User talk:Gaillimh/Archive 1

Leave a Message for Gaillimh
	Hi there, and thank you for dropping by my talk page! Want to leave me a message? Click that link above. Please be sure to add a title and signature (~~~~) to your messages. Cheers!

My archived talk
Archive 1 — 3 January 2007 – 19 March 2007
Archive 2 — 20 March 2007 – 4 April 2007
Archive 3 — 5 April 2007 – 19 May 2007
Archive 4 — 6 April 2007 – 3 November 2007

Welcome[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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:[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]

At this stage, he's unblocked, but I want to add my support for the unblocking. Administrators really need to give more consideration before they go soiling someone's block log without being sure that it benefits the project. MONGO has been victim of some pretty awful harassment, and it's hardly surprising if he doesn't respond well to people continuing to post on his talk page after he's asked them to stop. Musical L inguist 03:14, 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]

Hi! Sorry for not responding as quickly as I would have liked. I just responded on MONGO's talk page and am completely fine with the unblocking. I hope that you'll keep an eye on the dispute, however, to ensure that the discussions between the two users does not escalate further. Thanks gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They won't escalate if people who've been in dispute with MONGO stop pestering him on his talk page. Musical L inguist 03:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm sorry. I'd normally have waited for a bit longer, but your contribs made it look as though you'd stopped editing. My apologies if I jumped the gun, but I'm glad you're fine with the unblock. Thank you, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your polite responses to the criticism over all this. I am glad it's all come out well. Georgewilliamherbert 18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

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]

Voluntarily.[edit]

I do not believe the community has consented to granting admins the right to vanish and return under new user names, as it makes your administrative contribution log non-transparent. I ask you to please reveal to the community your old administrative username. If you do not do so, I will take this request to the community at large. If you email me your old user name, be aware I will disclose it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at the time of the promotion. The bureaucrat making the promotion indicated he would provide this admin's former username and an explanation surrounding the circumstances to any arbitrator, bureaucrat, or checkuser who inquired, thus providing substantial accountability. Please be aware that although I am not saying it is applicable in this instance, we have had administrators had to leave suddenly under extremely difficult circumstances such that quietly readminning them later under a new username is a necessary option. I understand your concern as a matter of principle and I agree that this is not an ideal situation, but at the same time I would urge that this matter not be pursued. Newyorkbrad 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is long established that any user can get a 'new start' by just setting up a new account. It is also long established that admins who give up their adminship voluntarily / with no 'cloud' can get it back at request. Finally, there have also been cases of admins changing username while retaining their adminship. Having all of these elements take place at the same time is unusual, but does not seem to me to violate existing standards. The only true 'oddity' here is that since the old account is unknown Gaillimh could theoretically be anyone... but then we promote people to bureaucrat precisely because we trust them to be fair and not deceitful. Not to mention that in this case the bureaucrat also agreed to share it with other bureaucrats, arbcom and checkusers. So unless you think they are all in a great conspiracy to install some unqualified user as an admin the objection seems groundless. --CBD 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Newyorkbrad. I do have big problems with the block that Gaillimh placed on MONGO, for something that could be seen as a threat (if you're looking for a reason to block), but that certainly didn't frighten the person involved, since, if he were really a timid sort of "shrinking violet", he would have stopped pestering MONGO at his talk page after MONGO had asked him to post at the article talk page instead. And I do think that especially administrators who are going to engage in controversial blocks might need to be shown to have no prior involvement with the blockee. However, it's possible that Gaillimh left under his old username because of things like personal safety, threats to his family, phonecalls to his workplace, etc., in which case it would be completely inappropriate to hassle him about his previous identity (especially if it was one where he used his real name). I suggest that Hipocrite should drop this. If you're worried that Gaillimh, in his previous identity, had some dispute with MONGO, and took advantage of his new identity for revenge (which seems quite unlikely), I suggest you take it up by private e-mail with the bureaucrat who promoted him, and ask for a confidential investigation. Gaillimh, PLEASE don't do those kind of blocks again. You must be aware that it was not a definite threat. You have said on AN/I that it wasn't your will or intention to smear him. If someone put "intimidation and thinly veiled threats of violence" in my block log, because of something I had said which could be seen as a threat (to someone who was in a longstanding dispute with me, and was continuing to pester me after being asked to stop posting on my talk page, and who therefore was not an easily intimidated user), I'd take little comfort in being told that it "wasn't his will or intention" to smear it. That permanent, indelible record speaks for itself. The fact that another user turned up at MONGO's talk page threatening to "whoop his ass", and that no admin took action makes it more insulting to MONGO. Musical L inguist 13:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of principle. As I wrote in the Adminstrator survey before I found out about this rogue account, "What are they{admins} gonna do that I can't find and complain about?" - the answer, of course, is disappear, clear their contribution logs, reapear and do things (like, say, using their admin tools in a dispute they were at one time involved in) that they would not have been permitted to do under their old user names. If you want to wash your contribution log, retain no link to your old account, then do it. No buttons till you earn our trust. Be aware that one more "mistake" will go directly to ArbCom. I do not operate "privately" and "in confidence." Sunshine is the best disenfectant, and I urge adminstrator who may or may not have the trust of the community to use it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I do not trust B's to be fully informed about everything that happens on the encyclopedia. I certainly do not trust them to do the distributed research that RFA/reviewing someone's contribution log is. Given that we cannot engage in this research about this user who has the ability to block people (and has demonstrated a willingness to do it with either malice or ignorance), I suggest that the B, regardless of his certainty the user was, in fact, in the past, an admin, did not determine if the action of readmin an anonymous new account had community consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And lets also be clear - did the B provide him the right to cover his tracks, as evidenced here? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this transfer of power in the strongest possible terms. I think you should either reveal your past user name publicly, return to the old account and abandon this one, or undergo a new RfA vote under this name. It does not matter to me in the slightest that some empowered people chatting in secret think this is OK, and will secretly inform other empowered people about it on request. Admins are made by the community; community trust was placed in a known account and identity. If the information is not available to the community, the transfer of powers should be considered illegitimate. Everyking 09:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The community places trust in people, not accounts. The person hasn't changed if we trust the word of those 'empowered people'... who were empowered to make such decisions precisely because the community does trust them. --CBD 09:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know who this person is. We don't know what sort of record he or she has, good or bad; we don't know his or her past actions, attitude, views, or any of the kinds of things people look at when judging an admin. I don't share your willingness to allow bureaucrats to have this much power to wield in secret, and to thereby allow an admin to evade scrutiny, ditch his or her established record in the eyes of the community, and still retain admin powers. Everyking 10:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Account[edit]

