User talk:Guliolopez/Archive 5

Irish Navy OPV

Hi Guliolopez, This is my first attempt at talking to another user here so I hope I’m doing it right.

Thanks for letting me know regarding the creation of a new page for the OPV, and you are correct that it would most likely look better. If you could move this it would be great or I will try over the next few days. I’m only starting to get involved in adding content to Wikipedia and I have a lot to learn yet Brendantcd (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. The Babcock Marine OPV article still needs a little clean-up. I will chip-in when I can. Guliolopez (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Aud/Libau

Hi Guliolopez, thanks for coming up with a way to deal with the SS Aud/SMS Libau.Leutha (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. It still needs "watching" however as the "imposter" is better than the original, and the "imposter" is better known under its false name. So no doubt both articles will need a frequent DAB watch to avoid incorrect linking. Guliolopez (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sock?

Noted that you don't check this page much recently, but just wondered if you sock alarm had gone off lately? RashersTierney (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Lil'bit. Guliolopez (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Surprise surprise. [1] Guliolopez (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Have been following. Any more like this and I'll open an SPI. RashersTierney (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fusiliers' Arch

Nice improvements to the page --Zymurgy (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It needed some expansion. I've nominated the updated article for a listing as a Did You Know candidate. Guliolopez (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Fusiliers' Arch

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Article enquiry

Hi Guliolopez,

I've been trying to track down an article that I saw some time back the book, 'Old Friends: The Lost Tales of Fionn Mac Cumhaill'. I am the author of the book that was the subject of the article. I was quite amused by the article as it had quite a curious take on my writing. I thought of if when I discovered today that somebody is going to do a thesis on the book. I wanted to refer her to this page just as a tangential perspective. But I see that it's gone and I followed a link relating to its deletion which led to your talk page. Hoping you might know whether deleted articles get archived somewhere that I might still be able to access it? Or even whether you have any details on the writer so I can perhaps track down whether he has posted it elsewhere. I'd meant to make a note of writer details at the time but... Any assistance would be appreciated.

Best wishes,

Tom O'Neill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.81.107 (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I don't remember the text of that particular article (I'd say I've been involved in a hundred+ article reviews over the years, and it's a year or so since that one was discussed.) I can't actually recreate the article or extract the original text myself, it does still exist in the database, and one of the Wikipedia project's "administrator"s could restore it for you (or copy the content somewhere for you). See "Where's my page gone?" for details. A good start might be to post a message to the administrator called The Bushranger. It was he/she who deleted the article in the end. He/she may be willing to copy the text and edit history somewhere for you. (If memory serves, and as you point out, it was a "review" of the book. And reviews/essays/etc aren't suitable to the scope of the Wikipedia project).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guliolopez (talk • contribs)

Hi there, Tom! I've temporarily restored your article so you can copy it or edit it or whatever you wish :) You can find it at User:Alison/Old Friends: The Lost Tales of Fionn Mac Cumhaill - just let me know when you're done and I can re-delete it or move it to main space if it's fixed up enough. Best regards - Alison ^❤ 18:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating the new Dundanion Castle article, and for your efforts to improve the the encyclopedia's coverage of notable castles. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI MFIreland

I've opened an SPI and linked to your statement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive791#DDE/EVADE issues 109.154.157.211 (MFIreland). Just a heads up. Feel free to elaborate at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MFIreland. RashersTierney (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Fórsaí Cosanta

Guliolopez, despite the section heading the question of whether "Fórsaí Cosanta" is a name for the Defence Forces is disputed. Certainly, "fórsaí cosanta" means "defence forces", so we have phrases such as "Rialacháin Fhórsaí Cosanta". However, that doesn't necessarily make it a name of the Defence Forces and the idea that it is a name is actually undermined by reliable sources. See the sources I added in my response.

