User talk:Financefactz

Welcome!

Submit a new message by pressing this button:

Hi. Dublin postal districts (Dublin 4, Dublin 2, etc) are commonly referred to by their simple abbreviations (D2, D4, etc). As per the section on the Dublin 4 article which deals with the use of 'D4' in common parlance. Unless or until the more recent Eircode abbreviations replace these existing common names or common abbreviations, there would seem to be no need to replace references to "D2" with references to "D02" or similar. Thanks. (Separately. What's up with your user talkpage. Ideally test edits would be made in your sandbox. And not here.) Guliolopez (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I would say D4 is just the colloquial name for the area in this day and age since they brought in Eircode but the postcode is D04 and then xxx for the specific property e.g. - D04 TP03 for the United States embassy and not for example D4 TP03. If you are trying to order an item and you put in the incorrect code such as D4 then many websites will not allow it. Much of a muchness though and I suppose it is being a bit pedantic of me and you seem to be quite invested in this so fire away with D4. Financefactz (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Financefactz[reply]

Postcodes are often used by people who aren't Irish to locate properties (I worked with a UK bank who were selling a portfolio of Irish property loans in a previous life) and are unique identifier codes. Much like a telephone number, they don't really work if you miss a digit. Financefactz

Thanks for uploading File:Interior of Belvedere House.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Interior of Belvedere House.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tax haven shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I would advise you to: (1) avoid personal attacks regarding my edits (I did not create this article, or the leprechaun economics article, as you assert), and (2) revert your last edit as you have violated WP:3RR, and (3) discuss the issue on the Talk Page per my offer. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Tallest approved buildings in the Republic of Ireland. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of tallest buildings in Ireland. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of tallest buildings in Ireland. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Troubles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FDW777 (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the Mary Lou McDonald article, and similar articles, are subject to a 1-revert-rule restriction, meaning no more than one revert in a 24 hour period. The addition of supposed FF membership has been discussed at Talk:Mary Lou McDonald#Fianna Fáil, it has been denied by Mary Lou and should not be added without consensus. FDW777 (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited any page related to the troubles at any stage. Noted re the Fianna Fail edit, it was through ignorance rather than a deliberate disobedience that I edited and I will refrain from now on Financefactz (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Sorry, I should have made my initial post clearer. The definition of "The Troubles" is slightly wider than just the conflict itself. The definition used can be seen at {{Troubles restriction}}, to save you having to possibly navigate away it reads "pages relating to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland". While some might say "Irish Nationalism" is a rather wide definition that could include the majority of political parties in Ireland, there is the counter-view that a major Irish republican party is very much covered by the definition. As the template itself says, "When in doubt, assume it is related". I hope that clarifies things for you. FDW777 (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Cairn Homes, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just a bit more explanation on why I moved this to draft space. Your article was sourced only to the subject's website - that's not appropriate. You need multiple reliable, secondary and independent sources, both the support the assertions, and to demonstrate that the subject would satisfy the criteria at WP:NCORP. Assuming what you've said about the company in the article is accurate about its listings, market capitalisation and so on, I'd be surprised if sources weren't out there - if you can add two or three sources of the quality outlined at WP:CORPDEPTH, this could be published. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually no reason to interfere here it is one of only 2 companies on the ISEQ 20 not to have a page with the other already having a related page set up for a related entity. An article with 3 citations already included and which is well structured to stub level for a listed company should be left as it and I would request you reinstate it immediately. This is a particularly irritating given the fact it was only made a few hours ago. Two of the citations are to stock exchange listings as well which makes it particularly annoying.Financefactz (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Financefactz

Thank you for creating Doheny & Nesbitt.