This user retains access to their old account, unless arrangements have been made to modify the email address and password attached to that account. Could a Bureaucrat please acknoledge that either the user rights log is incomplete due to technical means, or that access to the old, still active, unblocked, in good standing adminstrative account has been revoked? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I have correctly followed the trail of birdcrumbs, then I can confirm that Gaillimh's former account no longer is a sysop. Furthermore I can confirm that there are no outstanding issues (such as RFCs or arbitration requests) involving this user's former account. Satisfied? Can we drop this now please? Thatcher131 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given that this user's old name is not what I initially thought this users old name was, we can drop this action with respect to this specific user, who has done nothing terribly wrong. As a general rule, however, I am disgusted this was allowed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Poetry[edit]

Though I have no plans to publish my work in the immediate future, I believe you are correct in your advice for me to take it down. I appreciate your concern and I understand its merely to protect the rights to my work and I created that page sometime back before I was aware of WP:USERPAGE and the like :P. Once again thank you for your concern.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks a lot for the response and apologies for my own delayed response. If you're looking for an alternate wiki to post your poetry (which I thought was rather good!), you might want to check out WordForge, which runs on mediawiki software and was created by our own Kylu. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh[edit]

Just after finishing extensive revising of the above article. I aim to keep on at it over the coming weeks and submit it for peer review. Would very much appreciate your thoughts. Fergananim 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great article! I gave it a look at did a small copyedit to the first few sections. Unfortunately, I know nothing of the subject itself, but I'd be honoured to work on it with you, providing a fresh set of eyes for copyedits, or digging up some sources. Cheers! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nollaig Ó Muraíle[edit]

No article on Mac Fhirbhisigh would be complete without one on Nollaig. We're not short on good historians here in Ireland, but for my money Nollaig is head and shoulders above many. Besides citing a few more of his works, and maybe adding a photo, this article is nearly complete. Fergananim 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killed or murdered[edit]

Please debate this matter in the Tobermore article talk page. Mabuska 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Thanks for the heads-up! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review[edit]

