User talk:Tóraí

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Signpost
26 November 2014
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Sarahj2107 11 0 0 100 17:34, 5 December 2014 6 days, 18 hours no report
Czar 93 3 2 97 18:23, 29 November 2014 0 days, 18 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot I NotifyOnline at 23:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


Cheers! I've been working on this one for a while. There's a lot of contention on the legitimacy of the AOO project versus LO and the original OOo, as the extensive contention on the talk pages and their archives, and out there in the big world of sources (I've literally read everything I can find from the past 13 years in several languages) will show. Lots of fanboys on both sides. I am most heartened to see more participation - I want these articles to be as absolutely good and useful to the reader as they can be - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being naive or simply jumping the gun, but as long as there's an open RfC, there is still potential for discussion. Please don't assume anything at this point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  2. IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  3. Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  4. Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  5. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
  6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
  7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
  8. The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
  9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 22:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict[edit]

I presume you guessed that removing your post was a consequence of the edit conflict and that I was unaware of it until it was too late. Apologies anyway. Scolaire (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Defence Forces again[edit]

I sincerely hope that you're not going to start edit-warring on the talk page in lieu of edit-warring on the article. The question I asked was whether both versions should be included. You have not disputed (and how could you) that Fórsaí Cosanta is an Irish version of the English name, therefore there is no way the question was not neutral. If you want to argue that only the "name" is permitted, do so in the survey and/or discussion, not in the section heading. Scolaire (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC should be phrased neutrally. The nub of the RfC is whether Fórsaí Cosanta is a name for the Defence Forces. Reliable sources say it is not. The you put forward presupposes that Fórsaí Cosanta is an version of the name. --Tóraí (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
You will see that I did not interfere with your edit of the question. The change to the section heading had the effect of making it consist only of an Irish phrase, which would discourage anybody who doesn't speak Irish from participating in, or even trying to follow, the RfC.
Once and for all, the nub of the RfC is NOT whether Fórsaí Cosanta is a name for the Defence Forces. It is whether Fórsaí Cosanta should be included in brackets. The "name" question is a bee in your own bonnet, which you are at liberty to address in the RfC, but is not the question I am asking. I am asking whether Fórsaí Cosanta, which is a version of the English "Defence Forces", should be included along with Óglaigh na hÉireann, which is another version. That question is succinctly put in the section heading. Scolaire (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Declined speedy.[edit]

Given that you declined speedy deletion on Prime Time: Charity Anthology, you might want to look at the author's other contributions: After Dark: Charity Anthology. My guess would be that it would work best to add it to the single AFD you have created. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying they shouldn't be deleted. I'm just declining to speedy delete it. A single AfD sounds like a good idea. --Tóraí (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Good Friday Agreement[edit]

A Thóraí, a chara,

You reverted my edits to British-Irish Council because the language should be according to British standards.

However, the work I did on that (and many other) pages is to remove redirects. Your reversion brought us back to redirects.

I suggest that if the issue remains, it should be addressed by moving the page at issue. At worst, you could simply add the names with piping, although if your argument is correct you should not do that but rather request/make a page move.

We should definitely not keep redirects as-is, however.

Yours, Áine the Ogress

Áine, thanks for your comment.
There's no need to "fix" redirects (see here). Redirects exit for many reasons and changing them changes the text of article. For example, "fixing" redirects may change the spelling of a word from one variety of English to another (e.g. "organisation" → "organization") or it may change a more appropriate choice of language to a less appropriate term (e.g. "British-Irish Agreement" → "Good Friday Agreement").
The title of articles do not always match up with the language or spelling we want to use in articles. For example, the title of the article on international organizations is spelt with a "z". But in an article written in British English, it would be spelt with an "s" (so there would be a redirect).
In other cases, redirects link to articles about related topics and it is inappropriate to exchange one term for another. The article on the Belfast Agreement is at Good Friday Agreement (because that is the common name for the agreement). Meanwhile, the British-Irish Council was set up under the British-Irish Agreement, which was an outcome of the overall Belfast Agreement. And it's not accurate to simply exchange one term for another. --Tóraí (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone from NI[edit]

I was reading over the talkpage and what you said about "Irish" being the correct term and a smile came to my face, when I rememberedBBC's "Irish" football coverage, it mainly deals with "Northern Irish" football. Then my own stupidity of failing to remember the Irish Football Association and former Irish league. Next time slap me with a trout Tóraí, and give me a strong coffee. Murry1975 (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Fresno County, California seal.svg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Fresno County, California seal.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 16:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Somme losses[edit]

