User talk:Tóraí/Archive/Archive 7

Datamap Barnstar!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I just came across your Data Mapper. This is really useful for generating quick maps and I'll cross fertilize it to the Commons Graphics Lab. Thanks for making this tool! Jon C (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks! --RA (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! RashersTierney (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agh! I've been caught! Just popped in after a long absence. Massively busy IRL. Have I missed much? --RA (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same ol' ding dong. You'll soon catch up :- ) RashersTierney (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red link at British Isles

Hi, I see you left a red link at British Isles (Roman conquest of Britain). Is this a forerunner to a new article/renaming or does it need correcting? LemonMonday Talk 19:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typo. Fixed. Thanks. --RA (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constituent country

Hi Rann, In checking the history of this article I noticed you put in the references with bolding about the issue of NI being a country or not [1]. Would you consider unbolding the partial quotes? On glancing through the references all you see is the assertion the NI is not a country. To me this is not really acceptable, since the text is not (I assume) bolded in the originals. I think there's a bit of over-referencing here as well. LemonMonday Talk 19:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RA (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

na hÉireann

As soon as I'd written "Éireann" I realised that it should have been Éire. Anyway, I'm not convinced that Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann are proper precedents. They descibe concrete things - houses - as opposed to figurative things or offices. What about Uachtaráin na Éireann? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going by contemporary sources not my own logic. Geoffrey Keating, also a contemporary source, used "ríoghacht Éireann" in his History of Ireland too.

My guess is that the difference may be due to the exceptional nature of Ireland and England as countries. Countries always takes the definite article (e.g. an Fhrainc, an Ghearmáin) except for Ireland and England, which are exceptional (Éire and Sasana, no definitive article). Other examples include Iarnród Éireann, Córas Iompair Éireann, Met Éireann, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, etc.

Uachtaráin na Éireann is different because the definitive article in that case is referring to the president, not to the country. Similarly, there is a difference between Saorstát Éireann (Irish Free State) and Poblacht na hÉireann (the Republic of Ireland). The same difference exists between Tuaisceart Éireann (Northern Ireland) and tuaisceart na hÉireann (the north of Ireland). --RA (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Ireland since 1500.png

Population of Ireland since 1500.png should be titled Population of Ireland since 1600, not 1500. See the year the graph begins. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original file showed the population from 1500. Later updates to it (based on the more accurate data) shifted the start date to 1600.

Moving a file on the commons requires administrator privileges. Instructions on how to request a move can be seen here. I've made a request in this case. --RA (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire lady portrait

Thanks for your work on that portrait. I agree with you about the frame: best to have removed it. I just wondered if it could be tweaked a little. Some of the detail seems to have been lost. (One can see the loss, for instance, in the lettering in the upper left hand corner of the painting.) In any case, just wondered if it be tweaked just a tad? In any case, thanks for your efforts. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. I don't think it is possible. Detail gets gradually lost with every manipulation of an image. --RA (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janissary

Thank you for your work on the Janissary picture. Could you also increase the contrast and brightness of the image also? I nominated it to FP also just to tell you, here is the nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Janissary. Spongie555 (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (And best of luck with the nom!) --RA (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great job editing it. The nomination looks good now. Also the original uploader of the picture commented at the Graphic Lab protesting the new improvements to the picture. I don't know if we can upload the current picture that you improved on another file with a different name or upload the original uploaded image on another file to avoid a conflict with the original uploader. Spongie555 (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Could you fix the image again according to the comment on the FP nomination? Your doing a great job with the image. Spongie555 (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I won't be able to do it until tomorrow evening at the earliest. If it is urgent, you should drop a line at the Graphic Lab with linking to the comment. --RA (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not urgent but the nominations closes tommorow. Spongie555 (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template: British Isles