Please UNDO your speedy close of the Daniel Brant deletion review. Trust the administrators enough to let the discussion run to the full length. It is obviously objected to, and you are creating more drama by trying to speedy close it. GRBerry 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. ~~Four and a half hours~~ Two and a half hours is not nearly long enough. Trebor 16:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article has been taken to AfD, so this is moot. – Steel 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)~~ Back at DRV. – Steel 18:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little late in commenting here. I see that you are not an administrator. You should not be closing DRV's at all, much less speedily so. Do not close any DRV's until you become an admin please. Your action here contributed to some substantial disruption; I'm sure you didn't intend that -- non-admins are normally not well-informed enough to make DRV closures, precisely because they can be very complicated. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Xoloz?. – Steel 18:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! My apologies on mistaking your status, Gaillimh. I saw the date of your Welcome message, and didn't think it was possible you had been sysopped so quickly! Guess they do RfAs quicker these days than they used to! Anyway, if I were starting from with this message from scratch, I'd caution you, as a fellow admin, that WP:SNOW at DRV is a really bad idea unless a request is clear gibberish. I'm sure you realize that after the disaster that DRV became. Closing discussion early risks making people very angry, particularly at DRV, which is a forum for APPEAL -- people need a chance to address grievances. Keeping discussion open may use a little more time, but it helps ease tension in the long run. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I see the you've had a name-change since promotion on 4 Feb. -- you second name-change since becoming active last month. Xoloz 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xoloz! Thanks for dropping me a line! Sorry for the confusion; I actually have not had a name-change since first registering this user name. I'm aware of the disaster that the DRV has become, partly because of my own actions. I had originally closed the DRV in part to help avoid those issues, but somewhat ironically, my actions worked to further the problems. I'll make sure not to apply WP:SNOW in the future when closing out DRV's. Thanks again for the message! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 01:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comhghairdeas! It's great to have another Irish administrator! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RE content dispute[edit]

Regarding User_talk:TomXP411#Hi_there.21

You're so right: good faith edits aren't vandalism. The thing I took issue with was the fact that he reverted my edit and left what I felt was a rude response. When I posted commentary on the talk page, he ignored it and re-reverted the edit. I know it's not vandalism, and I think I'll go back and revise the comment - because you are right. I'm sure it's GF, and that he's probably thinking "what a jerk" about me - maybe even rightly so.

Thanks,

-- TomXP411^[Talk] 06:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! For what it's worth, it doesn't appear that either of you were acting particularly out of sorts and I'm glad that you all have appeared to "take it to the talk page", so to speak. Also, you're a bit too harsh on yourself, mate! You've been doing good work, and Wikipedia is lucky to have you as a volunteer! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 06:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration proceeding[edit]

I have suggested that we add your name to the list of users whose actions are under review at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. It is my view that your early closure of the DRV contributed considerably to the problem. You may wish to comment. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I just posted a statement here, but I'm not sure if it's in the right place... in any case, thanks again for the notice! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to give a more formal notice from the Clerk that I've added you to the parties list, but I see you already heard. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, thanks anyways! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous identity[edit]

Given you are now a named party in the Brandt wheel war arbitration case I think you should come clean about your fomer account. It's kind of obvious anyway due to your overuse of exclamation marks! Catchpole 23:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration requested for Iñaki de Juana Chaos[edit]

--134.174.178.133 00:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please feel free to seek further dispute resolution with regards to the "mass murderer" label after being displeased with the outcome of your requested third opinion. However, might I humbly suggest a Requests for comment as a better avenue for you to seek a different consensus? The arbitration committee is unlikely to hear this matter, in my opinion, but please feel free to file an entry in case I'm wrong. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

Your old user page still has a classic among dramatic farewell messages on it. Seeing as how you haven't terminated your participation, I'm thinking that you just forgot to change it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Sorry about the delayed reply; I think you may be a bit confused, as any old userpage I may have created has long since been deleted. I hope this belated note clears up any lingering confusion you may have had. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 19:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed.

Yanksox (talk · contribs) has been formally desysopped
Gaillimh (talk · contribs) is banned from editing for a period of ten days
Geni (talk · contribs) has been formally desysopped
Doc glasgow (talk · contribs), Bumm13 (talk · contribs), and Mailer diablo (talk · contribs) are strongly cautioned regarding involvement in repeated deletion/undeletion of pages.
Freakofnurture (talk · contribs)'s administrator privileges, having been removed for a brief period consonsant with his offense, have beenn restored.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked: You have been blocked for 10 days to implement this decision. Thatcher131 20:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]