User talk:Irishrebels235

November 2018

Hello, I'm Flyer22 Reborn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Clonlea— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Máire Rua O'Brien

Hi, I have removed and fixed some of the content that you are re-inserted into the article on Máire Rua O'Brien. Some of the links you added as sources were broken so I removed them. I also removed a podcast link as a source (that is not a suitable reference) as well as those from Duchas - Duchas is a primary source and not suitable for Wikipedia in this case. I had rolled back your previous edits due to issues with spelling, syntax, breaking links and other problems with deceased readability. You might find it easier to edit from a laptop rather than a mobile when trying to make edits like these. Also, the detail on the table makes no mention of Maire, so is not relevant to her article (perhaps should be included elsewhere). Smirkybec (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, I've rolled back your edits to this article today, as the sources you are citing are blogs and are not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Many of the sentences are also too biased and seem to reflect your own conclusions about O'Brien, which should not be included in the article. Smirkybec (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Great to gave a volunteer with energy and interest; welcome! Just to remind, there are some guidelines, and a few rules, as we try to meet certain standards, and we do have to ask you to listen to fellow volunteers, and for example to edit from solid sources and with good grammar. ...please discuss here if anything is unclear. SeoR (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Couple of quick things:

• O'Brien did not have 25 husbands. She had 3. O'Neillan (1634-1639), O'Brien (c.1639-1651), and Cooper (1651-1686†). The claim (that she married 25 men, one a year every year between c.1651 and c.1676) is clearly and transparently a myth. A fabrication. Not true. While it is just about OK to state that such a legend exists (and the article already states as much), it is not appropriate or necessary to republish the detail of how this might have worked. As it is fiction.
• O'Brien did not kill Cooper. John Cooper, Coronet, is mentioned in multiple Ainsworth/Inchiquin documents. Including in O'Brien's will of 1686. And multiple other letters and documents (both to Cooper and from Cooper). Including one from Henry Ivers dating to 1684 (Ivers, being High Sheriff of Clare and Cooper's brother-in-law, was unlikely to be writing letters to a dead man). Cooper lived apart from O'Brien. As tenant occupant of Bunratty Castle. But being "separated" and being "murdered" are entirely different things. Obviously. It is just about OK to state that myths (dating from 200 years after her death) claimed that O'Brien killed him in a rage (and the article already states as much). But using a novel or other work of fiction to support speculation (about how he might have died if she had killed him) is beyond inappropriate. As it is fiction.

In short: Wikipedia is not a republisher or mirror of all content everywhere. And certainly not of fictional content. Stating that legends exist, and summarising what they are, is perfectly sufficient. Republishing granular and speculative detail of each obvious fiction (as if "story" and "history" are indistinguishable, or as if fact and fiction are of equal weight) is not appropriate. Stop doing it. Guliolopez (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hello.

"Their Own Anam Cara . . . A Journey of Destiny" by Laura Veazey (2013, ISBN 1481717685) is, according to its publishers and cataloguers, a novel. A work of fiction. The text of a works of fiction cannot be used to support the text of a factual/historical article. Please try not to conflate fact with fiction. Or story with history. Please read WP:RS.

Weeva.com is, according to the owners of the website, a tool to allow people to submit stories and other content to create their own self-published books and photo collections. Please try not to confuse self-published sources with more reliable ones. Please read WP:SELFPUB.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Hi. Me again. Please:

• Stop adding unreliable sources. (Blogs, user generated content, and Wikipedia itself are not reliable sources)
• Do not misrepresent sources. (Sources should be accurately reflected. They should not be "interpreted", subject to synthesis, or otherwise misrepresented.)
• Use edit summaries.

In this edit you added a (broken) link to a blog post, without any explanation or edit summary, and used it to support a claim that the subject of an article had "affairs with soldiers stationed on and off in lemenagh castle during the 1660s". The linked webpage (even if a valid or reliable reference) does not state this. It states that "during the 1660s, Cromwellian troops were stationed on and off at Leamaneh castle". It does not state that the subject of the article had affairs with any or all of these soldiers. At all.

In a previous edit you claimed to be a "historian". I'm not sure what this words means to you but, to me, it is not how I would describe someone who continually misinterprets or misrepresents sources. While Wikipedia editors are not expected to be historians (or experts in any field at all really), they are expected to be able to identify reliable sources, to represent those sources accurately, and generally to edit in a way which is consistent with the norms of this project. Editors who do not or cannot are generally asked to consider doing something else with their time. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Bump. This is the last such message you will receive from me. Escalation next. It has already been advised (by myself and at least 2 or 3 other editors) that edits should be supported by reliable sources and should not contain synthesis or interpretation of sources.

In terms of WP:RS, message boards on Ancestry.com, individual user-generated entries on Geni.com, blog posts on Blogspot.com, and other similar user generated websites and webpages are not considered reliable sources. (Blog posts can claim that the world is flat, Ancestry.com entries can contain unidentified errors or incomplete entries, and Facebook or Reddit posts can contain outright nonsense.) Please do not rely on sources like these.

In terms of WP:SYNTH, even if relying on reliable source, do not synthesise or extrapolate from what the source states. (For example, if a source suggests that one, or even two, members of a family were involved in politics, it is not appropriate to extrapolate that every member of that the family were "all of high position in politics and society".)

Anyway, as above, I'm pretty much done trying to help you with this now. Escalation next. Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Máire Rua O'Brien, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Several editors have kindly helped / offered guidance. But a high percentage of your edits simply don’t follow standards, ignore advice, reduce the quality of the article, and make work for others. Please either study how editing should be done, edit other articles (properly) or cease. Persisting in recent behaviour may lead to being blocked from editing. SeoR (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)