User:Blythwood, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Looks solid-and notable enough I felt it was worth doing a Wikimedia Commons category for it.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Blythwood}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Blythwood (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sutton House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Jameson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you included this sentence Darren J. Prior (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)FinancefactsDarren J. Prior (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC) " (Laurel Lodge) is synonymous with the ecclesiastical parish of St. Thomas the Apostle." The parish of St. Thomas includes or covers a lot more area than Laurel Lodge and the majority of people in Laurel Lodge are not religiously-minded so I don't see the value in adding that sentence particularly at the start of the page. Darren J. Prior (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk)[reply]

Hi Daren, No offence intended! It seemed to be almost the exact same information covered in both pages so I wasn't sure if you were aware of it and linked it anyway. I have left a message in the talk page stating that there should probably be

• A page for the ecclesiastical parish - St Thomas the Apostle parish, Laurel Lodge
  
• A page for the estate - Laurel Lodge

But that it would be an issue if there were two different pages and they were both repeating a lot of the same information. It may be the case that some of the information from one will have to be transferred to the other. I will delete the reference to the ecclesiastical parish in the page now and let you tip away at it without interference. The User:Laurel Lodged might be of help and I see you have used one of the photos they have uploaded already.Financefactz (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Darren J. Prior (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is there a connection between the Dublin Civic Trust and the Irish Landmark Trust? If so, what is that connection? And, if there is no connection, what does "operates alongside" mean to you? (Yes. Both of those entities are engaged in the protection or improvement of heritage buildings. But so are the Irish Heritage Trust, Irish Georgian Society, Heritage Council, Industrial Heritage Association, An Taisce, and several other bodies. Why are we implying a link between these two specifically? And not the rest. And, if there is a link which is special to these two orgs, what is it?). Apologies if I'm overlooking something obvious but, when researching the Irish Landmark Trust, I did not find anything to support the suggestion that the two "partner" or "collaborate" or otherwise "link up" on projects or initiatives. Or have shared or overlapping governance. Or funding. Or whatever. Guliolopez (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of market houses in the Republic of Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shelbourne Hotel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nubian and Hôtel de ville.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Thanks for adding those refs/clarifications/etc. As per the notes you added most recently, my understanding is that the bridge (crossing Spencer Dock at Sheriff Street) was originally called "Spencer Bridge". Certainly that's how it is marked on late 19th century maps. Common/later variants seem to be "Spencer Lifting Bridge" or "Spencer Drawbridge". While it may have been renamed (following reconstruction) in the 1940s, it may be the COMMONNAME just evolved. Certainly, after the opening of the Scherzer bridge at the "mouth" of the dock in 1912, there would've been a need for differentiation that there wasn't before (on which "Spencer Dock Bridge" the speaker was talking about).

Anyway, while I'm not overly fussed either way, when those stone plaques were placed (in 1873), it was "Spencer Bridge". Which was why I adjusted the image label (which describes those plaques) as I did. Anyway, I think it's all sorted now.... Guliolopez (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of market houses in the Republic of Ireland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Westport and Corofin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I noticed that you have edited a few of the articles I created recently about office buildings built in Dublin from the 1960s and 1970s. I'm working my way through Frank McDonald's The Destruction of Dublin (1985) (and I have his two subsequent books) and it goes into a lot of detail about the various property developers and the politicians that were later implicated in some of the planning scandals and tribunals. Is this an area you had ever thought about working on? I'm thinking like Des Traynor and Matt Gallagher (and his son, Patrick). Given his profile, I was very surprised to see Traynor doesn't have an article. Just in case it was something you'd thought about working on, or if you had any thoughts! Smirkybec (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi talk Frank McDonald's book is not really a great source from which to work as it is more of an opinion piece from a journalist and planning lobbyist than a factual piece or an attempt at real insight. Many of the points noted in the book are outright lies or distortions of the truth - see his twitter account, although I largely agree with his opinions I take issue with how he gets to them. I could certainly have a look at Des Traynor but I usually try and steer clear of BLPs or anything that could stray into subjective investigative journalism and away from encyclopedic content but would happy to have in age, position, progress, career milestones, associates etc.Financefactz (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Well indeed, McDonald is not to be used in isolation, but it is more to use as a jumping off point to identify some of the figures involved (as well as the architects etc). You've seen yourself how I've used the book to start a few articles, and I don't think there are any glaring NPOV issues so far. Traynor died back in 1994, so no fear of a BLP there. Smirkybec (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cashel Palace Hotel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen Anne.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Hotels in Tipperary indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Financefactz: I wonder why you think this article is notable, particulalry since it is dynamic in nature and will need filling until the end of time, and is perhaps best served on the police site? scope_creep^Talk 18:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of missing persons in Ireland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of missing persons in Ireland until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

scope_creep^Talk 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I understand that the redlinks are a little frustrating, but is it really useful to divert them to such things as churches and the brewery? At least I think this should be discussed on the relevant Talk page, no? SeoR (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If this edit summary is intended as a joke, then fine. LOL. I'll laugh along. If it is something else, then I'm not sure what to say. Other than I do not appreciate the suggestion. At all. And that, if you have any WP:AGF concerns, my edit history will stand for itself.

