fact that John was in New York on 9/11, not analyses.

What would be incorrect for me to do would be to write: "John stated he was in New York at the time, and witnessed the 9/11 attacks. This may explain PTSD-like behaviour later in life." The second sentence would be an example of "Interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims". Even if I had secondary sources which suggested John was engaging in PTSD-like behaviour, unless those secondary sources themselves linked it back to 9/11, I'm engaging in "Interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims".

So, taking all that forward, I believe that

Garcia was asleep in the back of the car could be included on a primary source alone.

Garcia choose to do communications because Jericho and Edge did could be included on a primary source alone.

Jericho did not know who Garcia was at the time could be included on a primary source alone.

Now, if we were to be extra-cautious, these would be written as

Garcia stated he was asleep in the back of the car

Garcia stated that he choose to do communications because Jericho and Edge did

Jericho stated that he did not know who Garcia was at the time

Because it is certainly factual that they made the statements.

Furthermore, what I'm saying is supported by WP:ABOUTSELF, which makes clear that Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. Garcia is discussing himself, Jericho is discussing himself in the pieces of information I'm seeking to include.

I'm happy to rework the wording of Jericho's motive to donate to the fund that supported Garcia and the 3 others, but the content of the rest of the edit was functionally fine to include. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Even if it is verifiable that Garcia stated he was asleep in the back of the car, so what? He was in the car. He was injured. Should we do a deep dive to find out which side of the car he was on and include that? The make and model as well, perhaps?

The claim that Garcia stated that he choose to do communications because Jericho and Edge did is the most exceptional of the three. Again, where is the secondary source coverage? Why should Wikipedia assign this claim more weight than secondary sources do (i.e., none)?

Writing that Jericho stated that he did not know who Garcia was at the time so that readers do not mistakenly assume it was because of the relationship they would develop later chronologically is not our responsibility. We don't improve the project when we use our editorial bias to stretch out primary sources as far as they can go to fill in (what we determine as) gaps in coverage with (I'll use this word again) undue content.

The three fail criterion number 1 of ABOUTSELF, as they are exceptional claims. Judging by your insistence that the support of primary sources is sufficient to include them, they seem "apparently important". So why are they "not covered by multiple mainstream sources"? The examples listed as part of PRIMARY show content that would be transplanted verbatim (i.e., album and song titles, passages). What we have here isn't comparable to those unless you're pulling direct quotes from the podcast.

Finally, none of this changes the fact that you still have not addressed how your proposed content adhere to BLP and NPOV. I stand by my reverts, so you're free to bring this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you'd like. KyleJoan^talk 10:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging

Re this, pinging doesn't work if there are line breaks between the ping and the date/time stamp, i.e. if you start a new paragraph (I saw the edit because the page is on my watchlist; I didn't get an alert). I don't think this is very widely known. If you want to ping, you have to either add a new post, or add the ping to the last line and change the date and time stamp by substituting it with five tildes. I'm not going to join the discussion yet, I want to see how it plays out if the others respond. Scolaire (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks CeltBrowne (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Legend of the "Black Irish"

Hi, I see that Wikipedia has lost the page on the legend of the Black Irish (so-called survivors of the Spanish Armada) with your recent redirect.[4]. The term and anchor is still used in Irish people#TermBlackIrish, but there’s now no way for people to find it, and the extensive article on the subject remains buried in the page history. As an inclusionist, I would like to see an existing page on the history of the legend/mythology of the Black Irish, perhaps something like Black Irish (legend) or a new disambiguation header pointing to the term. Let me know what you think. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I added a temporary dab here. It’s not perfect, and it doesn’t link directly to the other term, but it’s a temporary workaround. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you will find this interesting, but Hawaii has a similar legend about the Spanish. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

A subsection on Black people in Ireland covering the folklore term has been discussed previously and I might perhaps be the one to write it. I normally stick to biographies and political subjects but I might have to cover the job since I'm not sure someone else will take up the baton. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, let me know if I can be of any help or backup support. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Anarchism

Hi CeltBrowne,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 05:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Czar,

Thank you for the invitation but I wouldn't be an expert in the particular area of Anarchism; I'm moreso just interested in historical political people of all ideologies from the 19th century to present. Kuwasi Balagoon was someone who happened to take my interest, and while I have written about other anarchists, I don't know that I would be suited for WikiProject Anarchism. Thanks for extending the invite though. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrestling roster pages

Please keep the pics in a single line, it's the way it's been done for years on all wrestling roster pages, and keeps things nice and neat.