Howdy. Is your change suppose to have made this template appear differently at Republic of Ireland? If so, I don't see the differance. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template on the ROI article is headed, British-Irish Council area. A link to British Isles appears within the template. --RA (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll stay away from the discussion. I honestly don't understand what's being argued, as I don't see a differance at RoI, since you've reverted Mick at the linking Template. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: My lack of knowledge on this topic, is of no help. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Isles

You have new messages

Hello, Tóraí. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png

Chzz ► 21:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may let you guy's work out something. I'm just as confused now about the dispute, as I was then. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for explaining a bit about that debate. Sorry, it's been archived (there was a bit of an 'incident' where I took a break/archived my talk), but, I have not forgotten about this. Your précis was helpful, and I'm reading/watching the discussion, and I will try to contribute. Thanks again - just didn't want you to think I'd ignored it; it's on my (sadly long) to-do list! Chzz ► 18:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland

Howdy RA. The folks at Countries of the United Kingdom are gonna be peeved. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that anyone is peeved demonstrates that NPOV has not been reached on an article. The question is one of POV. It is improper that any POV should be given preeminence, particularly on an issue about which even RS say there is no consensus.

TBH I think those who get most excited about NI are those who with an eye on maintaining the wording on other article about the UK's constituent parts.

In the mean time, consensus can change. Let's see how it pans out without stirring the pot unnecessarily. --RA (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constituent country should be in the intros of all 4 articles, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon I've been reported for breaching 1RR. I believe you'll be safe, as you only reverted twice. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communication breakdown

I really don't understand the point you're making. If you think I was disagreeing with you to any extent, that wasn't my intention. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which point? (For clarity since this may be a communication breakdown.)

TBH I'm quite weary of the constant (low) level of incivility on British- and Irish-related topics. Your comment here may have been tongue in cheek - and apologies for over sensitivity if it was - but weariness has kicked in. The tone of the previous comment fades into the background hum but I don't like to loose you to the drone. (I fear enough already that I have been lost to it.) --RA (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just going back a step or two - I wasn't sure whether this comment - "@Ghmyrtle, thanks for your honesty. The disingenuity — and actually explicit cherry picking of sources — shown by some editors with respect to the vocabulary used by the UK government is one of the most galling aspects of this recurring issue for me. I'm grateful to at last hear someone who supports the current wording contribute honestly on this question." - was genuine or ironic, because I didn't - and don't - know which of my comments you were alluding to. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one. Among others though. --RA (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...OK. But are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing? (Sorry to appear so dumb - it's getting late.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree or disagree about what? (Sorry to be equally dumb.) --RA (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't clear to me whether "...thanks for your honesty...I'm grateful to at last hear someone who supports the current wording contribute honestly on this question..." was genuine or ironic, partly because I wouldn't categorise myself as "supporting" the current wording. "Reluctantly accepting it for the moment", perhaps. Anyway, let's AGF and move on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I wouldn't categorise myself as 'supporting' the current wording." I didn't realise that. --RA (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by "support". I take Snowded's point that the wording reflects the fact that many sources do define NI as a country, and that was the consensus the last time there was a proper discussion over the wording. However, I also believe that the use of the word is contentious and non-neutral within NI (Brocach's point), and that there is a (probably growing) tendency to avoid the use of the word in relation to NI. I reject the idea that there needs to be consistency between the four "countries" in the wording used - because their histories vary so markedly - and I completely support the use of the word "country" in relation to England, Scotland and Wales (while acknowledging at the same time that opening up the debate in relation to NI could lead to a further round of unproductive debate in relation to Wales in particular). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, except that I find the refrain that "it was agreed" aggrivating.

Wales is an interesting counter example to Northern Ireland - and the way modern use of the term "principality" is buried on that article also falls short NPOV. (Although, to be clear, "country" is common with respect to Wales and "principality" is contentious.) All POVs, even ones that are "wrong", need a fair airing and let the reader decide.