I think they were the right way round but I've forgotten which source they were from and haven't found it yet....Keith-264 (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It strange because the numbers appears to match the final estimates - but in reverse. I wouldn't know where to begin looking, so I'll leave you to it :-) --Tóraí (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going contend, but really, it's nothing to do with the lack of sources[edit]

I cited numerous sources that suggest "western Europe" is more common. That alone, without any reason for preference of "north-western Europe", is enough. I don't think that 7 editors, opposing with no reasoning is consensus. It's just fuckery really. Unbelievable. Rob (talk | contribs) 23:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You made a reasoned argument based on your own observation of maps. A source is someone else (published) saying the UK isn't in northern Europe. Don't take it to heart. --Tóraí (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


The boat in your picture is almost invisible unless you open up the picture separately! --Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 16:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's the Irish navy for you. Silent. But deadly. There could be an Irish navel vessel floating around your house right now, asserting sovereignty over your downstairs loo, and you mightn't even know it.
In any case, it's a hi-res picture of the rock. And an interesting photograph to see Ireland asserting ownership of the rock or (more likely IMO) defying the British claim. --Tóraí (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

An edit summary you should read[edit]

It is this one[1]. What did I say- Trying to inject humor here. I also gave[2] Tryptofish a kitten a few hours later. Your assessment of me is very far off....William 12:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as a reader, I (and presumably others) only saw your remark as posted. If it was meant as a joke, fine. Humour is important. But it fell flat. Even seeing your edit summary, it didn't work as a joke IMO. It reads like you were jeering Tyrpto rather than trying to defuse the exchange. But I'm happy to accept you at your word, if that's not what you meant. --Tóraí (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Advice re 3RR?[edit]

With this edit and this one, has "avoided" violating 3RR twice. Unfortunately, I don't know the appropriate procedure for a dynamic IP. Can you tell me how to bring it to the noticeboard / bring it to the noticeboard yourself? Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Simplest action is to IP protect the article for what every period the person would be blocked for 3RR. Unfortunately, that has a side effect of blocking all IP edits. --Tóraí (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Rockall Bank dispute[edit]

Hello, Tóraí, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Rockall Bank dispute, appears to be directly copied from 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 Rockall Bank dispute if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


Many thanks. Shortly before you blocked him he blanked most of History of Islam. Moonraker (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

EU-Ukraine relations[edit]

Can you have a look at Ukraine–European Union relations too? It needs clarification for non-EU/non-Soviet audiences as well. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Luasog down?[edit]

The site seems to be down. Is there a new project homepage? Greetings Stephan Kulla (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Stephan Kulla, I took down the project page following a clean up of my code projects. Since writing the framework originally there has been many new ideas in JavaScript and related technologies. I will re-configure the original code with these developments in mind and put up a new project page on GitHub over the next few weeks.
I'll ping you when that happens. --Tóraí (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your answer! Stephan Kulla (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia ROI[edit]

Hi Tóraí

Thanks for your message, I've spoken to Wikimedia UK who are very happy to assist people setting up WMROI (I'm guessing it would be called?). The best person to contact is I'm not sure if he's sent an email yet introducing himself.

Mrjohncummings (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OMG facepalm. And wikimedia/arbcom doesnt have a bias.... Murry1975 (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Mrjohncummings, thanks. I've been in contact with some people and Jonathan's name was mentioned. I'll drop him a line.
Murry1975, I presume you would prefer a Wikimedia British Isles? :o) --Tóraí (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Ireland, thats where its at. :)))) Murry1975 (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:National entities of the british isles.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:National entities of the british isles.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG, seriously. All of the components are PD. Attribution is not required. --Tóraí (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Well thanks for adding for the confirmation :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask you a favour?[edit]

Hi. Could I ask you, as an uninvolved editor, to formally close this discussion? It's been open for over seven days, and it's pretty well ended for the last five days, but as long as it's not formally closed anyone can make another post, like this one, and prevent it from being archived. Thanks in advance. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done despite possible involvement due to clear consensus. --Tóraí (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
That's why I asked you to close it as an uninvolved editor (i.e. not involved in the discussion), not as an admin. Thanks for doing it. Scolaire (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done --Tóraí (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