In terms of the edits themselves, you have added text to the effect that the "court has confirmed that the organisation's purpose is to embezzle funds". Can you advise please which court made that confirmation/judgement and where that judgement is expressed in the available sources? Otherwise please remember, as well you know as a longstanding editor, that WP:ATP and WP:PROMO are two sides of the same coin. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally it should not have a wikipedia page and was set up as an advertisement to recruit more hapless victims into the scam. While the extensive Wikipedia rules may not cover precisely this very specific instance, I think that if you do wish to keep the page (for reasons unknown to me), then at the very least it should be clearly flagged that it is a scam. It fails most of the prerequisites for starting a Wikipedia page. It is not registered for tax, as a charity, as a company or as a trust in any jurisdiction and there are no citations provided for this as they simply do not exist. Is it a non-registered brand name used by assorted con-artists? Yes, it is. There are doubts over whether it can truly said to be an organisation at all as it doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria for being an organisation. I suggest that the page change its name to the Rodolphus Allen Family Private Trust‎ Scam immediately before a more serious discussion begins on whether or not the page should be kept in the coming days.

At a minimum, I suggest that at least that you consider reviewing some of your earlier edits on the page to remove language implying this vague scam has some integrity behind it. It should also be noted that some of the initial older articles on the scam were composed by local newspapers who do not have a good grasp of the issue and were written at a time when they were not aware it was a scam. No doubt the revelations of the last few days relating to Catriona Carey brought the whole issue back into the public consciousness.Financefactz (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. A couple of points there.

