User talk:Gaillimh/Archive 3

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

Majorly's RfB

Hey Gaillimh, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. Happy editing! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers mate! I'll be waiting to support you when you do run again! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Identity

In the month and a half since I last asked you to disclose your former identity, have you disclosed it anywhere? I am going ask you to disclose your identity again every time you archive this page. Everyking 23:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you going to do that? If the user doesn't want to address the matter, it would seem to border on harassment to promise to repeatedly post the same message that you know the user doesn't want to respond to. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

He is free to take up a new identity without disclosing his past identity, of course, but I view this as acceptable only if he does so as an ordinary editor. The problem is that Gaillimh was able to have admin powers swapped to this new account in secret, without ever publicly disclosing who he was before (i.e., who he was when the community decided to trust him with admin powers). I object to that in the strongest possible terms. If he wants to be an admin under this account, he needs to either disclose the old identity or go for a new RfA under this account. Everyking 01:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length elsewhere. I appreciate your good-faith opposition to this practice, and it certainly ought not become commonplace, but there are extremely legitimate reasons that this sort of thing may sometimes be necessary, including administrators who have been stalked off-site based on their Wikipedia activities (I am not saying that that is the reason for this particular rename here). Your position that the user "needs to" do one thing or the other is not dispositive. In any event, your disagreement with a bureaucrat's decision to acquiesce in this request a couple of months ago has certainly been noted. I see no value to asking the same question of the user over and over again. Newyorkbrad 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Where else has this been discussed? And I don't think I've ever seen Gaillimh personally discuss it anywhere; certainly he never replied to me about it. The value in keeping the question on the current page is to prevent it from being buried and forgotten. Even if the switch was due to harassment, he can just wait a few months and apply for adminship under the new account; by making the secret switch he actually attracted attention (I've seen people off-site investigating the issue and reaching a conclusion about who they believe he was before). So I don't feel that's a worthwhile justification. It's too important for admins to be responsible to the community for Gaillimh to just pretend the issue doesn't exist. Everyking 02:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Everyking, please allow me to apologise for this delayed response and the prior nonresponse. In the archived thread(s) pertaining to my being 'sysopped', I received quite a few comments from a variety of people, and I must have inadvertently not responded to your comments. I appreciate your concern about Wikipedia and its important processes, and realise that you are only acting in and thinking about the best interests of Wikipedia. While you're correct in that my previous username hasn't been publicly disclosed, it has been privately disclosed to the Arbitration Committee, bureaucrats, and members of the Wikimedia Foundation. Again, apologies for the lack in communication on my part, and please feel free to drop me a line whenever you want.

Also, many thanks to Newyorkbrad for his taking valuable time out of his busy day to respond in my absence (on holiday). His sentiments echo mine gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that, while I'm sure the Arbitration Committee, bureaucrats, and members of the Wikimedia Foundation have been made aware, those are not the people who made you an admin—it was the community that did that. Therefore I feel your responsibility is to the community, and you must be accountable to the community; forget about the higher ups. Everyking 02:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<---- I understand your sentiment about, and the necessity for, accountability to the community when one uses extra buttons or engages in what are colloquially known as "admin tasks". To this end, I did pass an uncontroversial RfA some months ago. I had the support of the community then, and I assume (perhaps naively so) that I have community support now. That is, I don't think that a username change would affect this, as I'm the same person using the buttons (which has been confirmed). With regards to my previous comments about the Wikimedia Foundation, bureaucrats, and the Arbitration Committee, I provided these examples not to depict a sense of support from the "higher ups", while disregarding the community at-large. My intentions with that reference was to show that everything is (from my perspective) on the up and up, so to speak. I hope that this alleviates your concerns about the proper and necessary processes, and if not, please feel free to get back in touch. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 10:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being polite, but it does nothing to alleviate my concerns. Personally, I don't think you could pass an RfA under the present circumstances; I think too many people would oppose due to the secret swap. What is your history as an editor and an admin prior to the swap? What sort of views did you hold about Wikipedia? What concerns, if any, did people have about you in the past? I have no idea, and the community at large has no idea. When you made the swap, you became an admin without a record. Everyking 10:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, apologies that my response was not as helpful as I would've liked for it to have been. With regards to my previous editing habits, not much as changed. I work on similar (in lots of cases, the same) articles as I did previously. My primary article writing foci has shifted a bit, however, from sport to literature. With regards to admin actioning, I've never been hugely active, and hasn't changed much, either. My primary focus in that area is working with OTRS. With regards to views about Wikipedia, that encompasses a great deal, but I'd be happy to answer any specific questions. With regards to previous concerns about me in the past, I honestly cannot think of anything significant; I changed my username for reasons completely unrelated to anything controversial on Wikipedia. Upon writing this, I'm not sure that this is exactly what you're looking for, as I've offered these comments completely devoid of prior references and diffs and such, for reasons I'm sure you can understand (but not totally agree with, which is fine, of course). Also, as this discourse is probably not going to be read by any large portion of the community, I'm also not sure that I've helped out in that area, either. As such, I'd be more than happy to talk more, as it's sometimes quite difficult to communicate with great effectiveness in this format. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 10:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaillimh

Someone informed me of this, and since you weren't informed of it, as far as I can tell, I suppose you should be informed of it as well. I might comment on it if others do, but at this point, it's quite premature given that the creator didn't even bother to tell you about it. Ral315 » 20:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for being behind on this... it's a new process for me, though we discussed before my opening of the RfC my intent to do so. Sarah777 has added a request on the RfC [page] about the history of your prior editorship. I'm not sure I can expect disclosure, but the note is there and if you could, it would be appreciated. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ral315, thanks a lot for letting me know! It appears as if I've missed the proceedings, but I did view the deleted content and appreciate you alerting me of the RfC. Cheers! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your message. In fact I know the poem (Heaney's not a favourite poet of mine, to be honest, but I have read him); you're right that it was the placing and formatting (and the implication that its main or only source is a particular anthology) that made me remove it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Scots, Attacotti and Deisi

Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers. Fergananim 14:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fergananim! I think it's a great addition to the article, and I've gone ahead provided a reference for the new section. Thanks a lot for the heads up. Cheers! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Name change

Hi there, thanks for the help with the user-name change. Gold_heart 11:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Cheers! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ógra Shinn Féin

If you're planning to sort it out I've no objections to an article, but Weggie (a Unionist, for the record) was intent on it being deleted and I couldn't do much with it. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah cheers, thanks for the heads up! I actually headed over there after reading a discussion that you participated in about possible ETA/IRA connections, hehe. There's plenty of precedent for these sorts of articles (Ógra Fianna Fáil, for example), and while it's certainly not a featured article-quality by any means, it seems to be a quite valid article. I'll definitely put improving that article on my list of things to work on though! Thanks again, mate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 12:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

An article is definitely merited, but with the 1,001 other things I have on the go it was difficult to find the time as it wasn't particularly high priority. First it was tagged with advert, then for speedy deletion. At the time a redirect seemed the best alternative. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Same here, but I'll make an effort to work on the article as it is, admittedly, wanting for a bit gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 12:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

protection

full protection works with admin-only edit wars, since making substantial changes without discussion while a page is full protected is against protection policy whether you're an admin or not. Most admins (who stay admins for long) respect this and will stop edit warring once a page is full protected. --W.marsh 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, I understand what you mean. Thanks mate! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr

He came back to repost his userpage. He's not here to contribute anymore. His block is warranted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No mate, blocking a user, who could easily be considered a "newcomer", given the changes that Wikipedia has had over the past two-plus years, without warning after recreating a userpage is a severe misuse of the block button. As I mentioned to you over IRC before unblocking the fellow, the proper course of action would have been to blank or delete the userpage and explain WP:USERPAGE to the fellow, while keeping the page on one's watchlist to ensure that he takes the advice to heart. I've gone ahead and implemented this, and as such, will be correcting your misuse of your administrator buttons gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Adams

If you think the IRA allegation is bad for WP:BLP, then you really should see this and the related discussion here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, parliamentary privilege is one of the most irresponsible allowances given to MP's. Thanks for the note! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I never did add the bloodsucking alien lizard information to the DoE article either :-(. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for those links! I removed the stuff said by the MP and dropped a line on the talk page. Thanks again! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Gaillimh. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. About the article writing not being relevant: that was from my last RFA, and when I said it, I didn't mean it the way many many people interpreted it as, and I still don't know why I was opposed for something from last RFA since the point of running again is to have improved. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Gaelic Athletic Association

You should see here and here for the background on that one, the IP editor is banned. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, cheers! Thanks for those links! Fellow appeared to be right about needing sources, though gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 09:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Y

Are you playing some sort of peculiar game here? Because I can't imagine an actual reason for this edit. --Calton | Talk 07:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the note! I know that you're acting in good faith, but leaving Y a generic template warning him about user talk behaviour and pointing him towards policies he's already well aware of is a bit silly, innit? There's no game being played; I just think its best not to clutter people's talk pages with unnecessary and unwaranted warnings (if you're reading this out loud, please excuse the difficulty I've created you in trying to say "unwaranted warnings"... unwaranted warnings... un-war-an-ted warnings... gosh, that's tough, huh?) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 07:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr again

Take a look at this. This user started editing in September 2004 and was later sanctioned by the ArbCom in early 2005, and since then, has done nothing but post his rant and reposting it when others delete it. IMO, it has become apparent that he no longer has any intention of contributing encyclopedic material here, as evidenced by not only his recent edits but also the content of his rant. TML 10:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Gaillimh, thanks for being the first to support me on my recent RfA, which passed unopposed. Your generous comments within the first hour helped ease my nervousness after submitting my self-nomination, and set a positive tone for the entire process. Thanks again! --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, great, I'm glad to hear your RfA was successful! Have fun with your new buttons! Cheers mate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

actually

Hello, Gaillimh. I actually just wanted to let you know that I manually reverted that. That is from a little bit of a dispute, adn I reverted it because I felt that he was just trying to continue the dispute along. But, it could have been legimate, and I understand why you reverted. I will leave it teh way it is. I just wanted to let you know that. Karrmann 00:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I assumed it was an automated revert as you used the edit summary Reverted 1 edit by 71.53.65.109 to last revision by Karrmann. using TW).[1] Apologies for the mistake! If the revert was 'on purpose', it's bad form to revert others' talk page comments, especially if they are not blatant vandalism, which the edit in question clearly isn't. Again, no worries at all; it's just that we need to be careful of reverting newcomers (especially talk page posts where the newcomer is asking a question about where he/she may have erred previously when editing Wikipedia) without explanation, as that sort of thing can often scare them off. Cheers and keep up the good work with your vandalism reverts gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just convinced that he was just trying to start something, but the more and more I read it the more and more it seems legimate. I guess I need to stop being so protective of Sharon ;) Karrmann 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, it's great that you're helping to keep people's user talk pages free of vandalism! No one likes coming on to Wikipedia to see their talk page all askew. However, it's always best to assume good faith and err on the side of caution with regards to these sorts of things, don't you think? You also may want to remove the warning you left the fellow on his talk page. Cheers mate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 01:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)