User talk:Gaillimh/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:00, 21 February 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Gaillimh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - crz crztalk 01:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot crz! Appreciate it, mate Gaillimh 17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Sands edit comments

You recently edited the Bobby Sands article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Sands&diff=98914664&oldid=9888628) commenting that you were "reverting snarky unionist vandalism". Please avoid such language as it contravine's Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). There was no need to suggest any kind of wider affiliation, and your comment was a piece of sectarianism. Specifically, your personal attack involved:

"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" (Wikipedia:No personal attacks).

Comment on content, not on (your perception of) contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 88.107.79.203 23:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also seem to consider it a piece of vandlism, when it was allegedly citing an example of "reaction" in "Great Britain" to Sands' death rather than being vandalism of the article. 88.107.79.203 23:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paddy_Macmoron) is the same kind of personal attack, as described above. Again, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and avoid such edits in the future, or further action will be taken. 88.107.79.203 23:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I cannot see how anything I've written can be construed as vandalism. Simply look at the username of the person I reverted and subsequently left a message to. You'll see that the user edits with a highly inflammatory username and has only made contributions to promote unionist views. One needs only to look towards his addition of Michael Stone to a "List of performance artists." Adding a terrorist and murderer to such a list is ridiculous, at best, and more likely an attempt to disparage Irish republicans and nationalists, especially the families that have fallen victim to Stone's actions. My edit summary was apt, as the edit was not made to contribute positively to Wikipedia, but to soapbox and attempt to skew the article. As such, WP:NPA most certainly does not apply here. Feel free to get back in touch with any further follow-up comments or question. Cheers Gaillimh 23:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere were you accused of vandalism. You were accused of peronal attacks in your edit summary of Bobby Sands - "snarky unionist vandalism". There is no need for this kind of language. Specifically, you are linking the remark to unionism, which is wrong, since there is no reason to believe it is unionist, and more importantly, it shouldn't matter: "Comment on content, not on contributors". 88.107.78.203 16:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! There were no personal attacks on my part - the vandalism I removed was indeed snarky unionist propaganda and vandalism, as it was made with the attempt to skew the article and promote a biased point of view. In addition, someone from your IP has been editing with the username "Paddy_Macmoron", which in itself is inappropriate, for it is an overt attempt to disparage an entire race of people. I think that we've probably exhausted any further discourse, so I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree on the appropriateness of each other's actions Gaillimh 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't. The text you removed was there before "Paddy_Macmoron" edited it and it was not vandalism. That user merely reverted it back. I had removed it several times before because I felt it did not demonstrate "reaction in Great Britain".

My IP adress is a server for an ISP that is used by millions of users. The fact that you mentioned this suggests you think this user is myself. It is not. Unless traced by an adminsistrator, IP adresses for registered users cannot be seen by users such as yourself in any case. I fear you may have confused my comments at User talk:Paddy Macmoron for his.

Furthermore, there is no 'agree to disagree' - you were warned not to use remarks like "snarky unionist". Further please assume good faith - do not jump to assumptions like a user name "is an overt attempt to disparage an entire race of people". Thank you. 88.107.51.118 02:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly - of course the username is an attempt to disparage the Irish! Haha, just look at the name, mate. Also, check out his contributions or re-read some of my posts above. Also, "snarky unionist vandalism" is not a personal attack. In any case, it'd probably be best for you to devote your time elsewhere, for I believe we have different interpretations of the events that are unlikely to be persuaded and since we aren't actively working towards a common goal, any further correspondence would possibly prove fruitless. Cheers Gaillimh 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sysophood

Per the identity confirmation, I have sysopped this account. Other users that might be coming here to verify this: I have confirmed that this user was a sysop with a different account, gave it up voluntarily and decided to change identities. Please email this user for more details. I will only disclose this information with the user's permission, except privately to arbitrators, Bureaucrats, CheckUsers and Stewards (generally speaking). Redux 15:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They always come crawling back. -- Steel 15:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Gallimh! We missed ya! --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help Redux, and thanks to you Steel and Majorly for the warm welcome back! Cheers! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, whoever you are. Perhaps I know you... Prodego ^talk 04:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IRA