1. RE: AGF. I notice you didn't comment on your "lol - do you have a connection to the scam??" EDSUMM. So I will assume that it was a joke. As I thought. If so it's hilarious. But note that other editors might not have the same sense of humour as I do. And may have consider such a joke to be an accusation or bad-faith or a personal attack. Good thing I'm such good craic.
2. RE: NN. The notability criteria for organisations (or other subjects) doesn't necessarily expect that they be registered companies or charities or trademarks or whatever. Simply that they be the subject of WP:SIGCOV. This subject has been the topic of quite a bit of coverage. Granted (in the early days) by some local newspapers who, as you note and unfortunately, perhaps did not focus enough on the nature and operations of the subject. But, the subsequent coverage in otherwise reliable/national sources extensively covers the subject in some detail. (Including the arrests of those involved [like Allen and Gilroy], the injunctions taken against it/them, the discourse and warnings about the org raised in both houses of the Oireachtas, etc.) This level of coverage, to my view, meets WP:SIGCOV.
3. RE: NPOV. I'm not sure what edits you are referring to, but the WP:NPOV and WP:VER requirements are pretty clear in how opinions and positions should be represented. To my read the article correctly focuses more on the sources and coverage which questions the legality and veracity of the claims associated with and by supporters of the org. You assertion, that the courts adjudged the subject to be a scam, is not supported by the sources. While Senator Thomas Byrne reportedly referred the trust to the gardaí, and likely some investigation has been undertaken by the fraud squad, AFAIK no prosecution or court action (for fraud, theft or embezzlement) has occurred.
4. RE: ADVERT. I do not see how a claim that the article was initially created "as an advertisement to recruit more hapless victims" has any validity. The initial version of the article, as created by CivisHibernius, does not appear to have any such intent. As with your "joke" about me, if you are making similar "jokes" about other users and their AGF intentions, then you'd want to take another look at related etiquette guidelines. To my read, the initial creator went to some length to include and accurately reflect the sources which questioned the validity of the organisation's claims. Including in Deeter's takedown/breakdown piece.
5. RE: TITLE. WP:COMMONNAME is what determines article titles.
6. RE: CAREY. Yes. The "[A] give me your money -> [B] unspecified and pseudo-legal/financial things will happen -> [C] you'll be debt free" claims associated with Carey do seem very similar to those associated with Allen. Albeit that the unspecified thing in the middle ([B]) had changed between 2013 and 2022. Perhaps there was an ideas exchange in 2013. When Carey reputedly acted as an administrator for Allen's organisation. I don't know. The reliable sources have little to say on this connection and overlap. And that is where I look. In the RSes. I personally look forward to reading RS news articles (hopefully sooner rather than later) when the courts *are* asked to offer an opinion or judgement on the activities of Rodolphus Allen Family Private Trust and/or Careysfort Asset Estates Ltd. And will be the first to reflect those sources in either/both articles. Until then, unilaterally declaring things (not overtly stated in reliable sources) isn't in keeping with related guidelines.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re Lol, your edits had toned down the narrative of the article initially to promote its reputability. If you look back in a detailed way through the edit history you will see that this has happened time and time again with users and accounts who obviously have a vested interest in keeping the page going as an advertisement for the scam. I note you have now slightly revised your tone so that it is not as gushing towards the "organisation" (Have you accepted that is is not an organisation). I will review your other comments and edits over the next few days.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that someone who tried to edit a page which is an advertisement for a scam may, like previous editors, have some connection or vested interest in keeping the scam going. The only real way to assuage these views would be to use your no doubt extensive editorial skills which you have used across other articles over many years and apply them here and do as much research as possible on the topic before making the edits. As Al Pacino said in the film Glengarry Glen Ross - "never pull the trigger til you know what the shot is" - the shot in this case is accidentally helping to promote a confidence scam. Financefactz (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are also several veiled threats above which I will ignore.Financefactz (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not making any veiled threats. You, on the other hand, continue to make statements which are counter to WP:AGF and WP:AOBF. I have made more than 150,000 edits across the project over 15 years. None of my edits on that article can remotely be described as "gushing". And, yes, it *is* unreasonable to suggest that just editing an article related to a "scam" might imply a verted interested in the scam. It absolutely is unreasonable. End of. Guliolopez (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ashton House, Dublin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victorian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Financefactz. Thank you for creating Marino House. User:TheLongTone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

An article about an old building which has not been converted to a hotel or the like! Well I never

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

@TheLongTone: An entire suburb is named after it (Marino, Dublin), one of the folly's in the estate is a national monument (the Casino at Marino). It was the home of one of the most famous Irish and British individual's of the day (James Caulfeild, 1st Earl of Charlemont) and was also one of his family seat's. The grounds of the house contain at least 5 listed structures including the original entrance gates and some of the folly's. I can find it mentioned at least 7 other separate times by other users throughout Wikipedia articles. Financefactz (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the article Jervis Street Hospital. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Financefactz I'm currently adding information on the Easter Rising on the Boland's Mill page and there is an editing conflict. An addition of (now the site of the Treasury Building) has been added to the Mill rather than the Bakery, which is now the site of the Treasury Building. Can you take a look please? Thank you Smidgeonhousedublin (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smidgeonhousedublin: Fire away and add whatever information you want to add but note that The Treasury building is on Grand Canal Street and Boland's Mill (the article you have edited) is on Barrow street. So there likely has been some sort of a mix-up. Much of the information you have added seems to be unrelated to the mill on Barrow Street and may be more relevant to other pages such as the one on the Easter Rising more generally or Boland's bakery or even the Treasury Buildng. Financefactz (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For expanding Kenure House from a redirect, have this steaming cup of tea to keep you invigorated while editing! Johannes Schade (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Financefactz. Did you enjoy making an article from a redirect page? I did that same thing for the article Callaghan MacCarty, 3rd Earl of Clancarty, wherupon User:CaptainEek sent me a cup of tea just as I did now send one to you. I feel it is not right that the editor who created the redirect page with a minimal effort is credited to be the creator of an article with many thousands of characters. I have tried to delete such redirect pages that block the creation of an article but without success in the case of the redirect page Richard Parsons, 1st Viscount Rosse. In your case I wondered whether you could have circumvented the problem by creating the article under the name of "Rush House", redirect Kenure House to Rush House and then later rename it. I would be very pleased to hear from you. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johannes, Many thanks for the cup of tea. I felt Kenure House was the name which most readers would be familiar with so I went with that option and I did not even consider that I would not be getting credit, in all honesty, but its nice to know that there are people looking out for me! Financefactz (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the above page. Ridiculopathy (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid undoing edits, if you can adjust them. That Liam McCormick is not included in the page on Irish Architecture is a failing of the page. The whole page isn't particularly great, so commenting on a breaking narrative flow was a bit stupid. 2001:BB6:2D1D:C200:B59C:802D:A1C7:75D9 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I happened upon your sandbox having noticed you have the RII building there and saw you have a redlink to Dutch Billy. This is a topic I did some research on a few years ago and wanted to write the article but other topics have come to the fore. I can did out some sources and maybe you would join me in writing it up even if it's just a stub or short start class for now. Some of the street you mention have had their frontage modified as I have seen from some sources. Thoughts? ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ww2censor, Feel free to plough on with it, it has been a long time since I've had a look at it but I will happily join you in editing. It is quite a niche subject but here is a few nice free pictures and paintings we can draw upon such as this painting of Marrowbone Lane. It is possible that almost all streets in Dublin were full of pitched rooves and Dutch gables for a period of time.