TBH, the question around all four constituent parts wasn't handled very well to beging with. It approach agreed lacked the transparency, nuance and depth that the question and NPOV requires. That is something that is further galling about the "it was agreed" chorus. As might be said on other websites: bad deal is bad. --RA (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shame you were just being your between-accounts 'uninvolved IP' at the time then wasn't it? Didn't you think about making the odd edit? Neither 'province' or 'principality' have any official definition, or proper authority - as the now-unavailable (ahem) report opens by saying. Just like the UN-sovereign term "country", which, given that the same OS-based report used that for Scotland - cannot always be 'sovereignty-dependent' - ie per the report you get province and principality from. Do you see the inherent flexibility in that report? These terms do not preclude anything. Both 'province' and 'principality' are clearly detailed in the Wales and NI articles, but that is just never enough for someone like you is it? I find you totally outrageous, especially given how you present yourself to WP as an admin-in-the-making. You don't seem to mind upsetting people over their nationhood (as you have a number of times) imo because you think all the UK countries should be nationally-adjusted anyway: and discomfort is just the 'way it is'. (No that is not hypocrisy regarding the British Isles, RA - there is a ridiculous amount to weight given to the 'naming dispute' already.) You have to know where to draw the line - but it seems to me that it is just never enough for you until you get exactly what you want. You have been truly ignorant about Wales and its history - but you never bother to read people's explanations, which after a while becomes a genuine nuisance to WP. Principality never-ever precluded 'country', and there is actually no logical reason that province should either. WP is entitled to pick single definitions where it is appropriate to do so, and simply explain other definitions/contention etc at some point after – but you just can't seem to accept that. To complain as much as you do is outrageous imo. What you just did at Wikidictionary was totally gaming the cross-wiki system in my opinion, and I've brought it straight into line with Wikipedia. Please play fair.

I'd also like at least a comment from you over your CLEAR mistake about my OR comment below (either here, or on the Northern Ireland talkpage if you like) - one which you typically managed to mislead other people over re subsequent discussion. I don't expect an actual apology. WP is NOT all about you RA, and you are making some basic mistakes, but you don't just have some kind of 'right' to do that just because you are you. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what your problem is with the tone of my comment. By quoting only two sources you were 'explicitly cherry picking sources' yourself. You may also care to explain how adding "for now" is Dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass. How is that incivil? Daicaregos (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm don't mean to single you out. There's a general and constant (low) level of incivility on all British- and Irish-related topics, I feel. It may be that we have all just come accustomed to it. Or it may be it has always been there and I have only just become weary of it now. Specifically in relation to your comment that I linked to, the use of sarcasm in your first sentence has an incivil tone and the second sentence has a hint of assuming poor faith. Your post above begins with, "Please explain what your problem is..." None of this is so awful in isolation but, as I said, it feels (to me) like it is part of a constant drone of (low-level) incivility on British- and Irish-related topics.
The two sources were provided explicitly as example citations for a statement that another editor said was OR. That's not "cherry picking" sources: the other editor provided a statement that he/she said was OR, I provided two sources that would support the statement.
For now, I am leaving that discussion. The issue will crop up again as it has done with a regularly. I'll chip in again when it does but, "for now", I'm out. --RA (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That 'other editor' (ie me) did not say it was WP:OR to suggest that words like "part" preclude "country". I said that it was Original Research for an editor to just 'assume' that a term like "part" is precluding a definition of "country", simply because it was being used by someone! I even gave an example of "part" in use to prove my point. Did you read it? No.

