Plé úsáideora:Guliolopez/Cartlann 1

Is cartlann é seo. Ná hathraigh ábhar an leathanaigh seo. Más maith leat plé nua a thosú nó seanphlé a atosú, déan a leithéid ar an leathanach plé reatha.

Cartlann 1

| Cartlann 2 →

Luimneach srl

A Ghulio, Go raibh míle maith agat as ucht an chabhair ar thugais dom le linn scríobh na n-alt faoi Luimneach, Kemper, Penn-ar-Bed agus An tSionnainn. Úsáideoir:Sean_an_Scuab, 7/4/07

Hi there are limited articles on animals and plants and I have limited Irish as shown by my typing in English. anon.

Catagóir:Dochtúirí

A chara, Tá ar a laghad beirt dochtúirí eile ins an Vicipéid gur féidir leat iad a chuir isteach i gcatagóir na ndoctúirí. Ní fios dom conas é sin a dhéanamh. Siad sin ná Rudolf Virchow agus Eugen Bleuler. Go neirigh leat. Beir Bua.--DaithíÓ 14:10, 25 Deireadh Fómhair 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tá sa déanta agam. Féach ar na difríochtaí idir na leaganacha anseo.

FYI: Tá sé an-easca alt a chur i gcatagóir. Just add the text [[Catagóir:Dochtúirí]] to the article you want to categorise.

Bear 2 things in mind when adding a category.

The convention is that you put the "category" tag at end (after the body text, but before any "Idirviki" links)
Categories are automatically alphabetised based on the pagename, so - for person names - it may be appropriate to "tell" the category system to list based on last name first. Do this with: [[Catagóir:Dochtúirí|Virchow, Rudolf]].

Le meas. Guliolopez 17:22, 25 Deireadh Fómhair 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go raibh míle maith agatDaithíÓ 20:44, 25 Deireadh Fómhair 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fáilte go dtí an Uicipéid

A chara, go raibh maith agat le do chuid barúlacha. Measaim féin gur is rudaí maith an comhoibre agus an comhchomairle a mbíonn ar an Uicí seo agus na cinn eile, agus tá a fhios agam nach bhfuil mo chuid Gaeilge go h-iontach. Ach féach ar an saghas fáilte a fuair mé ar mo chuid phlé, agus ó shin. Ba mhaith liom bheith cuid den fhoireann anseo, ach muna bhfuil múineadh ag úsáideoraí eicínt, níl suim agam bheith ag obair nó ag labhairt leo. Má déanaim botúin, ní rud ollmhór iad a dheisiú, i mo thuairim. Déanaim mo ndicheall, agus níl éinne foirfe.

Cuir Mise An Locht Ar Na Tuistí 18:13, 12 Meitheamh 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sin í an amaidí is mó a chuala mé i mbliana: Má dhéanaim botúin, ní rud ollmhór iad a dheisiú, i mo thuairim. Bhuel, ní hé sin mo thuairimse in aon chor, ós mise a chaithfidh na botúin sin a réiteach. Bhuel, a Ghuliolopez, tá a fhios agat an chuma atá ar na cúrsaí, mar a scríobh tú ar mo leathanach plé cheana féin. Dála an scéil, d'fhág duine éigin ionsaí pearsanta ormsa ar cheann de na leathanaigh phlé - sílim gurbh é Gabriel Beecham a chuir ar ceal é sular chuir mé féin sonrú ceart ann. Caithfidh sé gurbh é an bithiúnach seo a scríobh an t-ionsaí sin, freisin. Panu Petteri Höglund 20:46, 12 Meitheamh 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosc

Panu, níl clú agam cé rinne an ionsaí pearsanta sin ort. Gulio, tá "cosc 'infinite'" orm anois, ó Evertype. Ba mhaith liom do thuairim a chloisteáil. Beir bua, CMALANT

CMALANT. Gabh mo leithscéal! Tá brón orm a fháil uait go bhfuil "cosc" ort.