Hi. You wrote, "already all fully cited, no further responses to my comments on the talk page". However, there have been no non-bot edits on the talk page since the article passed a good article review in 2021.

The principal problem with your edits are that they go against the good article criteria. Specifically, the "Verifiable with no original research" sections states, "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);". And the "Well-written" section, the Manual of Style for layout states "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings".

I'm sorry if this comes across as possibly arrogant, but the good article criteria exist so that we can show readers that an article is well-written and trusted, and it's disheartening to see editors ignore this or not appearing to care about the criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dominick Street, Dublin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mount Ievers Court, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Custom House, Limerick, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what is difficult about WP:BRD or the request to use the talk page, but please do so, without the accusations of someone "sabotaging" anything. - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nelson's Pillar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to go through the various edits and which ones you take umbrage with either here or on the talk page.... I have been doing this for a while though.Financefactz (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You continued edit warring, despite the warnings. And, before you screw up the article any further, it's an FA, which means there is a fairly strong consensus to overturn on any changes. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ps. You are not the only one who has been doing things for a while, but most of us do it to a high standard and in a collegiate manner. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what an FA but my main concern is having an accurate and well cited article, the current one is not, I would suggest you have a read of some of the 1,000 plus Wikipedia pages I have written or edited on architectural subjects. Please do not delete citations without discussion first unless there has been a genuine error typo. Financefactz (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to instruct me (or anyone else), I'm afraid. The current article is accurate and well-cited, as it fairly obvious from the fact is is classed as WP:FA and has been through two community review processes. That gives it a hefty consensus you have to overcome, and trying to enforce your version by edit warring is only going to end badly for you. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Nelson's Pillar. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Financefactz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It seems I had already reverted the page to the original content and was looking to discuss the edits on (1.) User:SchroCat's talk page (2.) My own talk page and (3.) (per the User's direction) the Nelson's Pillar talk page. Replies have not been forthcoming except where they related to Wikipedia more generally and I as a user, rather than the content of the page. After politely asking the User:SchroCat to stop sabotaging the page, I was told to "wind in your neck" on the individual's talk page and later on my own talk page it was stated "before you screw up the article any further" and "edit warring is only going to end badly for you". None of this seems to be civil and is frankly quite disrespectful and rude and in the last case, openly threatening.

