User talk:Gaillimh

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

Contents 1 Comment on rfa 2 Image:Sfnew.jpg 3 Thanks 4 My RFA 5 Recent RFA 6 Great Irish Famine 7 Fajujonu v. Minster of Justice 8 Language 9 Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks :-) 10 See 11 Note 12 Lord Bew 13 DYK nomination of Rugby union in Belgium 14 ITN 15 Note(2) 16 Maria Lauterbach 17 Lauterbach 18 Lauterbach 19 Crz

[edit] 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)

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 gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Same here. Thanks mate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

[edit] My RFA

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, 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)

[edit] 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)

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! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 17:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for making RfA a little less...well...like RfA ;) -- John Reaves 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

Haha, cheers mate! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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 gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language

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

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 gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 13:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks :-)

[edit] 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)

Who's this exactly? I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. Apologies, there gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 09:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Ah, cheers fellows! Thanks a lot for taking the time out to explain the situation! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 13:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 06:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Sounds good, mate! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] ITN

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

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! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

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) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 11:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

People, DRV is thataway. Comment there. Don't harass Gailimh. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Lauterbach

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

[edit] 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)