You simply didn't bother reading my comment properly RA: to the point where your misenterpretations can a borderline abuse frankly. You simply have to read people's comments properly, and not just assume stupidity or ignorance. That is actually ABF. You talk about feeling 'weariness', but I don't know any other editor who's personaly worn me down so much - mainly by so rarely properly reading anything I flipping well write! Don't you realise how wearisome that is for others? It's like you always have to be right, and you'll simply find a new way of expressing things if people come back to you. The reaason I left that BI/CI page was that you simple wore me down in the end. I'll have to return to it though, I do realise that. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted reference to Irish nationalism in the UK introduction footnote

On number three RA? There is no consensus for this part of the footnote that I can see, as I pointed out to Ghmyrtle when I undid his revert of mine claiming it. This claim within the UK footnote is a total and utter disgrace. An author saying something polemical and controversial (in itself for pete's sake) in a 'Reliable Source' somewhere does not mean you can simply 'transform' it into a plainly-written 'fact' - whether "can" is used within it or not. Reliable Sources do not HAVE to be used, and they do NOT equal facts. When will you let NI live in peace you guys? I despair, I really do. This is the footnote within the United Kindgom introduction and it's not even a properly verifiable comment - it's just a sectarian twist on the lack of 'official' status of the various terms (country, province, whatever). Wikipedia needs to clean-out the outrageous attempts to append the Troubles onto every mention of Northern Ireland once and for all. It's not always even the content for me - it's the constant dissemination of the theme. And sovereignty MUST come first - nationalism cannot have 'even weight' to it. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post on Talk:List of sovereign states

I was not impressed by your flame posts here and here. I assume you are referring to me – if not, please advise to whom you were referring (or the diff on which you base your accusation) and I will strike this post and apologise. Your hyperbole, exaggeration, fantasy, fabrication, lies or whatever you want to call it, are untrue, unnecessary and unwarranted and should never be part of reasoned discussion on Wikipedia. No doubt you thought it amusing. It was not. Daicaregos (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RA. You are a person of uncommon integrity. Daicaregos (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful. --RA (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(At work and had written most of this before going away to a meeting.) Hi, Dai. I wasn't particularly referring to you - though you might reflect on why you thought I was.

I've struck the part about the world ending. It was intended to be amusing. Rather it was offensive, belittling and ultimately provoking. I apologise for it.

With regard to the wider substantive point of POV pushing (to which you might take offense): I stand over it. However, I hope we can move past that.

As I said on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 10, a community RfC on this broad issue might be worthwhile. I had intended later today to contact yourself, Snowded and possibly others with a mind to exploring what form an RfC like that might take and what it might discuss.

For my part, I believe the question is a complex one, and while we have clashed over "such-and-such a place is a country", as I wrote on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 10, it is not as simple as the "only sovereign states are countries" advocates would have us believe.

I think a well-structured community RfC - as scary as the thought of that might be - could be of benefit to the project and I would like to explore that idea with you if I could. --RA (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to that as well. The problem with the list pages is that they attract people who like things to be neat and tidy, unfortunately life is not like that. Having said that I think the danger is you would open a whole nest of worms and conflict different groups. We are stable in the various British and Irish pages on this issue, it might not be advisable to disturb it. --Snowded ^TALK 11:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

new eurostat figures

Hello. Eurostat released government surplus/deficit figures for the year 2010. It would be great if you could update your graph at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Piiggs_surplus_2002-2009.png Thanx --spitzl (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlinks

Hi! Deleting a dead URL reference and adding a {{cn}} instead is not really helpful, especially if the reference is cited multiple times. If you can't find an archived version, keep the URL but add {{dead link}}. See WP:DEADREF for more info. jnestorius^(talk) 23:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the link and putting it back in.

I don't see where in that document the Reform Movement "endorses" the flag, however (e.g. endorses as what?). Maybe I'm just missing it. --RA (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RA - could you revert your changes to that page as per BRD while we're discussing please. --HighKing (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BI diagrams

I reverted you at British Isles partly because I think we should get agreement at the Terminology article first, but also because I don't see many people positively liking your diagram. To me, the plain map diagram with the flags gives more information and is geographically accurate - whether we need a Euler diagram at British Isles at all is, I think, a matter for discussion further down the road. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No bother. --RA (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your rfa