It does not feel morally correct that we have a situation where this is essentially a captured page. The page cannot be discussed on the talk page, it cannot be discussed on my talk page and it cannot be discussed on another user's talk page. Are we stuck in a situation where clearly very relevant information is deliberately omitted from the page in favour of what some user's would regard as more interesting information on the life of Admiral Nelson? This is getting to the stage that we had with the captured pages that were established and running by the former User:Britishfinance. I have all times acted civilly and in the interest of the project, the same cannot be said for User:SchroCat who appears to have more of a personal gripe. Financefactz (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring. Attempting to justify it is not helpful. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It seems I had already reverted the page to the original content and was looking to discuss the edits on (1.) User:SchroCat's talk page (2.) My own talk page and (3.) (per the User's direction) the Nelson's Pillar talk page. Replies have not been forthcoming except where they related to Wikipedia more generally and I as a user, rather than the content of the page. After politely asking the User:SchroCat to stop sabotaging the page, I was told to "wind in your neck" on the individual's talk page and later on my own talk page it was stated "before you screw up the article any further" and "edit warring is only going to end badly for you". None of this seems to be civil and is frankly quite disrespectful and rude and in the last case, openly threatening.

It does not feel morally correct that we have a situation where this is essentially a captured page. The page cannot be discussed on the talk page, it cannot be discussed on my talk page and it cannot be discussed on another user's talk page. Are we stuck in a situation where clearly very relevant information is deliberately omitted from the page in favour of what some user's would regard as more interesting information on the life of Admiral Nelson? This is getting to the stage that we had with the captured pages that were established and running by the former User:Britishfinance. I have all times acted civilly and in the interest of the project, the same cannot be said for User:SchroCat who appears to have more of a personal gripe. Tagging User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Guliolopez Financefactz (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal gripe (this is the first time we have interacted and you reverted without considering exactly what you were doing - my edit summary made very clear you were duplicating one of the IB fields, but you reverted anyway. Why?). Yes, I told you to wind your neck in, but when you come to my talk page and instruct me to "stop sabotaging the page", when I clearly wasn't, it's little wonder I said only that and nothing stronger. You personalised matters from our first interaction, when the edit summaries I left were neutral explanations of what I had done and why. If you start of personalising things and making untruthful accusations, while edit warring against an explained reversion, there's not much more that I can say. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than saying "stop sabotaging the page", I deliberately used the word "please" beforehand to form the sentence "Please stop sabotaging the page" in an attempt to engage and defuse the situation. Are we saying that the Irish Architectural Archive is not a reliable source for this building and structure? It would appear to me to be the most reliable of all sources, being as it is, extremely thorough, politically neutral and, free to access via the internet. Is it fair to wait the one minute between 14.07 and 14.08 as the user did to then revert my very small edits? I was hardly adding multiple paragraphs and then smaller edits can often make them easier to digest for readers and reviewers I have found. I would imagine the user seems to have felt frustrated at this particularly sensitive article which touches elements of Irish and British history is being edited without their oversight. Funnily, I was only adding information on the architecture and construction rather than wishing to wade into a political debate. Financefactz (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have left my reasons on the article talk page: I suggest you answer there once your block is lifted. I will only add that putting "please" in front of an order only changes something from aggressive to passive-aggressive. If someone said to you "Please stop being a complete ****", would it make it polite, just because the word "please" is used? I have no idea what you are talking about when you describe wading into "a political debate": there was nothing political in the edit warring, which is what your block is for. I will drop out of this now and await any comments you have to make to the article talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are now discussing a hypothetical situation where hypothetical comments have been made. I have not used any rude language or threats, although you have used threats. I have not added uncited information and I have engaged with the editing and review process across different formats as directed by you away from your talk page on to the specific page.

Finally, even though there was minimal engagement with my comments, I still reverted the page back to its original format and looked to mediate before ultimately receiving a block.

As I have reverted the page to its original format and looked to engage, I do not believe there is anything else I could have done except for not make the original edits. If I am unblocked I can happily rejoin the talk page discussion although I feel it may be a fairly empty discussion with just one party (me). Financefactz (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Many thanks for adding Sir Richard Morrison as the architect. However Morrison was only born in 1767 and the building was completed in 1776 so he would have been a small child at the time the design was being developed. Thoughts welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that was a bit sloppy from me. I did it off the top of my head without even looking. I will have a look for the actual architect! Financefactz (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems likely it was John Roberts but can't find anything for the moment... Financefactz (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that. Dormskirk (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Santry Court, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Norris.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]