Indeed, even if the outcome of this RfC is to keep the phrase then, without sources supporting it, it falls foul of a [citation needed] tag. --Tóraí (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this. That was all that was asked for. --Tóraí (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MFIreland

I saw your SPI and I don't want to disturb it, but I suspect he has a new sock - User:Wu Han Sods. It is the exact same sort of disruption as A Kit Agore was doing on articles like Aerospool WT9 Dynamic. - Ahunt (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Quack Guliolopez (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Good spot Guliolopez. Murry1975 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. But to be honest I genuinely take no pleasure in it whatsoever. I have believed that there was scope for positive contribution from that user - if would only operate within some bounds of reason. And put his case (if one could be put). Hence have given plenty of leeway over the years (and sat on draft of SPI submission for months). But enough became - well - enough. Guliolopez (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Satellite image of Ireland

That's no problem. I have high contrast ratio, so I wasn't sure if it was an improvement. I'll probably look into enhancing the image, and those at Great Britain and the British Isles. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 10:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool. No worries. I saw the question mark ["better (?)"] in your editsum and it gave me confidence to boldly suggest that maybe it wasn't :) Guliolopez (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Charb.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

ga.wp

I'd noticed ... Hope all is well with you. Beir bua! - Alison ^❤

All's well - just crazy busy IRL. Hope all's well with you! Guliolopez (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

LÉ Samuel Beckett

Fair enough about the single point lists not really being lists but would you be open to the idea of creating a list of captains on the LÉ Samuel Beckett article once more people have captained the ship? A lot of the articles on Royal Navy ships have a list of all the people who have ever commanded the vessel and I feel it makes the article more complete. Tomh903 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Once there has been more than one, and all list items are cited and verifiable, then - yes - a list might make sense at that point. Guliolopez (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Camden Fort Meagher

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

MFIreland

Its him, I wasnt around in the day, but I know its him. Murry1975 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - as do I. The echos of some quacks can be heard and recognised by anyone. For the fourth (fifth?) time in as many years, I'm preparing yet another ANI/escalation thread. I can stand most of it - but that one person would decide who can/cannot be described as "Irish" is (IMO) disgusting and cannot be countenanced. Guliolopez (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Château de Kerjean

Hello! Your submission of Château de Kerjean at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination page. Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Château de Kerjean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Château de Kerjean

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fidelma Healy Eames

Hi Guliolopez,

I contacting you with the above article and the recent edits I've made. I'm going to remove the bit about the dispute between her husband and a plumber again. I did put an edit summary for the reasoning behind moving it when I removed it, see here but you probably missed it because I made a lot of edits to that article that day. I will open up a discussion on the articles talk page and would appreciate your and User:Snappy's in put. Thank you. --Wonkey Donkey (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Apologies - I did miss the edit summary explanation. Happy to talk it through on the relevant talk page. Thanks again. Guliolopez (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not fan of Fine Gael, but having a 'controversy' section in her BLP about car tax fines and train tickets just smacks of pettiness and character assassination by BLP. We should really just delete that stuff as trivia. Show me someone who's never got a ticket off a Garda for tax - Alison ^❤ 18:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Alison. If this was a case of pettiness or axe-grinding by Wikipedia editors, then we should strongly avoid/prevent that. However, while it's unusual for me to disagree with you on something like this, I do think there's a place for at least some of this content in the article. I say this because, in recent years the senator has been the subject of a breadth of coverage - from comments about "Frape", to the car tax issues, to train fare issues, to the civil suit. Rightly or wrongly the media covered these events, leading to the use of terms (elsewhere) like "controversial senator" (Indo/Advertiser/Indo) and even "controversy magnet"(Times/Examiner). Granted some of these references are in opinion pieces, and the senator likely has some legitimacy to suggest that some of the coverage/reaction was undue. However, given that there was significant coverage on some of these events, and while we should avoid giving things undue-weight, I feel some of this is worth at least a summarised mention. (While the lawsuit issue was dismissed, the frape stuff was more "meme" than controversy, and the alleged fare-dodging thing was likely overblown, the car tax thing wasn't just a case of getting a telling-off from a Garda - not in the judge's estimation anyway.) I would also note that the only reason this article is on my radar/watchlist at all is because of some disquieting editing patterns that attempted to imbalance the article in another direction. While I strongly feel that a measure of balance is required, if we think that a "controversy" section is inappropriate for WP:UNDUE or other reasons, then perhaps some of the relevant content should be merged into other areas of the main article body? (As per related guidelines) Guliolopez (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Fort Davis, County Cork

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Air Corps (Ireland) Ranks Images

Hi Guliolopez,

I notice that you removed the edit by User:151396a showing the rank images, stating that it is preferred that these are in a separate article. But this is inconsistent with the Irish Army and Irish Naval Service which show the rank images. It is also inconsistent with the air force pages of other countries which do show rank images. For consistency, Air Corps (Ireland) should display the rank images and the Irish Air Corps officer ranks insignia and Irish Air Corps other ranks insignia should be deleted. Alternatively all other air force pages should be changed to have separate rank image pages to match Air Corps (Ireland).