Hi - are you open to some form odf community recall? and as you are heavily involved in the brit isles / ireland topic area would you be prepared to make a declaration not to use the tools in that area? thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, both of these are important questions. I've touched on them both in answer to other questions but I'd appreciate the opportunity to be very clear about them. I'd be grateful if you would put them both as questions as part of the RfA and I'll answer them fully on that page. --RA (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For writing and executing a script to merge three Doctor Who related lists neatly into one :-) Regards So Why 21:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very welcome. Glad I could help. --RA (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

I've closed your RfA as successful. The New Admin School might be useful to play around with admin tools, and here is the how-to guide. This and this are good words of caution—had I known of that before, I wouldn't be the reason as to why these two pages exist. :p Good luck with the new tools. Maxim_(talk) 15:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maxim. --RA (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More congratulations

Congratulations on getting your adminship! I hope you weren't too put out that I voted oppose. What I said was sincere and well-intentioned, and I have no doubt that you're going to prove me wrong on every count :-) Scolaire (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Scolaire. You know me well and what you wrote gave food for thought. Thanks, --RA (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was one better. Managed to jump camps right at the end. Big congratulations RA. Wifione ^Message 15:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks, Wifione. --RA (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commiserations from me. It seems to me that it's something that no sane person would want to undertake on a voluntary basis. Hope it doesn't interfere too much with your enjoyment of this site. ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC) (but well done really)[reply]

Welcome to the admin group, the fellas are coming around shortly for the hazing. But until then, congratulations. ;) -- Atama頭 16:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulation RA. I'm sure you will do a grand job. Bjmullan (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Myrtle on this one. You obviously have a screw loose to want all the extra hassle. But congrats none the less. Fmph (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. --RA (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful RfA, Rannpháirtí anaithnid! Here's the standard clothing for your new role, hope it fits. :) Best. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 18:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the mop! Moogwrench (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Now the real work begins, but I'm sure you'll be up to it. Hohenloh⁺ 00:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. --RA (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done - enjoy the mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 08:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brookie. --RA (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain and Ireland

Regarding this – was the UK of GB and I not called the "United Kingdom" as a short form at the time, just as the UK of GB and NI is now? With that considered, I don't think "the name of the United Kingdom" is a very good way of wording it. "The name of the British state", maybe? JonC ^Talk 22:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Great Britain was more common ... but that's not the point you're making. I don't really know the best way to say it, but it was not a separate state to the UKGBNI. For example, the UKGB for example ceased to exist in 1801. However, the UKGBI still exists. It's just called the UKGBNI now. --RA (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this to the appropriate article TP. JonC ^Talk 22:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A big thanks

First, congratulations on your RfA. You did an excellent job and it shows. But what I really came here for was to thank you. I read Wikipedia:IPs are human too many years ago when I was editing as an IP. I rediscovered it shortly after creating an account here last year. Your essay captures the essence of what makes Wikipedia successful. Every helpful contribution, no matter where it comes from, makes Wikipedia better. All of these contributions added together give us the Wikipedia we know today. This means we should encorage contributions from IPs as well as registered users as all of it helps our project. Your essay helps people understand this fundamental fact, that Wikipedia isn't just helped by registered users, it's helped by everybody. I thank you kindly for writing the essay. I must say I'm really very pleased your RfA was a success as I believe your viewpoint, applied to the administrative side of things, will help the project greatly. Thanks for everything. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I'm very glad it was of benefit. --RA (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great essay. Congratulations on your RfA. --John (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. --RA (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on your signature

Hi, is it deliberate on your part that your name is unclickable? I find this slightly frustrating as it is useful to be able to use the tools to quickly see where someone is editing/participating. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No bother. Is this a slight improvement? --RA (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's the talk though - do you intend them to be hard to reach? I always wonder about this sort of thing - on the one hand, it facilitates stalking but on the other, it's a help to know what people are into at a glance. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "talk" link is greyed out because you're on RA's talk page already. :) JonC ^Talk 13:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, thanks! I get it now. Duh. :) That's a neat feature, he said foolishly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm :-) Let's never speak of this again. --RA (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm ... I dunno. I just kinda liked it that way. I mean, how often do you look at a person's user page (once, twice?). It's the talk page that matters and you can get to the user page from the talk page if you still want to.

