User talk:Tóraí/Archive/Archive 9

Your revert

Hi RA, I see your revert on British Isles and your edit note re: encouraging discussion. Not sure if you had seen that I'd reverted the removal of one of the terms and discussed on the Talk page (BRD). Your revert of my revert just makes it look like you are agreeing with and endorsing Mac Tíre's removal of the term and pre-empting any discussion, which I'm sure wasn't your intention. Seeing as a discussion was already in progress it would've been better if you hadn't done that. Could you simply put it back in pending the outcome of the discussion? --HighKing (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Easter Rising

Hi, could you look at the edits being made by 92.7.31.106 to the above article. I don't want to get involved in an edit war and I think you know more about the subject than I do. I've left a message on the user's talk page. Thanks in advance. Denisarona (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The argument put forward by 92.7.31.106 is a perfectly valid one. Ireland wasn't a colony at the time. It was a fully integrated part of the United Kingdom. Do we talk about "British rule" in Scotland today, for example? Even in the context of an independence referendum?

One of the challenges of Wikipedia is that other editors can raise questions over turns of phrase that we think are perfectly natural. That can be an opportunity for us to reflect upon the world view that we have been taught.

Why is is necessary to say the republicans an aim of "ending British rule" when 92.7.31.106's turn of phrase says the same thing but without the connotations we are accustomed to? --RA (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if you agree with the IP (which would go against sources by the way) then surely you should have blocked given the 1rr restriction? ----Snowded ^TALK 23:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's my eyes, but I can't see where that article is under 1RR. There was a breach of 3RR but I'm not going to do the blocking. Report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --RA (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. Disagreement/discussion on a TP is one thing - edit warring on a 1RR restricted article is altogether another ball of wax. Admins need to admin first and foremost, or call on another to do so. RashersTierney (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Denisarona didn't ask me to take admin action, he/she asked me for my opinion on the subject ("...I think you know more about the subject than I do."). --RA (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If I may comment on your talk page, you say Ireland wasn't a colony at the time. It was a fully integrated part of the United Kingdom. Do we talk about "British rule" in Scotland today, for example? Ireland's position in the UK was quite different in a number of respects from Scotland's now (or England, Scotland or Wales then) and British rule there (to the the term) did have aspects of the colonial.

First of all, Scotland today has a devolved parliament, the likes of which would have satisfied many Home Rulers in 1912 or 13. But let's leave that aside as anachronistic. Even in 1916, Ireland and Scotland's positions were very different. In Scotland, policing, taxation, education etc were all in the hands of local elected officials. In Ireland this was not true. The police forces (RIC and DMP) were controlled directly by the administration in Dublin Castle, none of whose officials were elected in Ireland. At its apex were three appointees (by the British government) - the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Under Secretary. In short Ireland was ruled by British men, appointed in Britain. In contravention of all election results since the 1880s. Hence 'British rule' is apt. Home Rule would have modified this a little, but policing, and taxation and fiscal policy (and even the postal service) were all to have been withheld from the proposed Irish parliament initially at least. Regards, Jdorney (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC).

Its a troubles article RA and we rather rely on admins to enforce those rules, even if they agree with the editor concerned. A brand new IP on a single purpose coming up to Easter. Come on you have been around too long not to understand that and the need for prompt action. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, you know I don't ordinarily take admin action in this subject area. I disagree the article is Trouble-related, but, even if it was, enforcement of Troubles-related sanctions ordinarily require an uninvolved admin. A single breach of the 3RR (which is all it was on the 20th) does not require "prompt action". If it did then you're here long enough to know where to go.

If your concern really is in relation to WP:TROUBLES then: "Complaints of violations of the Troubles remedies or of the article 1RR are normally presented at Arbitration Enforcement for a decision." You know that also. You've reported enough breaches of 1RR on Troubles-related articles at AE before.

Now, that said, 92.7.*.* is making a lot of edits and is being reverted a lot. I'll drop a note on the talk suggesting to soft-lock the page for two weeks. If there is a very strong consensus in favour I may even do the deed myself. --RA (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad user name

Hi RA. Can you possibly look at this as two other admins have not (one is rather inactive and the other declined)? User:‎Rodgau Philatelie is the company name, the owner of this website and publisher of the stamp catalog citation he edited and the spamlink he added to Postage stamps of Ireland. I believe WP:CORPNAME applies. I suspect this is the same person. Their other edits also appear highly promotional. Can you assist? I do not really want to report this because I know who the company, the product and the owners are, which is why I am asking an uninterested party to assist. ww2censor (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've warned them. If they continue editing, please alert me and I'll block them. --RA (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Many thanks for taking the time to answer my query. - Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I don't know whether you've noticed it, but, based on behaviour and contriubtions made to Connaught Rangers, National Army (Ireland) (where another suspect sockpuppet of this user also appears) and military-related articles, it appears that Special:Contributions/109.154.157.211 is a sockpuppet of User:MFIreland, who is blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Just wondering what to do about this. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've no eye for sock puppets but here's a useful tool for finding an overlap in pages edited by different users: http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/ (Here's the output for these accounts.)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is the place to go with suspicions. You'll need to link to specific diffs I don't know enough about the activity of either account to determine where a similarity lies. --RA (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi - I've just completed a split of Media of Ireland into its constituent parts (RoI and NI), and now Media of Ireland needs work on filling in all-ireland media issues. Your help would be welcome in bringing this article up to speed. best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Placenames

I've been trying to work out the difference between Template:Irish place name and Template:Irish derived place name, and can't see why neither format works to prevent Category:Untranslated Irish place names attaching itself to (for example) Finaghy. Could you help? Brocach (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

{{Irish place name}} should be used for places in the Republic of Ireland, where the Irish name has official status. {{Irish derived place name}} should be used in Northern Ireland, where the Irish name has no official status.