As I hope you will recognise, I had hoped (as a largely impartial party) to help avoid this situation and facilitate a constructive dialog (per Plé úsáideora:Guliolopez/Eadráin) to remedy "an droch-barúil" and find a happy compromise which didn't involve anyone leaving VP. Unfortunately it seems that members of the admin community felt that PPH had taken all the steps he could to resolve the conflict, and that the recommendations to find a compromise were insufficient and so did not (or would not) work. I'm afraid that - while I am disappointed with this decision, as blocking is never a positive move - you may have backed yourself in to a corner by not responding to the issues that PPH raised earlier.

Since you asked for it, my own opinion is that an infinite block might be a particularly harsh punishment for what was mainly just "uni-lateral enthusiasm", and you may have (partially) been a victim of circumstance. While a possible response to that is to say: "sin an saol agat!", you may consider escalating for arbitration. You may have a case for re-instatement if you open a dialog again, and express to the admin community how you ARE going to address the behaviour which got you blocked, and see how that goes. (If it's worth that effort to you)

Tóg go bog é. Guliolopez 19:46, 27 Iúil 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go raibh maith agat, Gulio. An bhfuil coiste eadrána againn anseo?

CMALANT

Ceapaim nach bhfuil. Is é sin an cúis a d'oscail mé an diaspóiracht (leatsa agus le PPH) ar mo leathanch-baile féin! But, as you know (possibly because it was not supported by any structured community policy) it didn't get very far... At this point, I think you may need (mar a dúirt mé níos luaithe) to contact the " lucht riarachán" directly for their input. As much as I would try and help with any balanced discussion on arbitration, I'm not sure I have the time/space/capability to "champion" the creation of an abritration process. (Go cinte níl mé ábalta é sin a dheanamh i m'aonar). Le beannacht Guliolopez 15:56, 29 Iúil 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catagóirí

Haigh a Guliolopez. Chonaic mé go bhfuil tú ag catagóiriú an-chuid alt, go raibh maith agat. Ach de réir dealraimh tá tú ag úsáid an sean-chóras, ina úsáideadh "Rang" roimh an frása catagóirithe, m.sh. [[Rang:Scríbhneoirí]]. Tá an córas sin as dáta ar feadh na míonna; an bhféadfá "Catagóir" a húsáid, mar seo: [[Catagóir:Scríbhneoirí]]? --Gabriel Beecham 22:20, 4 Iúil 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go raibh maith agat a Kwekubo. Ní raibh fhois agam go raibh "caighdeán" i bhfeidhm anseo. As seo amach, agus ag rangú, bainfidh mé feidhm as "Catagóir". Guliolopez 12:45, 5 Iúil 2006 (UTC)[reply]

brón orm, ach, cén fáth? cén fáth a bhfuil catagóiriú níos fearr ná rangú?

grma --Spaircí 18:46, 18 Bealtaine 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Íomhá:Nguyen.jpg

Haigh a Guliolopez. Chonaic mé gur uaslódáil tú an t-íomhá seo inniu, ach tá amhras orm maidir leis a stádas cóipcheart. Tá an-chuid íomhánna shaora ar fáil a bhaineann le Cogadh Vítneam, agus mar sin nílím cinnte nach bhfuil sárú chóipchirt i gceist leis an íomhá seo a úsáid san alt Cogadh Vítneam. Más eol duit go bhfuil sé dleathach an íomhá a úsáid ag Vicipéid, cuir na sonraí riachtanacha ag Íomhá:Nguyen.jpg más fearr duit nach scriosfar an íomhá. --Gabriel Beecham 21:02, 19 Iúil 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gabriel. I understand your concern, and while - as you say - there may be other images available which illustrate the brutality of the war in Vietnam, there are few (and possible none - certainly in the public domain) which demonstrate the nature of the conflict between the opposing ideologies in the civil war. Yes, there are well documented images which demonstrate the brutality met upon the Vietnamese people by foreign forces (and indeed vice-versa), but there are few (and certainly few as powerful as this) which demonstrate the inter-community conflict. In that sense and context (and per similar Fair Use rationale given at vi:Hình:Nguyen Ngoc Loan.jpg, zh:Image:Nguyen.jpg and en:Image:Nguyen.jpg), I expect that Fair Use is demonstrable. That said, I will - as you suggest - include detail of CP and FU rationale with the Image itself. Guliolopez 21:30, 19 Iúil 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football club names