It was a comment on my RfA so I might change it over the coming days. You can click on the "RA" now though (per your request) and it will take you direct to my user page. --RA (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't know if it's a big deal, I'm just a popup-junkie and expect everyone to fall in like with the Popup Police Protocols. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned talk page

Are you of the opinion messaging an IP editor on an orphaned talk page is preferable to deleting the page and contacting the editor on their user talk? Tiderolls 09:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error on my part. For some reason, I thought it was on a user talk space of a (non-existant) User:Edward Boddington. Thanks for pointing that out.

I've copy-and-paste moved the article to the main space and attributed User:115.188.5.125. The stub was apparently created in the wrong namespace by accident but there was no need to obliterate otherwise (apparently) sound text from the encyclopedia.

--RA (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa for following policy. Tiderolls 09:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tóraí. You have new messages at Ymei's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Thanks for the deletion, and congratulations on the mop! I saw the discussion over at WP:RFA. I have an additional request to make, if you have time. Would you be able to delete User:Erik/Future articles and all of its sub-pages? They're all quite old, and I was going to try to use {{help me}} to make a request, but it's not for non-talk pages. If you can't, that's okay! :) Just cleaning up my pages a little bit. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RA (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Happy editing. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Campbell (English footballer)

Previous AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Campbell (footballer born 1988). Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 19:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. --RA (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Consumer Research

Hi there. I see you've declined the speedy deletion of the ACR page because the copyright violation is "not unambiguous anymore". I strongly disagree. The article was not rewritten but adapted with a very light pinch of subtlety. (see the recent edit [2] to see how light) Legally, this would probably be considered derivative work. It still contains entire sentences that are basically those on the website. Compare this sentence (website)

This mission is reflected in the ACR logo which symbolizes the three interest groups, the members of academia, industry and government, whose scholarly exchange and collaboration reflect the essence of ACR.

with this (article)

The ACR logo symbolizes the three interest groups, the members of academia, industry and government, that comprise its membership and whose collaboration and scholarly exchange reflect the mission of ACR.

I think this you should reconsider. Best, Pichpich (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it is not a copyright violation. I'm just saying that it is no longer an unambiguous copyright violation (and so suitable for CSD). I've added the {{Copyvio}} tag per suspected or complicated copyright infringements. --RA (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JBLR

Thanks. I don't bite, I make it clear that we are not a toy, a play thing, or a space to host bullshit articles. Thanks Colofac (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, then. --RA (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File talk:About-kevin.jpg

Hi. An editor contested the deletion of File talk:About-kevin.jpg at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File talk:About-kevin.jpg. Would you explain your deletion to him/her? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RA (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick WP:R2

Hi RA! Thanks for this: Talk:Bakhshali/Khan Amirzadah Khan's House. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --RA (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India Evangelical Lutheran Church