My understanding of WP:FORK is that it relates to wikipedia content on other sites. For duplicate content within wikipedia itself, I think you might have meant WP:CFORK.

Regards. --finestat (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for pointing-out my typo. As you were aware, my concern with replicating the table in two places was primarily because of the problem with content-forking and the preference for dealing with certain sub-topics according to the "summary style" guidelines. In line with this guideline, and when the summary-style links were added to the IAC article (about eight years ago), it was consistent with the guideline - and a bulk of similar articles. (For example, the equivalent British article section (and summary sub-article), Australian article (and sub-article), German equiv (and sub), Dutch equiv (and sub), etc.)

While some similar articles, for example the one covering the USAF, put the rank insignia in the article itself, in some of these cases, it results in a fairly significant CFORK between the main and sub articles. In these cases, it might not be entirely consistent with the WP:SS guidelines.

In any event, if you think there should be some discussion about it (for example to consider any consistency issue between the Irish Army, Air Corps and Naval Service articles), then please do open a thread on one of the relevant talk pages. If we do have a discussion on this topic, I would likely note that the model employed by (for example) the Dutch and German armed forces might be a preferred "norm" with which to align. In these cases, the insignia of each branch is covered under one combined sub-article. I think this might be preferable because:

1. Of the CFORK and SS issues already mentioned
2. Big insignia tables in the main article often "take over". And, because the images tend to be very large, disrupt the flow for the reader
3. We don't have images for all shoulder flashes - resulting in a big table in a main-article that is largely "empty". This type of table doesn't look great and, because it's largely empty, doesn't add much value to the reader
4. There is often significant overlap in the rank and insignia structure between the branches. So covering them in one article might allow for consistency in that entry (as we see in the Dutch and Bundeswehr rank/insignia articles already mentioned - or similar articles for Brazil, Switzerland and others)

Anyway, if you think this is worth a broader discussion (involving other editors), then please do go ahead and open a discussion thread on one of the relevant talk pages. All the best Guliolopez (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Fort Templebreedy

Harrias ^talk 17:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Deich bhliain inniu

Chomhgáirdeas leat!! :) - Alison ^❤ 02:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Bitey

Yes, guilty, I've been a bit bitey - but then, check his userpage. I and others have tried engaging on multiple occasions and been completely ignored, even when there was serious disruption such as article moves that managed to lose page histories. The editing pattern is similarly annoying - dozens of edits, reverts and re-edits, in a short period, ignoring the MoS, and making it impossible to do a simple revert. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ná bac leis. To be honesty while I veer into spoonfeeding myself, it's becoming clear that we're in idealistic naïveté (possibly even Ógra/YFG) territory - and so there may be no helping anyway. Guliolopez (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cove Fort, County Cork

Thanks for this Victuallers (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral

Thank you for your edits. You are quite right, it is "a shabby apology for an (article) which has long disgraced (the cathedral)." It should be FA, and fully merits this as Burges's first major work and for its architectural and historical importance to the City of Cork and to Ireland. One day, perhaps. KJP1 (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I put it in quite those terms.... did I? Whatever the case, there are some areas where the article could be improved (and I've highlighted those on the talk page). If other editors don't have a chance to address them in the regular course of editing/improvement, I'll likely come back to them myself (some day). Guliolopez (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding Tuam Golf Club

