Talk:The Clancy Brothers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] WP:COI edits by Clancybrothersbook
The tag was placed on this article because it is receiving edits from this user. Morenooso 23:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- The tag is discussed here. Notability is not the issue. Inputs recently by this user is and the reason for the tag. Morenooso 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh come on! If notability is not the issue then you're using the wrong tag. It clearly says "This page doesn't appear to assert the notability of its subject, which means that it may qualify for deletion as a non-notable autobiography or promotional page." Such a statement looks ridiculous, and discredits wikipedia. If you have a problem with some of User:Clancybrothersbook's edits address them. If you have a problem with his username then you're barking up the wrong tree. Do we slap on a tag saying the Indianapolis Colts aren't notable every time some with with a username like User:Whatabigcoltsfan edits the page? Of course not. Stop doing it here. If there are POV problems address them, if not quit getting bent out of shape over a username. If the user did write or is writing a book on the Clancys, all the better, it helps to have expertise. When will people realize there are better ways to boost an edit count than to make sure every article has some sort of tag addressing a non-existent issue. -R. fiend 22:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The tag is correct. And, I don't have to worry about my edit counts. There is a specific issue caused by this editor. If you can't see that then maybe the post below about citations by another editor should bring it into focus for you. Morenooso 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you're using the wrong tag. You want the tag stating the article doesn't cite its sources, not that it isn't notable. Quit saying the the aricle doesn't assert their notability, it does, quite clearly. -R. fiend 22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The tag is correct. And, I don't have to worry about my edit counts. There is a specific issue caused by this editor. If you can't see that then maybe the post below about citations by another editor should bring it into focus for you. Morenooso 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh come on! If notability is not the issue then you're using the wrong tag. It clearly says "This page doesn't appear to assert the notability of its subject, which means that it may qualify for deletion as a non-notable autobiography or promotional page." Such a statement looks ridiculous, and discredits wikipedia. If you have a problem with some of User:Clancybrothersbook's edits address them. If you have a problem with his username then you're barking up the wrong tree. Do we slap on a tag saying the Indianapolis Colts aren't notable every time some with with a username like User:Whatabigcoltsfan edits the page? Of course not. Stop doing it here. If there are POV problems address them, if not quit getting bent out of shape over a username. If the user did write or is writing a book on the Clancys, all the better, it helps to have expertise. When will people realize there are better ways to boost an edit count than to make sure every article has some sort of tag addressing a non-existent issue. -R. fiend 22:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ?
citations anyone? Irish rover 18:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Clean Up
I'm just a guest, and I needed info on the Clancy Brothers, but the page is very disorganized. There are about 30 sections total, and that should be cut down. Just wondering if anybody else wanted to nominate this for a clean-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.199.168 (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Clancy Brothers' Music Festival
Isn't there a Clancy Brothers' Music Festival starting in June 2008 in Carrick-on-Suir? I heard a sister of the Clancys mention it on the radio; it would be great if someone with the details mentioned it here somewhere. - PD 10:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ClancyBrothersFirstHurrah.jpg
Image:ClancyBrothersFirstHurrah.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Randomness
Removed this unverified quote
"You were Beatlemania in Aran jumpers", was how Ryan Tubridy described them on Tubridy Tonight on Saturday March 22, 2008.
.
Cheers V. Joe (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