Back in early 2010 you helped bring this to GA but I see that linkrot has set in so almost 10% of the inline citations were marked as dead. I've fixed about half but could do with some assistance to bring the rest up to date. Some are totally unavailable so the prose may need to be rewritten with new citations or updated if you can find something reliable. Any help you can give would be appreciated. Belfast, which is under FAR, (actually it has been delisted despite only 8 days notifiation on the appropriate geographic projects) needs a lot of help and I am not sure I am up to the task on my own. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

ww2censor, I probably won't be able to work on any of these over the immediate few days, but I'll start putting some time into them from next week onwards and we can see what we can do to get them back into shape. --Tóraí (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I've rerun Checklinks on Ireland and revised all the problem citations plus added a few new ones. Maybe with some work this could be brought up to FA but some information needs updating. What do you think? Belfast has been demoted but might be rescued if some work was done. Thanks for any help you can give. ww2censor (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Irish derived place name[edit]

Hi Tóraí. Why did you create Template:Irish derived place name in 2010 when there was a pre-existing three-year-old template called Template:Irish place name? They appear to do the same thing and the documentation text is identical, so having two templates creates confusion by causing research to work out "What's the difference? What's the point? Which should I use? Is there actually any difference? If not, why are there two?". Unless there is a good reason for having two, I think the newer one ought to be deleted to spare editors wasting their time trying to parse some subtle difference, if there even is one. On the other hand, if there is actually an important difference and both templates are justified, then the documentation for both should provide a clear differentiation to guide editors. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the "derived" template was created for Northern Ireland. The argument was that there is no designated Irish-language for, say Strabane. So, having an intodocution like: "Strabane (Irish: Srath Bán)..." was controversial. At the same time, value was seen in giving the Irish-language name if the place name was derived from Irish. So "Strabane (from Irish: Srath Bán)..." was acceptable.
Maybe a better solution would be to move these to Template:Ireland place name and Template:Northern Ireland place name. --Tóraí (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I am confused by your reply. If Strabane, for example, had no Irish name, then why would one be ascribed to it using your template? That would simply be inventing an etymology. But if the name of the town was derived from Irish, why would using the original template cause offence? I will read your reply again to see if I'm missing a nuance. — O'Dea (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The question not whether there is an Irish-language name for, say, Strabane. The question relates to the status of Irish in Northern Ireland. In the Republic of Ireland, as you know, Irish is an official language. In Northern Ireland it is not.
The approach taken was, where a place name was derived from Irish (most places), we would give the Irish as "derived from" in the first sentence. Otherwise, we would give the Irish-language name in the body of the article. See the more detailed guide in the manual of style. --Tóraí (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Garda controversy talk page[edit]

