User talk:216.130.86.33

September 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Rory, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous. Saying a stupid list of American baby names trumps a native Irish speaker with first hand knowledge on the language is moronic and why Wikipedia is going down the drain.

it is not a unisex name, it’s masculine. As I said in my edit explanation, just because brain dead Americans use the name inappropriately does not changes its meaning and appropriate use. 216.130.86.33 (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference provided in the unisex definition even meets this criteria for “original research” it’s not a reliable citation yet it’s being used to justify the butchering of my language 216.130.86.33 (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in question is a primary source from a government site. The information cited, namely the amount of female babies born bearing the name, is based on Social Security card applications in the US — it is not conjecture, but rather factual information as documented by the Social Security Administration. It is reliable and certainly does not constitute original research. Your first hand knowledge, on the other hand, certainly does.

The name has begun to be used differently than it historically has, as most names do. As editors of an encyclopedia, it is imperative for us to reflect accurate, up-to-date information. Itsrorybd (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to be truly accurate the article would reflect that it is a male name that is occasionally used to name girls. Not that the name is in and of itself unisex. My first hand account is that I’m a native speaker of the language with additional formal education on the matter. The United States ssa does not trump my knowledge simply because they document a stupid American phenomenon. The accurate accounts of history ought to be that “for some reason some people named girls with this boys name” 216.130.86.33 (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your opinion, but original research is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia article. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Occasionally," would imply that it is used infrequently and irregularly as a female name. Both the SSA source (as well as the Canadian equivalent, which has now also been cited) indicate that this is not the case; Rory's use as a female name is quite high and has only been growing. As previously noted, changes in the genders of names are not uncommon. Itsrorybd (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]