Do pics bleed over sometimes, yes, but it's never been an issue. If you start doing what you did, it will cause chain reactions to other roster pages...no need to open Pandora's box, things are done a certain way to maintain a structure and ground rules.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds 23:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Immigration control Platform

Hi, I only recently saw that info box and was taken aback to put it mildly to see the term Hard-euroscepticism. It most certainly is not correct. The only stance ICP ever took in relation to the EU was in relation to immigration. It opposed the Lisbon Treaty because of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which binds member countries to the asylum system, removing the right each country had to give 12 months notice and withdraw from the Refugee Convention. It did not wish to see further enlargement , especially Turkey, because of the potential for a lot more immigration. It opposed the Nice treaty because of the potential danger in the immigration area of an increase in qualified majority voting. It had not actually opposed the entry of the 10 Eastern European countries in 2004, but it did object to Ireland being one of only 3 countries (the others being UK and Sweden) which immediately allowed work without a work permit which one could have required for 4 years. The fact that its founder was described as a Europhobe is irrelevant. That would be her personal position and no more shared by ICP than her views on any other matter. As a responsible Wikipedian, I hope you will remedy the error. Aineireland (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kit Ahern TD.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kit Ahern TD.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) 18:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	John O'Reilly (soldier) is a very good page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ed Don George and Danno O'Mahony, circa 1935.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ed Don George and Danno O'Mahony, circa 1935.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. —howcheng {chat} 23:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Derek Blighe

Does this guy meet notability guidelines? I'm not seeing how any random far-right rabble-rouser qualifies for an article unless they've achieved some considerable notability/notoriety. We've deleted similar articles for perhaps more "prominent" individuals in the past, where they've not been elected to a public office and have no known criminal convictions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The impetus for creating the article, amongst other things, was the news from the Irish Times today that Blighe is apparently now the leader of a registered political party in Ireland, which has a certain significance as that's a rare enough event. When drafting the article, I consulted Ben Gilroy, the closest Wikipedia article I could think of to about where Blighe is at.

There's 5 categories that WP:GNG outlines for notability, which taken together basically say that the subject of an article should have a decent amount of coverage from reliable secondary sources. I would describe the three pieces of content released by the Irish Times today (2 separate articles (one of which was essentially a biography of Blighe) and a podcast) as very significant coverage and probably enough material on their own to create an article from. Obviously though it's better to supplement with as many and as varied sources as you can find, which is what I did, and that builds out the case more.

We've deleted similar articles for perhaps more "prominent" individuals in the past, where they've not been elected to a public office and have no known criminal convictions.

I'm not all that familiar with what has been deleted in the past (I didn't follow the Ireland Project page until maybe a year ago) but I have seen some reversals in that regard. Saoirse McHugh was brought back after being deleted. Her candidacies in a number of elections aside, technically she is "just" a non-elected political activist as well.

I can understand where you're coming from, I'm not going to pretend that this is a completely open and shut case, but as I said, I think the material released today really put them in the bracket of being at least as notable as Ben Gilroy, or dare I compare, an Enoch Burke. I suppose another "non-elected" name we could mention is Justin Barrett.

I'm in two minds about what to do with "Ireland First"; keep in mind that all of Ireland's registered political parties save one (United People) have articles; that includes very, very miniscule ones such as Party for Animal Welfare and Fis Nua. But if Ireland First do actually materialise as an actual party, even if it's just a fringe one similar to the National Party, then Blighe is on a par with Justin Barrett I would think.