Your contribution to Talk:2014 Garda Síochána controversy today was a great deal less confrontational than your previous one, and for that I thank you. Nevertheless, I'm going to withdraw from the discussion. I wasn't all that committed in the first place. I offered an opinion on WT:IE that the articles ought to be merged, then found I had been given the job. You clearly know how you want to proceed, so I'll leave you a clear field. Good luck. Scolaire (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire, I don't really know how I want to proceed. I don't have any design. (And if I ever come across as confrontational to you, I don't mean to. We butt heads but otherwise I've also considered you a good colleague.)
I think you're right that there is potential for a controversies article. I would worry that it could be a bit OR-ish because I think there's few sources that treat the controversies as one. But, the 2014 resignation of the Minister for Justice and Garda Commissioner was significant.
I also think you are spot on to merge the whistle blowers bios in a single article. And you are right that the Guerin Report did not include Wilson, so it is not an suitable page for a merge (contrary to what I initially suggested).
So, don't leave me a clear field. I think we often tease out complex situations through our "confrontations". --Tóraí (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to tell you in as nice a way as possible that I found your initial post unpleasant in the extreme. The fact that you talk about "coming across" as confrontational rather than being confrontational shows that you are not aware of just how unpleasant your posts can be. I can't be on the same talk page as you, it's as simple as that. Whatever you do, I'm not going to visit that page again. I'm glad if you found my response useful, but I have nothing more to add, and I have completely lost interest in the subject. Scolaire (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Scolaire: Was it this post you found unpleasant in the extreme? Or another one? Genuinely, I want to know so that I can improve the way I come across/am. --Tóraí (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
That one, with all its shouty bolds, including "delete this article", but also this one, which angrily puts down an opinion of mine, after I have retracted it and said that I am happy to see the article kept. This one was not particularly conciliatory either. The general impression created by all the posts is of annoyance at an ignorant and disruptive editor, who has to have things spelled out to him like a ten-year-old child. While I'm here, you said some things to me above, like "I think you're right that there is potential for a controversies article" and "I also think you are spot on to merge the whistle blowers bios in a single article. And you are right that the Guerin Report did not include Wilson, so it is not an suitable page for a merge (contrary to what I initially suggested)." This should have been posted on the article talk page, for the benefit of the participants, and to go some way towards correcting the negative picture you painted of me. Instead it looks as though I'm standing in the corner wearing my dunce's hat. Scolaire (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
That one, with all its shouty bolds, including "delete this article", ...
The reason for all the bolds was because I didn't simply oppose the merger. I opposed some of it. Supported other parts of it. And then proposed to delete another article. We do normally bold !votes midsentence. That's all that was. No offence intended.
...angrily puts down an opinion of mine, after I have retracted it and said that I am happy to see the article kept.
OK. Fair enough. I should have acknowledged that you had already retracted it. What I had intended to convey was that, irrespective of whether the articles were to be merged or not, if you don't think the subject of any of these articles is notable then you could submit it for AfD.
In any case, no offence intended. I decided not to reply to your response because I could see my comment was being taken up aggressively and I didn't want to give heat to an angry discussion.
This should have been posted on the article talk page, for the benefit of the participants, ...
I agree. When I replied above I weighed up the possibility of moving this entire conversation to the talk page for that reason but I decided not to until we had worked out our (personal?) differences here. I would be glad to move them into a more public light now? Or make another post to the same effect?
... the negative picture you painted of me. ... it looks as though I'm standing in the corner wearing my dunce's hat.
I hope I have not painted a negative picture of you. And I don't think I have. That's never the impression I have of you and I don't believe anyone else has that impression of you either.
I am very sorry that I made you think that's how I or anyone would perceive you. And I would be very happy to post the comment above (about how you are right) to the talk page to underline that. --Tóraí (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You have to understand that I am not concerned with "what you wanted to convey". I am concerned only with how you attempted to convey it whatever it was you did want to convey, and its effect on me, which was quite literally to ruin my entire day. You asked me to clarify what my problem was because "genuinely, you wanted to know so that you could improve the way you come across/are." If you then try to explain or excuse what you said, why you bolded etc., it defeats the whole purpose. If you genuinely want to improve the way you come across, have a read of this vote and this one to see how other people supported some parts of it and opposed other parts without criticising, and without coming across as confrontational. And in particular have a careful read of this post, where the poster acknowledged my point of view, then patiently and tactfully explained why his view was different from mine, without ever criticising mine. The result was that I immediately and unhesitatingly agreed with him and changed my stance. Then compare it with yours: regardless of your intention, it was insulting to tell a user of long standing that they can submit an article for AfD, especially when I had already specifically said that I intended to do so.
Yes, I would like you to copy all of your positive comments from here to the appropriate place on the article talk page. There is no need to copy anything else. I would also like you to refactor your vote: (a) to make it look more reasonable and (b) to take account of the fact that you are no longer convinced the article should be deleted. You might also consider striking the "submit those articles for AfD" comment, as it adds nothing to the discussion in my view. Don't bother to reply to this. I have no more desire to keep up an argument with you here than to keep up the argument there. Scolaire (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
"I am concerned only with how you attempted to convey it..." And my point is that that is not how I attempted to convey it. TBH Scolaire, you could take some of your own advice and assume good faith.
I'll post a comment on the talk making clear where we agree. --Tóraí (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused[edit]

I'm not exactly sure what you are doing with this edit. Don't know if you wanted to remove the entire proposal or just some of it. Bgwhite (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant to remove the template but looks like I only removed part of it. Fixed now. Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR - Action required[edit]

We need your email address in order to give/renew your JSTOR access. Please email Library Coordinator Ocaasi at so we can get you your account as soon as possible. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 23:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access[edit]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Population of Ireland since 1600[edit]

I am very interested in the graphic of the population of Ireland from 1600. What is the source of the data used in this plot? sincerely, Richard Milner Cambridge, MA, USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, I was a good student that day and recorded the sources! See here: File talk:Population of Ireland since 1600.png. Thanks for your interest, --Tóraí (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