Hi Julio, there are some outstanding issues with Tuam Golf Club which I have explained in the Talk page. What is the process for those two issues being corrected.? Should I make the changed, or it that up to the person that raised the issue. Poshpaddy (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I expect that the two issues you reference are the "cites could be better" and "notability isn't established" flags. On the former, if you can provide a source for the "wildlife sanctuary" claim, then yes please do so. Otherwise, if other editors can't verify the claim independently, it should likely be removed. (Per the WP:VER guidelines, other editors should be able to verify claims.) If the only available evidence of the claim is signage on the land itself, then perhaps a photo of that signage would be useful - otherwise the claim can't be verified. On the latter, notability issues generally come-down to the general notability guideline (which suggests that subjects should be covered in non-trivial reliable sources) and the specific guideline for clubs and orgs (which expect that, where a club's activities are local in scope, there would ideally be "substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". In short, if there are more sources (for example of the level of the Indo and Irish Times coverage), that might help address concerns there. Finally, as regards, "who should fix it", the responsibility lies with the editor who adds the info (or wants to remove any challenge tags). Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, Please note that the link William provided on Cork Airport is not valid as it was not a proper disscussion if you look at it. RMS52 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Let's try and have the discussion on the relevant talk page. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Henrys

Point taken, perhalps I was being nostalgic. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Happens to all of us. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You were dead right of course in your first message. Correcting. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

109.148.57.243

Just curious: why haven't you opened an SPI on this guy? Scolaire (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Because I'm jaded from it. And SPI would really only confirm that it's a sock IP. Which anyone could tell - don't need an SPI for that. I've opened an AN3 notice instead. If you were inclined, it might be useful for you to add a note. From there I'll think about something at WP:LTA or ask for thoughts on WP:ANI. Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Note added. Scolaire (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As you have probably noticed this sockpuppet is also "editing" under 109.154.158.70 (talk · contribs) and 86.145.110.87 (talk · contribs).Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ya. I know. See here for more detail. Going back 5 years. Guliolopez (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Tom Coughlan (football) page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for your edits. I accept your expertise on this website as gospel so I am happy enough to take on board your changes. However I find very frustrating that my article is getting edited constantly whilst other gaa club articles Like , Castlemartyr GAA, and Ballyhale Shamrocks GAA Article (for example) remain untouched although they have the same mistakes as I had when I wrote the Lisgoold GAA Article.

Why is this so? They have been on wikipedia much longer than the Lisgoold one, so why is it, that the Lisgoold GAA article keeps getting picked on? I'm just being curious, Don't take offence, i am Honored it is getting so much attention I just want to know why.

Also With your expertise, I have put in the code for Blue shorts with gold trim and Blue and Gold Hoop Socks but no result (as you can see in the info box), Could you please advice in how to fix this?

regards, Mossdaniels (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Moss 15:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossdaniels (talk • contribs)

Hi. Thanks for your note. Great to hear from you. To your points:

1. Kit - Fundamentally this was because the GAA Club infobox didn't support patterns for socks and shorts. Only solid colours. I've added that support[2]. And made a minor tweak to the template as used on the article itself[3]. Hope this helps.
2. Expertise - I'm not king of the universe by any stretch. While I've been around a while, the only reason the Lisgoold articles are on my watch list is that they suffered from some silliness in the past. And now it's kind of on the radar. (For similar reasons every Irish Wikipedian "of a certain age" has Swinford on their watchlist. To address longstanding silliness about werewolves.)
3. Why is there crap on Wikipedia - Unfortunately this a fundamental tenet of a project which is open to everyone. And many guidelines and essays are written on the topic of why there may always be articles with suspect content, and low quality articles, etc. While I can appreciate how this may be frustrating (especially from the perspective of an editor who sees other low quality articles and might then feel like their efforts are being singled out), I would note that there are policies (and perspectives) against WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type arguments. Fundamentally it comes down to that phrase everyone's mother uses: "two wrongs don't make a right..."
4. What do we do about it - In honesty this is simpler. We make our articles better. And hold others to that yardstick. Rather than the other way around. For GAA Club articles, this means avoiding using it as a personal webspace, free webhost for match reports, editorial forum for commentary and opinion pieces that cannot be supported by cite, and generally not adding stuff that isn't what the project is about. Again, to extend the overused parental phrase: "if they were all jumping of a cliff..." So don't jump off the cliff. Keep the high-ground.

Happy editing. Guliolopez (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Hi,

Thanks for all your edits!! :)

I know its a 'low' status but in all honesty its a GAA club wont expect much higher..