Hi, I was wandering why Liverpool FC's article is Club Sacair Learphoill, when the official club name is Liverpool FC. I understand that Learphoill is the Irish for Liverpool, but why han't this then been done for Manchester United? Mattythewhite 15:17, 3 Deireadh Fómhair 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matty. You bring up a good and valid point. While the standard convention in Wikipedia is to follow a naming convention in the language of the wikipedia namespace (Irish in this case), for brand/product/trademark names the article title is actually supposed to be "untranslated".

You will probably have noted that the "Liverpool FC" article name is therefore untranslated in all other wikipedias: (ast:Liverpool FC, ca:Liverpool Football Club, cs:Liverpool FC, da:Liverpool F.C., de:FC Liverpool, es:Liverpool Football Club,et:Liverpool FC, eu:Liverpool FC, fi:Liverpool FC, fr:Liverpool Football Club, hr:Liverpool F.C., etc. etc)

As such, the Irish language wikipedia is the only one breaking this convention - this is probably just an oversight, as (as a small wikipedia community by comparison to others) the GA VP community normally values content over adherance to convention.

So, what I suggest is that you propose an "move" (article name change) on the talk page for the Liverpool article. I will support the proposal and help move it.

Any other questions don't hestitate to ask. Le meas. Guliolopez 15:37, 3 Deireadh Fómhair 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks - I agree too. The same applies to Ceiltigh Ghlaschú, for example. It would be good to mention the Irish names in the articles too, because they are actually used quite often. But the titles should definitely be as Béarla, as is the case in other Wikis. --An Tóin Mór 19:25, 3 Deireadh Fómhair 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, with excception of Gaelic football and hurling / camogie teams (both club and county) - it seems to me that these should be charted under their Irish names with the English included in the article and a link to the English language article, if one exists; the argument being that these clubs / county teams names are in use in both languages and are basically interchangable - any thoughts? RóC 05:58, 16 Aibreán 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buíochas

Go raibh maith agat a Guliolopez as ucht an leathanach nmacu/mapai a athdhiriú go dtí an seoladh ceart. Nmacu 15:29, 5 Feabhra 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tá failte romhat... Guliolopez 15:39, 5 Feabhra 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rinne mé arís é! Mo leithscéal. Bhí an botún tugtha faoi deara agam ach bhí tú an sciobtha á réiteach. Buíochas. Nmacu 11:27, 28 Feabhra 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comhlachtaí Ríomhaireachta/ríomhaireachta

A Guliolopez, a chara, Rinne mé botún leis an gcatagóir seo. "Comhlachtaí Ríomhaireachta" a chur mé ann ar dtús. Tá mé á athrú sin go dtí "Comhlachtaí ríomhaireachta" anois le cloí le caighdeáin na vicí-anna. Go raibh maith agat as ucht an cúnaimh. Nmacu 16:01, 8 Feabhra 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceart go lóir. (Agus go n-éirí leis an bhfeachtas ar na leathnaigh/catagóirí sin)! Guliolopez 14:41, 9 Feabhra 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki standards