The template will automatically add articles to Category:Untranslated Irish place names if it doesn't receive a second parameter. The first argument is the name in Irish. The second parameter is the meaning of the name in Irish. See here for an example of an instance where a second parameter wasn't passed to the template: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donnybrook%2C_Dublin&diff=551042296&oldid=540886899

That's not the case for Finaghy, however. I've copied the code from {{Irish place name}} in {{Irish derived place name}} but it makes no difference *scratches head* Bizarre. --RA (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

But that distinction is artificial: Finaghy is nor more or less an "Irish" placename than Mayo, nor is it any more or less "Irish-derived". The Ordnance Survey has published a map of the North with Irish placenames, and the UK is committed to recognising such placenames under international treaties (the ECRML and FCNM). Only one template is needed (one that works would be nice). I've stumbled across Finaghy but I now wonder how many placenames listed as untranslated do in fact have translations. (I am not capable of setting up whatever coding might make this work so I can't be over-critical.) Brocach (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The distinction is that Contae Maigh Eo has legal status in the Republic of Ireland. Whereas Fionnachadh does not have legal status in Northern Ireland.

The place to propose a change from the current practice is WP:IMOS. You should notify Mabuska too. He has an interest in this. --RA (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've written up a proposal at IMoS talk, and notified it to WP:IECOLL of which you and he are members. Brocach (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Note:

Your edit at PIIGS is the subject of discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard.12.144.158.19 (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Audio template

The change you made here to Template:audio has become involved in a policy discussion Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#How to interpret WP:NFCC#7 for audio files. Can you help, please? Thincat (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've left a comment. Hopefully no more trouble will come of it. --RA (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

City of Bohane

Hi, I've never written a book article before, only a few stubs, we might be best trying at WP:BOOKS? GiantSnowman 18:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Soloheadbeg Ambush

Hello, Tóraí/Archive, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Soloheadbeg Ambush, appears to be directly copied from http://www.theoldira.com/index1919.html. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Soloheadbeg Ambush if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Republic of Ireland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Round tower and Presidential standard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your AN/I thread

Your AN/I thread has been archived without any action taken, which is weird considering that the one admin who did comment said, "a 6 month topic ban and indefinite civility parole is supportable AND supported"! Scolaire (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Missed the AN/I, but I certainly would have/will support this proposal. This 'forcing' of North Tipp/South Tipp for location of where people actually identify as coming from is particularly galling - speaking as a native of County Tipperary. I think the point was well made by another contributor. RashersTierney (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It was archived automatically by a bot. I've unarchived it to allow further input/action. --RA (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

.ie domain retail prices.

The 62 Euro fee for .ie domains (on the .ie page) was a bit high so I changed it to 25 as the average retail fee tends to be around 25 Euro plus VAT. The competition is intense so some .ie registrars and hosters will discount the domain fee as a loss-leader for a hosting package for the first year. In the second year, the price typically jumps up to the 25 Euro average. The top five .ie hosters (Blacknight.com, Register365.ie, Digiweb.ie, Letshost.ie and Irishdomains.com) tend to compete closely but Letshost.ie does a lot of retail promotions. Jmccormac (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The 62 euro price is the retail price direct from IEDR (here). I agree that prices from hosting companies will be less. I've rewritten the section again. Build it back up if you think bits are missing. --RA (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Basically IEDR acts as a registrar of last resort for registrants who do not wish to go through the conventional registrars system and many of the IEDR registrations would be historical. It might be worth adding the 'registrar of last resort' explanation to explain why the IEDR price is higher than the industry retail price. Jmccormac (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Tech news

Greetings, RA. I've noticed that you've written in several places that you feel you and other Wikipedians don't receive enough information and notifications about upcoming technical changes. I was wondering if you knew of m:Tech/News, an initiative that was started precisely to address such concerns. I would encourage you to subscribe to talk-page delivery to get the weekly update here, directly on your talk page. If you're not interested in subscribing, I'd like to hear your concerns, to see if I can address them. Sincerely, guillom 14:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, @Guillom: I hope you take this the right way but I'm not interested in receiving tech news. I think I'm like most in that regard. I may differ from other contributors and readers in that I can read those kinds of documents and understand them. But, that doesn't mean I want to. I read enough release notes at work. I don't even like writing release notes. You know what I mean?

People contribute to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in lots of ways. We invest a great deal of our time and energies in these projects. My energies here are mainly in the area of British-Irish sociology, political history and politics. I also do work as an administrator. I enjoy that work. My work here already takes up a lot of my spare time. Then, during my working hours, I read release notes. And ... ugh ... write them.

What I do want to know, at a high level, is what software changes are coming down the track. You see, that matters to me. It affects the way I will edit articles on British and Irish politics and how others edit them. So, I'd like to have visibility on what going to happen and when it's going to happen. You see, you may see software changes as affecting the stack. I see them as affecting me and what I do.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to spend a lot of time chasing down that dream. Just as you are little interested in getting sucked into heated discussions (read drahma) about British and Irish politics, I don't want my time to get sucked up reading release notes.

Think of it like this, just as you trust me to make good contributions in the area of British-Irish politics, I trust others to make good contributions in the area of technology development. But, if someone starts making software changes that affect my work in British-Irish politics, without letting me know, then I start to care very much.

What you should be communicating is what matters to me. Instead, what you're communicating is what matters to devs. I know this because I am a dev and I can recognise the communication priorities that lie behind documents like the those. I also know the typical dev response that even minor changes really do affect me. Believe me, they don't. That doesn't mean devs aren't doing a great job; but do I post a message to your talk page informing you of every pissy change I make to British-Irish content?