One last name to throw out is Áine Ní Chonaill of Immigration Control Platform. Ni Chonaill was never elected either but nevertheless, does have an article (albeit just above stub level). CeltBrowne (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an edge case, I think - which is why I posted here rather than on the article page. I think you're right, what differentiates him from others is the political party - though obviously it's new, hasn't run in anything, etc., whereas Barrett's party has, and Ní Chonaill was active (mostly with letter-writing?) for years. When speaking of deletions, I was more thinking of other similar right-wing rabble-rousers like the former British Army guy grifting on a YouTube channel, who used to hang around with Gemma O'Doherty. Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
572		Q. T. Marshall (talk)	Add sources
768		Cora Jade (talk)	Add sources
17		Cohasset High School (talk)	Add sources
33		LGBT culture in Ireland (talk)	Add sources
43		Shimmer Volumes (talk)	Add sources
935		Jamie Hayter (talk)	Add sources
90		Panther 21 (talk)	Cleanup
141		Tony Nese (talk)	Cleanup
4,278		Irish Republican Army (talk)	Cleanup
58		British Strong Style (talk)	Expand
143		Serie A (women's football) (talk)	Expand
3,529		Sinn Féin (talk)	Expand
17		Reggie Forte (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
45		Red Guard Party (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,819		Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
231		Mark Coffey (talk)	Merge
289		Joe Coffey (wrestler) (talk)	Merge
545		Feminist views on transgender topics (talk)	Merge
957		Meiko Satomura (talk)	Wikify
695		The Dark Order (talk)	Wikify
75		Yoshi-Hashi (talk)	Wikify
2		Frontbench team of Micheál Martin (talk)	Orphan
6		Mark Leibowitz (talk)	Orphan
3		Assizes of Antioch (talk)	Orphan
326		Kayden Carter (talk)	Stub
3		Andrew Montague (Irish politician) (talk)	Stub
4		Why This World (talk)	Stub
4		Michael O'Connell (politician) (talk)	Stub
6		TVNZ Sport (talk)	Stub
26		Ministry of Health (Brazil) (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
28		Records of members of the Oireachtas (talk)	Add sources
42		February 1982 Irish general election (talk)	Add sources
351		Charles Haughey (talk)	Add sources
8		Gang of 22 (talk)	Add sources
18		Cumann (talk)	Add sources
724		Duke of York (talk)	Add sources
158		Belvedere College (talk)	Cleanup
237		Norwich Terrier (talk)	Cleanup
40		Seán Mac Eoin (talk)	Cleanup
1,409		Fine Gael (talk)	Expand
35		Mary O'Rourke (talk)	Expand
565		Labour Party (Ireland) (talk)	Expand
102		Independent politicians in Ireland (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
90		Progressive Democrats (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
160		2011 Irish general election (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
13,557		COVID-19 pandemic (talk)	Merge
220		Chief Whip (talk)	Merge
1,185		Theosophy (talk)	Merge
13		History of Fine Gael (talk)	Wikify
12		Toiréasa Ferris (talk)	Wikify
168		Centrist Democrat International (talk)	Wikify
7		Samira Hashi (talk)	Orphan
2		Benjamin Franklin Morris II (talk)	Orphan
2		Domtila Chesang (talk)	Orphan
4		Ennistymon (parish) (talk)	Stub
15		Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (talk)	Stub
11		Ruairí Ó Murchú (talk)	Stub
4		Paudge Brennan (talk)	Stub
10		Paul Donnelly (politician) (talk)	Stub
12		Darren O'Rourke (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"COA of city" V "COA of mayor"

Hiya. FYI. My read of this document (about the lord mayor's arms) and this document (about the city's arms) is that there are slight differences between the two. The versions which have the mace/sword/cap (symbols of the mayor) are used to represent that office. And the versions without (but with the figures of law and justice) are used to represent the city. In short, it seems that this COA image is probably OK (as it is) to illustrate the Lord Mayor of Dublin article. But this COA image is probably better (as it now is) to illustrate the Dublin (city) article. And, perhaps, should be restored to the Dublin City Council article... Guliolopez (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have a third option that I think will work out better; I simply remove the mace/sword/cap from the new version, and that alternative version can be used if there's an issue. How does that sound? CeltBrowne (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Just one thing to keep in mind: File:Coat of Arms of Dublin, Ireland.png is derived from the work of Arthur Charles Fox-Davies, a meticulously heraldist who published a book on the civic Coat of Arms of the UK (including Ireland at that time) in 1915. Fox-Davies believed in absolute accuracy of his rendering of Coat of Arms, so as far the "Mace, Sword and "Hat" (which I mistakenly previously thought was hay) being included as part of the City of Dublin's Coat of Arms goes, I'm inclined to believed that Fox-Davies is correct in that. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hiya.

On dublincity.ie website we find a description of the:

• "Dublin City Coat of Arms" (flanked with figures of law/justice) and
• "Lord Mayors Coat of Arms" (embellished with cap/mace/sword)

RE: "inclined to believed that Fox-Davies is correct (in including mace/cap/sword in arms of city)". I personally don't know Fox-Davies from a hole in the wall :) And have no means of checking/verifying his position on things. What I can verify is that the Dublin City Council website has a "Dublin City Coat of Arms" page (describing an arms flanked with figures of law/justice) and a separate "Lord Mayors Coat of Arms" page (describing it as the city arms embellished with cap/mace/sword). Perhaps, when Fox-Davies drew his representation, the two arms were the same. And no distinction was drawn. The more modern sources do now, however, seem to draw a distinction between the two.