Haigh CmdrJameson (agus fáilte). Tá cúpla athruithe déanta agat le déanaí le naisceanna idirwiki. Tá iarracht maith déanta agat don cuid is mó, ach - i gcásanna - chuir tú naisc i cúpla ailt nach bhfuil ceangailthe i gceart. The standard is - de gnáth - to add interwikis only to an altlanguage version which corresponds to the same subject. (So, ga:Bun Abhann Dalla has an interwiki to en:Cushendall, ga:N1 links to en:N1 road, etc.) It is not generally an agreed wikipedia standard to (let's say where no corresponding article exists as béarla) to add an interwiki to a "related" article. (As you did to - mar shampla - Subh Milis [1]). Just something to consider. Go raigh míle agus gabh mo leithscéal as mo chuid "soibealtas". Beir bua! Guliolopez 20:24, 9 Feabhra 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haigh agus go raibh maith agat. Is sampla siumiúl é Subh Milis. Sa Vikipéid Béarla is leathanach athdhíriú é 'Subh Milis', agus téigh sé go 'Séamus Ó Néill'. Cad ba ceart dom a déanamh sa cás sin? Within a wikipedia it's regarded as bad style to link to a redirect, does that apply to interwiki links too?

Sláinte! CmdrJameson 21:19, 9 Feabhra 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is sampla simiúl é - ceart go leor. Not sure frankly that there should be a redirect in the EN WP from Subh Milis to Séamus Ó Néill. However being that there is, if you wanted to restore the "link to the redirect" (IE: [[en:Subh Milis]] in the GA article), I think that would be OK (in this unusual case). Sin é mo thuarimse féin in aon chur. Le meas. Guliolopez 20:17, 13 Feabhra 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Ireland place-names in Irish

Hi! I am from the lithuanian wikipedia and I want to ask You one thing. How we should write in Irish these settlements located in County Laois: Ballaghmore, Ballybrittas and Ballyroan?--84.240.6.224 20:33, 12 Feabhra 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I updated the English language wikipedia articles with the relevant Irish names. They are:

en:Ballaghmore = ga:An Bealach Mór
en:Ballybrittas = ga:Baile Briotáis
en:Ballyroan = ga:Baile Átha an Róine

Regards. Guliolopez 11:04, 13 Feabhra 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go raibh maith agat (I think it is "thank you" in Irish).--84.240.6.224 16:56, 13 Feabhra 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stumpaí / Síolta

D'fhreagair mé do cheist ar mo lch baile. Nmacu 11:07, 14 Márta 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikt

Eh yes, but you broke the link because there is no An Ghrian page, only a grian one. Wiktionary is case sensitive... Jcwf.

P.S. I think I fixed it. ;-)

RE: Príomhleathanach

Gosh, I cannot believe I just did that! I was trying to delete a redirect that I created, as I misspelled a word, and then I was wondering why it didn't say "cealaigh" in the deletion tab. Suffice it to say, it was a slip on my part! My sincere apologies to you! Sláinte Hoopydink 19:17, 22 Márta 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mo baistim le tine, go deimhin! Buíochas do tuigh! Hoopydink 19:28, 22 Márta 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Íomhánna

Tá mo Íomhánna as an Vicipéid Béarla.

díreach céard a bhí mise chun a rá.... Íomhá:220px-Tolkien ring.jpg, Íomhá:Sg1stargatefront.jpg, agus Íomhá:Middle-earth.jpg, óna ich béarla... ní dhéanaim ach aistriúcháin ar an ich Béarla...agus tógaim an Íomhá más féidir ón vicipéid Béarla.... grma as ocht é chuir os mo chomhair.... --Spaircí 18:31, 6 Aibreán 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maidir leis "An Lucht Seilge"

A Ghulio, tuigim cad atá á rá agat agus coinneod cuimhne air as so amach. Dónall Dubh 14 Aibreán 07