However, I just noticed the article got a rating of C! which i was delighted get.

I was wondering what is (realistically) the highest rating this article can get, how does one go about achieving it??

I want to have an article in which all GAA clubs can look and mirror so to improve the whole project. Hope you understand.

Moss 10:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. As you note, the importance-scale rating ("low" in this case) is not typically fluid. Unless a subject gains significantly broader relevance, then - yes - it's likely to remain "low". In terms of quality, a "C" rating on the quality scale was assigned by the assessing editor on the basis that the article:

is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.

Hence, if your goal is to strive for a higher quality rating, then you might work on excising or summarising the "irrelevant material" (match reports and the like), adding more and better references (and removing stuff that can't be reliably referenced), cleaning-up any remaining tone, commentary and POV issues.

As I mentioned before, if these things can be done, then the article can stand-out as a "best case" to which other GAA club articles might aspire. And so, rather than lowering the quality-bar to that of the existing articles you mentioned before, we raise the bar for them.... Guliolopez (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

Well I wholeheartedly agree to all this, I am just looking for three more suitable photos at the moment (one for 1994 team & the other two for club development paragraph) I probably need to add a small bit more in history for juvenile and ladies football clubs, apart from that I'm open to whatever changes have to be made to ensure it gets the highest grading possible. I agree with you, lets raise the bar to highest standard. In cork in Ireland, I'm delighted to say there is a lot of talk about the article so it is getting noticed. So, I am willing to develop this article to its full potential. Looking forward to your reply, Mossdaniels (talk) Moss 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Bareurls

Hello, Thank you for your advice; I know ReFill exists but am unwilling to spend time learning another process which other editors hava already mastered. Within a day or two of the tagging as "bare urls" a editor familiar with the process usually comes along and fills up the references, sometimes also improving the article in other ways.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's every editors' prerogative I guess. We each contribute in our own ways. Though, I must admit, when I read "unwilling to spend time learning another process" (when the "process" involves 2 clicks), a slight chill told me a WikiLove fairy had died somewhere :) Guliolopez (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you but after seven and a half years I tend to do fairly minor changes, copy editing and assessment mostly. I expect there are some newer editors who would get into using ReFill more readily.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Magazine Fort

Allen3 ^talk 12:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join MILHIST

Hello Guliolopez! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, Anotherclown (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Linda Kavanagh

Do you remember this image: c:File:Linda kavanagh.jpg to which you made this edit. You never edited it previously so how do you know it was actually released under a free licence? The original uploader wrote full permission from WPI but there is no knowledge of what that really means. Does it mean wikipedia use, which you know we don't accept or something else. It's obviously a professional portrait whose copyright is usually owned by the photographer. ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not knowingly remove the permission tag. It was removed automatically (and completely unbeknownst to me) by the HotCat tool. commons:Help:Gadget-HotCat tool. Would seem to be a bug in that tool. All I had (intentional) done was add a politicians category. Anything else that occurred was a background behaviour of the tool. I have restored the flag. Guliolopez (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually. Sorry. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here, but it was you who removed that flag yourself surely???? All I did was add a category? Your edit history above spans your own edit(?) My edit was not the one that removed or asserted or changed anything relative to permission tags? So, can you help me understand your problem with my edit? Guliolopez (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatcha talkin bout Willis?

In this talk page edit you ask why I changed a permission tag on a file. I didn't. You removed that tag yourself. A full year before my edit. The edit history you provide for context spans your own edit - so it seems pretty clear there's some confusion somewhere. To confirm, my edit just added the image to a politicians category. It was your own edit that was permission/copyright status related. Guliolopez (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Who is this Willis person anyway? I see it has been tagged again but being an old image it should really be listed under a FFD. Indeed there was some confusion on my part and it was still on my watchlist for a year so popped up after your edit and the edit link I gave you excluded the intermediate edit I had made. Thanks anyway for responding and clarifying. Maybe I was just too tired at the time. ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I was on the cusp of opening a bug-report for the HotCat tool, so am glad to have checked and confirmed that the edit in question was not triggered by me or that tool. Would've had eggy faces all round. Guliolopez (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)