It seems most everyone but myself agrees with you, and I'm going to stop blocking consensus on the matter of the name change. If you're still interested, have a look at the talk page of the project. Erin Go Bragh^talk 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish language activist

Everson is "by no means" an Irish-language activist? He does typeset books in Irish, and has written about the word eoró. He is not responsible for adding his name to the category, but in my own opinion it is not inaccurate. But "by no means"? According to what criteria? Aye-Aye 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I came across the category very recently when figuring out what to add for categories after starting the Gráinne Mhic Géidigh article. I clicked around some of the others listed and I didn't think that Everson fit in the category. I would have expected him to have written extensive original works as Gaeilge, or have been a part of Foras na Gaeilge, Údarás na Gaeltachta, or a similar body. He's not a native Irish speaker, either; it appears that the fellow is American, although he does reside in the Gaeltacht according to his Wikipedia page. As such, I don't feel as though his work merits labelling him as an Irish-language "activist". gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not living in a Gaeltacht, actually. And born in America or non-native-speaker of Irish or not, he does have Irish citizenship. ;) Aye-Aye 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I saw that he lived in County Mayo, and made the assumption that Lecanvey was part of the Gaeltacht. Apologies, my mistake. I saw that he's become a citizen, which is great! I'm sure he's a good fellow, I just don't think he qualifies as an Irish language activist based his contributions to the promotion/cultivation of the language. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 23:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Hi, sorry about breaking the 3RR rule there. But I think its only makes sense that Séamus Heaney is categorised as an Irish poet, afterall.....he is. I'll take it to the talk page before I revert it again.Derry Boi 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually completely agree with you, and discussing the matter with Poetlister is probably the best way to go. I'm also engaged in a discussion with her about using the word Derry, as opposed to Londonderry in the article. I have provided sources that support Heaney's identification as a Derryman, so perhaps if you found some sources that assert Heaney as being an Irish poet, it would help. They shouldn't be too hard to find, because as you mentioned afterall... he is, haha. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 23:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Heaney

Hi! Just to let you know that I did not violate WP:3RR. As you know, that forbids more than three reverts and I only made three. Also, only administrators can block people. Are you an administrator? If not, it's not a good idea to pretend to be one. And there is a firm Wikipedia policy that we refer to the City of Derry but County Londonderry. That applies to all articles, not just Seamus Heaney. And just for good measure, you should know that we debated this point at great length here and decided to stick to Londonderry. If you want to re-open the issue, please feel free to contact User:Essjay, who is an administrator. Note what he says: "Anyone who changes Londonderry to Derry may be reverted on sight and (Note to other administrators) should be blocked for vandalism."

I look forward to seeing many more of your contributions.--Poetlister 17:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm what was said above. As you had been editing the article you must have seen the notice that asked editors not to change Derry to Londonderry or vice versa without getting agreement at the Talk page — and yet you not only condoned such a change but reverted to it yourself. Your claim concerning violation of the 3RR was also incorrect — and it would not have merely been silly to have blocked someone for reverting on an article in which you were involved, it would have been against Wikipedia policy.

I tend to agree with Essjay that anyone going making such an edit on this article should be blocked, but I'll not do that now; I'll not hesitate, though, to block the next person to reinstate the edit without proper discussion and consensus at the Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mel! Thanks for dropping by to participate in our discussion! You may have missed my comment on Talk:Seamus Heaney, as it was left just prior to you leaving this message, so I invite you to take a look there. Also, as I was just leaving a friendly reminder (which I left to the other party, as well), I think that your concern may be unwarranted. As I hope to initiate some amicable and productive mediation proceedings, I hope that you'll stop by and voice your opinion there, as well! Cheers!