Here's the rule of thumb: If it doesn't affect the way articles on British-Irish society are going to be edited or read, I probably don't care. If it does, tell me how. Tailor communications to your audience and tell them how it affects them. Say it in their language and describe your work from their perspective.

In part, that's one of the outcomes I'd like to see come out of Wikipedia:User Advocacy: to place focus on the user and not the technology. To advocate the user, not the technology. --RA (✍) 23:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

grr

Thanks for the kind words on my talk. I've decided to return to editing. Then, I found this: Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits. You've got me beat by two edits. So I'm going to make 3 edits, just to get past ya. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I've beaten you by more than that. See User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid (old) :-) --RA (✍) 23:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah crap. So close, and yet, so far... Ok, better start editing then - 6k more to go! :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Post-it

Wow - {{post-it medium}} has been around since 2005, yet I've never seen it before. In fact, it's only used in eight places. Great find! — Scott • talk 12:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall seeing it ages ago - probably not long after 2005! - and then never again until I simply stumbled across it a week or so ago. It's a great little widget. There's also {{post-it small}} and {{post-it large}}! --RA (✍) 17:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

All three, it seems, were created by Msikma, who contributes no more. I've posted a barnstar to their page.--RA (✍) 18:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

IPs are human too

I came across your essay on Wikipedia participation by unregistered editors while I was participating in a somewhat heated discussion with a number of unregistered editors. It gave me a good perspective on the issues, but I think it omits a significant concern.

I've added a section to the essay's talk page giving the details, but basically I believe a discussion works best when you can recognize the continuity of each participant's contributions. Without that, the discussion becomes a series of disconnected statements, and it becomes hard to come to a resolution. I don't think it is a fatal problem, but I also don't believe it can be ignored, especially when things get heated.

I would appreciate if you could read this section and then give me some feedback. Specifically:

• What do you think of my premise?

• What would be the appropriate way for me to contribute such a viewpoint to Wikipedia's body of knowledge?

• Any other thoughts?

Many thanks, Dan Griscom (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC's

If you didn't like the way RfC's were being used before, than you will really like this one on the Rape and Pregnancy article. Arzel (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought the point was to use them less and don't make them a substitute for talk page discussion. The two points in that RfC(former now), have been discussed in depth on the talk page, and there is still disagreement. What should I do to try to resolve this dispute?Casprings (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion looks dysfunctional. However, your repeated use of RfCs is an example of the dysfunction, not a solution to it. You all need to work better together on that article. I suggest one request to either DRN or the mediation cabal to try to resolve your issues for good. But, doing so will require (you and others) entering into a process with the right frame of mind. You cannot force others to. And there's no use in pretending to yourself that you're ready for that, if you are not. --RA (✍) 00:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a request at WP:DRN. Figured that would be the best way.Casprings (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Molesworth Street, Dublin

Perhaps the article needs some commentary in order to justify the image File:Molesworth Street Dublin - Day Of Action Protests - Sept 29, 2010.jpg, but the street is frequently used for demonstrations outside the Dail. The existing photo does not show the street either. A better photo of the street from either end would actually be better. Any thoughts? ww2censor (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

By the magic of Flickr.

No objection to the a protest scene being included later on - but as the main picture? Flickr has some nice protest shots of the street - unfortunately, none are licensed for commercial use. --RA (✍) 20:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a reasonable compromise. I never found one like that when I looked. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Northern Ireland Wiki Meetup

A Wikimeet is proposed for Northern Ireland in the next few months. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Most take place on a Sunday afternoon in a suitable pub but other days and locations can also work. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Northern Ireland topics. Please add your suggestions for place and date to the discussion page here: Proposed Northern Ireland Wiki Meetup. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bill Liao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork, Ireland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Defaced" as a vexillological term

Ah, I was unaware of that term. Thanks for clarifying, and for linking to the appropriate wiki page. Cheers.

Halda (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I can understand why your ears would have perked at it. Hopefully the link will help. --RA (✍) 10:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ran into a Problem

Hi RA I ran into a "slight" problem in commons with an administrator as i was unaware of and still am of the correct method of uploading images that are in the public domain for example regarding the Army ranger wing so while attempting to uplaod a repository to improve the army ranger wing and defense forces articles with up to date images of equipment etc the admin deleted all the images and blocked me before i knew i had made such a grievous mistake and would not unblock me even when i informed i had not seen his warnings which were only a minute apart, anyway i simply decided to analyse other images on similar topics and reupload the files to take into account the licensing that they used using a different account ( i knew this would probably not go down well but figured that when the admin in question saw i was making a genuine attempt to try and follow what other users did on upload that it would not matter, ya not the brightest idea. Anyway long story short i dont know if you about but if you could rollback the army ranger wing article and the irish defense force and army articles to their previous state before i attempted my improvements it would be appreciated as now they are a mess without the deleted images, Best Regards Caomhan27 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I rolled back on Irish Army, Army Ranger Wing and Defence Forces (Ireland).

Out of interest, what images were you trying to upload. Maybe I can help identify/resolve the licensing issues. --RA (✍) 08:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you RA appreciate that, ya some advice from someone in the know would was what i wanted, getting blocked on commons for trying to add to a few articles of interest was a bit of a shock think i got tag teamed. Some of the images i was attempting to add/had added are all here [1] so if you could show me exactly how you would upload one to comply with commons policy that would be great cheers Caomhan27 (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC).

