Hello. I noticed your recent contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. I also noticed that you did not provide any references to explain or support your changes. Your addition, for example, to Grangemockler is not supported by any reference. (You will note that all the other entries in the Grangemockler#People section are supported by a verifiable reference (which confirms the connection between the place and the person). What sources are you relying upon to connect Hogan to Grangemockler? Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Ó Sionnaigh, is not suitable 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. Dan arndt (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Ó Sionnach, is not suitable 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. Dan arndt (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Billybob the third1244. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ó Sionnach, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, Billybob the third1244. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ó Sionnaigh, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, Billybob the third1244. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Ó Sionnach".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irish military diaspora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel O'Rourke.
I don't believe that the 13% of Scottish people have red hair claim on the Red Hair Wikipedia article is the most accurate for the page as it is purely based of an estimation with no study backing it and therefore has been quite highly criticised for being an over exaggerated by many experts in the field such as Dr. Jim Wilson who conducted one of the largest study on red hair and found that the number of Scottish people who are redheads to be only 6%. Although there are some limitations to his findings it is supported by the 1907 largest ever study on hair colour in Scotland which analysed over half a million people and found the percentage of Scots with Red hair to be 5.3%. Billybob the third1244 (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fox (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kavanagh.
Might you have the date of the Battle of Carrigmoclear wrong? Your sources and the following, https://kilkennyobserver.ie/uprising-on-slievenamon/, suggest 23 July, not 19 June, 1798. If you are satisfied that is the case, could you make the correction to the table on the Irish Rebellion of 1798 page. Thanks for your contribution, which has prompted me to refer to the battle in the section on the rebellion in Munster ~~~ ManfredHugh (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Billybob the third1244! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. MCE89 (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history 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. MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other people have not supported your changes on the article's associated talk page. That has to happen first. Do not proceed without agreement from others. MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to revert these edits to Melanocortin 1 receptor but didn't finish my edit summary before MrOllie reverted them first, so I'll explain at greater length now. You cited two research papers which, being WP:PRIMARY, are inadmissible as sources for Wikipedia, and in doing so demonstrated that you hadn't read beyond the abstract of one and didn't understand its limitations. You cited another source that showed some maps, but the text of which stated "We have no idea what data these maps are based on" and otherwise supported nothing the article hadn't said already. The last source's sole relationship to the article's subject was in its sentence "Variations in the MC1R (melanocortin 1 receptor) gene involved in melanin production have been linked to freckles in people of European descent" which supported no part of your text, making it seem that the citation had been added merely to lrend your text verisimilitude. Instead, your text was inadmissible WP:SYNTH.
Making other editors spend time considering and reverting your inadmissible insertions is WP:DISRUPTIVE and can cause editors to doubt your competence. When and only when you have WP:SECONDARYWP:reliable sources that directly say something pertinent about such subjects, then suggest edits on the talk pages. Be aware, however, that in some fields such sources are not currently available and so there is nothing more our articles can say, per the policies and guidelines that I've linked for you. NebY (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NebY I understand and I am sorry but if your going to hold this high standard for my poor sources you must also do the same for those who keep referencing Alistair Moffats 13% of Scotland has red hair claim as his findings are based on absolutely nothing other than his own opinion and never even reveals how he got to that percentage Billybob the third1244 (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting inappropriate edits doesn't require first reviewing the entire article; that's not how we volunteer editors maintain the encyclopedia and to insist on it would be harmful to the project. WP:OTHERCONTENT applies, as does "two wrongs don't make a right". What you can do is clearly suggest on an article talk page how poor content could be removed, by quoting the text that should be changed and saying what it should be changed to. NebY (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NebY would it be better if I changed it back to both Ireland and Scotland have the highest percentages of red hair and not say one has more than the other as their isn't strong enough evidence for either claim Billybob the third1244 (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I and MrOllie have said above, gain consensus on the article talk page. Also, I do fear that you haven't yet had time to read the policies and guidelines at the links I provided and may not have done so; you do need to. NebY (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NebY if I go away for a few months, learn the policies and guidelines better, find better sources and come back to the talk page to show my improvements may i then receive permission to edit again. I know I'm being a pain and taking up your time but this is my last question Billybob the third1244 (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good plan. It's not a matter of gaining my permission, it's about you giving yourself the chance to edit constructively: competently, collaboratively and without disruption. NebY (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