RE: "simply remove the mace/sword/cap from the new version (to create a new version)". I personally don't understand why we would create a new, separate (WP:OR?) version. When the version that was in place for some time (and is in place again in some instances) is quite a good representation of the arms we find on the cover of that "Dublin City Coat of Arms" PDF document or leaflet linked on the Dublin City Council website. Why create our own/new image, when a reasonable and seemingly representative image already exists? (I'm sorry, I appear to be missing something in the motivation here. I clearly don't understand your issue/concern with the existing image.)

Separately, if we're to continue this conversation I suggest we do it in the mainspace somewhere. Perhaps at Talk:Dublin. So others can join. The only reason I posted here is because you'd added/changed that image in so many articles and there wasn't a clear "home" for a content discussion.

GRMA. Guliolopez (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Cropping

I don't understand why I have to keep asking you: Stop changing the image sizes when you do the cropping. I have no issue with the cropping per se (although frankly it is pointless in most cases), but you should not change the sizes from what they are set to. There is no "standard" size as you claim – I have literally thousands of election articles on my watchlist and I can categorically tell you this is untrue, so please stop claiming it. Thanks. Number 57 16:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

On Talk:2018 Zimbabwean general election#CSS cropping in the Infobox we agreed that when I introduce CSS cropping to any election infobox, you would not revert if the images were 150x or under. Today you've reverted images sized 150x and even 140x. Given that we agreed 150x was fine on Talk:2018 Zimbabwean general election, why are you now insisting on 130x? CeltBrowne (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the pre-set size was 130x; 150x is too large in infoboxes with three parties in each row. Please just stick to the pre-set sizes, which has usually been set for reason (note I didn't revert your changes to the Japanese article because there you did stick with 130x). Cheers, Number 57 17:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Is 130x the size that's been agreed upon by Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums or it that simply what was in place before? Can you link me to be a guideline or a community consensus stating that infoboxes with 3 parties in a row should be 130x? CeltBrowne (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There are no guidelines for size (this is a level of detail there would not be guidelines for). I am simply asking you not to change the size that has been set for individual articles. By all means add your cropping, but just stop changing the sizes. Number 57 18:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

So in effect you're simply enforcing your own particular preferences when you revert me? You seem to be telling me have no actual guideline or community basis to support 130x as being required. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm asking you to leave the sizes as they have already been set by other editors, regardless of who those other editors are or what the sizes are. If you find an article where the pre-set size is 160x160 I am not going to revert your cropping if you crop them to that size. Number 57 18:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not a rational way to go about things. For example, 2021 German federal election currently uses 160x120. Why have 160x120 for 2021, but 130x for 2017? Are we just going to go by whichever editor rushes in and set image_size first? If I go and make 2026 German federal election today and set the image_size to 200x200, does it have to remain 200x forever? Instead of more neat and tidy way, where each election infobox for Germany is roughly equal in size?

If there was a good rationale and a consensus for having the images be 130x, I'd be perfectly happy to comply. However, there doesn't seem to be either. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I would simply follow WP:BRD; if you change an image size and no-one objects, that's fine. If you change an image size and someone does, respect the objection.

Ideally parliamentary election infoboxes shouldn't have images in them at all; I've always thought is was stupid that the first thing someone sees in the infobox is a big image of a person rather than the party that people actually vote for; images really should be reserved for presidential/mayoral elections where people vote for the individual pictures. Number 57 19:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's disappointing that you misrepresented several of my comments in starting the discussion (although based on previous interactions, sadly unsurprising). Number 57 20:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't purposefully misrepresent you in any way, I presented your arguments as best I could. When two people are having a disagreement, it's rare that the one person can articulate the other's position in a way that makes both parties happy. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how else you could have translated my comment above that "images really should be reserved for presidential/mayoral elections" into "Number 57 has made it clear in other comments they do not believe infoboxes should ever have images at all" if you weren't deliberately misrepresenting it. And if you can't articulate someone's position, then don't. Number 57 20:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I should have said "Number 57 has made it clear in other comments they do not believe parliamentary infoboxes should ever have images at all". But that was a case of missing a word rather than trying to twist the meaning. I suffer from a condition called Dyspraxia which effects the way I type/construct sentences, as well as my ability to spell. It's typically for me to have to re-write paragraphs several times over due to mistakes in the first, second, third etc drafts. I have to have Grammerly open at all times when using Desktop to catch the mistakes I regularly make. The gist of what I'm trying to say normally comes out correctly but Grammerly will often have to point out I've missed a word or three in every paragraph I type out. That's part of the reason I can't respond very rapidly to people's replies; I have to take my time typing things out, and even then, I can make mistakes. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Nominating a Start-Class article for GA