I've looked at a few of the images. The licensing info appears at the bottom right of the screen after you click on each image. They are licensed under a Creative Commons license that:

(a) requires you to provide attribution to the photographer (fine for Wikipedia/Commons);

(b) requires you to share your stuff in the same way (fine for Wikipedia/Commons);

(c) disallows commercial use (not fine for Wikipedia/Commons).

What I do is search for images I want to use then click Advanced Search and check the Creative Commons box and make sure to filter in only images that can be used commercially. See here for example. These are good for uploading to Wikipedia. To upload to the Commons, you will additionally have to check the box that indicates that the image can be modified/adapted.

Pro Tip: only upload images to the Commons that you are sure are entirely free (can be used commercially, can be modified, no other restrictions apart from attribution). Wikipedia accepts a wider array of image licenses compared to the Commons (check with me about a licence if you want before uploading it - you don't want to get blocked here too!). And If you upload images here (to the English Wikipedia) that are suitable for the Commons they make their way over the naturally by an automated process anyway.

Also, saying an image is your own when it is not is taken VERY seriously on the Commons. It's serious here too but an admin here may be more understanding. On the Commons, that's their bread and butter and they take is VERY serious. If I was you'd I back down a little over there, say you didn't really know the score and try and get up to speed on how they operate over there.

All the best, --RA (✍) 13:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers RA thats very helpful. Ya i was trying to say i had no proper knowledge as to the correct process of uploading the images in question but it fell on deaf ears was just taken a little aback feels a bit like being arrested, didnt help that it was germany arresting me either :-D,. Can you upload an image to eng wikipedia without using wikipedia commons?. So am i correct in saying that this image would be ok to upload [2] as long as i attribute it?, and if so who should it be attributed to? is it to the flicker account? Caomhan27 (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That one looks good to me. It uses the Creative Commons Attribute (CC-BY) license. You can see the license by clicking on the "Some rights reserved" link. Upload using the "Upload file" link on the right on this page. Choose "This is a free work" in the Wizard that follows. Then "This file is from a free published source." And select "Creative Commons Attribute (CC-BY)" as the license. Make sure to link to the appropriate page on Flickr as proof. And make sure you attribute the photographer by name and possibly a link to their Flickr profile.

The, over time, by the magic of Wikipedia it will make its way over to the Commons because it is a suitable file for the Commons. --RA (✍) 21:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers RA top man Caomhan27 (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rannpháirtí anaithnid! User:Caomhan27 seems to transfer his problems from Commons to en wiki. Especially these two images File:IDF Soldier.jpg and File:ARW Styer AUG3 M203.jpg are still copyright violations. The copyright holder of both files is the Irish Army and not this dubious flickr user "DiCavo" which is actually just a flickr-license-washing account of User:Caomhan27. Both files should be deleted. Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

RA its fine you can delete any of the images the other editor is referring to, i thought I had followed the guidelines outlined to try improve the articles in question, so no worries, but thanks for your help in trying to inform me, guess licensing information just isnt my forte.Caomhan27 (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I have nominated these 3 files for speedy deletion [3], [4], [5]. Rannpháirtí anaithnid, would you please those three images? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@Caomhan27: care to respond to the suspicion that you were using a false Flickr accounts to try to circumvent policy? It's pretty serious and I'm pretty annoyed that you would abuse my trust in that way, if true. I got to say, the accusation has a feel of truth to it. --RA (✍) 09:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi RA, i apologise if thats how it looks to you, but i was most definitely not trying to abuse your trust and you are not in anyway at fault for any confusion I may have caused.I was just attempting to follow what i thought at the time was acceptable. I am still slightly bemused as I thought that images originating from [6]and reproduced would be acceptable (perhaps totally incorrectly) as the site specifically states "Reproduction for other uses is permitted, provided that the source is acknowledged" which is why i was concerned as to which to attribute to if reproduced elsewhere. I was only coming from good faith angle but i reiterate my apology in any case. Caomhan27 (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Caomhan27, this is a little hard to swallow. If you were wanted to use images from that website, why did you link to images on another website?

Don't use fake accounts. Not here. Not anywhere you link to from here. That doesn't need to be spelt out for you.

You got caught using fake accounts on the Commons to get images here. Now you're using fake accounts on Flickr to get images here. Do that again and you'll be blocked. Understand? Because you're wasting my time talking to you; and you're wasting High Contrast's time chasing after you; and you're wasting Diannaa's time deleting images you do not have the legal right to copy here. --RA (✍) 17:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I will give try to explain that question, Images from www.military.ie where "Reproduction for other uses is permitted" is stated therefore they are of course allowed to be reproduced elsewhere for example a flickr site (which i will not refer to directly as it is an account on a different platform not subject to wikipedia adminstration), this allows for far easier link verification rather than finding page and link for every image and how then do you verify the reproducible with attribution reference satisfactorily. I had referenced this on commons but got no response, so as i said in my head it was not evasion merely trying to streamline what i thought at the time was a correct process. On the other point of having another account on commons i freely admitted using that (again i thought one could open as many accounts as one liked) in a failed attempt to licence the images correctly. So i think iv been very transparent on the whole misadventure and i hope iv made my perhaps ill advised thought processes clear and that this will be the end of the matter, but if not I will take any blocks/warnings on the chin Caomhan27 (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. This may be just a misunderstanding. The image you uploaded to Flickr, where is it on military.ie? --RA (✍) 20:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Cant see that one, presumed HC was right and they all originated from military.ie, so was i way off base in thinking that the www.miltary.ie site stating "Reproduction for other uses is permitted, provided that the source is acknowledged" meant that images from there could be used on Wikipedia if licensed in a more correct manner? Caomhan27 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning

Hi there. I saw you described the Manning move as botched. I also notice you're an admin. Let me say, as a non admin I feel incredibly frustrated with what at least one admin has done with this. It feels like an abuse of power and POV pushing. Any thoughts on where to take a complaint of improper page moves followed by protection by an admin? Or any other ways to respond to this, because it can be really upsetting. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A thread is open here. --RA (✍) 00:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed you asking for diffs, etc... Allow me to suggest, ain't gonna happen. AFAIK, he never explained it (at least never to the level that Sue Gardner finally did w.r.t. how seeing the name up there might harm Manning, based on the chat logs where he said seeing his images would hurt him), etc. I'd suggest waiting till the dust settles, see how the RM turns out, and what the closing admins think of the situation, then see if you need to pursue further. I agree it was rather lame, but at the end of the day, c'est la vie. This is really an incredibly divisive issue, I'm quite surprised at the involvement and the split. I feel really bad for whoever has to close this, and I really hope they don't say "No consensus". Over time, in any case, I'm betting sources will move to Chelsea - but it's perhaps a bit early.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to give him the fullness of opportunity to either demonstrate that he did explain his reasoning or to admit he lied about having done so.

He cannot be judged as being "wrong" or "right" for his decision to revert owing to BLP concerns. If he acted in good faith in that then the community might judge that he had poor judgement but he would still have acted with propriety according to what he believed to be right at the time.

However, his approach afterwards is serious. His attacking responses and clearly deliberate lying when asked to explain his reasoning is a breach of WP:RAAA. If there is definitive reason for him to be desysoped, that is it IMO. --RA (✍) 12:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• You forgot your signature. -- tariqabjotu 02:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Um... might I also suggest that maybe "retort" might not be the best word to use here? Retort: A sharp, angry, or wittily incisive reply to a remark. -- tariqabjotu 02:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

An alternative to "transphobic" as a keyword

You closed this before I could add this suggestion, but maybe something to kick around: instead of targeting "transphobic" we put some additional expectations on assumptions of good faith which would cover both "activism" allegations and "transphobic" allegations. It's clear that topic-banning a single word is not going to have the desired effect. Give admins the authority, after one warning, to temporarily topic-ban an editor for a short period (e.g. 6 hours) if the editor in question is demonstrably incapable of assuming good faith, with the intent of having a chilling effect on any attempt to bring up any editor's motivation for their position as part of the discussion. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Why not propose it? --RA (✍) 17:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your essay

Awesome! I have been involved with IP hatred for a few years. Thanks for attempting to expose this prejudice. 174.118.141.197 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You're welcome. --RA (✍) 19:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory guidance?

RA, since the MOS talk page has restricted access right now, I thought I would reply to you here. On that page you wrote:

Just to be clear here, I'm not suggesting anything that people can agree with me over, I'm asking a question: is the MOS contradictory. Following the letter of the MOS would currently have us call the subject of the "Daniel Braddings" article "Daniel" (a name indicating a male) but refer to the subject as "she" (a pronoun indicating a female). Personally, I think that may cause confusion for the reader - but I'm asking what others think. --RA (✍) 14:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A name that is typically male and a female pronoun might confuse a reader, but only for a moment. There are already examples of people who have names that are not typical of their gender (that have nothing to do with being transgender) to provide examples. Both Michael Learned and Noah Cyrus are females with names typical of males. So to see "Michael" (not "Michelle") and "she" together looks odd, but once you know that this is really her name and her gender it is not a problem. This momentary unfamiliarity often happens with names from other languages ("Jean" is a common French male name which looks odd to read with "he"; "Valeri" is a common Russian male name which sounds odd to say with "he"), but again is easy to adjust to. It is also possible that, like Michael and Noah, parents of a girl could choose to name their daughter "Daniel", but the fact that it might momentarily confuse a reader is no reason to use "he". Anyone who is confused for more than moment in the tansgender case, but not in any other cases of atypical name-pronoun combinations probably has a problem with people being transgender, as that is the only difference. 99.192.94.34 (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Of course there are names that are used to represent both men and women (Francis, Robin, etc.) and some of these are unusual (Michael). That's not what I'm getting at. The contradiction with the "Bradding" example is that we would use the name the subject was given at birth (Daniel) but eschew the corresponding pronoun (he). And we would eschew the name the subject chose when they identified as a woman (Shirley) but use the corresponding pronoun (she). It's muddled.

If we respect the persons gender identity then we should use their female name (Shirley) and their chosen pronoun (she). If we don't respect the persons chosen gender identity then we should use their birth name (Daniel) and the corresponding pronoun (she). We do neither. We muddle the two.

My 2¢ is that the MOS is a blunt instrument for some cases (particularly people in transition). We need a more nuanced and sensitive approach. --RA (✍) 18:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this thread to the MOS page for the benefit of discussion. --RA (✍) 18:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

First, to speak of a person's "chosen" gender identity is to not understand how it works. Transgender people do not choose to "change" their gender. Transgender women might have been referred to by typically male names, had male genetalia, and both used and were referred to by male pronouns for most of their lives, but that does not mean that their gender changed or was "chosen" at some point in their lives.

Second, you state that "he" is the "corresponding" pronoun for a person named "Daniel", but that is not true any more than it is the corresponding pronoun for a person named "Michael". It might be the corresponding pronoun 99.9% of the time, but 0.1% of the time people named "Daniel" or "Michael" have a corresponding pronoun of "she". In this case, "Daniel" under whatever name, is and was always a "she", just as "Michael" is and was always a "she". If Michael Learned changed her name to "Daniel Learned" just on a whim, she would still be a "she". If "Daniel" changes her name to "Sara" or "Betty" or "Thomas" or "Frank" she will still be a "she".

