User talk:Gaillimh

This user is an administrator.
Leave a Message for Gaillimh

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

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



Comment on rfa

Hi, thanks for commenting on the RFA. While it may be confusing, Crater Lake and Crater lake are two diffrent articles. Also, I did not create Black Canyon of the Gunnison or Crater Lake, I only improved them to GA quality. Also if you look under the contris section of my userpage, you can see a list of articles I have created. Hope this clarifies things up. --Hdt83 Chat 05:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hdt83! Thanks a lot for taking valuable time out of your day to drop me a line! I did just notice that Crater Lake and Crater lake are completely different articles; who would have thought what a difference a lowercase letter makes? Maybe it's the perils of wiki-communication, but the impression I got from your answer was that you created the articles, or were a primary contributor. I was a bit saddened to see that you weren't.

Also, thanks for the link to your article creations; you've some nice stubs and some great photos! I'm still a bit unsure, as I think that your answer has the propensity to mislead people, but I'll definitely be sure to rethink my original comment. Thanks again for your comment! Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sfnew.jpg

Thats ok with me, I fail to see why it was deleted in the first place.--Padraig 12:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Thanks mate gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for voicing your opinions in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to take the advice the community has given me and wait till someone nominates me next time as well as improve my editing skills. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 Chat 05:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Regarding [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chase me ladies, I'm the Sarah], could you just [pop in a reason why you're opposing? I'm always open to suggestions for improvement! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent RFA

Please don't take this the wrong way as I chose my wording carefully. Please keep in mind that an RFA is a very serious matter to the nominee. There is a lot of stress during that time. You recently put an oppose under User: chase me ladies i'm the calvary (Sorry didn't have time to fully check the name). I think everyone is entitled to there opinion, however it seemed (based on the comments beside your oppose) was that it was a joke. Please try to keep in mind (if it was) that RFA'S are meant to be serious. Minor joking around via comments to other people are fine, but putting a full blown support and/or oppose (which can heavily affect there chances of making it or not) is better not done. If you need advice on the RFA, or feel that I was mistaken then please ignore this. However you let a quick note, that seemed more of a joke than serious. Which left 2-3 people wondering your reason for oppose. Even if you oppose without a reason I feel that's ok. I just don't feel like it's ok to use a joke for an oppose/decline unless you immediate strike it out (so it's known to be a joke). I may or may not be watching this page (I will for awhile) if it's important please leave it on my talk page to be safe. --businessman332211 17:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Businessman332211! Thanks for taking time out of your day to drop me a line! I'm not sure that RfA is such a big deal that we can't have a bit o' wit every once in a while. Since RfA isn't a vote, we cannot reasonably expect a bureaucrat to factor in my own meager participation into his or her final decision. No harm done, really. Cheers mate! gaillimhConas tá tú? 17:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I am just paranoid about fairness, only because the way they vote (if the vote isn't 70+ percent support they close it down. I see what you mean though, I would suppose the bureacrat's, would go through and factor "out" the one's that were jokes. That makes sense as well. --businessman332211 17:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making RfA a little less...well...like RfA ;) -- John Reaves 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no problem mate! I'll usually try to lend some actual reasoning for my fellow participants and the closing bureaucrat to reflect upon, but since the fellow's disposition seems to be rather jovial and the RfA seemed 'uncontroversial' for want of a better term, I saw no harm in interjecting a bit of silliness into the oft too-serious proceedings. Cheers! gaillimhConas tá tú? 00:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Irish Famine

Given all content reversions must be noted on the talk page for this article, would you be able to make a note quickly explaining this and inviting people to discuss it if they think the text or some changed version therein should actually be in the article? Just to say safe and all that - the last thing we need is people arguing what a content reversion is or not :) Cheers, Daniel 09:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scrub that - I didn't read the last sentence, which made it seem quite obviously blatant nonsense - when I see the term "heinous act of potato terrorism" in a reliable source I might change my mind :) Daniel 09:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, cheers mate! gaillimhConas tá tú? 00:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fajujonu v. Minster of Justice

I'd be interested in looking at it, but I know nothing of Irish law, more's the pity. If it's been overruled by the Lobe and Osayande case/27th Amdmt would it not be better to start with the law as it is, and refer to Fajujonu in it? I know it's always difficult to tell where the law is going to go, and it would seem that there is a political dimension here. Unless Fajujonu is going to be worthy of extensive analysis to explain the historical and political perspective, and is required study for trainee Irish lawyers, it might be better to start with the Lobe article. If you can point me to some contextual website here, I'd be glad. But if you think I can help... --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Rodhullandemu! You're right, it's probably beter to start out with Lobe as it's the current common law and gave rise to the 27th amendment. I think that Fajujonu has a lot of merit on its own though, because it had been precedent for seventeen years, during which time tens of thousands of immigrants were able to emigrate to Ireland as a result. If you're interested in helping, which would be awesome, you might want to check out this issue of the Law Society Gazette, particularly the cover story on page 20, entitled Guests of the Nation. Thanks a lot for the post, mate and hopefully we can get started soon! Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language

Just out of curiosity, what language did you use to comment on the rfa? Brusegadi (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I must have missed your post earlier. I'm not sure which particular RfA you're referring to, but it was most likely Irish. Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 13:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks :-)