Hi. I just noticed that you nomited Declan Costello for GA class. It is currently only start. Maybe first get the class to B or so before you nominate it for GA. It is unlikely to pass and go that quickly, so it will kind of just waste time. Starship 24 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

1. How do I get the article to Class B?

2. Previously I was encouraged by another user to do so, I was able to get Kuwasi Balagoon to GA status, even though that Balagoon article would be shorter in length/content than Declan Costello. What would you say the significant difference between the two articles is? CeltBrowne (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Not saying it will certainly fail, just saying that maybe dont set your ambitions so high so fast. To get it to B, I would suggest going to WP:Related Wikiproject/Assesment and submitted a request. @CeltBrowne Starship 24 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Declan Costello

The article Declan Costello you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Declan Costello and Talk:Declan Costello/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of KJP1 -- KJP1 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, and see above. I forgot that flipping to On Hold would spark up the bot. KJP1 (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Declan Costello

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Declan Costello you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of KJP1 -- KJP1 (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi - So, I’m down as far as Judicial career. The major issue I’m identifying relates to close paraphrasing of the sources, particularly, but not exclusively, Source 4. I can’t pass it as it stands - for me, there are just too many similarities. I think it needs quite a substantial re-write, which I don’t think can be done within the GAN. Close paraphrasing is tricky, and many editors have found it challenging in the past. I think that leaves a few options. You can withdraw it, and rework it. Or I can fail it. Or, if you disagree with my view, you can ask for a second opinion. Can you let me know how you want to proceed. KJP1 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say before you even started (although I didn't get the chance) is that one of my issues, whenever I write things for Wikipedia, is that I stick fairly closely to the language of whatever I'm using as a source. So it's not surprising to me that this issue has cropped up. What I can do is, if you give me a few weeks, is that I can try and rework the language/wording as best I can, and then we can revisit it. How would you feel about that? CeltBrowne (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

We can absolutely do that. I think, for the purposes of this GAN, I’ll need to fail it, as I can’t see a way that you, as nominator, can withdraw it. But I can do that appropriately, and then you can have the time/space to rework. If you ping me when you renominate, I’d be pleased to review. But I’d quite understand if you wanted a fresh pair of eyes. I would say you’ve done well to raise the profile of Costello on here. He’s an important figure and should have a good article about him. Recasting sources appropriately is hard. Some very good editors, including some close to me, have come unstuck with it. If, at any point, you want to bounce a draft around, just ping me and I’ll take a look. KJP1 (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Declan Costello

The article Declan Costello you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Declan Costello for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of KJP1 -- KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Tally Brown

Oh, nice addition of the image! I got into Tally's music after Ed Smith played her cover of Bowie's "Heroes" on his Songs of Praise radio show, but have never been able to find much. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Finbar Cafferkey

I just nominated Finbar Cafferkey to RD. Excellent work! Thriley (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:DAB

Go see the examples there instead of just reverting. Putting the main, longstanding definition up top is the common format. It's certainly preferable, and more in keeping with policy, than just a list with the most common definition at the end of the list. The point is to help readers understand. Read the policy, look at the examples, then engage on talk if you still disagree, or want to simplify the content. Don't just revert-war to a plainlist. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Rachael Baptist

Hi there. Thanks so much for your edits on this article. I'm not sure that the portrait by Jean-Étienne Liotard is of Baptist. The first use of the image in relation to her seems to be this HeadStuff article, which only uses it as an illustration of a contemporary of Baptist (caption: "A beautiful young black woman, contemporary of Rachel Baptiste. Portrait by Jean-Étienne Liotard"). Do you have a citation for it being Baptist? I have removed it before as I don't think it is here, though lots of Irish history sites and podcasts now use it as a picture of Baptist without any corroboration. Smirkybec (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

If it's a case of a citogenesis loop, I'm happy to pull back. I saw a number of sources online such as this one [5] attributing the painting to Baptist and thought I was on the right track. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suspect its citogenesis leading back to that initial HeadStuff article. As far as I'm aware, there is no known image of Baptist. Perhaps a note on the talk page would be an idea? Smirkybec (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You could also leave one of those code messages a la