Names and gender are separate issues, and so separate ways of dealing with them apply. Jarring combinations of names and genders that go against expectations are not muddled, not contradictions, and only momentarily confusing. If I told you I named my daughter "John" you might think you misheard, but when I confirm that this is really the case then a sentence like "John is a happy girl" is clear to all.

(PS - Thanks for copying the comment. I appreciate it.) 99.192.94.34 (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Forget about any mental link between "she" and "Shirley" and "he" and "Daniel". That's NOT my point. In fact, forget about the example I gave. Let's start again.

A person is called X and is referred to as a. The person announces that they want to called Y and to be referred to as b. According to the MOS, we should continue to call them X (irrespective of their wishes) but refer to them as b (according to their wishes).

Why one but not the other? Why do we follow sources for X vs. Y but the subject for a vs. b? --RA (✍) 19:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This helps, but let me reword the parts that are wrong. A person with name X and who is believed to be of gender A announces that they are now using the name Y and are not actually gender A, but gender B. In that case, we would immediately change pronoun use, but might or might not change the name we use. Why the difference? Well, the name of a person is a social fact while the gender of a person is an intrapersonal fact.

Names only exist insofar as someone chooses a name for someone (themselves or others) and names only exist as ways to facilitate communication among people. As such, a name is a social fact about a person. People as infants are named without having any input into their name. People can have names thrust upon them by others whether they like it or not (egs; nicknames like "Octomon" or "Big Baby" or slave names, like "Toby" for "Kunta Kinte"). People can change their own name and typically those changes are followed and used, but sometimes others resist and insist on some other name.

Gender is a fact about a person that is true or false regardless of what anyone else says or thinks. The entire world can be wrong about a person's gender and sometimes they are and need to be corrected. The most reliable source about a person's gender is the person themselves. There can be reasons to doubt a gender claim (Is your online "girlfriend" really a girl?), but in general people's public statements about their gender are just like their statements about their sexual orientation - they are the best source of the truth of the matter, especially in cases where there is a strong social incentive to give a different answer than the one being given.

In short, if everyone refuses to use the name you want them to use and they use some other name, then that other name really is your name. But if everyone refuses to refer to you by the gender you are it does not make you that gender. Names and genders are different kinds of facts, and so need different kinds of sources. 99.192.94.34 (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Gender is a fact about a person that is true or false regardless of what anyone else says or thinks.

I could agree up to this point - because that statement is very contested. And you know that there are many perspectives on that question. Some say that "gender" and "sex" are inseparable and biological observable. Some say that gender is a social concept and is both defined and assigned by society. Others, say "gender" is a matter of personal identity or only personally observable. Some say it is fixed (like you do above). Others say it is changing (that someone can be female in one moment and male in another).

And name too aren't so clear cut. You say above that names are externally defined. On the Manning page some people are asking what Manning's legal name is. I presume they are taking the view that legally defined corresponds to externally defined.

In England and Ireland (and other common law jurisdictions) a person's legal name is whatever they say it is at any given time. A deed poll is a frequent technique to legally declare one's name. However, even a deed poll is merely a legal device to remove doubt about one's declaration of name. Manning's declaration, publicly through their lawyer, would suffice in such jurisdictions to make "Chelsea" Manning's legal name hence forth. So is a name defined by others? Well it depends what you mean by "name"? Do you mean what other's call the person. What they are known as under law? (Or even what they will will answer to?)

Gender is a fact about a person that is true or false regardless of what anyone else says or thinks.

So you think, clearly - and you are entitled to do so. But that doesn't suffice writing from a a neutral point of view because others would disagree with you. (Not necessarily me.)

Names and genders are different kinds of facts...

Aaah .. I'm not buying this. Manning announced he was a woman and wants to be referred to a "she". In the same statement he said his name was "Chelsea".

Now, do you think Manning request to be referred to as "she" and to be known as "Chelsea" are independent? That the desire to be known as "Chelsea" is not in any way related to the desire to live as a woman? I think the two are intimately related. And I don't think you will serious argue otherwise. --RA (✍) 20:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Some say that gender is.... And some say that gender is a fiction and there is only sex, so a man can take all the hormones he likes, cut off his genitals and have plastic surgery so he "looks" like a woman, but he is still a man regardless, just a very mentally ill man. You are right that there are different views of what "gender" is, but to think that Wikipedia can be neutral on the question is a mistake. There is no answer to the pronoun question that will satisfy all beliefs about the nature of gender. I'm happy to endorse a policy that contradicts the view that a man is a man is a man, self-identification and surgery be damned! The most credible sources endorse such an exclusion, so that's good enough for me.

In England and Ireland.... This is interesting, but does not change much. That some countries have instituted legal mechanisms that follow self-declaration does not negate the idea that self-declarations of name and legal names are separable facts, sometimes different, and sometimes we have to chose one or the other. That a country decides that the public fact of a person's name will follow self-declaration does not make the legal name of a person any less a public fact.

But that doesn't suffice writing from a a neutral point of view because others would disagree with you. Again, you are at best making the point that there is no such thing as a neutral point of view in this case, since there are different opinions that conflict. But just because opinions vary does not mean that reliable sources support one point of view more than others. At some point saying "evolution is just a theory" or "global warming is not undisputed" start to sound pretty hollow given a weight of evidence.

It is also worth remembering that this is an issue of writing style, and the majority of reliable sources have style guides that say the same thing as MOS:IDENTITY, so someone can think that Wikipedia has the written style wrong, but accept that it is what most sources say to do. (Whether or not a man in drag is referred to as "she" or "he" is a matter of style independent of gender. I understand that "she" is commonly used in communities where drag is common, but that does not mean Wikipedia should use female pronouns when writing about the life of a drag queen.)

