User talk:Gaillimh: Difference between revisions
→Scots, Attacotti and Deisi: - cool beans |
Gold heart (talk | contribs) / *Name change */ |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to [[Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland]]. Cheers. [[User:Fergananim|Fergananim]] 14:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to [[Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland]]. Cheers. [[User:Fergananim|Fergananim]] 14:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Hi Fergananim! I think it's a great addition to the article, and I've gone ahead provided a reference for the new section. Thanks a lot for the heads up. Cheers! [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]][[User talk:Gaillimh|<sup>Conas tá tú?</sup>]] 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
:Hi Fergananim! I think it's a great addition to the article, and I've gone ahead provided a reference for the new section. Thanks a lot for the heads up. Cheers! [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]][[User talk:Gaillimh|<sup>Conas tá tú?</sup>]] 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Name change== |
|||
Hi there, thanks for the help with the user-name change. [[User:Gold_heart|<FONT FACE="Monotype Corsiva" SIZE="4"><FONT COLOR=" #0066FF">Gold_heart </FONT></FONT>]] 11:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:29, 17 April 2007
| Leave a Message for Gaillimh | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Hi there, and thank you for dropping by my talk page! Want to leave me a message? Click that link above. Please be sure to add a title and signature (~~~~) to your messages. Cheers! |
|||
| My archived talk |
|---|
| Archive 1 — 3 January 2007 – 19 March 2007 |
| Archive 2 — 20 March 2007 – 4 April 2007 |
| Archive 3 — 5 April 2007 – 19 May 2007 |
| Archive 4 — 6 April 2007 – 3 November 2007 |
Majorly's RfB
Hey Gaillimh, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. Happy editing! Majorly (o rly?) 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers mate! I'll be waiting to support you when you do run again! gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Identity
In the month and a half since I last asked you to disclose your former identity, have you disclosed it anywhere? I am going ask you to disclose your identity again every time you archive this page. Everyking 23:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you going to do that? If the user doesn't want to address the matter, it would seem to border on harassment to promise to repeatedly post the same message that you know the user doesn't want to respond to. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- He is free to take up a new identity without disclosing his past identity, of course, but I view this as acceptable only if he does so as an ordinary editor. The problem is that Gaillimh was able to have admin powers swapped to this new account in secret, without ever publicly disclosing who he was before (i.e., who he was when the community decided to trust him with admin powers). I object to that in the strongest possible terms. If he wants to be an admin under this account, he needs to either disclose the old identity or go for a new RfA under this account. Everyking 01:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- This has been discussed at length elsewhere. I appreciate your good-faith opposition to this practice, and it certainly ought not become commonplace, but there are extremely legitimate reasons that this sort of thing may sometimes be necessary, including administrators who have been stalked off-site based on their Wikipedia activities (I am not saying that that is the reason for this particular rename here). Your position that the user "needs to" do one thing or the other is not dispositive. In any event, your disagreement with a bureaucrat's decision to acquiesce in this request a couple of months ago has certainly been noted. I see no value to asking the same question of the user over and over again. Newyorkbrad 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Where else has this been discussed? And I don't think I've ever seen Gaillimh personally discuss it anywhere; certainly he never replied to me about it. The value in keeping the question on the current page is to prevent it from being buried and forgotten. Even if the switch was due to harassment, he can just wait a few months and apply for adminship under the new account; by making the secret switch he actually attracted attention (I've seen people off-site investigating the issue and reaching a conclusion about who they believe he was before). So I don't feel that's a worthwhile justification. It's too important for admins to be responsible to the community for Gaillimh to just pretend the issue doesn't exist. Everyking 02:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, Everyking, please allow me to apologise for this delayed response and the prior nonresponse. In the archived thread(s) pertaining to my being 'sysopped', I received quite a few comments from a variety of people, and I must have inadvertently not responded to your comments. I appreciate your concern about Wikipedia and its important processes, and realise that you are only acting in and thinking about the best interests of Wikipedia. While you're correct in that my previous username hasn't been publicly disclosed, it has been privately disclosed to the Arbitration Committee, bureaucrats, and members of the Wikimedia Foundation. Again, apologies for the lack in communication on my part, and please feel free to drop me a line whenever you want.
- Also, many thanks to Newyorkbrad for his taking valuable time out of his busy day to respond in my absence (on holiday). His sentiments echo mine gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- My problem is that, while I'm sure the Arbitration Committee, bureaucrats, and members of the Wikimedia Foundation have been made aware, those are not the people who made you an admin—it was the community that did that. Therefore I feel your responsibility is to the community, and you must be accountable to the community; forget about the higher ups. Everyking 02:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, many thanks to Newyorkbrad for his taking valuable time out of his busy day to respond in my absence (on holiday). His sentiments echo mine gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, Everyking, please allow me to apologise for this delayed response and the prior nonresponse. In the archived thread(s) pertaining to my being 'sysopped', I received quite a few comments from a variety of people, and I must have inadvertently not responded to your comments. I appreciate your concern about Wikipedia and its important processes, and realise that you are only acting in and thinking about the best interests of Wikipedia. While you're correct in that my previous username hasn't been publicly disclosed, it has been privately disclosed to the Arbitration Committee, bureaucrats, and members of the Wikimedia Foundation. Again, apologies for the lack in communication on my part, and please feel free to drop me a line whenever you want.