<--Please do not add "Portrait of a young woman" by Jean Etienne Liotard, it is not determined who the subject of that painting is-->

but with an "!" before the "<", so that it only appears when people are editing, and not when the page is being read. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nuala Fennell.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nuala Fennell.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) 17:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

BLP policy again, NPOV on Kenny Omega

Not sure why we bothered to go through this discussion if you were just going to edit war and point to two sources that support quotes and none of the exceptional material. I don't know what your understanding of the WP:BLP policy is, but that paragraph is an egregious violation, especially by GA standards. It's been almost a year since its inclusion, and you still haven't presented any new sources for such exceptional general claims, so maybe realize that this content is just not appropriate to include. Please consult Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard again if you'd like more opinions. Thanks. KyleJoan^talk 01:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You've now included material that has been explained to you as being violations of the BLP policy three separate times. This shows a lack of regard–intentional or not–and would have warranted a WP:ANI report. Please don't do this again on any article, especially since you seem to edit many BLPs. That aside, your unwillingness to discuss on the BLP noticeboard tells me that you believe we get to affirm violations as due because our specialized fan knowledge can corroborate them. An article's topic does not excuse it from the BLP policy, so if you'd like to re-include the violations I've removed three times, that noticeboard is the place for you to make your case. This is as far as I'll go. KyleJoan^talk 01:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Your main contention was that the first sentence was a BLP violation because it was poorly sourced. I made an earnest, good-faith attempt to address this concern by adding several additional sources in a new edit, as well as incorporating a number of other suggestions you made. I followed the guidelines of WP:BRD, specifically WP:NOTSTUCK in this instance, and specifically the sentence Feel free to try a new bold edit during the discussion if the new edit reasonably reflects some aspect of the opposing editors' concerns. Although you were not satisfied with the new sources (something I'll discuss on the article talk page), I am happy you took the time to review them, and I am happy you refined the larger paragraph rather than bloc reverted it.

Although we disagree about aspects of the edit, I am not offended by the scrutiny you are applying to the sourcing; in parallel I would hope that you would not be offended by attempts to improve that sourcing. The point of the edit was to try and create a version that was not a BLP violation. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are why the previous sources did not suffice:

• OutSports, as you pointed out, is a website operating under Vox Media, which owns Vox, a reliable source. Know what Vox Media also owns? Cageside Seats, an unreliable source per WP:PW/RS. Unless you're ready to argue that Cageside is reliable, you can't simply say OutSports is reliable based on who owns it. On top of not substantiating its quality or reliability, there's the clear pro-LGBTQ+ bias there.
• Vice, on top of being a mid-or-low-quality source, highlights the blurring of "unreality and reality", so to cite that to support a claim about any supposed romantic relationship in Wikipedia's voice is improper.
• Mel, a defunct source originally founded on Medium, published an article saying Omega is "openly bisexual", which shows a lack of fact-checking. No reputable source has said this.
• INTO, with its clear pro-LGBTQ+ bias, says Omega "has come out as bisexual" and linked a Reddit thread. Clearly unreliable.

It seems like you're more concerned with pushing the points and finding any source that exists to support them than whether the sources help the NPOV issues. This is not a game of math where five low-or-mid-quality sources = one high-quality source. You've had ample opportunity to present high-quality reliable sources to fix the BLP violations. That has not happened, so I'll refrain from responding from now on and let someone else from the BLP noticeboard chime in. Cheers. KyleJoan^talk 11:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Unverified claims, potential original research on Daniel Garcia (wrestler)

• None of these sources relates "the early stages of his career" to Garcia's technical wrestling. Fails V and/or OR.
• This source describes Garcia as being technical in that match.
• None says Garcia "excelled in applying submission holds". Fails V and/or OR.
• None relates his version of the Sharpshooter to him defeating Danielson. Fails V and/or OR.
• None says the name is "a wordplay". Fails V and/or OR.
• These sources don't say Garcia "rejected the idea that he was a "pro wrestler" and instead embraced the term "Sports Entertainer"". Fails V and/or OR.

