Jump to content

Talk:Timothy Quill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

Blogs are not reliable sources. When other editors highlight sourcing issues, the mitigation is NOT to spend the next hour writing a blog that states the same thing as already stated in the article. And then replace all the ref requests with a link to that blog. Other editors, aware and interested in this project/community's guidelines, will recognise this. As it is beyond obvious. But I am opening this thread here, not for those editors operating withing those guidelines, but for the sock/meat puppets seeking to subvert the community's guidelines and purpose for their own contradictory goals. I will shortly be removing all of the content on this article which is not supported by a reliable source. Per WP:RS, WP:VER and the multiple other guidelines which do not support this kind of nonsense. Guliolopez (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup & Potential Conclusion?

[edit]

Hi there, I like editing Irish political biographies and am a keen recent member of the Wikipedia community - encountered this article as it was highlighted - looked through it and nothing's been done to it in a while and there seems to have been significant cleanups according to the edit history. Looks like a solid, neutral article with questionable sources removed. Links to newspaper articles, while they don't have their correct title in the 'references' section, seem ok to me. I'd say problems that existed before are no longer a worry. I'll look at whether I can contribute anything but I personally think it satisfies the requirement for a solid, neutral article with decent sources by now. Manfromnewmexico — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfromnewmexico (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello new user who is at pains to be seen as impartial. COI concerns remain. Including
  • "Positive COI" concerns (promo/memorialising). The article was created by a family member(s) of the subject. Editing via multiple accounts. And who had difficulty balancing their own POV with the NPOV goals of the project. Examples of this conflict of interest (and non-neutral editing) remain. Including, not least, the language in the lead. Which falls short of MOS:WTW and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. (Terms like "key" and "strong" and "renowned" are unqualified and subjective statements. Not attributed to anyone. And many supported only with a reference to what can only be a family biographical source. Certainly no library in Ireland has a record of holding a copy of a biography titled "Biography of Timothy Quill (1901–1960)".)
  • "Negative COI" concerns (attack page). The article was updated by other editors. Also editing via multiple IPs/etc. And also seemingly having difficulty balancing their own personal perspective and goals with those of this project. Examples of this "skew" (in the other direction) include the weight given to allegations of antisemitism and other perceived failings of the subject. While much of this was tempered or curtailed by the former cohort of editors, some examples remain.
Unless or until the article has been reviewed and tweaked to temper either of these apparent conflicts or interest or perspectives, then I personally believe that the flag should remain. In all honesty, I am perhaps no longer an "uninvolved" editor myself. Given that I am rightly annoyed by the persistence of connected editors to continue to edit articles with which they have an association. Despite requests that they consider the guidelines in this regard. If seeking impartial input, interested contributors might consider nominating this article for peer review. However I would note that significant improvement in the referencing would likely be required before then. As, as noted, many of the "references" in this article are either difficult or impossible to follow and verify.... Guliolopez (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm just a random new editor who just happened to find this article." Yeah right, Manfromnewmexico is clearly another npov family member like Newcastle1977. Spleodrach (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms

[edit]

Please avoid acronyms. You may know what they mean however others do not. TD? Neils51 (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As is convention, the abbreviation "TD" is defined (with a link) earlier in the article. In the elections section. In a way which is broadly consistent with MOS:ABBR and MOS:ACRO1STUSE. Yes, use of acronyms should be limited. But not to the extent that (for example) every article which mentions an MP (in the UK) should use the "full" description every time. Once defined, per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, and unless the use of an abbreviation is gratuitous or unnecessary, then there isn't a major issue to address. Guliolopez (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

[edit]

I have made an account, I am the user with the most recent IP address listed on the edit. An earlier version by connected editor had a decent base, most of it was verified but it was too long for a Wikipedia article and I have recently gone back to re-adjust that version, shave off some excess and add suitable sources from the Irish Newspaper Archives (a must have for any amateur historian) and stuff from books and the Labour History Museum. I removed the picture as it was not from a reliable source, but I am trying to get my account confirmed as I have found a portrait from the archives. If I can get the reliably sourced image up, do you think it is worth nominating for peer review ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1952unionman1952 (talk • contribs)