I dont dispute that this article is salvageable but could you remove the versions with the copyvio please?--RadioFan (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's isn't possible owing to the way the page was written. If you feel it is completely necessary, I can expunge the article and start fresh attributing Dinkardev and Babuonwik. However, I don't believe that is necessary. (Though I am open to being told otherwise.) --RA (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I feel it necessary. If the only option is delete and start over, that's fine. A note on the original creator's web page would be in order, if just to remind them that copying and pasting from elsewhere on the internet is not acceptible.--RadioFan (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to check with others before I do this, if you don't mind. It's not that I feel doing so would be inappropriate. But just because I want to check that no-one would disagree with it as a process. --RA (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What benefit do you see to retaining the versions with the copyvio.--RadioFan (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None. I just don't want to delete the page and restore it again without consensus that that's an OK way to go. --RA (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked it here. --RA (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I dont expect each administrator to be perfect, I am a bit surprised to learn of an administrator that is unaware of Wikipedia:Revision deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware. The problem is that I cannot delete those revisions without deleting attribution to the author. WP:CRD #1 was cited on WP:AN, but: "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion can not be used." --RA (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks to 28bytes who pointed to a similar case. --RA (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ankita Bakshi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ankita Bakshi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankita Bakshi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RA, I see that you'd moved the article, but I deleted it as G5 as he copy pasted back to the original title. If you look at the SPI page and text of article creations you'll be able to see the evidence of hoaxing and copyvios. It's been a regular problem for a few weeks now with a sock a day. —SpacemanSpiff 13:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I saw it marked for speedy as a hoax but determined that it wasn't (the woman does exist) and moved it to what appears to be the woman's common name. --RA (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland

I didn't know about the Display method, 'til now. Darn good executive thinking, RA. GoodDay (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Higgins religion

Hi, since when it is acceptable to take another person's comments in a debate as a reliable reference for BLP? No matter what Norris says, this statement cannot be used as a reliable reference for Higgins' religion. At best, all you can say is that according David Norris, Higgins is a catholic, nothing more. We need to have info from a reliable source before that kind of information can be included as per WP:BLP. Snappy (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"At best, all you can say is that according to..." The same can be said for all secondary sources. Norris has been a friend and colleague of Higgins in the Oireachtas for over two decades. The two men know each other very well. Higgins was also present when the comment was made. If it was inaccurate he coudl have corrected it. What is unreliable about it? --RA (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a comment made mid debate, not at all reliable. We need a primary source. I tried to have a another source for Higgins' religion but couldn't. There must be something better out there given the amount interviews he has done, columns he has written. Has anyone trawled through his Hot Press columns yet? Snappy (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: barnstar

Thanks, RA, it's really appreciated. You've always been something of an inspiration on here for not letting personal beliefs get in the way of neutral editing, so it's nice to receive a star from you. JonC ^Talk 06:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After all we've been through, where is mine at lol? ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 17:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aww shucks, thanks RA! :-) Did you just create this one by the way as i was always wondering was there a barnstar for us to use as i've wanted to dish out a couple myself. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where it came from. It's good tho. It was the first image I found on the Commons when I searched for "Irish flags". I thought it was very apt. By all means, spread them around. I think it would be a good idea. --RA (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

British/Irish Collegial Banner

Whilst i don't always agree with you (hardly ever maybe), you have always done your best to be collaborative, and open-minded to opposing opinions on thorny issues and willing to work towards a compromise that suits all involved - even when the discussion has gotten quite heated. Our greatest achievement collaborating with each other has to be MOS:IE#Other_names, which has worked out amazingly. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Mabuska. I don't think we disagree that much — just on the finer points. --RA (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Quantum Research"

Hello. I removed the Sindo/Quantum "poll" as they don't seem to be conducted by a reliable agency. See the discussion at: Talk:Irish_presidential_election,_2011#Quantum.2FSunday_Independent_polls. Incidentally, I emailed the newspaper a couple of weeks ago asking them who or what Quantum Research are and they haven't bothered answering. Lozleader (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the piece and commented on the talk. --RA (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

82.18.191.248

Seeing as you're online now, reporting this here is quicker than AN/I. User 82.18.191.248 is adding Irish versions of names, uncited, to loads of articles right now in breach of the IMOS guidelines. Ignored a message I left on their talk page. Can you block? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. I'm gave an undertaking not to use admin tools in areas where I was potentially involved. This looks like one of those touchy areas. --RA (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right - no problem. S/he seems to have stopped for the moment, anyway. If they resume later, I'll post on AN/I. Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CS Lewis