I believe that explains this revert. While I'm hoping that we never have to discuss these policy issues again, our track record doesn't call for optimism. Please stop chucking in unverified or poorly sourced claims on BLPs, hoping that they're acceptable, without scrutinizing the sources yourself. I'm sure you're aware there's talk among some users that the pro wrestling topic and its editors can be a headache. These issues are why. A specialized topic does not grant users with specialized knowledge a free pass from adhering to policies. This continued belief that sufficient sourcing falls secondary to that specialized knowledge, especially after our previous disputes, remains disappointing and unhelpful. These suboptimal edits waste other users' (and your own) time. KyleJoan^talk 06:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Garcia said he "got over with my personality and with my promos, and I was really grateful to be able to show that other side of myself" and you interpreted that as him desiring "to be thought of as a more multi-dimensional performer". Not only was it a stretch to turn his gratefulness into an apparent desire, but the claim violates WP:PRIMARY because the primary source requires interpretation in the first place. PWTorch does not mention "wrestling holds" as it relates to sports entertainment, so again, V and/or OR vio. At this point, I'll simply revert and link the policy issues without explanation since you never bother to explain how your edits address policy concerns. Seems only fair. KyleJoan^talk 08:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible input

Hi, following your own recent ping on PBP-S, could I ask for your input on a discussion, that so far has just me and one other? If you have no thoughts at all, think nothing of it! It relates to constituency pages, should Dublin Bay South (Dáil constituency) include the results and information for Dublin South-East (Dáil constituency)? The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Organisation of constituencies. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2017 German election uncropped.png + File:2017 German federal election CSS Cropped.png

Hello. If you think this file is no longer useful for Wikipedia, set template {{db-author}} on its description page, please. Otherwise, {{move to Commons}}. — Ирука¹³ 12:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

I looks like that isn't the case, as he reverted your edits yesterday. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We came to an understanding after those reverts. In instances where no image_size is set, they reverted instances where the height was 160x, they don't have a problem with 150x in height (which is the default height). CeltBrowne (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

So why is he reverting your edits since 3 June, if you came to an agreement on that date? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Number57 specifically thanked an edit of mine after those 160x edits when I switched to 150x. They are completely fine with 150x in height for infoboxes where no image_size was set, and in instances where image_size is set, I use what is/was there (such as 130x). We made an agreement a while back but there was some confusion yesterday about instances where no image_size was set. We have now cleared up that confusion. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Going by your talk pages, that doesn't seem to be the case, unless you discussed it elsewhere. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The thank was after the last message on their talk page.

Again, they reverted instances where I used 160x in height, but did not revert 150x in height. They don't have an issue with CSS cropping itself, they have an issue with height. We have come to an agreement on height: Whatever the height was previous to me adding CSS cropping is to be kept, regardless of whether it's 160x, 150x, 140x or 130x. We had crossed wires on if that arrangement was in place for article where no (0x) image size was set, but have settled that. In those instances, 150x will be used. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I boticed you in the Yeats discussion. Without knowing context here, we should not use fixed pic sizes but the relative "upright", to accommodate users' preferences. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Reference for Maps

Hi I see several maps on The Troubles (1920–1922) that appear to original works and have no references. I looked it up: Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Diagrams and maps "Like articles, all maps and diagrams should include a complete set of references (see Wikipedia:Verifiability)". Before I make an issue of this can you offer any insight into references for maps? thanks very much.Palisades1 (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I only see two maps on The Troubles (1920–1922): That's File:Conflict deaths of the Troubles 1920-1922 in Belfast.jpg and File:Irish UK election 1918.png, and File:Conflict deaths of the Troubles 1920-1922 in Belfast.jpg lists

Niall Cunningham: The Social Geography of Violence During the Belfast Troubles, 1920–22. (pdf, 1,6 MB) CRESC Working Paper Series No. 122, University of Manchester, März 2013, Fig. 3

as it's source.

I'd take it on good faith that File:Irish UK election 1918.png is a reasonable visual approximation based on the results of the election, although a source to the results in the file description would be an improvement.

Are there some other maps I'm missing here/are they on a different article? CeltBrowne (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is just the two maps. Both maps appear to be original work with no references. They were inserted on 11 August 2022 at 10:47 with a one work explanation: "pictures". It seems to me that they should have references. Palisades1 (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as File:Irish UK election 1918.png goes, I can tell you first-hand as someone involved in WikiProject Elections and Referendums that those types of electoral maps (accurate, but perhaps without an explicit reference to their source information) are entirely commonplace on Wikipedia. One reason for that might be that these maps are used on article where the data they're based on is there right beside them, so even a layperson can see explicitly if the map is accurate or not. (IE if the map shows that Party A won 25 seats, normally an accompanying data table is going to show you Party A won 25 seats and then break down exactly where).