- Where else has this been discussed? And I don't think I've ever seen Gaillimh personally discuss it anywhere; certainly he never replied to me about it. The value in keeping the question on the current page is to prevent it from being buried and forgotten. Even if the switch was due to harassment, he can just wait a few months and apply for adminship under the new account; by making the secret switch he actually attracted attention (I've seen people off-site investigating the issue and reaching a conclusion about who they believe he was before). So I don't feel that's a worthwhile justification. It's too important for admins to be responsible to the community for Gaillimh to just pretend the issue doesn't exist. Everyking 02:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- This has been discussed at length elsewhere. I appreciate your good-faith opposition to this practice, and it certainly ought not become commonplace, but there are extremely legitimate reasons that this sort of thing may sometimes be necessary, including administrators who have been stalked off-site based on their Wikipedia activities (I am not saying that that is the reason for this particular rename here). Your position that the user "needs to" do one thing or the other is not dispositive. In any event, your disagreement with a bureaucrat's decision to acquiesce in this request a couple of months ago has certainly been noted. I see no value to asking the same question of the user over and over again. Newyorkbrad 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- He is free to take up a new identity without disclosing his past identity, of course, but I view this as acceptable only if he does so as an ordinary editor. The problem is that Gaillimh was able to have admin powers swapped to this new account in secret, without ever publicly disclosing who he was before (i.e., who he was when the community decided to trust him with admin powers). I object to that in the strongest possible terms. If he wants to be an admin under this account, he needs to either disclose the old identity or go for a new RfA under this account. Everyking 01:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
<---- I understand your sentiment about, and the necessity for, accountability to the community when one uses extra buttons or engages in what are colloquially known as "admin tasks". To this end, I did pass an uncontroversial RfA some months ago. I had the support of the community then, and I assume (perhaps naively so) that I have community support now. That is, I don't think that a username change would affect this, as I'm the same person using the buttons (which has been confirmed). With regards to my previous comments about the Wikimedia Foundation, bureaucrats, and the Arbitration Committee, I provided these examples not to depict a sense of support from the "higher ups", while disregarding the community at-large. My intentions with that reference was to show that everything is (from my perspective) on the up and up, so to speak. I hope that this alleviates your concerns about the proper and necessary processes, and if not, please feel free to get back in touch. Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 10:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for being polite, but it does nothing to alleviate my concerns. Personally, I don't think you could pass an RfA under the present circumstances; I think too many people would oppose due to the secret swap. What is your history as an editor and an admin prior to the swap? What sort of views did you hold about Wikipedia? What concerns, if any, did people have about you in the past? I have no idea, and the community at large has no idea. When you made the swap, you became an admin without a record. Everyking 10:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, apologies that my response was not as helpful as I would've liked for it to have been. With regards to my previous editing habits, not much as changed. I work on similar (in lots of cases, the same) articles as I did previously. My primary article writing foci has shifted a bit, however, from sport to literature. With regards to admin actioning, I've never been hugely active, and hasn't changed much, either. My primary focus in that area is working with OTRS. With regards to views about Wikipedia, that encompasses a great deal, but I'd be happy to answer any specific questions. With regards to previous concerns about me in the past, I honestly cannot think of anything significant; I changed my username for reasons completely unrelated to anything controversial on Wikipedia. Upon writing this, I'm not sure that this is exactly what you're looking for, as I've offered these comments completely devoid of prior references and diffs and such, for reasons I'm sure you can understand (but not totally agree with, which is fine, of course). Also, as this discourse is probably not going to be read by any large portion of the community, I'm also not sure that I've helped out in that area, either. As such, I'd be more than happy to talk more, as it's sometimes quite difficult to communicate with great effectiveness in this format. gaillimhConas tá tú? 10:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone informed me of this, and since you weren't informed of it, as far as I can tell, I suppose you should be informed of it as well. I might comment on it if others do, but at this point, it's quite premature given that the creator didn't even bother to tell you about it. Ral315 » 20:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Forgive me for being behind on this... it's a new process for me, though we discussed before my opening of the RfC my intent to do so. Sarah777 has added a request on the RfC [page] about the history of your prior editorship. I'm not sure I can expect disclosure, but the note is there and if you could, it would be appreciated. --Auto(talk / contribs) 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ral315, thanks a lot for letting me know! It appears as if I've missed the proceedings, but I did view the deleted content and appreciate you alerting me of the RfC. Cheers! gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Your message
Thanks for your message. In fact I know the poem (Heaney's not a favourite poet of mine, to be honest, but I have read him); you're right that it was the placing and formatting (and the implication that its main or only source is a particular anthology) that made me remove it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Scots, Attacotti and Deisi
Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers. Fergananim 14:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Fergananim! I think it's a great addition to the article, and I've gone ahead provided a reference for the new section. Thanks a lot for the heads up. Cheers! gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Name change
Hi there, thanks for the help with the user-name change. Gold_heart 11:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)