It is literally the same article re-posted, it is the original work of the sock, right? Please see WP:EVASION, viz, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating." To me, this means delete (and block) it even if it is a proxy editor. Surely it must be the original (massive) sockfarm or a proxy, if it is an SPA posting the same article. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I deleted it per WP:DUCK. --Tóraí (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Adult Match Maker[edit]

The article you deleted and salted wasn't similar to the version of the article that went through AfD, and was considerably more well-sourced. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, the article was re-created on 25 June 2014 and again 21 August 2014 by the same user with essentially he same content. This was after it had already been deleted for notability concerns on 11 June 2014.
If you believe the article deserves to be kept, please see what you can do about it. The administrator you should contact in this case is Joe Decker. He/she was the administrator who closed the original deletion discussion and did the original deletion. --Tóraí (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Projecis work[edit]

Hi, i see that you deleted my page "Projecis", ¿could you restore it to my andbox so I can work on it? Thanks a lot :_) Iooiuioi (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Iooiuioi, sure thing. It's now here: User:Iooiuioi/sandbox.
Some advice, though, the article was subject to two deletion discussions: here and then here again. I have no opinion on it's suitability for inclusion and in time it may survive a discussion. However, in the mean time, you might want to consider other wikis and give it go a here again in six to 12 month's time.
Please don't try and re-created the article unilaterally in the mean time. Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy adminship anniversary![edit]

Wikipedia Administrator.svg Wishing Tóraí a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Indigenous demographics on Republic of Ireland page[edit]

I hope you understand why I reversed your reversal of my edit. The scientific papers of 2010 and 2014 outdate and disprove the 2006 paper you quoted. Scientific fact is true until disproven by new facts, so in 2006 I would have agreed with that paper 100%.PatrickGuinness (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've replied on the ROI talk page. --Tóraí (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Schmauser Article[edit]

Hi Tóraí - I may have inadvertently caused an edit conflict earlier. I saw your comments about "good faith" right around the time I was posting. It has somehow disappeared. Maybe I wasn't supposed to see it? Anyway - from what I read, I do appreciate your support as I never intended to violate any rules but felt unjustifiably accused of plagiarism (which as an academic is a huge insult) and that same person questioned the translation. I am certified by the federal government to translate German so that too sent me into a spin. Perhaps the two facts combined to send me over the edge. That's still no excuse for my behavior. I apologized on the Administrators Edits page where this discussion is taking place for my behavior but I think that this should reciprocated by that certain editor as do you from what I saw. I shall try my best to be less abrasive in the future. You may need to repost your original reply as a result of the ironic synchronicity of timing in our edits. V/R --Obenritter (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored my comment on the ANI page. And I think it would be best if the other editor reciprocated too. That might happen. --Tóraí (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Young cats.jpg

Tongue in cheek comment. But just in case you still dont get my sense of humor.

Murry1975 (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

WMF Ireland[edit]

Hello Tóraí, have you seen that WMF De is getting six million euros per year to run their projects, and asking for another 1.5$US? Isn't that ridiculous? But what it also is, is a reminder that WMF Ireland could have a hand in that pot, not just because it is a pot, but how do they justify these expenses and, if they do justify them, surely Ireland should have a something that they can justify too.

  • For one, there is a whole project around bias and integration which is central to all Irish topics but is loosely defined.
  • Irish history, then, from before a couple hundred years ago, though some topics are in depth, most are sort of rustic and edited only in passing.
  • Photography, so many underphotographed relics and icons, both human and material, and some other stuff, unphotographed.

And things like this seem to be the things that people are getting many thousands towards projects for. Why don't you throw in a proposal for something? I am not saying I feel led by you, but that you seem reasonable and interested for rolling this ball (who else will roll it except the one who wants to?)

To get you going, if you can get money for petrol, a DSLR+tripod, and sandiwches along the way maybe, I'll go anywhere on the island to take photographs (I enjoy it) and make sure I hunt out what there is to be photographed, and make a portfolio of each subject to some pre-arranged standards and goals such as getting a snap of every town and village, every interesting natural and prehistoric features etc.

If you can get a paid researcher into Irish history, just go around the tireless contributors, focus who are not so confrontational, who are good with GA and FA, and offer them a temporary wage to focus and refine their hobby (everybody is looking for a job these days, and if you can't find a homogenous contributor, you'll find someone from the UK or the US and surely over six months knock out a few dozen GAs with some focused quality editors).