Now, do you think Manning request to be referred to as "she" and to be known as "Chelsea" are independent? I said they were different kinds of facts, not that they were independent facts. There is a difference. But also, the crucial fact is not that Manning wants to be referred to as "she". Wikipedia's policy does not say "use the pronouns a person wants you to use." What Manning said is (and I quote directly) "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female." The second sentence is true whether Manning likes it or not, and not true because she declares that it is true. The first sentence is true (if it is) either because she declares it thus (the England/Ireland way) or because we all start calling her "Chelsea" now (the Wikipedia way). The desire to be called "Chelsea" is not independent of the declaration that she is a female, but name and gender have different truth conditions that show they are different kinds of facts. 99.192.94.34 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC) (-99.192....)

• The second sentence is true whether Manning likes it or not... Check your POV. Another person would say Manning is male whether he likes it or not.
• I said they were different kinds of facts, not that they were independent facts. And in the question of Manning's transition, say, they are interdependent facts. My point is that it's odd (to the point of being contradictory) that the MOS separates them and says to refer to sources for one and defer to the subject for the other.
• Again, you are at best making the point that there is no such thing as a neutral point of view in this case... Maybe not. The NPOV relates to representing the views of reliable sources. If source say a subject is called Y then so be it. If sources say a subject is b then so be it. What I find contradictory is that we refer to sources for one component (X vs. Y) but - apparently - style for the other (a vs. b).
• Wikipedia's policy does not say "use the pronouns a person wants you to use. Yes it does. See bullet point two at WP:IDENTITY.

--RA (✍) 22:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Check your POV. Covered by the 3rd point. NPOV is not possible, but....

...refer to sources for one and defer to the subject for the other. But that's not what is being said. What is being said is refer to the best available sources for both, and the best available source for what a person's common name is is how the person is referred to in the media while the best available source about a person's gender is self-identification. Different sorts of facts have different sorts of best sources and sometimes one source, when it's the right source, is all you need. (eg; Even if most sources that are otherwise reliable reported that Bogart says "Play it again, Sam", the actual film as a primary source trumps them all.)

...sources for one component (X vs. Y) but - apparently - style for the other (a vs. b). Different sorts of facts have different sorts of best sources. But furthermore, the name we use really is a style issue as well. For Wendy Carlos, for example, most reliable sources refer to her as "Wendy Carlos", so that determines her "common" name. The style guide then says to refer to her as "Carlos", not "Wendy" or "Ms. Carlos". The most reliable source (self-identification) tells us that her gender is female. The style guide then says to refer to her with female pronouns. In both cases we have sources + style guide. It's just that different sorts of facts have different sorts of best sources.

Yes it does. No, it doesn't :-) Quoting, it says to use "pronouns ... that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." So if Manning said "I am female, but please continue to use male pronouns" our style guide says we should use female pronouns. What she wants us to use is irrelevant according to MOS:IDENTITY. That seems right to me. If Tom Hanks announced "I am a man, but I want to be referred to by female pronouns" Wikipedia should not do it. 99.192.94.34 (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC) (99.192...)

Ah, you're making a destination between what Manning wants (to be a woman) and what Manning says he/she is (a woman). Others would say that Manning may want to be a woman all he likes, but is a man. I'm not going to offer an opinion.

What is being said is refer to the best available sources for both, ... This is premised on the POV that the the best available source for a person's gender is themselves. Maybe it is - but that's not our to call to make. If that POV is the neutral one (i.e. it's what the balance of other sources follow) then other sources will take their lead from the subject. And all we need to do is take our lead from the others source.

Trust in NPOV. Go with sources. If they say Manning is "she" then Manning is "she". If they don't - but we do - then it's because we're making a call on who is the best person to determine a person's gender. And we don't involve ourselves in that kind of decision making. --RA (✍) 09:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Ah, you're making a destination [distinction?] between what Manning wants (to be a woman) and what Manning says he/she is (a woman)." No, I'm not. I am making a distinction between what pronouns a person wants us to use and what pronouns we should use. What Manning wants is for us to use female pronouns. What Manning is is a woman. Wikipedia policy says (and should say) that what matters is the latter, not the former.

"Trust in NPOV. Go with sources." Sorry, but the entire problem is a person's POV (and there is no NPOV position) will dictate which count as the sources to use. In the case of Casablanca, we take the primary source as a trump of any and all secondary sources about the content of the film. Every newspaper in the world can print that Bogart said "Play it again, Sam" and it would still be false and the fact that the primary source proves that it is false means the Wikipedia page for the film should not claim that Bogart said those words.

So with gender, saying a person's self-identification is the best source and trumps all secondary sources is a POV. But saying that a person's self-identification is not good enough to trump all secondary sources is also a POV. So what to do? At this point it would seem that what we should do is bump the "sources" question up a level. That is, what do the best available sources about the question of gender identity in general say about how gender identity works? These sources, presumably, are not the The New York Times and CNN, but are medical experts and experts on gender theory. They probably are not unanimous (are experts ever unanimous?) on the matter, but we should be able to determine what the best experts on gender say about the nature of gender. If they say "gender does not change over time, so a transgender woman always was a woman" then it does not matter what The New York Times and CNN say about gender, the real reliable sources have spoken. If the real reliable sources say "the best evidence, and perhaps only real evidence, of a person's gender is self-identification" then that is what Wikipedia should follow. The only way you can think that The New York Times, CNN and other media outlets are reliable sources on the question of gender is if you have already decided that gender is like a person's common name - it is whatever other people say it is. But that is a POV not supported by most experts on the nature of gender. 99.192.80.196 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Ireland (estimated annual readership: 2,933,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Ireland to Good Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		This was particularly well put. You sir are a scholar. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