As for File:Conflict deaths of the Troubles 1920-1922 in Belfast.jpg, I don't know what to say other than to point out again that it does in fact have a reference/source. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If can add please

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripura_Football_Association

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=168810468988660&set=a.168810465655327&type=3

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh_Football_Association

https://www.the-aiff.com/association/522

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namdhari_FC#

https://www.the-aiff.com/club/12488

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RK_Metkovi%C4%87

https://hr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Rk_metkovic.svg#mw-jump-to-license

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BDNK_Neretva

https://hr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:%C5%BDNK_Neretva.svg#mw-jump-to-license 93.140.207.211 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:Ernie O'Malley.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ernie O'Malley.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Catholic Worker Movement logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Catholic Worker Movement logo.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) 14:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Irish nationalism

Template:Irish nationalism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 13:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Irish republicanism & Irish nationalism

Hi @CeltBrowne, I've been aiming to build an appropriate nationalism template for all the Celtic nations. See {{Welsh nationalism}}, {{Scottish nationalism}}, {{Cornish nationalism}}, {{Celtic nationalism}}.

The Irish republican template is comprehensive but it doesn't include major organisations like e.g Fine Gael and SDLP which both advocate for e.g a united Ireland, which is why I started a broader overview template {{Irish nationalism}}. What would your view be on the criteria for each template or a potential merger?

Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism are not one-in-the-same. Irish Republicanism is a subset of Irish nationalism but has very distinct, arguably unique characteristics that separate the two. Irish Republicanism has characteristics and a history so complex even within Irish Nationalism that a narrow, rather than broad approach, is more suitable. Thus, "broadening" the template is not appropriate.

There are also several issues with your Template:Irish nationalism, the standout being your classification of Fine Gael as "Irish Nationalist". I do not believe a majority of reliable secondary sources would refer to the Fine Gael of the last 50 years as "Nationalist" (Being in favour of Unification is not the same thing as being "Nationalist", at least in the Irish context). In fact, a very credible academic can be made that Fine Gael alongside it's coalition partners Labour in the 70s, 80s and 90s were effectively the main anti-Nationalist political force in the Republic of Ireland.

While I understand you're seeking to categorise all the "Celtic Nationalists" into templates all using the same format, I'm afraid a "one-size-fits-all" approach may not be the correct approach. CeltBrowne (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

British wrestling post-TV

Sorry but as I said on my last edit note this notion of a "long decline" period is a MYTH and a self serving one put about by a string of promoters trying to put themselves over as the Great Revival of British Wrestling. (This was a step backwards from an earlier worse myth which claimed that the industry had actually died out in 1988 - á la WCW in March 2001 - and that such-and-such promotion was Bringing It Back.)

The industry had its ups and downs (like the wrestling industries in many other countries and like the UK business during and before the TV era) but largely found its level and has performed consistently comfortably at that level ever since. Indeed the immediate years after TV were a major box office boom period, specifically for All Star with Nagasaki as flagship talent. The "Traditional" and "Americanised" sectors kept themselves largely apart until the FWA's Old School vs New School storyline in 2001, after which there was some overlap but the sectors retained their distinct identities.

There are multiple sources for the history of British Wrestling in both sectors for the 1990s/2000s/2010s - with particular regard to the Traditional sector I could refer you to Daniel Bryan's autobiography "YES" which dedicates most of a chapter to his time in the UK - particulary with All Star - in the early 2000s as well as assorted interviews with talent from the time period for Fighting Spirit Magazine (some of which were compiled into J.N Lister's book "Have A Good Week Until Next Week") TV documentaries such as BBC2's "Masters of the Canvas" documentary focussing on Kendo Nagasaki and featuring highlights of his 1991 championship match with Giant Haystacks at the Fairfield Hall Croydon, Robbie Brookside's video diary and Michinoku Pro Wrestling's 1996 documentary of their visit to the same Croydon venue, articles in Sleazenation magazine 1998 and The Independent on Sunday colour supplement 1994 by Polly Borland (cover featuring Giant Haystacks). Even Simon Garfield's book which ends on a somewhat pessimistic note (which Brian Dixon later regretted going along with, as he stated in in his FSM interview) contans good source material for the post TV boom such as the Kendo-Rocco feud 1988-1991. Romomusicfan (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Romomusicfan

I would prefer if we kept this discussion to Talk:Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom since we are discussing specific changes to that page, and if others want to join this discussion, it's better for the discussion to be held and later archived there.

Regards, CeltBrowne (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Combat Zone Wrestling, 2021.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Combat Zone Wrestling, 2021.svg. 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. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)