Also, hi again, Poetlister! Sorry about the confusion about 3RR and my confusing you about administrator buttons. Just to re-affirm, I would never use any extra buttons (or even overtly mention my having them, which I guess I did in a confusing way on your talk page) in an article that I was working on. I hope that despite our conflicting views that we'll be able to work towards a solution to this Heaney business and continue to make this article, and others, even better! Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No RFA

I suspect this accout was gifted by User:Redux. While it might no belong to him, the fact he chooses to keep it confidental indicated he has something to hide. While he claims he would only reveal by email, the action still will draw suspicion.Uninsureddriver 20:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! First, I apologise for any confusion that I may have indirectly caused you. The request to keep it confidential was I request I made, and Redux was able to generously acquiesce (so the onus would be on me, if anyone, having "something to hide", not Redux). As mentioned a few sections above, I had previously been a sysop on Wikipedia, voluntarily gave it up under uncontroversial circumstances, and decided to change my username. I appreciate the comment, and please feel free to get back in touch. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing to tell me through email, and I can verify, no problem. Just a caveat: other users might be suspicious in the future. Uninsureddriver 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to the RfC you posted on this issue. There is no basis for suspicion that the action taken was done for anything other than a compelling and legitimate reason. Redux has emphasized that he will provide appropriate confirmation of his action to appropriate trusted users such as other bureaucrats, arbitrators, or checkusers. I think that is sufficient. Newyorkbrad 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some investigation, you are hereby marked as no longer suspicious (by me). Uninsureddriver 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I have your vote of confidence! Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Iñaki de Juana Chaos, was selected for DYK!

On February 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iñaki de Juana Chaos, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gaillimh

Just reading your comments over at WikiProject Irish Republican Army, and I'm in aggrement with you. Also, I'm far from happy about the banner, especially as I think it is a violaiton of civic and personal property. Fergananim 14:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't think the banner accurately reflects the the IRA at all and is a good-faith, albeit misguided attempt by someone who appears very enthusiastic, but knows very little about Ireland herself. Having said all this, the fellows over there on the WikiProject have been doing good work and I'm sure that once they learn a bit more, they'll see that some of their symbols are not at all appropriate for the scope of their project. Thanks a lot for the message and feel free to get back in touch gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 18:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject IRA‎

Fair enough, I am also happy to keep it until/if the project is expanded. slan a chara--Vintagekits 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the scope of the project was expanded to include more aspects of Irish republicanism, then I think that your choice of banner would be infinitely better and much more appropriate than the IRA poster. However, as the scope of the project is limited to the IRA, the 1916 flag (a symbol for republicanism and nationalism, which are rather broad ideals) might not work. Slán go fóill! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your work at deletion review here. [1] I was beginnning to despair of a sensible conclusion being reached. Catchpole 13:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! It appeared rather straightforward that notability had been asserted, and I welcome you to add or re-add content to the articles gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo

Gaillimh, I don't see your block of Mongo as justified, and I'm minded to undo it. I'm leaving this note for you per WP:BLOCK. Would you have strong objections to my unblocking him? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Completely one sided and the MONGO's comment was made after the user was asked not to post to his talk page. This is a colloquial misunderstanding, not a threat. Please undo his block. --Tbeatty 02:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are justified. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to third the unblock request - This is grossly overreacting to a minor argument on his talk page. That was not a personal threat. It was pretty uncivil, but it was on his talk page, to someone who's pestered him before. Georgewilliamherbert 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Gaillimh, you seem to have gone offline, so I've taken the liberty of unblocking MONGO in the meantime. Quite a few users have expressed concern about the block in various places, including AN/I. I hope that's okay with you. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

I had no clue who you were, and I went a bit crazy wondering how a person with <300 edits passed an RfA. It's all been explained to me now. Welcome back, man. =) Nishkid 64 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
 I want to third the unblock request - This is grossly overreacting to a minor argument on his talk page.  That was not a personal threat.  It was pretty uncivil, but it was on his talk page, to someone who's pestered him before.  [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
+Hi again Gaillimh, you seem to have gone offline, so I've taken the liberty of unblocking MONGO in the meantime. Quite a few users have expressed concern about the block in various places, including AN/I. I hope that's okay with you. Cheers, [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 03:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 == Welcome back ==