I don't know what to suggest about bias structuring, but it is there and as regards sexual and racial biases, professionals are being hired in from outside the wiki to evaluate and advise about structure and methods so, although I prefer that to be structured in house, it's what people are doing in other parts of the wiki.

And those are just my ideas, but there is a carrot up there now, and you were looking for one, and surely these three things as well as others could do with some focus. If you can bag that support, I'm sure it can be used to promote quality and interest, ~ R.T.G 13:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

All great ideas, RTG. And on the WMF De getting six million euros, I'd prefer to see it going there - on the ground with Wikimedians, like you propose - than get swallowed up in some other WMF vanity projects.
Do you know that there is a weekly WMF Ireland meeting by video every week? The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 29 October at 6pm. If you would like to attend the meeting via Google Hangouts, send an email to wikimediaireland(at) See the minutes of the last meeting here:
The first steps being taken to setting up an official Wikimedia Ireland is to set up an officially-recognised user group. AFAIK we can then start doing stuff officially and are on the road to being able to apply for funding. Wikimedia UK are helping us out on this.
Join in on a meeting! It sounds like you have lots of ideas to contribute! --Tóraí (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I am on that mailing list (so it might help to read it) but yeah I'll try to check out the hangout thanks. I went to meta and saw that WMIreland was on the list for five months, so I asked the relevant committee (AFFCOM?) if this was long and wether it would be going on 2016 before the project was getting support. Apparently approval is reviewed in the application process and then it's just a formality, so five months seems to mean the page has been overlooked for a while or something, and that's my excuse if it turns out to have a negative connotation or anything! You might find some more support on if you haven't already done that ~ R.T.G 13:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see [3]. apparently there is no application for a WMF Ireland. ~ R.T.G 02:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland v Southern Ireland[edit]

I don't agree that the discussion in Republic of Ireland talk entitled Southern Ireland pertaining to the name of the Republic of Ireland should have been closed at this stage. I opened the discussion because I felt the term Southern Ireland was more apt then Republic of Ireland. There were still many issues needing to be explained and resolved. I was trying to put my arguments as clear as possible but you closed the discussion before anyone had time to address my last points. Here is an extract from the last entries:

The claim at the top of this section was Many people from the Republic of Ireland refer to themselves as being from "Southern Ireland". Anyone may speak or write of "southern (Anywhere)"- southern Europe/ England/ Wales/ France/ Normandy... In the particular case of Ireland, we must look to context: does a person using "southern" mean someplace south but not west of the territory forming part of the UK known as Northern Ireland? Or somewhere south of a line bisecting the island approxmately north and south, say below or above Dublin in the east and Galway Bay in the west? Or the parts of the island called Leinster and Munster? Whatever may be the context, it has no bearing on the article if there is no source showing the results of a reliable survey about the manner in which the term is actually used by the population, among themselves and when outside Ireland. Qexigator (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Murry1975 and Qexigator. There is a big difference "Southern Ireland" is a proper name. The Southern in the name Southern Ireland has nothing to do with the compass. It has a capital S. Southern Ireland was the name given to the 26 counties when the partition happened. I gave examples earlier. If somebody says they are from West Virginia they mean the state of West Virginia, not the the west part of the state of Virginia. If somebody is from County Donegal they will not say they are from Northern Ireland with a capital N, even though the most northerly part of Ireland is in the county of Donegal which is in Southern Ireland.

Unfortunately even with proper names things can become confusing. For example South in respect to Ireland can mean the European Parliament constituency not just the Republic of Ireland. I feel the name Ireland should be reserved for the whole island. AlwynJPie (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC) AlwynJPie (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Alwyn, but the discussion was far too unfocused to be constructive. In this particular case too, the suggestion you were making suggestion (to merge Republic of Ireland to Southern Ireland) has a snowballs chance (sorry!).
In particular, however, discussion of how to handle the names of articles to do with Ireland is something that is under a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. This is because it is something that has led to very heated and very unconstructive fighting between editors in the past. For that reason, we very tightly monitor discussion in this areas in order to prevent passionate feelings (not your!) spilling out into unconstructive and divisive discussion.
It was for all of these reasons that I cut the discussion off.
You shouldn't take that as something to put you off contributing - you're welcome here. There was nothing wrong with your behavior, or your views, or (of themselves) the suggestions you made. --Tóraí (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)