I just wanted to bring to your attention and other editors that Mabuska, Jon and Goodday (and the usual suspects) are refusing to change this author's nationality from British even though he was born in Ireland and claims that was Irish, they refuse to engage in consensus, even for not even mentioning nationality, could you and the others help intervene. Sheodred tried to help but he was harrassed and accused of being a socket as a diversion to the POV pushing of other editors.93.107.209.165 (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to CS Lewis. I must concede to your point about showing England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales in the British bio infoboxes. Afterall, the American bio infoboxes use their states & the Canadian bio infoboxes use their provinces, territories. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belated congratulations

Only seeing now that you have been given the mop, best of luck with it. Mo ainm~Talk 23:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'll try to use it wisely. --RA (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, on getting the Administrators hat. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let me add my best wishes. Good luck!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both very much. --RA (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that somehow. Well done and good luck! RashersTierney (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rashers. --RA (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pluto

In the last few weeks, several people have complained to me that I archive too readily, and create too many archive pages. So I've been going around my old archives and condensing them. All the information is still there, but it's on 8 archvies instead of 13. Unfortunately, due to the current setup on Talk:Pluto, I can't get rid of the excess archives without deleting them. And I don't have the authority to delete them. Serendi ^pod ous 07:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. If you need to do it again, possibly use use the comment field to explain the blanking or use the {{Db-g7}} template and leave a rationale. I know you didn't mark it for deletion but it can be difficult to figure out sometimes why pages are being requested for speedy deletion and if there is a genuine reason.

Thanks for your response. Best regards, --RA (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Thank you. I do not understand why the original page was deleted when the main template was moved in the first place. At least the fact that there were double redirects would have raised red flags.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although, why did you make a new template at Template:Editnotices/Page/Kamen Rider OOO (character) when making it a redirect would have been just as easy?—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell why the double redirect wasn't spotted. It's a strange one but ususally there is a simple explanation.

With regard to why I am not redirecting the pages: Initially, I restored the redirects. However, I notice that Wikipedia:Editnotice suggests to transclude the original template (as oppose to redirect to it). I'm transcluding them all now. --RA (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the double redirect wasn't spotted because the original location got deleted. And now I see the transclusion rule on WP:Editnotice.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind doing another one of these for the page Himitsu Sentai Gorenger? We have issues with the fandom's preferred spelling ("Goranger") and the official spelling provided by the production company within the past 5 years ("Gorenger"). Things really got bad tonight when someone went through the page and replaced every instance of "Goren" with "Goran", even when one instance was in the romanization.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RA (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question re a photo you took.

File talk:Traditional Irish halloween Jack-o'-lantern.jpg - and it's a good one. Since you took the photo, I thought maybe you'd know the answer. (Please answer on the talk page!) DS (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good one alright. The photo doesn't do justice to the real thing though, which looks really cool. Replied there. --RA (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Are you the anon that was on the donate banner at the top? I won't tell anyone. I must know...it's driving me crazy.

Thanks, Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmoonit (talk • contribs) 01:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. Sorry :-) What did it say? --RA (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Outcome

Template:Outcome has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grepolis

Hello

On 04/01/2012 you tagged the article "Grepolis" for speedy deletion and it was deleted almost immediately. I strongly believe that A7 is not applicable for this case, since the mentioned article is as important (or unimportant) as the Travian, Freeciv.net, Evony or any other game from the List_of_multiplayer_browser_games. With the logic every article from List_of_multiplayer_browser_games should be given A7 and deleted. - LevanJugheli (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was requested for deletion by another user because it was:

A7: An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (for example, a band, club, or company, not including educational institutions), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

I agreed with that assessment and deleted it. Other articles, which also fail to indicate why their subjects are important or significant may be deleted in the same way.

The logs for the page show that this is the fourth time the article has been deleted. If you believe an article on the subject worthwhile, consider using the Article Incubator to develop the article before adding it to the main article space of the encyclopedia.

Regards, --RA (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]