Talk:Avondale House

This magnificent Cryptomeria japonica (the tree in front of the house) is no longer there. Though in perfect health and a rare mature example of the species, it was felled by a group of aesthetically challenged Administrators who thought it ruined the view of the house. (Sarah777 23:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

I have noticed that a photo almost identical to this one (except taken on a sunny day - photo credited to Bord Fáilte) graces the cover of the OSi Discovery Series map No. 62, 2nd Edition. So I'm not alone in thinking THEY have destroyed a key element in the appearance of this house. (Sarah777 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

I was looking on Google Maps for the exact position of Avondale House, and I think it's on 52°55'N-6°13'W. But on that spot I don't see a large tree, nor the shadow of it. Then the satellite images must be up-to-date? Or does anyone know the date when they felled the tree. Arafi78 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think about 2004, 2003 at the earliest. But pre-Google. I took this pic in February 2002; so it was definitely there then! (Sarah777 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

According to this page John Lucas took this photo in February 2002 which is where I found the photo and uploaded it to the commons in January 2007. So any tree removal took place after that time. ww2censor 15:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooops...I took the treeless photo in the article, this year (April 2007); John Lucas took this one! Deepest apologies for trying to steal the credit! (Just as well you are there to watch me WW). (Sarah777 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

I am sure you were not trying to gain credit for that photo. We all make an occasional mistake, don't we? ww2censor 00:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The photo with the Japonica (currently on this page) seems like a more interesting and atmospheric than the bland house facade that was added recently by Sarah777. Perhaps you prefers it because you took the photo, I don't know, but as a photographer for 25 years I prefer this one. ww2censor 16:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No preference - probably prefer the older one. I only changed it because the tree is gone; the new photo is what you see now. (Sarah777 18:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Ooops! Just noticed the old one was yours! Guess you prefer it 'cos you took it, eh?! Sorry!! (Sarah777 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

(deindent) Welcome back. No not my photo, I just uploaded it. Thanks for changing it. ww2censor 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Avondale House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304082506/http://wicklowgardens.com/index.php/avondale-house-park-2/ to http://wicklowgardens.com/index.php/avondale-house-park-2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004231943/http://www.wicklow.ie/Wicklow%20400/index.htm to http://www.wicklow.ie/Wicklow%20400/index.htm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In recent weeks, a number of anon editors have removed () or changed () one of the entries in the "external links" section. In each case, the changes have been unexplained and have not been accompanied by an edit summary. From what I can tell, the two ELs currently in place seem to broadly meet WP:ELYES. If someone believes that either/both don't meet the applicable guidelines then please explain why. Rather than just removing (only?) one of them (in favour of the other?) without any clear justification. As it stands, this pattern of editing doesn't appear to be constructive (and, certainly, doesn't seem to be based on the norms/goals of the project). While I'm not sure if it's the case here, if editors engage in disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and/or using Wikipedia as a battleground or to score points for causes outside the project, then those behaviours are likely to result in some form of sanction. Guliolopez (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

As noted above, and on my own User Talk page, unless the warring anon(s) can explain (relative to Wikipedia policy and not some external dispute and certainly not a vague or quasi-NLT statement about "trademarks"), I am currently unaware of a valid reason for continuing to selectively add/remove ELs that someone just don't like. Escalation (including page protection) remains an option. Guliolopez (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the recent protection increase, anon editor(s) continue to make changes to this title which, on the face of it, don't seem to be based on Wikipedia policy. Or, without qualification/explanation, don't appear to improve the article. Similar changes have been made to the Avondale Forest title. Where, as with here, links that appear to meet WP:ELYES (and at least one seems to meet WP:ELOFFICIAL) are removed without explanation/justification. Involved editors are encouraged to use edit summaries (and/or this Talk page) to explain how their changes align with Wikipedia norms. Or improve these titles. And are reminded of the guidelines on warring, "lawyering" and editing for purposes other than advancing the project. Further increases to page protection (and indeed editor sanctions) remain an option.... Guliolopez (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Bump. The pattern of editing noted above appears to continue - despite repeated page protections and prompts on user talk. In which an editor (seemingly signing posts as "David Parnell") continues to remove one of the ELs (the Coillte managed website?) from the EL section - with an edit summary/justification that it is the "wrong website address". From what I can tell, there is nothing to indicate that this website address is "wrong". Or otherwise fails WP:ELYES. If it does, the editor would ideally explain how it is "wrong". All editors are reminded that Wikipedia isn't a battleground (for disputes outside the project), a channel for promotion (of one cause or another), or a place for scoring points (on issues unrelated to building/improving the encyclopedia). Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)