Giorriamear

Heileo, a Ghulio. Dealraíonn sé go mbeidh revert war nua on our hands ar ball. Chonaic mé go raibh úsáideoir darb ainm Giorriamear tar éis seafóid a chur san alt faoi ghramadach na Gaeilge a mbím ag obair air ó am go ham, agus gur úsáideoir aonoíche a bhí ann - duine nach raibh a dhath eile déanta aige riamh. Tá mé in amhras faoi gur sock puppet de chuid an tseandiabhail sin CMALANT atá ann. :( Panu Petteri Höglund 20:34, 15 Aibreán 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haigh. Chonaic mé na h-aistriúcháin a dhéantar ansin. I had intended to go back and review those changes when I saw them come in, but they were sufficiently "weird" that I couldn't figure out what the meat of the changes actually were. So I left 'em. Ar aon nós - ní dóigh liom go bhfuil CMALANT ar ais i riocht Giorriamear. Is dócha gur duine eile "seachránach" atá ann. (Don't let it keep you up at night :) Guliolopez 18:44, 18 Aibreán 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucht Seilge

A Ghulio, do scriosas 'dallramáin' agus do dheineas alt nua darb ainm An Lucht Seilge. Más dóigh leat go bhfuil an alt nua so neamhfhóinteach do Vicipéid, cuir fios orm ar Plé úsáideora:Dónall Dubh.16 Aibreán, Baochas

Haigh Dónall. Sin tús maith. Ach (ar an drochuair) tá an alt sin "tráchtaireacht" fós. It remains a "commentary" on hunting rather than a "description" of it. It may be worthwhile reading en:Fox hunting for a form of wording that may be more appropriate. Guliolopez 21:49, 16 Aibreán 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loitiméireacht

Haigh - d'fhág mé rabhadh ag leathanach plé an úsáideora sin. GRMA as do chuid oibre go buan maidir leis an clib {{scrios}}! --Gabriel Beecham 00:13, 28 Aibreán 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cabonne

Tâmâ tilanne on nyt kunnossa. Tâma on hyvâ Suomen kielen harjoitus.. (Anois)

Gabh mo leithscéal, ach níl fhios agam cad atá á rá agat anseo. Níl Fionlainnis agam (ar an drochuair). Do you think we need to do something more (or different) to the Cabonne article? Or are you unsure about the note I left on your talkpage about it? Guliolopez 15:34, 11 Bealtaine 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teimpléad:Cúigí agus Dúiche na gCeanada

A Ghuliolopez, a chara, Sílim gur cheart teideal an teimpléid seo a athrú go dtí "Cúigí agus Dúiche Cheanada" nó gach seans "Cúigí agus Dúichí Cheanada" (más níos mó ná dúiche amháin a bhí i gceist agat). Is tír firinscneach é Ceanada agus go hiondúil ní thagann an t-alt roimhe. Ádh mór, Nmacu 09:57, 11 Bealtaine 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tá an ceart agat. So that I could remove the duplicate tables added to the half-dozen relevant articles, I created a template based on that table. I should have checked the grammar used in the table before I did that. I will make the change now. GRMA. Guliolopez 13:12, 11 Bealtaine 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV Austria Salzburg

Hi, thx for editing completely in this languague. Could you translate the whole text of the English article? It'll only be that: "The club was founded in 2005 by the "Violet-Whites", supporters of the former "SV Austria Salzburg" which was founded in 1933 and taken over by the Red Bull Concern in 2005. The so called "Violet-Whites" wished to preserve the 72-year old traditions of the old club, which had been destroyed by the Red Bull takeover. In February 2006, the "Violet-Whites" successfully registered the old club's original name "SV Austria Salzburg" and the old club emblem. An attempt to take over the football section of the Salzburg Police Sports Club, who played in the 1. Salzburg Landliga, the fourth tier of Austrian football, came to nothing. The Violet-Whites thus formed a new club, SV Austria Salzburg, which entered 2. Klasse Nord, the seventh tier of Austrian football for the 2006-07 season. The first match of the relaunched SV Austria Salzburg was played on July 29, 2006 against Lieferinger SV. SV Austria Salzburg won 6-0."

Sry, but I only can this languague so good to start the article and build standard sentences 84.172.131.34 18:17, 15 Bealtaine 2007 (UTC)[reply]