See

It will be interesting to see your proof that Elizabeth and Hawkins were not involved in slavery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's this exactly? I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. Apologies, there gaillimhConas tá tú? 09:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Gaillimh - this anon user has been causing trouble here and there for a couple of weeks. The Elizabeth/Hawkins angle is a new one on me, but he/she has a thing about Richard Dawkins and User:Laurence Boyce. The similarity of phrasing between the above remark to you and that used in telling me that "It will be interesting to see you prove that my remarks about Dawkins are untrue" is striking. He/she inserts various disruptive edits to user pages, user talk pages, and articles, always anonymously, always unsigned, from a range of IP addresses. These days I delete and ignore. Not sure what other options are available, given the wide range of IPs used. Snalwibma (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And on a related note, thanks for reverting his vandalism to my userpage. It seems that anyone who has anything to do with him suddenly becomes "involved" in his requests.. This led him to involve me, and now your reversion of vandalism to my page has caused him to come here. Just ignore him, and thanks again for the RV. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, cheers fellows! Thanks a lot for taking the time out to explain the situation! gaillimhConas tá tú? 13:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Note that I have been banned half a dozen times. Elizabeth's slaves are suprised to learn that they are still in West Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Bew

Thanks for your note, and also your kind comment on the OTRS volunteering page on Meta. On Paul Bew, technically he holds the rank of a Baron in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. In normal usage, 'Baron X' would almost always be called 'Lord X', but for some reason on Wikipedia the style guide prefers the use of the more formal title. 'Lord X' is also occasionally used for the higher ranks in the peerage like Viscount or Earl. There are some useful sources which can be used to round out the article; perhaps searching the Bel Tel's archive [1] is a good place to start since it goes back to 1995. I will see what I can find myself. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to respond. I had no idea how the whole title conferment thing works. Thanks again and apologies for the delayed response! gaillimhConas tá tú? 06:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Rugby union in Belgium

Hi. I've nominated Rugby union in Belgium, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created.2Fexpanded on December 17, where you can improve it if you see fit. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, mate! gaillimhConas tá tú? 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated DYK query On 23 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rugby union in Belgium, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
--Royalbroil 13:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

Coolness. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, it's exciting! I just left you a message on the template talk page, actually, just to mention that I implemented your suggestion and I'm fine with either, so just let me know. Cheers mate! gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note(2)

Note that Dreaded Walrus and Snalwibma are obvious g**s. See the old user page of Dreaded Walrus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Apologies, but I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. Would you mind clarifying a bit? Thanks in advance, mate! gaillimhConas tá tú? 09:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snalwibma contributed to the Graham Norton article on 14/10/2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, haha, I think I know what you're getting at now. Not sure if there's any direct correlation between the fellow editing Norton's article and any perceived similarities between the two as a result of his editing habits. Also, I'm not quite sure how I could "fix" anything, either, hehe (not that anything particularly needs to be fixed, if I'm reading you right) gaillimhConas tá tú? 11:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Lauterbach

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Maria Lauterbach. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sethant (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to strongly disagree with your summary deletion of Maria Lauterbach; I don't see anything in WP:BLP1P that demands deletion of the article, especially in the face of what appeared to me to be a consensus developing to keep the article. -- Sethant (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Why do we even waste our time discussing afd's, if consensus has no bearing on the result? Angrymansr (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should reinstate the article on Maria Lauterbach. It makes NO sense why you would delete it. BaliPearl (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions are deplorable. You have no authority (implicit or otherwise) to unilaterally perform the deletion. I am almost certain that you have violated Wiki policy. Other editors, please contribute to this discussion. Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deplorable? Just chill-ax. Perhaps you have a different reading of WP:BLP1E than Gaillimh. Discussing the reasons for and against deletion will get you a lot further than labeling his actions "deplorable"; if you keep that up you will get blocked. James086Talk | Email 08:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People, DRV is thataway. Comment there. Don't harass Gailimh. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that wasn't my intent. My intent was to draw attention to a possible error in judgment; it is evident that it was concluded as such: Overturned. Thankfully, this appeared to be an honest error rather than rogue behavior. --Inetpup (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauterbach

Hi,

I think you overlooked the easiest solution here, and I have suggested the DRV be closed as speedy overturn for that reason. For the record, did you consider moving the article to Murder of Maria Lauterbach? The woman isn't notable alone, but the event of her surely is. If you hadn't considered such a move (which would substantially ease any BLP problems), I urge you to reverse yourself, close the DRV, and end the drama here. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauterbach

Please respond ... regarding the Lauterbach issue! Thanks!--Inetpup (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crz

Could you take a look at this case [2]? I just noticed that Crz blocked this person for the same thing before, and you were last on his page. Thank you, --Robertert (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cool

not much improve litle bit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.0.114 (talk)

Fair use rationale for File:IRA Resistance Poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:IRA Resistance Poster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Gráinne Mhic Géidigh

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Gráinne Mhic Géidigh. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gráinne Mhic Géidigh. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry blog

www.poetry-mineandyours.blogspot.com

Check out my poetry blog to post your own poems, Read a unique poetry anthology, go through the basic techniques of writing poetry.

(113.199.206.136 (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Mariam)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Weir poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Weir poster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rugby union in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf

The article Rugby union in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is only one rugby union between Arab states of the Persian Gulf, which is Arabian Gulf Rugby Football Union and it have it's own article, the content of this page should be merged to Arabian Gulf Rugby Football Union.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UA3 (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]