Hi.
RE: "I am the user with the most recent IP address". Yes. You are. You are also connected to the editor who previously abused multiple profiles to war on this and other related articles. Stop editing from multiple accounts. Request that one of your previous profiles be unblocked. Or find something else to do with your time. And everyone else's time.
RE: "suitable sources from the Irish Newspaper Archives". You mean the same scant fragments of local news and classified ads that the same connected editor used to pepper this and related articles with trivialities of interest only to immediate family? Those "must have sources"?
RE: "and stuff from books". You mean the same unpublished books by the mysterious "Eamonn Kirwan", whose works appear in no library ANYWHERE in Ireland? Or anywhere else for that matter. Those entirely unverifiable "sources"?
RE: "worth nominating for peer review". No. Thanks to the behaviours of connected editor(s) who cannot see how their goals conflict with those of the project, there are major issues and tags in place here. Which must be resolved before PR is possible. Those are not going to be resolved by SPA/COI/SOCKing editors. So, no, it is not worth nominating for peer review. Because it fails the basic pre-requisites for PR.
I would address the other points you raise. But I cannot think straight with the utterly deafening sounds of quacking. Guliolopez (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have to support your claim on the first one? Do the principles of common law not apply to Wikipedia? Are all people with an interest in Labour history suddenly all plotting together to subvert Wikipedia? Are you going to undo my contribution to James Hickey? 1952unionman1952

Hi.
RE: "what evidence do you have to support your claim?". Using exactly the same sources as an editor with a confirmed pattern of SOCKing behaviours (including relying on the same apparently unpublished sources neither known nor available to anybody else) is somewhat outside the realms of happenstance. As is a pattern of editing which covers the same limited handful of articles (including articles edited by effectively no other editors, outside the socking cabal, in the last 12 months). As is just happening to know where the questionable references are across those and other articles (immediately when raised). As is adding the exact same text supported by the exact same references and format as previously added by a now-blocked editor. It is also not usual for a new editor's first EVER contribution to be one which seeks elevated privileges to add something to an article which has been subject to issues. One coincidence may be circumstantial. Umpteen coincidences is prejudicial.
RE: "Do the principles of common law not apply to Wikipedia?". No. But the principles of common decency and common sense do.
RE: "Are you going to undo my contribution to James Hickey?". What are you on about? I do not have that article on my watchlist. And have no reason to review edits to that article. If you, yourself, believe that there is something questionable about a contribution to a particular article, to the extent that you think it should perhaps be reverted, then you should consider reverting it yourself. Otherwise inviting other editors to review and revert your edits is just another odd thing for an otherwise genuine/new contributor to say.
I'm not engaging with you any more. Under any of your guises. I'll be reopening the previous ANI/SPI threads soon. The duck test is passed. Guliolopez (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly Manfromnewmexico / Newcastle1977 user again. They should be blocked straight away. Spleodrach (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]


In ‘later life’, he was a member of the national committee of the Irish Landrace Pig Society https://archive.irishnewsarchive.com/Olive/APA/INA/SharedView.Article.aspx?href=IEX%2F1959%2F02%2F10&id=Ar00404&sk=15CC6816 :

  • ’ Thus provides the reader with more information on positions held by the subject of the article':
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

212.129.72.168 (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hello "212.129.72.168".
I have partially implemented the first change. By adding the reference. To replace the existing "situations vacant small ad" used to support the "involved in insurance business" text. I have not added the proposed text. As being involved with one branch of a special interest industry body seems less than encyclopedically relevant. Relative to other aspects of the article. (There is no reason to list every single professional or community body that the subject was involved with. Wikipedia is not a directory or LinkedIn.)
I have not implemented the second change. As being a member of a branch of a special interest agri- body seems less than encyclopedically relevant. Relative to other aspects of the article. (There is no reason to list every pig breeding association the subject was a member of. Even the source amounts to a passing mention in a "picture caption".)
As before, there is no reason (and it does not improve this article or the project as a whole) to add/republish every passing-mention that you find in newspaper archives about your family member.
Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. Open edit request. Ignore input of others. Carry on regardless of discussion and with more consideration to own goals than that of this project. Another clear example of WP:NOTHERE behaviours from blocked socking editor. Because of course... Guliolopez (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timothy_Quill&oldid=1204977402"