AN post

Given there's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Manning perhaps you'd like to move your post there? NE Ent 09:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@NE Ent: I moved it to the AN/I subpage. Thanks, --RA (✍) 11:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your diffs included an email address perhaps for Gerard. You should redact.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it was David who did it by accident. I've posted to his talk to let him know. Thanks, --RA (✍) 12:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

And thank you VERY much for spotting that - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARBCOM

Could you please take the case against the two admin to arbcom? I know it wont be pretty but at this point you have the evidence to show for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why?

did you mention only two admins at AN/I when three admins were involved in the page moves? Pass a Method talk 21:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned all three. Regarding Tariqabjotu, I said, "I haven't proposed any sanctions against Tariqabjotu because I don't believe there is a case to answer but if other's do I suggest they propose one in another section." And I proposed only a trout for Morwen because I believe she acted in good faith but should have had more sense about some of her actions (e.g. her impulsiveness in making a move she knew would be controversial, her use of social media, accusations of "transphobia", certain comments she made in the press interviews, etc.)

The most serious sanctions I proposed are against David. In my view, his conduct throughout the incident raise questions about to this accountability. --RA (✍) 21:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe you. I think the real reason you let Tariqabjotu off the hook is because he shares your political views - you both voted the same way and you agreed with each other on multiple discussions. Your multiple posts on the talk page of the article obvious shows you feel strongly about the issue.

I would like to remind you that there are wikipedia guidelines encouraging impartiality. If you are unable to be impartial then my advice is to alow others to propose such posts more neutrally. Not only did you mae this mistake once, you made it twice, a double blunder. What annoys me about your discrepancy is that by forcing the discussion of Tariqabjotu to be split into a seperate section we have only created confusion and scattered discussions all over the place. Furthermore, you also ignored St Anselm who self-admittedly tried to make a page move but failed You ignored him too because he also shares your views. Pass a Method talk 22:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote, I didn't propose any sanctions against Tariqabjotu because I don't believe there is a case to answer. The move occurred without consensus, it was formally objected to, normal practice is to move it back while discussion takes place.

With respect to St Anselm, they attempted to move the page back, as it normal in the case of a bold move that's objected to. They found they couldn't because David Gerard had admin locked the page against movies. So they opened a request for an admin to perform a technical move back. That's the request that Tariqabjotu answered.

Now, without recourse to wiki-lawyering, or which ever was the "wrong version" - just in plain language - what was wrong about any of that? --RA (✍) 13:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning RfAr

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Chelsea Manning and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added my bit, --RA (✍) 19:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

BHG talkback

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

IP hatred

Is there anything I can do to get this bully off my back. He seems to think that every IP and editor he doesn't like is the same person in order to get them banned. He keeps this hitlist [[7]] where he has associated me with a flock of probably previously bullied IP editors. For an example of his guessing and more of this tyrannical behavior see [this discussion] where I have wasted my time requesting help against this incivil bully. He attempts to lump me into a basket with previous kills and then use that logic to state I am the same person. Quite the moronic logic. Now he has listed me at the top of his hitlist as a target. Here is another admission of his distaste for IP editors. [[8]] It seems like clear prejudice by account type. Even his talk page segregates IPs from using it where IP are all corralled into a dumpster page. MY God. If some IP could vandalise his precious page they could vandalise his IP page. Is there a point to that other than just publicly displaying his "spitting in the faces" of IP editors coming to discuss something with His Lordship? It seems I got this same treatment in 2010 when I attempted to edit articles and just gave up. I thought I might give it another chance with a fresh outlook. Are IPs allowed to edit in Wikipedia or not? I read your essay but it doesn't seem to apply or actually be practiced by some that seem to live for the hunt. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The harassment continues and I have placed a second warning[[9]] on BullRangifer's (his page has been removed from search engines) talk page against these unwarranted accusations. Thank you for any assistance. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Bwilkins. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the question of who's harassing whom is relevant. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

174.*, I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. I urge you to calm down and explain how or where you are being harassed. I cannot see harassment from the diffs you provided. --RA (✍) 17:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's OK. Other editors have become involved with this violation of WP:HSOCK at ANI as noted in the section below. Thanks. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Current_proposals_on_the_table

Esp option 5. Wouldn't this require RoI to go to Ireland? I suppose a change at COMMONNAME will not undo the need for a specially arbitrated name discussion on Ireland? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Temporary Injunction Enacted

The Arbitration Committee has passed a temporary injunction in the case in which you are a party to. The full text of the injunction follows:

The articles "Bradley Manning", "United States v. Manning", and "Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage" are placed under standard discretionary sanctions for the duration of the case. Unless otherwise provided for in the final decision, any sanction imposed pursuant to this injunction will automatically lapse upon the closure of the case.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Commenting as arbitrator?

Hey,

Here [10] you comment as an arbitrator, but AFAIK you aren't? Elsewhere you've commented as a party, so I imagine this is a slip. Chris Smowton (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved it. --RA (✍) 17:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Buttered toast

You have no sense of humour. Furthermore, you have written toast lands buttered-side-up, exactly the opposite of what your source says. Also, I would say that if you want to turn a joke into more scientific prose you should use a source more reliable than the Daily Mail. SpinningSpark 10:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You might also be interested in this. SpinningSpark 11:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion regarding BullRangifer per above

A discussion has ensued at ANI regarding an issue on your talk page, discussed above. [[11]] Thank you 174.118.141.197 (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Rannpháirtí anaithnid. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manning naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1305 words and 29 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 10:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, the bot is only supposed to be leaving one warning per case. I'm looking into why it decided to flood your talk page now, and will make sure that this is the last warning you receive. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)