User talk:Billybob the third1244

September 2024

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]

Hello, I'm The Banner. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Fox (surname), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 09:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Irish Americans, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Banner talk 09:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Irish people, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 09:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ó Sionnaigh moved to draftspace

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]

Ó Sionnach moved to draftspace

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]

Concern regarding Draft:Ó Sionnach

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ó Sionnaigh

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ó Sionnach

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

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.)

Irish military diaspora

added links pointing to Michael Lally and Daniel O'Rourke

Norman Irish

added a link pointing to Kirwin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

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.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hair

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.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Carrigmoclear Hill

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]

@ManfredHugh I apologise I will go fix it now Billybob the third1244 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

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:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
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.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
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.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

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]

@MCE89 I apologise I won't do it again Billybob the third1244 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Hello, I'm NebY, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Red hair, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. NebY (talk) 17:31, 25 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]

@MrOllie I understand that but can you please explain to me what I did wrong and why your right because I really don't get it Billybob the third1244 (talk) 18:50, 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]

@MrOllie we agreed on saying both Scotland and Ireland have the most redheads so why did you revert it back Billybob the third1244 (talk) 19:01, 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:SECONDARY WP: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 s Billybob the third1244 (talk) 21:31, 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]

August 2025

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of ethnic slurs, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in List of ethnic slurs. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IRELAND and Irish names

Hi. Please review the MOS:IRELAND guidelines. Particular those relating to Irish names. In short, unless there are sources which confirm that the subject's Irish name is well-known and commonly used name for that subject (and there are sources which support this), then it shouldn't be included. And, as per the guideline, "it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic to 'invent'" an Irish version of someone's name. You appear to be inventing/including Irish names across a broad range of articles. Few/none of which seem to appear in any sources at all. Not to mind sources which establish that the Irish variants given were well-known or commonly used (either by the subject or works/books which mention the subject). Please stop doing this. It is not helpful or an improvement. It is WP:OR. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't invented an Irish version of anyones name your going to have to give me a few examples of where you think I've done this. It's historically inaccurate to refer to these Gaelic Irishman/Women with an English version of their name because that's not a language that most would have spoken like at all even as a second language. Brian O'Neill who many consider the last high king of Ireland would have referred to himself as Brian Chatha an Dúna Ua Néill so he should be referenced as such in articles, we don't anglecsize the names of other nationalities so why do we do it for Irish figures? Its disrespectful and damaging to a language on the brink of death with the numbers of native speakers decreasing drastically every generation and it's disrespectful to the Gaelic Irish figure in question, would you like it if I changed your name into a language that you didn't speak and worse the language of the country who you are resisting loosing your sovereignty and culture too? Billybob the third1244 (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. RE:

"I haven't invented an Irish version of anyones name your going to have to give me a few examples of where you think I've done this". In the James FitzMaurice FitzGerald title, you added an Irish name to the lead. This name, "Séamus Mac Muirgheas Mac Gearailt", doesn't appear in any sources anywhere at all. Whether online or in books or journals or elsewhere. If you didn't coin it yourself, what source did you rely upon for this addition? Same goes for your change to the Siege of Dunboy article. Where you changed "Richard MacGeoghegan" to "Ristéard Mág Eochagáin". And where all of the sources (including the linked source and others besides) give Richard MacGeoghegan. And your proposed name, "Ristéard Mág Eochagáin", appears nowhere at all. Whether in books or journals or otherwise. This is precisely the type of issue which, based on community consensus (including from those of us who are native Irish speakers), is covered by the MOS:IMOS guideline.
"would you like it if I changed your name into a language that you didn't speak". Ignoring the false equivalence (as there is zero indication that James FitzMaurice FitzGerald or Richard MacGeoghegan couldn't/didn't speak English), do you not see the irony where you - unilaterally - just "decided" what names these people should be known by? Without any evidence that they went by these names? You just invented names for them? And, without a hint or irony, claimed that doing so was/is because they would/should have used the names you'd invented? You changed peoples names (to variants that there is no evidence that they used or would recognise themselves) and then said "how would you like it if someone changed your name [to something you don't use or recognise]"? Irony? No?
"Its disrespectful and damaging to a language on the brink of death with the numbers of native speakers decreasing drastically every generation and it's disrespectful to the Gaelic Irish figure in question". Again, notwithstanding that this position of yours is not supported or aligned with any Wikipedia convention (either here or at the Irish language project where I've been an admin le fada an lá), it could also be argued that it is "damaging to a language" for someone to just invent names/terms/words/labels in that language. Without any evidence or, from what I can tell, linguistic basis.

Anyway. This is all moot. Your approach is counter to the current/establish community norms. If you want to discuss or propose a change to the MOS:IMOS norms (on the use of "invented" Irish language names), then please raise it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles.

Slán agus GRMA. Guliolopez (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard in Irish is Ristéard and MacGeoghegan in Irish is Mag Eochagáin none of that is made up, it's safe to assume that a man born in Gaelic Ireland outside of an area of English control name was in Irish, I understand what your saying about how no sources refer to him as that and that's because of anglecsization which is wrong but nothing to do with Wikipedia which I understand (and no I haven't got any evidence that his name wasn't actually Richard MacGeoghegan besides a pretty confident assumption that he was a native Irish speaker given the time and place he was born). I'm not and haven't since you messaged me changed anyone's name back to how I believe it should be. My initial response was stupid I don't know why I wrote that the way I did but nonetheless I don't appreciate how you replied to me Billybob the third1244 (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Billybob the third1244. Thanks for your response. I will simply re-confirm that your note above includes the type of original research specifically discussed/decried in the IMOS guideline on Irish names. (Using your own interpretation to "translate" Richard to "Ristéard" and MacGeoghegan "Mag Eochagáin", and bundling them together to invent/synthesise a name that appears in no sources, is exactly the type of thing that the guideline advises against doing. Please stop doing it. Thanks.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Billybob the third1244. Thank you for your work on Walter Stapleton (soldier). Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please establish more coverage to show WP:Note. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barbary corsairs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Carrigmoclear moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Battle of Carrigmoclear. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it appears to contain sources which were added/identified using an AI chatbot, and which may not directly support the text. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Guliolopez (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]