User talk:Finestat

Welcome

Welcome Finestat!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 51,150,442 users!

Hello, Finestat. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm FOX 52, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't vandalize   Don't get blocked

One note - Please don’t add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source, as you have done on the Air Corps (Ireland) article. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources - FOX 52 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finestat (and FOX 52). I have opened a discussion about the Gulfstream IV on the relevant talkpage, if it's of interest. Guliolopez (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hiya. In relation to this comment (perhaps better suited to the article Talk page FWIW):

• "Why is "official" in quotes". In honesty I dunno why I put it in quotes. It wasn't intended to be "loaded" or whatever. Just to highlight the word.
• "If a post from the official social media page [..] is not a valid source, then what is? Perhaps an article in mainstream media created from the social media post?". Actually, while it may seem odd, yes. Exactly that. Per WP:SECONDARY, a comment or analysis or summarisation (of a social media post in a reliable newspaper) would actually be "better" than the original social media post. Might seem odd. But the idea is that reliable newspapers (whether they do or don't apply it) have the editorial governance to confirm/validate/check the social media post (including its source and content). And therefore secondary sources are preferred.

(BTW: Completely aligned about the Air Corps article containing arbitrary musings from the "public submission" of some random/unnamed person - and their thoughts on whether and what new aircraft the Air Corps might consider. Can't remember who added it or when. But I've removed that chunk entirely.)

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I did search for a mainstream media article in regards to the arrival of Fionnghuala, but not could find any. That does not invalidate the source, just that mainstream media did not think it was interesting enough to publish. I also searched the Oireachtas debates, but no mention either.

I disagree with Wikipedia guidelines that social media posts from an official social media account of a government agency is not a valid source. I would understand about using a post from a private individual, but the notion that I have to wait until Fox News or National Enquirer (or their Irish equivalent) verifies a source wouldn't give me a lot of confidence in the accuracy of the content.

The chunk about the anonymous contribution was added by Melbguy05 on Nov 10th. The entire Future section needs rewording, which I am working on, but it takes time to gather the necessary references.

Regards. Finestat (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. RE:

• "not a valid source". To confirm, the guideline doesn't state that social media posts are "not valid sources". Nor did I. I simply tagged it in the hope that something better (secondary) might be available. With "{{better source}}". Rather than "{{Unreliable source}}" (Per WP:ABOUTSELF, so long as the social media post isn't unduly self-serving, is about the subject (person/org), is authentic and social media posts aren't over-used, they are often "OK". They're just not ideal...)
• "entire Future section needs rewording". I don't disagree. But then those types of sections (random speculation from anonymous speculators that goes out-of-date immediately) are a pet-peeve of mine. (I often come across articles/content, typically on infrastructure projects rather than government procurement, that contains large tracts of text on such speculation. Much of which has been superseded by actual events (almost ALWAYS different from what was speculated). And yet some editors keep doubling down. Often to the extent that there is more text covering things that DID NOT HAPPEN than stuff that actually did...)

Anyway, if I can help with any rework on that section just let me know. Guliolopez (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can find a draft of the Future section on my sandbox User:Finestat/sandbox. I will publish it over the weekend.

I have prioritised government reports and Oireachtas answers as primary sources of government intention, rather than media opinion.

I am going to promote to the same level as Capabilities, and also merge Capabilities and Roles together. Finestat (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. While I haven't reviewed the proposed text fully yet, I personally wouldn't open with "for many years". (It's a bit vague and the type of language that, per MOS:RELTIME and WP:PRECISELANG, is best avoided.) I'd favour "as of" or "from date X" or other alternatives. (FYI - While I'm enjoying the interaction here, on your talk page, discussions on content would ideally take place on the relevant article talk page. So other interested editors can contribute. And be aware of impending changes. And the thinking behind them. If making further tweaks to your proposed text, consider seeking feedback at Talk:Irish Air Corps. For traceability.) Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Respectfully request that you revise the entirely unnecessary personal jab in this talkpage posting. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of equipment of the Irish Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Collins. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]